[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
Re: (erielack) Steam Vs Diesel
Mr. Dukarm,
The DL&W was centered in the hardcoal region and as such, was very
iinvolved with promoting & using the product they carried. I'll cite an
example of the feelings about using coal in the Wyoming Valley area. There
was a politician - John C. Kehoe - who owned the PITTSTON DISPATCH
(newspaper). Mr. Kehoe was a tough old Irishman of the old school. If he
found out that you'd converted to fuel oil for homeheating, he'd print your
name & address in the paper so your neighbors would know you were a class
traitor. Folks were really scared of this guy. If I recall correctly, he
wrote up the poor old Lehigh Valley for buying diesels. Language in the
newspaper iincluded use of very naughty words, reflecting on the legitimacy
of you and your ancestors. It was kind of like Joe Kennedy (Sr.) only
cruder. In my junior year in high school, I wrote away for a copy of THE
DAILY WORKER and compared it with the PITTSTON DISPATCH. The class agreed
that for propaganda, lack of regard fot the truth & threats, they were very
alike.
This is just an example of the mindset in the area in the early 50s
and may point to a reason for retaining steam wreckers although I doubt the
DL&W worried about John Kehoe too much.
Regards,
Walter E. Smith
- ----- Original Message -----
From: "rdukarm" <rdukarm_@_adelphia.net>
To: <erielack_@_lists.railfan.net>
Sent: Sunday, January 01, 2006 2:52 PM
Subject: (erielack) Steam Vs Diesel
> We all know that steam locomotives faded from the scene on Erie and DL&W
> in 1953. However, steam power did not. Both the Erie and DL&W continued
> to use steam power in bridges, tugs, ferries, cranes, pile drivers,
> wreckers,
> ditchers, along with steam heat in buildings and passenger cars.
>
> What showed up most notably in the MOW area is that the Erie sought to
> convert to diesel power as quickly as it could. After WWII, the Erie had
> replaced all (nearly 70) steam-powered locomotive cranes with diesel-
> powered ones by 1954, whereas the DL&W retained theirs to the merger.
> In the early 50s when they both purchased new 250-ton wreckers, the
> Erie bought 3 diesels, but the DL&W opted to buy steam. Likewise, the
> Erie converted some of their steam wreckers to diesel, but the Lackawanna
> stayed with steam to the merger. Although I am not that familiar with
> their
> NYC marine operations, I believe the Erie took the lead in purchasing
> and converting tugs to diesel.
>
> My question is: why the Erie seemed to convert at a rapid pace, and the
> DL&W did not? It almost seemed like the DL&W was reluctant to make
> the conversion. Was it due to a lack of capital? Labor agreements? A
> steam culture? Both operated in the same major States (NY,NJ,PA) so
> perhaps regulatory reasons did not enter into it. Are there any other
> examples that support this observation? Or are there areas where the
> DL&W lead the Erie in conversion to diesel?
>
> Ronald R. Dukarm ELHS #532 ELHTS #66
> MOW Technical Advisor
> rdukarm_@_adelphia.net
>
> The Erie Lackawanna Mailing List
> Sponsored by the ELH&TS
> http://www.elhts.org
>
The Erie Lackawanna Mailing List
Sponsored by the ELH&TS
http://www.elhts.org
------------------------------