Jeff Taylor Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Here we go again with the negativity towards
> diesel's. Good grief they have been around for
> over 80 years, they ARE a part of railroad
> history.
Depends on where your specific interest lies. I developed an interest in railroad and steam technology due to the huge impact those things had on building nations, so my own railroad-related interest primarily lies with the mid/late19th century era. It's not negativity towards diesel engines in my case so much as indifference. I don't care about diesels because they only appear after railroads already more or less lost their critical importance for national growth. I'm rather indifferent towards late-era steam for partly the same reason. UP's "Big Boy?" /Yawn. The turbine engines are more interesting from a technological standpoint. Only thing I specifically hate about diesels is the reeking stench of burnt diesel fuel, and I detest steam engines that burn light oil (or semi trucks on the highway for that matter) for exactly the same reason. Crap gives me headaches.
I call diesels uninteresting boxes because there's not much to look at. They tend to keep their important mechanical parts on the inside. Some steam engines are similar in that regard such as tram engines with fully enclosed carbodies. Being bland and of little to no historic interest (at least to me) doesn't mean they can't do good work or justify their existence; of course they can (and do!). A modern generic SUV is of no historic relevance next to a model T Ford, and isn't as interesting to look at either. I'd still rather use the modern vehicle day-to-day. So it goes with diesel railway locomotives--they don't need defense because their quality of work is its own defense. I've said more than once that I hope the new White Pass engines give years of good service, and I mean it. It's a working high-volume tourist railroad that runs through difficult conditions and it needs good reliable equipment.