This is a what-if question what if all the western railroads- ATSF,SP,DRGW,WP,GN,NP,SP&S,UP,MILW,- have stop using steam locomotives by 1953 in favor of diesel-electric locomotives and never looked back.
It would have been very difficult. The diesel manufactures were pumping them out as fast as they could but there was no way they could have replaced all the steam still required to run all those railroads at that date.
Most of the western railroads had moved to diesels not long after 1953 although there were still some steamers in service. The Milwaukee road sure shot themselves in the foot when they de electrified in 1973, right when fuel prices went through the roof.
There might have been some savings in physical plant. Reduction of steam facilities and work force, but that would have been a very temporary, short term gain. Otherwise, I am not certain what might have been different or improved. By 1953, most were moving quickly toward ending steam. But it was not just availability, but their ability to finance new equipment, which mitigated the process. Even so, some maintained a ready reserve group of steamers into the very late 1950's Full dieselization would not have happened on the MILW. Their electrification investment had been paid decades previously, and until fools prevailed, in fact was putting a positive cash flow into company bank accounts. So it remained until the Big Mistake was enacted.
Here's an interesting link about electrification on the Milwaukee Road. http://www.oldmilwaukeeroad.com/content/proud/complete_text.htm
However, I've read I don't remember where that the MILW indeed had been carrying its doom since its inception: latest arrived on the transcon market, the most expensive to build and to operate (number of tunnels and trestles), and above all an itinerary outside of the main economy areas that would otherwise have provided local and regional traffic. But I've not read Montanan's link yet... Dom
Montana's link, I did read it but it dances around all over the place. Talks about the expensive up keep and maintenance of the infrastructure comparing it to steam maintenance while at the same time tooting their own horn for being the leaders in this technology. Even after reading it I wasn't sure what they were saying. At one point Union Pacific and Milwaukee talked about merging. To the point Milwaukee painted the passenger cars to UP colors. In retrospect that might of been a good merger. Considering what Burlington & Quincy had in mind. They darn near bought up and own the whole northern region of railroading. There again my crystal ball never did work well and I suspect none of the railroad heads could see or forecast the future.
They pretty much did, give or take a year or two, so I think if you want to know 'what if?' just look in the history books and see what actually happened. I don't think any western class one regarded steam as having a long term future by 1953.
Unfortunately, that's the propaganda which keeps circulating and recirculating. Long story made short, all points noted are false. Last arrived in Tacoma, Washington, yes. Last arriving in Seattle, no, as that was the Union Pacific, using trackage rights (1910) over the MILW! The construction dollars you commonly see tossed around, generally in the $250M range, completely false. It was under $100M. Unlike the others of the Northern Tier, the MILW was built from the very beginning, including signalling more advanced than the others were then using. The others had to go back, upgrade, add tunnels and shorten or reduce grades, etc, to replace the temporary routes in place to get up and running. BIG $$$. Which those costs "the impune the MILW crowd" deliberately refuses to add, and wildly skews real cost for both GN and NP. And unlike the fairy tales, the MILW did a big business off it's western end. Nobody seems able to comprehend the MILW was a bridge route carrier. Long hauls pay, and pay big. Adding the electrification paid off big time, recovering costs quickly, plus reducing four major yards, with complete elimination of those four large steam facilities and roundhouses. It also allowed closing a slew of train order offices, reduction of other steam facilities, moving those locos and logistics elsewhere on the system, which further cut costs, plus moving freights faster than steam was ever able, even double headed, etc. Which the added speed even reduced costs. This is all proven by hard data, which a few persist in ignoring, over and over again. It is available to anyone who will take the time to look. The booklet montanan linked was an internal propaganda piece, possibly even innocently well intended. But the elimination of the electrification, (which was NOT worn out), cost the railroad dearly in dieselization costs, operating costs, and worst yet, fuel right in the midst of the first such crisis. The electrics had been operating for years essentially free of any costs! Now, they suddenly had to start coughing up many millions of dollars.
What is humorous about that booklet, (and you've interpreted correctly- Quite a dance), is that was published in 1973. They had shut down the electrification, and discovered they couldn't do it. Not enough of the new SD40-2 fleet was as yet on hand. So they ended up pulling all the electrics possible from the dead lines, and turning it on again, until mid-June of the next year. You can see just in this how poor was the caliber of those making decisions....
Interresting comments for the remote foreigner I am, thank you. And as a MILW fanatic that saddens me as maybe MILW's fate could have been avoided, had the railroad's headquarters taken different decisions...:startled: Dom
It's an integrating question regardless. Despite what others have said, let's suspend reality and say at&sf or southern pacific got a jump on dieselization, gained an advantage, and become dominant over UP, absorbing then instead of vice versa... I've often toed with the idea of a layout based on alternate reality... what if Penn Central had worked out? What if they had them absorbed UP and we had a north/south split for dominant carrier instead of the east/west we have: e.g. "Penn Union" dominated northem routes while someone like NS had a coast to coast coverage in the south? It's all just a rationalization for me to run my "penn" trains through Cajon pass, really, but interesting to consider these what ifs.
The problem with pursuit if a north/south, versus east/west scenario is it could only exist in the world of suspended reality. The east and west coasts are so dominant for moving shipments in and out, across the USA and Canada. Asia is west and Europe east. If there was trade from the south to rival, then perhaps. Maybe in the far, far off future.... Meanwhile, if you want to build a layout based on a what-if concept, well that's the beauty of the hobby. You can create the world of your dreams and nobody, nothing can stop you from having that fun.
The what-if-concepts I find the most interesting are the quote's I saw somewhere from Santa Fe president at the time, John S. Reed, that if they had forseen the coming of Amtrak in the late fifties they would have overhauled the best of the 4-8-4's to keep them running until 1971 to save buying new passenger diesels in the 60's, or alternatively in 1971 if they had known Amtrak was only going to keep running the Super Chief, Texas Chief and San Diegans they would have opted not to join Amtrak and keep running them themselves. There are a lot of interesting what-ifs you could explore.
