Hi Greg and Gregory:
First to Greg Scholl. As I mentioned, the book is about the replacement of steam power with diesels during the 1940's and 1950's. In it I develop simple thermodynamic models to show how steam locomotives 1.) were "blessed with an enormous, concentrated work output in one unit." 2.) "....cursed with the lowest heat to work conversion efficiency of any of the practical heat engine cycles." and 3.) how "juggling of the three 'power rules' to match specific locomotives to specific services favored custom built steam power." I expand the ideal models to describe two real locomotives, Santa Fe's Northerns and Norfolk & Western's Y-6b class mallets so I can develop the "power rules" described above. And I boil the whole thing down to a conclusions section that explains in broad terms why the railroad industry dieselized by 1960 and why they did it so fast once the ball got rolling.
It is not light reading and purposely does not contain much entertainment, folklore or glory. But, it is written in terms that can be understood by lay people and is for those who always wondered what really happened to the steam locomotive. It is even relevant to the narrow gauge because the discussions about cutoff, tractive effort and power provide a basic knowledge that can be used to understand why D&RGW 480 class engines go up one of the steepest grades in America with the reverse lever hooked up close to center.
As for the rest of the post I suggest you go back and read it more carefully. The Commission has never had a standing committee that can intelligently inform it about the care and financial needs of its locomotives (afer all they are the owners' representatives!). My post is meant to exclude no one. The C&TS CMO should be on the committee. But, don't you think there is a slight conflict of interest if the C&TS CMO (their employee) is the only person advising the Commission on how locomotive budgets should be allocated between the operator and the Commission? The only allocation formula I have seen is some childish reference to boiler tubes and several other random items in the operator's contract. This is rediculous in light of the massive teeth gnashing that is now going on about motive power problems and I don't think it is fair to any one CMO anywhere to unilaterally put his reputation on the line in such an emotionally charged and lopsided atmosphere. Only a committee sponsored by the Commission and operating on concensus can sort this mess out now.
Unfortunately, you and I can kibbitz about this endlessly. My last sentence is the most important - Are the Commissioners listening? If they don't do anything about this there will be no operator next year. I think most of the world knows now that the C&TS is largely inoperable - not because it is physically impossible, but because it is politically impossible. Frankly, I do not have enough time to listen to petty accusations about someone's pet ox being gored and to keep promoting the obvious over and over again and will not comment on this subject further unless someone on the Commission wants to hear more.
To Gregory: Yes, the manuscript of my book, THE END OF STEAM formed the basis for the articles in R&LP magazine a few years back. I had fun doing the graphics for that series, but the editors essentially chopped up my thesis so much that I think many of the salient points that drove dieselization ruthlessly and completely ended up on the cutting room floor. So I published the original manuscript intact so people can read about it as I originally intended.
I have a little flyer that briefly describes the main parts of the book. I can email to anyone who wants one, but they have to email me to ask as I don't want to spam people who are not interested.
Bill Petitjean
