@Hot Water posted:So. That's the way the diesel began to out-perform ALL steam locomotives. The EMC/EMD FT demonstrator set was 4-units (although the term 'units' was not yet used in 1939) totaling 5400HP, in order to compete with the standard 4-8-4 of the mid to late 1930s. Passenger service E Units, could easily be MUed into the required consist, without double heading steam locomotives. Also, the new diesel electric units of the late 1930s, early 1940s did not require monthly boiler washes, quarterly ICC (now the FRA) extensive inspections, annual hydrostatic boiler tests, specially treated boiler water (with the VERY extensive Water Service Dept. employees), and massive quantities of fuel.
If your response is so correct, why aren't railroads still using steam locomotives? Believe me, I've seen over 40 years working with SP4449, UP844, and UP3985 and I really do know what a well performing modern steam locomotive is capable of. However, from a purely practical and economic standpoint, the diesel could, and DID, perform "twice the work, at half the cost".
I’m not saying that steam locomotives were overall cheaper or even equal to diesel-electric. I’m just saying the comparison the NYC made was one Niagara, to three E7s. By their calculations the Niagara was cheaper. This is obviously cherry-picking since, as much as I hate to admit it as a PRR fan, the Niagara was a special case. Diesels won the war, no need to get bent out of shape because a steamer won one battle.
