How would BR have been affected financially if ...

steam locomotives that were still brand new in 1960 has been allowed to continue in service until the end of their working life?
Was the blanket ban on steam effective 12th August 1968 a good decision or not? Locomotives that had been running perfectly in the weeks prior to the ban suddenly withdrawn simply because somebody high up had thought of a date after which these fine locomotives could not longer be used.

IF, at the same time, the "Modernisation Programme" had been run properly, there could have been a very different situation. Retaining the more modern steam traction would have allowed the diesel/electric development to be less rushed, and perhaps allowed a better thought out assessment of the place of rail in Britain. IMHO, the arbitrary cut-off date was a symptom of Labour's addiction to the "White Heat of technology", but equal damage had been done years earlier.

Obviously there were a lot of additional costs associated with steam engines - all of the peripheral and maintenance equipment that had to be kept on would have become marginally more expensive over time making the engines unnecessarily expensive to run. Whether there was a handful or a thousand steam locomotives operating on a particular region, they would still need the same facilities to be maintained and the economies of scale would be considerably reduced (when BR was buying coal on mass for its entire fleet it would almost certainly have been able to do so as a much reduced rate compared to when it was buying for the few remaining engines). I think this alone would have required some locomotives to be retired early, regardless of outside factors.

I think one of the biggest mistakes of that period was massively over-ordering diesel locos and DMUs. Whether retaining the 9Fs and such like longer would have made any difference to that I don't know, but masses of locos were ordered that saw barely a decade of use because of lines closing or being non-standard classes. Think Baby Deltics, Hymeks, 71s, Warships, MetVics, the list goes on. It was a massive waste of resources to do that even without factoring in the short lives that some of the later steam locos got, especially the 9Fs which had a hell of a lot of use left in them.

Steam should have been phased out over a 10 year plan. One region at a time. Electrification should have had a much higher priority.
(Many private companies still had steam engines on their ports/ works well into the 70's.)

Cliveblackpool said:

Steam should have been phased out over a 10 year plan. One region at a time. Electrification should have had a much higher priority.
(Many private companies still had steam engines on their ports/ works well into the 70's.)

Click to expand...

Is there not a picture of an "Austerity" Saddle tank working in a coal mine marshalling yard into the 80s when the pit closed?

HSTEd said:

Is there not a picture of an "Austerity" Saddle tank working in a coal mine marshalling yard into the 80s when the pit closed?

Click to expand...

There a picture (actually quite a few) of one of Agecroft's three steam locos one of which is taken in 1976.

Linky

Phil

HSTEd said:

Is there not a picture of an "Austerity" Saddle tank working in a coal mine marshalling yard into the 80s when the pit closed?

Click to expand...

The National Coal Board certainly employed steam locomotives into the early 1980s: F'rinstance Bickershaw colliery near Wigan still had working steam in 1983, giving rise to the unusual combination of 0-6-0 "Austerity" steam locos hauling the modern, air-braked HAA coal hoppers, as seen in this photo:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Austerity_at_Bickershaw_Colliery_02.jpg

sprinterguy said:

The National Coal Board certainly employed steam locomotives into the early 1980s: F'rinstance Bickershaw colliery near Wigan still had working steam in 1983, giving rise to the unusual combination of 0-6-0 "Austerity" steam locos hauling the modern, air-braked HAA coal hoppers, as seen in this photo:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Austerity_at_Bickershaw_Colliery_02.jpg

Click to expand...

how do steam locomotives provide air for the brakes? Just have a rotary compressor (to go with the rotary exhauster for vacuum brakes?) or is there something fancy with a steam ejector.

Port of Par had 2 steam engines, Alfred & Judy Alfred the last to be retired in 1978. Reguarly seen taking wagons to BR by the level crossing at Par Bridge. (Under 5 arches viaduct. They had a low cab to go under a main line bridge (Spit Beach) by a small car park to the clay driers across the main road. Top picture is outside their shed at Par Harbour.
Bill & Ben based on them on the Island of Sodor - Thomas.
http://bodminrailway.co.uk/steamlocos/Judy.html

HSTEd said:

how do steam locomotives provide air for the brakes? Just have a rotary compressor (to go with the rotary exhauster for vacuum brakes?) or is there something fancy with a steam ejector.

Click to expand...

All air braked steam locos I know of have a steam driven reciprocating compressor. Vacuum ejectors on steam locos aren't rotary, they have no moving parts. They rely on the Venturi effect. It's diesel and electric locos that have rotary exhausters.

ChrisCooper said:

All air braked steam locos I know of have a steam driven reciprocating compressor. Vacuum ejectors on steam locos aren't rotary, they have no moving parts. They rely on the Venturi effect. It's diesel and electric locos that have rotary exhausters.

Click to expand...

I recall reading that some later GWR steam locomotives used a rotary exhausters, with someone suggesting that was simply because the GWR wanted to be different.

Well, let's look at the picture. It's 1968. Ten years ago, the M.o.T. rejected political demands to speed up the Modernisation Plan, meaning that there are still quite a few steam locos in service. The Victorian relics are all gone, as are the not-so-good Big 4 classes. However, most of the Standards (perhaps not the Clans or Duke of Gloucester) are still going, as are quite a few Big 4 classes, especially the ones built in large numbers that are reliable, efficient and powerful enough to cope with traffic (V2s, B1s, O1s [many more of those], V3s, Black 5s, 8Fs, Austerities, Panniers, GWR Perairies, later Castles, Modified Halls and so on). The more charismatic passenger classes are down to the very last few, mostly on neiche services such as the Settle-Carlisle (Royal Scots) or the Forfar route (A4s). There is also a good supply of diesels and electrics, although about half the number of classes originally ordered were cancelled. Meaning no Baby Deltics, North British DEs, Claytons, Metrovicks and so on. Perhaps we're down to fewer than that, but built in greater numbers.

Then the National Traction Plan comes out, calling for greater standardisation. It proposes the phasing out of steam and diesel-hydraulic power, further electrification and a cull of smaller classes (I'm ignoriing shunters).

Here's what I expect we would end up with in 1978.

Type 1

• Class 10 (English Electric)

Type 2

• Class 20 (North British "Baby Warship") - to be withdrawn
• Class 21/22 (BR)
• Class 23/24 (BRCW) - to be withdrawn
• Class 25 (Brush)

Type 3

• Class 30 (BRCW "Crompton")
• Class 31 (Bayer-Peacock "Hymek") - to be withdrawn
• Class 32 (English Electric)

Type 4

• Class 40 (English Electric) - to be withdrawn (they only built 50, since they were underpowered compared with similar classes, instead they went on to the Class 45)
• Class 41 (BR Swindon "Warship") - to be withdrawn
• Class 42 (North British "Warship" [prototypes scrapped already]) - to be withdrawn
• Class 43 (BR "Peak") - all varients consolidated into one class, non-standard equipment removed (there are 500 of them by now)
• Class 44 (Brush "Duff") - still at evaluation against the Class 45
• Class 45 (English Electric "Hoover") either this or the Class 44 will be chosen for mass order (500 or so)
• Class 46 (BR Swindon Type 4 "Western") - to be withdrawn (there are 100 of them, but that doesn't make any difference)

Type 5

• Class 50 (English Electric "Deltic") - to be retained until the proposed "Advanced Passenger Train" replaces it (they are on the WCML as well as the ECML)

Electrics also standardise on relatively few classes, basically the same thing that happened in real life. However, the need for specailist freight classes is recognised, so some steam is retained, especailly the 9Fs. These work mostly coal and mineral traffic until the new Class 51s (Electroputere/Brush Type 5s) replace them in the late 70s. APT fails to materialise, but the Deltics keep going on the Western Region and ECML until HSTs replace them, the WCML probably doesn't suit them that well, so I can see them being cascaded once the wires reach Glasgow.

Beyond 1978, history resumes its natural course, but the railways are a little more efficient. This might save some lines, hopefully including the Great Central.

HSTEd said:

I recall reading that some later GWR steam locomotives used a rotary exhausters, with someone suggesting that was simply because the GWR wanted to be different.

Click to expand...

Well with the GWR anything is possible. Does seem overly complicated though, and would have increased maintenance costs due to moving parts which would need lubrication and would wear out. I can't think of any benefit from it to outweight the disadvantages, and fitting something worse just to be different doesn't sound like good business practice. Perhaps they tried it at some point to see if there was an advantage though.

Oh yes, I visualise automatic stokers, gas-producer fireboxes and possibly Gisel ejectors for the retained 9Fs.

I'd like to have seen a calmer, more measured "modernisation" programme- I do wonder if less of a rush could have seen the major mainlines (Great Eastern, East Coast, Midland, West Coast and Great Western) extensively electrified, with the HST as we know it not existing (though an electric equivalent would certainly have then been required). I wonder if this could have been more monetarily efficient for BR.

I appreciate we were unlikely to go the Swiss route of almost entirely skipping diesels, but there's a fair bit of "untapped" potential hydro power we could have grabbed in an era with more relaxed attitudes to flooding environmentally sensitive areas.

Couple of points;

After the smogs of the early 1950s which killed tens of thousands of people in built up areas steam locomotives were not acceptable as long term transport motive power.

DMUs replaced steam from 1954 and that would happen due to economic forces under any credible circumstances because of the huge advantages in terms of mass produced parts and reduced labour requirements.

I don't understand how steam could have significant life after 1968 because the locomotives we built in Britain were not powerful enough for modern trains. The average power which could be produced under good conditions on a steam loco with a fit and enthusiastic single fireman was 1800hp. Even in 1960 there were bitter arguments in BR that the 2000hp class 40 wasn't powerful enough to buy more than the first 20.

John55 said:

Couple of points;

After the smogs of the early 1950s which killed tens of thousands of people in built up areas steam locomotives were not acceptable as long term transport motive power.

DMUs replaced steam from 1954 and that would happen due to economic forces under any credible circumstances because of the huge advantages in terms of mass produced parts and reduced labour requirements.

I don't understand how steam could have significant life after 1968 because the locomotives we built in Britain were not powerful enough for modern trains. The average power which could be produced under good conditions on a steam loco with a fit and enthusiastic single fireman was 1800hp. Even in 1960 there were bitter arguments in BR that the 2000hp class 40 wasn't powerful enough to buy more than the first 20.

Click to expand...

Well, the 9F was a pretty solid locomotive, capable of shifting very heavy loads and running surprisingly fast. They ran in trials with Franco-Crosti boilers, automatic stokers, Gisel ejectors and various other experiments. If they had reached the heavy general overhaul stage, I can imagine gas-producer fireboxes going on the new boilers. Really, it was the only class with a serious future, possibly for hauling the early MGRs and other comparatively slow traffic. However, that all depends on whether it made economic sense. Steam hung on in countries where coal was cheap, basically because coal was cheap. Other than that, it's a good question.

I've also wondered why there was such a concentration on mixed-traffic types of diesel as well. We had a few specific express passenger designs (Deltics most noteably) but nothing directly designed for heavy freight up to the Class 56. Probably, a lot of designs were geared too high, hence the number of 31s, 37s and 47s modified with lower gear ratios. That probably means that 9Fs could have lasted until at least 1976, with some possibly hanging on until the 1980s. And that's pretty much it. The only other role would have been to keep services going, allowing a slightly slower production rate for diesel locos because of orders from fewer manufacturers (although there might have been some sub-contracting going on).

ChrisCooper said:

Well with the GWR anything is possible. Does seem overly complicated though, and would have increased maintenance costs due to moving parts which would need lubrication and would wear out. I can't think of any benefit from it to outweight the disadvantages, and fitting something worse just to be different doesn't sound like good business practice. Perhaps they tried it at some point to see if there was an advantage though.

Click to expand...

Your making me think of IEP bi-modes .

I wonder how they would have fitted slow speed control to the 9Fs for MGR working.

The Crab said:

I wonder how they would have fitted slow speed control to the 9Fs for MGR working.

Click to expand...

Well you could do it now with a relatively simple speed counter on the driving wheels linked to a motorised regulator.

How you do that prior to microcontrollers is far more troublesome.


EDIT:

There is the point that electrification work is made more expensive by the presence of steam locomotives under the wires as well, it was found that when they were eliminated that the pricey phosphor bronze fittings on the wiring could be replaced with cheap galvanised steel ones.

I've fantasised about this; clearly the 9Fs were good powerful locos with years of useful life in them but steam was clearly doomed as far as normal passenger workings were concerned and many of the classic locos were well past their best, also few people were prepared to work on the steam railways given the dirty and arduous nature of the work.

So ... fast forward to the 1980s, we still have a core of 9Fs maintained for the heaviest freight workings in the industrialised areas, augmented by a group of semi-preserved status locos for enthusiast-oriented passenger workings on secondary and scenic provincial lines.

Surviving steam depots at, say:

Ayr
Carlisle Kingmoor
Thornaby
Carnforth
Leeds Neville Hill
Immingham
Tyseley
Shrewsbury
Newport Ebbw Junction
Yeovil
Newton Abbot
St Blazey

where those who actually want to work with steam can transfer into.

Nothing in the South East (too congested to allow steam workings) or the Far North (too remote).

200 9Fs and maybe 100 heritage locos working real scheduled freight and passenger workings; our railway would have been awash with Dutch, German and Japanese steam fans desperate to see such a display of working steam, and the accountants would have been happy that BR hadn't squandered quite so much money as it did on a desperate rush to replace non-life expired steam with a motley collection of unreliable diesels which in many cases also got scrapped prematurely.

Would we still have had quite so many preserved locos, though? With there not being quite such a rush to dieselise, places like Barry Scrapyard would have been unlikely to end up with nearly as many, since the BR works could handle all the scrapping. I'm sure there would still have been quite a few, all the National Collection engines, plus Flying Scotsman and any other private preservation efforts like Black Prince. Still, there could not possibly be all the surviving 14XXs, West Countries, Black 5s and so on that preserved lines currently depend on.

Rather than looking at the Modernisation Plan being finished too early, should we not be arguing that the Modernisation Plan was not introduced soon enough? Hadn't most other countires changed to diesel/electric while we were still soldiering on with steam? We shouldn't have build any steam loco's after about 1955, and had a 10/15 year replacement programme finishing in the late 1960's...

Loco Fitter said:

Hadn't most other countires changed to diesel/electric while we were still soldiering on with steam?

Click to expand...

I'm sure that both France and Germany still had steam locos in mainline service until the very end of the 1960s, so outlasted the British steam ban by a couple of years. Datong locomotive works in China was still turning out brand new steam locos for domestic service right up until 1988, and steam didn't disappear completely from Chinas' railway network (Principally in industrial applications) until 2003.

British Railways' motive power strategy in the fifties seems to have been very poorly thought out. First the standard steam programme was embraked upon, and then five years later the modernisation plan was announced. It would have been better if the modernisation programme had been thought up a bit earlier and then the faux pas of building brand new steam locmotives for 5-10 years of active use could have been avoided.

Loco Fitter said:

Rather than looking at the Modernisation Plan being finished too early, should we not be arguing that the Modernisation Plan was not introduced soon enough? Hadn't most other countires changed to diesel/electric while we were still soldiering on with steam? We shouldn't have build any steam loco's after about 1955, and had a 10/15 year replacement programme finishing in the late 1960's...

Click to expand...

France certainly had lots of electric in place already in 1945, but that was largely because they led the way by a few years and our own electrification works were hindered by the wars arrival and then by our apparently rethinking of what voltage we were going to use.

HSTEd said:

France certainly had lots of electric in place already in 1945, but that was largely because they led the way by a few years and our own electrification works were hindered by the wars arrival and then by our apparently rethinking of what voltage we were going to use.

Click to expand...

Their railways, and Germany's, were devastated by the war, whereas ours survived mostly intact. This meant that they were starting effectively with a clean slate, making it a lot easier to have the network shut down for electrification when it was shut down anyway in many places. Switzerland did a very good job of switching with an intact network, but they have a lot of cheap hydro-electric power to work with.

LE Greys said:

Their railways, and Germany's, were devastated by the war, whereas ours survived mostly intact. This meant that they were starting effectively with a clean slate, making it a lot easier to have the network shut down for electrification when it was shut down anyway in many places. Switzerland did a very good job of switching with an intact network, but they have a lot of cheap hydro-electric power to work with.

Click to expand...

France had hundreds of miles in 1939 was what I meant, whereas all we had was the sections in the Southern Region.
Switzerland continued switching to electric during the war, fitting heating elements to steam engines to make up for the lack of fuel for them and the lack of copper for full blown electrics.