situation that actually puts us a step ahead of competition. Continued US&S: "Rights of way comprise an exclusive lane for train traffic under direct control of the railroad. They follow a set geographical pattern where speed limits can be established, switching locations defined, and traffic

patterns scheduled. The technology exists now to make train traffic over

rights of way as completely automatic

and safe as automatic elevators."

Evidence of this obvious eventual goal lay ankle-deep on the railroad scene last year as New York City made final adjustments on an automated Grand Central-Times Square subway shuttle, General Electric experimented with a robot PCC streetcar and remote-controlled diesel switchers for in-plant industrial service, and Quebec North Shore & Labrador ran a GE 600 h.p. yard unit remotely through an FM inductive carrier transmitter and receiver in a gravel pit at lonely Milepost 84. And the rails and their suppliers aren't moving a moment too soon in view of experiments being conducted on the concept of automated highways.

That ingredient of every I.C.C. hearing and Government investigation, the railroad lawyer, also stands at the elbow of the locomotive designer. For if he can persuade the Commission and/or Congress of the righteousness of granting the industry rate- and merger-making freedom, then the railroads may find the capital necessary to finance such technological breakthroughs as the East

ern roads' proposed 25,000-ton-capacity, bulk-commodity, integral-type train, which incorporates midtrain "slave" helper locomotive units. Further, unabashed electrification advocates such as John W. Barriger see in consolidations a chance to funnel traffic over selected routes of favorable gradients and curvature to the degree that catenary is warranted. He foresees an era in which the utilities themselves will erect and maintain the overhead trolley, selling metered current direct to the locomotives and multiple-unit cars below. Moreover, as the majority of the nation's diesels, those built between 1948 and 1955, come due for heavy overhaul or upgrading between 1963 and 1970, he envisions their engines being removed in favor of transformers, rectifiers, and pantographs which can take "electricity from a catenary in the maximum quantities that their traction motors can use at maximum speed."

LAST year's motive power market news continued to be dominated by the prefix "re" as the railroads sought to "repower" or "replace" or "reprofit" their aging roster of approximately 28,000 diesel units, 10,000 of which are more than 10 years old. As

a rule of thumb, a road freight diesel is now considered as ripe for retirement at between 15 and 20 years of age, depending upon its cumulative mileage, type of service, and quality of maintenance. The financial incentive to rebuild rather than to trade in million-mile units has virtually vanished since both Alco and EMD offer generous trade-in allowances (because they can remanufacture certain longlife components for reuse in replacement power) on brand-new locomotives rated at from 500 to 900 h.p. more than the original. A seldom remarked by-product of this process is its portent of the end of the big railroad locomotive shop as well as of the mechanical department itself in terms of its present depth in desks, clerks, and files. By its very nature, of course, the diesel has lent itself to a degree of standardization which permits a railroad to perform little more than running repairs, returning such components as traction motors to the factory on a unit-exchange plan when repairs are necessary. Thus we have come full cycle from the prewar era in which the builder was little more than the railroad's lackey as he built locomotives to rigid customer specification (in effect, custom design) and hung on it a myriad of patented components (e.g., stoker, feedwater heater, grates, siphons) produced by other suppliers. This nonstandardized piece of motive power was then regularly overhauled and often as not rebuilt out of all resemblance to its former self in the company's own back shop. Be it noted, even at this academic date, that the steam locomotive was not inherently immune to standardization, just as the diesel could have - but for the builders' good sense - run riot in custom design. Witness British Railways, which is now operating far more makes and models of diesel power than the system ever permitted in its short-lived steam standardization program.

THIS process of turning in old diesel units on new raises two questions, both of which were answered in part last year. First, if the manufacturer is able to remanufacture certain components of the old unit for reuse in the new, then we can assume that the locomotives are, in principle, alike. The old 1500 h.p. cab unit bears little external similarity to its low-nosed

2000 to 2400 h.p. hood substitute, and it can't compare in performance or life of parts; but both are diesel-electric locomotives. If noncompatible technology arises elsewhere, though, the railroad must evaluate whether the newcomer's merits are such as to warrant investment without the incentive of trade-in. In 1961 Denver & Rio Grande Western and Southern Pacific took delivery on such incompatible power in the shape of six 4000 h.p. diesel-hydraulics. Initially, these C-C's have demonstrated a talent for producing gross ton-miles, and their teething troubles (such as lack of combustion air for trailing units in long tunnels) have proved susceptible to correction. It will take a year or more to make any worth-while evaluation (Rio Grande, for example, has turned back elderly FT's on 13 new GP30's pending a final decision on its hydraulic experiment). Everyone is watching, of course, and at year's end Alco publicly indicated that it had been "keeping in very close touch with the diesel-hydraulic field and its development potentials." Further, "Alco engineering people continually examine alternate methods of railroad motive power including the hydraulic transmission." Second, the process of turning in old units for new to the same manufacturer inhibits the market potential of the domestic dieselelectric newcomer - for instance, General Electric. GE would like to sell its 2500 h.p. U25B with no strings attached since it can salvage practically nothing from older units of other manufacture, yet the Erie Works has no alternative but to make an allowance for trade-in power.

ALTHOUGH U. S. builders enjoyed a lively export trade in 1961 (and expected the boom to continue throughout 1962), the domestic market acutely mirrored the fact that the railroads earned less than 2 per cent on their investment. A few well-upholstered properties such as Mopac and Santa Fe pushed locomotive replacement programs, but most lines had no recourse but to sit out the economic storm. Toward year's end the weather improved. GE's U25B, introduced in 1960, began selling as well as demonstrating; and EMD's GP30 billed 100 units' worth of sales within a month of its Detroit debut. Inasmuch as General Motors has made it plain

that its sales efforts will not be intimidated by the Justice Department's antitrust proceedings (and since EMD built approximately 7 out of each 10 units now on the rails), the GP30 can be expected to dominate this year's market because it succeeds the GP20 as the cornerstone of the builder's replacement plan. How the rest of the pie is sliced up should be interesting, though, as onetime partners Alco and GE mix it up. Alco doubled its rebuild business last year and shows no sign of slackening the pace in 1962. For its part, GE is driving hard toward the break-even point on the U25B's developmental costs, and should, with any luck at all, produce at least 100 units before year's end.

Interestingly enough, the six-motor or C-C unit, regardless of horsepower, has virtually vanished without a trace, because either its dragservice characteristics are unsuitable for TOFC-timed freight schedules or a negative reaction has occurred to its extra traction motor maintenance. The passenger unit continues to be similarly passé. Last year Illinois Central traded in one old 2000 h.p. A1A-A1A for a new 2400 h.p. E9, and with EMD assistance, recently freight-only Bangor & Aroostook reworked an E7 so that it would satisfactorily multiple with F-type freight units. But these were exceptions. More typical was Maine Central, which dropped its last passenger train in 1960 but still has four 2000 h.p. passenger units on the roster. These E7's, says MEC, "have been operating on mail-merchandise trains without necessity of heavy repairs, and will be so operated until repairs become excessive, when they will be retired."

If there be a railroad to watch in 1962 so far as locomotive newsmaking goes, it is Union Pacific, which, at one stroke, manages to be: (1) testing the original GP30, No. 5629, for EMD; (2) operating 2400 or 2500 h.p. B-B or C-C units of all three major builders, Alco, EMD, and GE; (3) maintaining the world's only turbine fleet - 25 4500 h.p. and 30 8500 h.p. gas turbineelectrics; (4) completing an experimental coal-fired gas turbine locomotive at Omaha Shops; and (5) continuing to be the subject of rumors of electrification.

All that's lacking in the UP roundhouse is a diesel-hydraulic. I