[Date Prev][Date Next] [Chronological] [Thread] [Top]

Re: (erielack) Steam Vs Diesel in Work Equipement

I don't think that loyalty to coal for fuel was an issue with either the Erie or DL&W.  It was more an issue of economics, the preference of the managers, and the condition of the older equipment.  The Erie, until after WWII, had not invested as much in work equipment as had the Lackawanna, so more of the Erie cranes and such were due for replacement when the earnings of the war period could be used for capital purchases.  In other words, the Lackawanna steam equipment was newer and in better shape, so it lasted longer.

Another factor was personal preference.  Many of the crane operators and work equipment repairmen, and their managers right up the line, were convinced that steam power gave better control for some crane and ditcher operations, and they were not eager to change.  The Erie also kept a few steam cranes, too.  We had four diesel American 25-ton locomotive cranes in the New York Division M of W Deparment which moved between the Erie and DL sides (with different operators).  But the Bridge Department kept an Erie steam locomotive crane (I forget the number, but it started with a zero) as a pile driver.  We used it at Croxton in 1968-69 for driving the timber pile foundations for the light towers at the new piggyback yard (the light towers are still standing, thank Heaven).  The crane still had the red window sash, the same as the K-1's !!  The operator was Bob Frisbee, from Hawley, PA.  He drove back and forth to work at Croxton, including weekends when he had to come down to keep the boiler hot and happy.

Later on, in 1972, when I worked on the Pittsburg and Shawmut, we had a former 150-ton Lackawanna steam crane for a wrecker.  I think it had come from Port Morris, and it still had the boom insulators in place for working under catenary.  It was not in bad shape, but the boiler always needed lots of TLC, as they all did.

Gordon Davids

From: "rdukarm" <rdukarm_@_adelphia.net>
Subject: (erielack) Steam Vs 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

------------------------------