Is it time to bring back steam again?

[SussexSpotter]

Well, I must congratulate you on initiating a truly impassioned, entertaining debate at any rate.

The 66s are more reliable than the “older heritage locos” they replaced, but the older locos were in turn more reliable, efficient and cost effective than the steam locos they replaced (Though it’s a shame that newer steam locos were withdrawn with such haste): The 37s and 47s replaced by new locos in the last decade were 35-40 years old, which is a perfectly acceptable life span for a diesel loco, and it’s perfectly reasonable to assume that reliability would have deteriorated by that point.

Well I think it's fair to say this settles the argument. It has been a case of a misunderstanding at my end of the line I think.

The reality is, steam is the best at a novelty point of view (I will never go back on that) but generally it's better to leave it to electric and diesel for the mainline duties that once were.

There is still the arguement though as to why there was more railfreight back in the steam days than there is now? Also the types of freight carried back then as well. Seems in most parts the lorry has paved the way, but there must be a reason for this.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

There isn't. There would never be enough bit-part work for these locos to be doing when not on their winter duties.
How many do you want to build, by the way?

Well I would have a fleet of about 50 loco's + 10 smaller tanks as reserves. But this is only if I had the money to do it

 

[LOCOMAN]

Well I think it's fair to say this settles the argument. It has been a case of a misunderstanding at my end of the line I think.

The reality is, steam is the best at a novelty point of view (I will never go back on that) but generally it's better to leave it to electric and diesel for the mainline duties that once were.

There is still the arguement though as to why the was more railfreight back in the steam days than there is now? Also the types of freight carried back then as well. Seems in most parts the lorry has paved the way, but there must be a reason for this.

we operated normally on the heritage railway i play with at -14 the other night! at work we completly stopped at -2. Total lack of operational knowledge in lower and middle management to blame in my company and NR. The loco's are left running all the time so they dont freeze...and then dont work, RHTT's frozen solid, snow plough's not ready for use...and not used! loco's not sent out to clear and sand the rails before service / heavy trains due over problematic areas.......the list goes on!

 

[SussexSpotter]

we operated normally on the heritage railway i play with at -14 the other night! at work we completly stopped at -2. Total lack of operational knowledge in lower and middle management to blame in my company and NR. The loco's are left running all the time so they dont freeze...and then dont work, RHTT's frozen solid, snow plough's not ready for use...and not used! loco's not sent out to clear and sand the rails before service / heavy trains due over problematic areas.......the list goes on!

So there is still a case here then?

 

[sprinterguy]

There is still the arguement though as to why there was more railfreight back in the steam days than there is now? Also the types of freight carried back then as well. Seems in most parts the lorry has paved the way, but there must be a reason for this.

Door to door service offered by road hauliers who were better able to tailor their service to customers was a big nail in the coffin for wagonload railfreight. Britain’s’ railways once had a social responsibility to carry any goods that were offered to it, which also helped to explain the proliferance of wagon load freight and pick up goods trains. This social responsibility stopped, sometime in the fifties or sixties I think, and there was the development of block trains in the sixties to make the railways more efficient against road transport: Rail is exceptionally good at carrying bulk goods in large quantities, so this has been focused on, except for the attempted resuscitation of wagonload freight through the “Speedlink” network in the seventies and eighties. Also, freight trains in 2010 generally carry a greater volume of goods than they did in, say, 1950, so a single freight train now accounts for a greater tonnage than it did sixty years ago.

Oh, and the decline of heavy industry and the resulting loss of most of Britains’ collieries and steelworks, amongst other things, has also been a major contributing factor to the loss of the trainload freight.

 

[Greenback]

It was the 1960's I think. BR was a 'common carrier' which basically meant that it had to agree to transport anything it was able to transport, at fixed rates even though it may have made a loss doing it. Perhaps an early example of social requirements being deemed as mor eimprotant than financial ones?!

Motorways also made a huge impact on freight. Before motorways it was difficult for road haulage to compete time wise with long distance freight trains. Rail was the fastest way to transport such things as milk and fresh fish, for example. Improvements to roads and technological advances eventually did for that sort of traffic.

 

[jopsuk]

I think there's something that was touched upon- a modern build steam loco would most likely not look like the locos of old, at least not if you wanted it to be energy efficient or operationally efficient- I appreciate that as Tornado shows, you could build an "old style" one. A modern design would be more along the lines that Bulleid unsuccesfully tried with his double-cab design for the Southern. It would take powdered coal (like coal fired power stations). The Americans certainly went a lot further as regards mechanical stokers. Not even sure if it would be piston driven- I know gas turbines never worked out the way it was hoped, but with steam power, might a turbine system be better? In fact, for as effcient as possible a coal-powered loco, would a steam-turbine powering an alternator to feed electric traction motors be feasible?

Wouldn't be as energy efficient as diesel or electric traction- apart from anything, the boiler would be hugely, hugely wasteful. it would also have to be electronically controlled to achieve anything approaching efficiency.

As for freight? What is moved by all modes has changed massively as well as how it is moved

 

[90019]

If I won the lottery I would!

If you won the lottery, you might have enough to build 1 loco. But it would still probably take years to build.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

If you won the lottery, you might have enough to build 1 loco. But it would still probably take years to build.

. . and then there would be all the infrastructure to build. All those coal bunkers at stations which were turned into car parks for commuter many years ago. And the water troughs (with some novel electrically powered heating system to prevent their water from freezing up in winter!) etc. etc.


I've kept out of this until now because I never thought for a moment there was any serious point to the thread, but it has prompted one concern which te OP might want to follow up. There IS a need for a coal burning & steam transmission system in the SE . . . . to generate electricity!

Sadly, the power generation industry has suffered from a sustained lack of investment (possibly more so than the rail industry) and currently lacks the capacity to meet projected demand for energy.
If the OP wants to invest future lottery winnings in a coal-burning, steam-producing project then power generating plant should be a winner - it will earn a nice little income once its on-line.
It could even have its fuel delivered from port to plant by rail!

 

[Zoe]

I doubt kettles meet the EU standards for CO2 emissions.

 

[tbtc]

I have a more sensible idea; we should invest in a fleet of those "seesaw" like wagons that Laurel & Hardy were always using to propel themselves along railways.

Zero carbon emissions (once built), no Third Rail needed, no requirement for turntables, no Firemen employed for two weeks a year...

...yes, it sounds stupid, but no stranger than some of the ideas on this thread!

 

[LE Greys]

I have a more sensible idea; we should invest in a fleet of those "seesaw" like wagons that Laurel & Hardy were always using to propel themselves along railways.

Zero carbon emissions (once built), no Third Rail needed, no requirement for turntables, no Firemen employed for two weeks a year...

...yes, it sounds stupid, but no stranger than some of the ideas on this thread!

That was a serious proposal once, but I think that lack of horsepower failed it.
Talking of horsepower, reviving Cyclopede might be just as sensible (or not so).

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I think there's something that was touched upon- a modern build steam loco would most likely not look like the locos of old, at least not if you wanted it to be energy efficient or operationally efficient- I appreciate that as Tornado shows, you could build an "old style" one. A modern design would be more along the lines that Bulleid unsuccesfully tried with his double-cab design for the Southern. It would take powdered coal (like coal fired power stations). The Americans certainly went a lot further as regards mechanical stokers. Not even sure if it would be piston driven- I know gas turbines never worked out the way it was hoped, but with steam power, might a turbine system be better? In fact, for as effcient as possible a coal-powered loco, would a steam-turbine powering an alternator to feed electric traction motors be feasible?

Wouldn't be as energy efficient as diesel or electric traction- apart from anything, the boiler would be hugely, hugely wasteful. it would also have to be electronically controlled to achieve anything approaching efficiency.

As for freight? What is moved by all modes has changed massively as well as how it is moved

That's actually a vaguely sensible idea if oil prices skyrocket. It would depend on extremely good insulation, and would have to be able to compete with electric haulage. In terms of getting as much horsepower as possible onto the rails, I would go for a Garratt-type design (easy enough to put one cab on each engine unit). They have surprisingly high route availability for their power, and never need to be turned. We've had several designs running in Britain, moderately successful, but none really pushing the envelope. I reckon that you could coax 4,000 hp out of a big Garratt, and deliver 100,000 lbs of tractive effort while still fitting within our loading gauge. A decent equivalent of a Class 70.

 

[tbtc]

That was a serious proposal once, but I think that lack of horsepower failed it

In fact, one benefit of privatisation is that anyone could have their own "seesaw" wagon - making everyone an Open Access operator. Brilliant

 

[jopsuk]

In terms of getting as much horsepower as possible onto the rails, I would go for a Garratt-type design (easy enough to put one cab on each engine unit).

This was Bulleid's design- "0-6-6-0 T" design, with cylinder driven bogies and a central firing position.

The American "Cab forwards" designs were oil-driven, but like I say, have a coal power station style pulverised coal feed you could eliminate the messy part- could probably have a single-manned steam locomotive.

Still a crazy idea, really.

 

[TDK]

That's not what im on about here! It's use for during the winter. When the snow and ice falls the trains don't run with third rail, simple as!

If you want to travel by steam go to a heritage railway, get a grip, there is no chance, and how would you have a steam train on standby? It takes over 14 hours to prep one and it will have to be permanently manned and probably never used, sometimes I really think some steam buffs have really lost the plot.

 

[SussexSpotter]

If you want to travel by steam go to a heritage railway, get a grip, there is no chance, and how would you have a steam train on standby? It takes over 14 hours to prep one and it will have to be permanently manned and probably never used, sometimes I really think some steam buffs have really lost the plot.

I am a regular visitor to the Bluebell Railway and occasionally during the Summer I go to Swanage! Also I fail to see how you can justify saying that some steam buffs such as myself have lost the plot, please explain? I was born and bred around steam, my grandfather was an engine driver and my uncle worked as a guard back in the 1940's/1950's. All were passionate about their jobs, it's called commitment and dedication towards our English heritage!

 

[SouthEastern-465]

No.

Thats why they were replaced by diesal and electric as there better!

 

[sprinterguy]

I fail to see how you can justify saying that some steam buffs such as myself have lost the plot, please explain?

Well, suggesting that a new build of steam locos principally to haul stranded third rail electric units during the winter could be a feasible proposition doesn’t exactly constitute realistic thinking I would have thought. I don’t doubt your enthusiasm; you’ve proved it in bucket loads over the last seven pages; but there a VAST division between the romance of steam and the practicality of steam locos hauling around Electrostars in the south east.

 

[YorkshireBear]

i cant believe hes stil argueing..... it was amusing last night very :/ i think i may even fo got angry at one point :/

Steam has no place in the 21st century i can not honestly believe theres a debate... has anyone agreed with you?

 

[90019]

Also I fail to see how you can justify saying that some steam buffs such as myself have lost the plot, please explain?!

The fact you genuinely seem to think this would work. Steam was replaced on the mainline for a reason.

 

[SouthEastern-465]

The fact you genuinely seem to think this would work. Steam was replaced on the mainline for a reason.

It wouldn't help that steams limited to 75 mph on the mainline?

 

[E&W Lucas]

I am a regular visitor to the Bluebell Railway and occasionally during the Summer I go to Swanage! Also I fail to see how you can justify saying that some steam buffs such as myself have lost the plot, please explain? I was born and bred around steam, my grandfather was an engine driver and my uncle worked as a guard back in the 1940's/1950's. All were passionate about their jobs, it's called commitment and dedication towards our English heritage!

If you're committed to heritage, buy a pair of overalls, and go and get stuck in at Sheffield Park, Tenterden or wherever!

If you want to try and make a case for a return to steam traction, at least make the effort to get some grasp of how railways work, the economics of the industry and the limitations of the traction itself.

From some of what you've posted above, steam could not provide ETS for a unit, and it isn't compatible with the electrically operated brake systems on them either. You've confused some marketing films from an era when the railway was regarded as something to be proud of, with the reality of day to day operation. Trains most certainly did get marooned in the snow back then, and a steam loco is just as capable of failing as any modern traction. A wisp of steam from the wrong little pipe union, and it's an instant failure. The pool of manpower is long gone as well. Do you realise that there are less than 20 fully trained boilersmiths in the country? (that figure came from one of them). These aren't skills that can be taught overnight.

Those thinking in terms of an updated Leader are on the right lines for any future development of steam, but with a move away from the conventional Stevenson boiler, towards some form of fan driven forced draughting. Not going to happen though, unless some politician turns the railway into a subsidised job creation scheme.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

It wouldn't help that steams limited to 75 mph on the mainline?

Maybe higher, I think, but they do present such a serious fire hazard that Fire & Rescue Authorities intervene to object to their use in dry weather

 

[Daimler]

Maybe higher, I think, but they do present such a serious fire hazard that Fire & Rescue Authorities intervene to object to their use in dry weather

At the risk of giving false hope to those who think a wholesale reintroduction of steam on the national network is a good idea...

Of course, if steam was reintroduced this very risk would mean that a programme of widespread vegetation clearance on the lineside would need to take place, thus solving (or at least going a good way towards solving) the problem of 'leaves on the line' that besets the railways today!

 

[LE Greys]

This was Bulleid's design- "0-6-6-0 T" design, with cylinder driven bogies and a central firing position.

The American "Cab forwards" designs were oil-driven, but like I say, have a coal power station style pulverised coal feed you could eliminate the messy part- could probably have a single-manned steam locomotive.

Still a crazy idea, really.

And it wasn't very successful. Garratts were. Leader could probably have worked if Bulleid had abandoned the sleeve valve principle and gone for one cab in the middle (like his earlier versions). It might have been possible to get the sleeve valve idea to work, but Bulleid abandoned it for the Turf Burner in favour of piston valves. The three cab system was a nightmare. Initially, one cab in the middle would be OK, but replacing that with some form of automatic firing would be a much better idea. However, that still doesn't solve the problem of the No.1 cab overheating because it is right next to the smokebox. I think the Turf Burner fixed that as well, but I'm not sure.

 

[TGV]

I can't be bothered reading 8 pages of it but some random thoughts:

1 - No. Just no.
2 - Coal....
3 - Slow
4 - Carbon footprint
5 - Maintenance
6 - So Steam traction never got stuck in harsh weather?
7 - HS1
8 - What do we do with them all when the weather's fine?
9 - Is this a serious question?
10 - See point No. 1.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

No, no, no. Several reasons:

• a lot more staff per train than currently necessary - on modern stock, driving is a one man job. Good luck getting one man to do all on Tornado.
• we would need watering towers about, my guess, every 40 miles? I know that when tornado went up the ECML on Top Gear, it called at Grantham, York, Newcastle and Berwick-upon-Tweed for this cause.
• steam just isn't up for the intensity of services now: 9 InterCity departures per hour on the WCML, 4-5 on the ECML, 5-6 on the GWML, how many trains is that already?

I could go on, but, look mate; to me it appears that you are one of the people still struggling to get over Mr Beeching. Times have changed, and if railways don't keep up, they will lose out in popularity (a lot like after Mr Beeching!)

If all of this has been said before, my apologies, I didn’t read through all eight pages first!

 

[RobShipway]

I personally think we are more likely to get a combined Diesel/Electric train being built than Steam returning to the main line and at the moment with IEP that maybe a bit of a pipe dream.

 

[Dennis]

I suppose we could just reactivate the strategic steam reserve for winter use

 

[ainsworth74]

I suppose we could just reactivate the strategic steam reserve for winter use

You mean the one that the MOD keep stored in a vast underground storage site?

 

[MCR247]

ainsworth: What? Why?