Ahh, where to start........

Which railroad? Try Illinois Central,Louisville & Nashville, and several others. They did lose some freight traffic, most of which was locomotive coal. And yes, there was a massive investment made relatively quickly, usually on borrwed money, which lowered ROI. And at the same time taxes and payrolls were going up. It took a while for the idea of just how much savings could be achieved from dieselization to sink in on managements.

Back in the time period we are talking about, most railroads did not do much parts buying; instead, they spent millions converting their steam facilities into diesel parts rebuilding centers. Injectors, cylinder heads, power assemblies, crankcases, radiators, traction motors, camshafs, air compressors, blowers and cooling fans, trucks, etc, etc, were repaired and rebuilt in-house. Many railroads still do some of this work in-house.

The Superfund agrument is disingenuous. Most diesel facilities were built on the same sites as prior steam facilities, without cleaning anything up in between. Spilled coal under today's rules must be cleaned up, not put back in the ground; ashes are now toxic waste and must be disposed of according to rules. Take a good look at the ground around any steam facility photos. You will see plenty of bunker oil, valve oil, engine oil, grease, lye, Okite, toxic cleaning solutions, water treatment chemicals, and other goodies. I'm not claiming that poorly-designed diesel facilities did not contribute to the problem, but it certainly did not originate with diesels.

I suggest you read Keifer's study of NYC steam vs. diesels. Once you get past the cheerleading for steam, you notice the diesels were being babied to a large extenet. Lube oil changes were done a time basis, rather than on oil analysis. The change alone extended the interval between oil changes to many months and even a year or more. This was a leftover from the steam erea when everything was done on a time basis, rather than a condition basis. In the 1950's, diesels were overhauled on a time or mileage basis, rather than actual condition basis, resulting in a lot of money and downtime being spent changing out parts that were nowhere near worn out yet, simply because that was the way it had been done on steam.

Some of the smarter railroads began testing programs to determine the average life cycle of components, and changed their overhaul policies to reflect the longer life of diesel parts. In some cases, overhaul intervals were doubled and tripled with no ill effect. Then there was the monthly boiler washouts that diesels didn't need and the periodic flue removals they didn't need at all.

If you are so convinced that steam was/is superior, then go down to the track and wait for the next-gen steam locomotive to go by. You will have a VERY long wait.

And I am through with you, as well, since you don't seem to learn.