INFORMATION TO USERS This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in ^ew riter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer. The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough,margins, substandard and improper alignment can adversely afiect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced form at the back of the book. Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6" x 9" black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order. UMI University Microfilms International A Bell & Howell Information Company 300 North Zeeb Road. Ann Arbor. Ml 48106-1346 USA 313/761-4700 800/521-0600 Order Number 9427686 Corporate response to technological change: Dieselization and the American railway locomotive industry during the twentieth century. (Volumes I and II) Churella, Albert John, Ph.D. The Ohio State University, 1994 Copyright ©1994 by Churella, Albert John. All rights reserved. UMI 300 N. Zeeb Rd. Ann Arbor, MI 48106 CORPORATE RESPONSE TO TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGE: DIESELIZATION AND THE AMERICAN RAILWAY LOCOMOTIVE INDUSTRY DURING THE TWENTIETH CENTURY Volume I DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Albert John Churella, B.A., M.A. ***** The Ohio State University 1994 Dissertation Committee: Approved by Mansel Blackford William Childs Adviser K. Austin Kerr Department of History Copyright by Albert John Churella 1994 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Throughout my graduate studies, I have con­ tinually benefited from the advice, support, and encouragement given to me by my adviser. Professor Mansel Blackford. His insights and suggestions have been invaluable during the long process of writing this dissertation. Professor K. Austin Kerr and Professor William Childs have also given generously of their time and advice in classes, seminars, and individual consultation. Professor Donald Cooper has encouraged me to examine the locomotive industry from a foreign perspective, and Chapter 9 is largely the result of this idea. Dissertation research can often be an expen­ sive proposition, especially when extensive travel is involved. Several grants have helped to reduce this financial burden. The Ohio State University Graduate School has provided a Graduate Student Alumni Research Award, while my own History Depart­ ment awarded a Ruth Higgins Summer Research Fellow­ ship. Finally, The University of Illinois ii Foundation has generously provided a John E. Rovensky Fellowship in Business and Economic His­ tory. The research for this dissertation was made possible by the generous assistance of librarians, archivists, and scholars throughout the United States. In particular, I would like to thank Tab Lewis and James Cassedy at the National Archives in Washington, Gregory J. Plunges at the National Archives, Northeast Region, Beverly Watkins at the National Archives, Great Lakes Region, Elaine Fid- ler and Ron Wiercioch at the U. S. Department of Justice, Joyce Koeneman and Andrea Cheney at the Association of American Railroads Library, Mark Cedeck, Curator of the John W. Barriger III Collec­ tion at the St. Louis Mercantile Association Library, Charles Bates and John Keller at the Allen County (Ohio) Historical Society, Jim Bachorz at the American Locomotive Historical Society, the staff of the George Arents Research Library at Syracuse University, Bruce Watson at the General Motors Institute, George Wise at General Electric, L. Dale Patterson at the University of Louisville, Bridget Burke at the Smithsonian Institution, Christopher Baer at the Hagley Museum and Library, iii Blaine Lamb at the California State Railroad Museum, Kay Best, Curator of the DeGolyer Library at Southern Methodist University, Reese Jenkins, editor of the Thomas A. Edison papers at Rutgers University, Roland Marchand at The University of California at Davis, Leonard Reich at Colby Col­ lege, and Richard Tedlow at Harvard University. All of these individuals have been more than gener­ ous in their support of my research and writing. Any errors or shortcomings are solely my own responsibility. Finally, this dissertation would doubtless never have been written without the ongoing support and sympathy of my parents, Albert A. and Helen Churella. They have shown a remarkable degree of patience and understanding throughout my graduate career in general and during the research and writ­ ing of my dissertation in particular. IV VITA October 3, 1964 ............. Born - Columbus, Ohio 1986 .............. .......... B.A., Haverford College, Haverford, Pennsylvania 1990 ......................... M.A., The Ohio State University PUBLICATIONS "A History of the Mammoth Cave Railroad," The Journal of Spelean History 20 (July-September 1986): 51-57 "Corporate Response to Technological Change: The Electro-Motive Division of General Motors During the 1930’s," Essays in Economic and Business History 12 (anticipated July, 1994) FIELDS OF STUDY Major Field: History Minor Fields: Modern U.S. History Latin American History TABLE OF CONTENTS Volume I ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................. ii VITA .......................................................... V INTRODUCTION ...................................... 1 CHAPTER I. THE ORIGINS OF THE DIESELIZATION REVOLUTION .............................. 36 II. EARLY TRIALS AND LOST OPPORTUNITIES: THE STEAM LOCOMOTIVE BUILDERS DURING THE 1920's .............................. 73 III. DIESELIZATION DONE RIGHT: GM AND EMC DURING THE 1930's ...................... 123 IV. MANAGERIAL FAILURE: ALCo AND BALDWIN DURING THE 1930’s ...................... 181 V. WORLD WAR II: RESTRICTIONS AND OPPORTUNITIES ........................... 225 VI INTRODUCTION Hurtling through the night it came, two hundred tons of steam and steel, driving wheels tall as a per­ son, headlight piercing the nighttime gloom. As dis­ tance narrowed, rails began to flex and sing, ground shake under the power of three thousand horses. As the train rushed by, the wisps of steam that rolled through the air were matched by the haunting cry of the whistle, echoing off the distant hills. Then it was gone, an apparition seemingly more alive than machinery could ever be, more powerful and majestic than its creators could have possibly imagined. In 1935, it was possible to observe this scene in virtually every part of the United States, for every­ where that steel rails reached, so too did the steel behemoths known as steam locomotives. At the time they were the largest and most powerful pieces of machinery ever to move on land. Steam locomotives pulled virtually every passenger and every piece of freight 2 that moved by rail, as they had done for the past hun­ dred years. Most children, and a good many adults as well, cherished no greater ambition than to be appointed the engineer of a steam locomotive, guiding a train across the steel rails that bound America together. Little more than twenty years later, steam locomo­ tives were a rare sight on American railroads. Most could be seen in long lines in railroad graveyards, fires cold, whistles silent, their fitness for future service belied by the one-word death sentence — "scrap” — chalked on their sides. By 1955, diesel locomotives ruled American rail­ roads. Diesels lacked the romance of steam, but they cut costs and improved performance in ways that not even the most modern steam locomotive could match. And so, within two decades, steam locomotives disappeared from American railroads. At the same time, new companies came to dominate the diesel locomotive industry, sweep­ ing away the steam locomotive producers just as quickly and just as powerfully as an express train rushing onward into the dark and unforgiving night. The dieselization revolution that swept through the American railroad industry in the decade following World 3 War II changed forever the structure of the locomotive industry in the United States. Three companies with extensive experience in locomotive design and construc­ tion had long controlled the production of steam locomo­ tives — the American Locomotive Company (ALCo), the Baldwin Locomotive Works, and the Lima Locomotive Works. Although all three firms initially produced diesel locomotives, they had abandoned locomotive production by the late 1960’s. After that date, the market was con­ trolled by two companies that had never steam locomo­ tives, General Motors and General Electric. The transition from steam to diesel locomotive pro­ duction thus offers an example of a complete turnover of firms within a single major industry, an event unique in modern American business history. As a part of this turnover, the