-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Is it time to bring back steam again?
- Thread starter SussexSpotter
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
YorkshireBear
Established Member
- Joined
- 23 Jul 2010
- Messages
- 8,703
Because it was in the right place at the right time, in steam already manned. I will quote myself and I would like an answer to my question this time:
Myself said:
How does this even further your argument that steam should be re-introduced anyway, arguing about why more steam (and I'm not sure that's true) made it into mainline preservation than diesel.
By all means list them then we can go and tell every train operator in the world that they have been making a mistake for the last 60+ years and diesel was a bad idea.
Who?
SussexSpotter
Member
Well there's always room for more! What with the East Grinstead and Ardingly extension. They are a very profitable business as well and one of the biggest tourist attractions in Sussex. People flock during the Summer to experience the power of steam haulage. Swanage is another example as well but that's in Dorset and the MHR in Hampshire which opperate steam loco's fit for ' MAINLINE' use!
Most heritage diesel railways always look run down and tatty! Why? Well why do you think?
YorkshireBear
Established Member
- Joined
- 23 Jul 2010
- Messages
- 8,703
cos preservation isnt as focused on diesels as they are on steam trains because kettles are more popular with the public..... if you got to disel focussed railway the disels there are in fine condition
So, hang on, let me get this straight. You want to run steam trains all over the southern region through the winter and then in the summer move all of those locos to a little heritage line (I say 'a' because you've mentioned but one)?
I'm actually laughing now.
YorkshireBear
Established Member
- Joined
- 23 Jul 2010
- Messages
- 8,703
i think quite a few people are including myself
I was going to bed until I saw this, now I might hang around it's a laugh a minute!
SussexSpotter
Member
No your barking up the wrong tree there, I was asked whether anyone would be interested in the steam loco's if they were to be sold, in comparison to the diesel which quite frankly not many are interested in, steam is far more popular.
90019
Established Member
The 66s are in store because there has been a reduction in railfreight. They have been stored such that they can be brought back into service when demand increases again.
What, apart from all the diesel hauled railtours that you get on the mainline?
There's probably few charters there for a reason. If the market was there, someone would be running them already.
Tornado was used to pick up people because it was in the right place at the right time completely by chance running a charter. It did not rescue the stuck unit, it picked up the passengers from it.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
If there was, someone would be making them to sell in this country. There clearly isn't as they would be little, if any, use whatsoever, and more likely a drain on resources.
What do you really think the market for modern day kettles is?
So why haven't the preserved railways that are mostly diesel all gone bust if there's no interest or demand?
Last edited:
Alright, well see some facts and figures then. How many locos are do you want to build?
YorkshireBear
Established Member
- Joined
- 23 Jul 2010
- Messages
- 8,703
slowed down now, means i have to get back on with work
dam him i was enjoying that little break!slowed down now, means i have to get back on with work
Yep, I think I'm going to bed now...
SussexSpotter
Member
Probably because of the cost and reliablity of the freight opperators and their loco's. I don't see the road haulage company's struggling in the economic downturn!
Far more types of mainline steam loco than Mainline heritage diesel traction! Clan Line is out on the VSOE via Guildford on a regular basis.
What big towns/cities like Brighton, Hastings, Eastbourne, Worthing, Chichester, Portsmouth etc. with major events and tourism? Think there's a market to tap into there. Takes one to start a trend!
But they could have said ''Oh no it's not reliable so we won't use it as a rescue loco, call in another 375''!
Well what did they do with Tornado then? That was built and sold in this country just over 2 years ago.
Seen any diesel loco's built recently in this country and sold recently? NO!
Im suprised they havn't, give it time!
Last edited by a moderator:
90019
Established Member
It's got sod all to do with reliability. Less stuff is being moved around, so less locos are needed just now. It's really not a difficult concept to get your head around.
AFAIK, the road haulage industry has suffered during the economic downturn, it just wasn't as noticable.
IIRC, the majority of mainline registered preserved locomotives are diesels, not kettles.
If you can come up with a reasonable business plan for one, I'll be convinced. Currently, I'm not.
They didn't use it as a rescue loco!!
They used it to take passengers, the unit was left where it was.
Tornado took 14 years to build and was a massive engineering project, it also wasn't sold to anyone, but is owned by the A1 steam locomotive trust.
No, but that's because we use MUs rather than LHCS now. The most recent locomotives however, are the 67s which were built between 1999 and 2000. However we don't build much in this country any more so it's not relevant where the trains are built in this case.
The most recent trains are the 378s which are mostly in service now I think, the 172s which have a few in service so far and the 380s, I believe the first ones have just gone into service in the past few days(?)
As pointed out by jimmyowl1992, there is the class 70s too, of which the first few were in service as of last year.
So the ones that have been going successfully for years then? Are they all anomalies or something?
Last edited:
YorkshireBear
Established Member
- Joined
- 23 Jul 2010
- Messages
- 8,703
theres class 70s aswell
*sigh* *puts on bean counter's hat*
Steam engines are simply not cost or energy-efficient. You argue that electricity tends to come from coal-fired power stations anyway - of course, this is true. However, assuming we all entered your fairytale world of steam traction during the winter, you'd have to build the new locos, bring them out of storage, distribute copious amounts of coal amongst them, keep them idling (and nomming fuel) all day, on the off-chance that a train fails within its range, scramble it, couple it to your unit, ensure the electrical connections and HEP are working, bring your train to the next station and terminate it and then return it to base - when, no doubt, the hungry loco would need watering and fuelling.
And, of course, where would all these kettles go over the summer? You say heritage railways, but I strongly doubt this: the Watercress Line, for example, is a four-station branch from the Alton line, limited to 24mph (where the locos you propose would be seriously wasted) which is mostly single-track and has (I think) 0.5-1tph during normal service.
Considering that this example serves a few small villages in the middle of Hampshire, the only viable market for a regular service is possibly during peak hours, when through services to and from Waterloo might attract a small market. However, for what? Even if you used a single DMU, your profit margins would still be extremely low. Using a steam loco would be out of the question.
The same goes for the Bluebell Railway, and even on the Great Central, trains can only run at 50mph - is it really worth building brand new steam locos just for this, and for hauling electrics in winter on the off-chance they fail? Why not use some of the in-storage 66s?
Really, it's a few days of inconvenience and occasional Blitz spirit - snow strands some trains for a few days in third-rail regions, but everything returns to normal within a week or two. Steam locos are romantic and pretty, but they haemmorage money and can not be made more energy-efficient without pure magic. Burning coal to heat water to push against pistons to turn some wheels is far less efficient than using electricity to turn some wheels.
Steam engines are simply not cost or energy-efficient. You argue that electricity tends to come from coal-fired power stations anyway - of course, this is true. However, assuming we all entered your fairytale world of steam traction during the winter, you'd have to build the new locos, bring them out of storage, distribute copious amounts of coal amongst them, keep them idling (and nomming fuel) all day, on the off-chance that a train fails within its range, scramble it, couple it to your unit, ensure the electrical connections and HEP are working, bring your train to the next station and terminate it and then return it to base - when, no doubt, the hungry loco would need watering and fuelling.
And, of course, where would all these kettles go over the summer? You say heritage railways, but I strongly doubt this: the Watercress Line, for example, is a four-station branch from the Alton line, limited to 24mph (where the locos you propose would be seriously wasted) which is mostly single-track and has (I think) 0.5-1tph during normal service.
Considering that this example serves a few small villages in the middle of Hampshire, the only viable market for a regular service is possibly during peak hours, when through services to and from Waterloo might attract a small market. However, for what? Even if you used a single DMU, your profit margins would still be extremely low. Using a steam loco would be out of the question.
The same goes for the Bluebell Railway, and even on the Great Central, trains can only run at 50mph - is it really worth building brand new steam locos just for this, and for hauling electrics in winter on the off-chance they fail? Why not use some of the in-storage 66s?
Really, it's a few days of inconvenience and occasional Blitz spirit - snow strands some trains for a few days in third-rail regions, but everything returns to normal within a week or two. Steam locos are romantic and pretty, but they haemmorage money and can not be made more energy-efficient without pure magic. Burning coal to heat water to push against pistons to turn some wheels is far less efficient than using electricity to turn some wheels.
ChampsRacing
Member
Im sorry but it just wouldnt work. I love steam trains, but working as a guard with southwest trains, i would like to see a steam train be able to brake as late as electric, get in and out of the station within 1 minute, and be able to get to most stations on suburban routes within 2 minutes of eachother. Also i was on Tornado last year when we picked up passengers. Yes it was great that them lucky people got home but it was just coisidence, if tornado wasnt there it wouldnt of saved hundreds of people getting home let alone thousands, it picked up 30 people. For waterloo for example. Clapham Yard is practically full with stock so where would the spare steam trains be? Or if u wanted to re-open nine elms you would have to flatten the very busy nine elms market? You would have to resignall nine elms junction relay more track points etc the cost just goes up and up and up. Its a lovely idea in a book, but not in the real world.
I wonder if the chap starting this thread has any first hand experience of steam traction?
It can be entertaining stopping the infrastructure freezing up this time of year, water columns and the like. Frost can damage the locos themselves as well. Oh, and it's really nice climbing up on the back of a tender when it's icy!
It can be entertaining stopping the infrastructure freezing up this time of year, water columns and the like. Frost can damage the locos themselves as well. Oh, and it's really nice climbing up on the back of a tender when it's icy!
It's perhaps worth pointing out that in the video linked at the start of this thread, the chaps digging the snow off the lines are digging through days worth of accumulation.
As in, those lines had clearly shut for days whilst the snow fell, and then they sent out gangs to clear them.
As in, those lines had clearly shut for days whilst the snow fell, and then they sent out gangs to clear them.
sprinterguy
Established Member
Agreed! I thought it started off in a light hearted fashion, but has clearly descended into madness. I wish I'd been logged in last night, I've missed all the fun now!
In no way is it cost effective to build and maintain a fleet of steam locos for operation for two weeks of the year, and then have them spend the other eleven months chugging around preserved lines on occasional weekends.
And stored class 60s and 66s proves nothing other than a downturn in the railfreight market. If I were to use SteamBuffer100s skewed argument, then clearly diesel is more reliable than steam purely because a massive fleet of over two hundred 9Fs was withdrawn after less than a decade in service. To the ignorance of all the actual valid reasons that diesel traction is of course more reliable and cost effective than steam, as stated above by many others.
:roll:
SussexSpotter
Member
Morning folks!
Regardless of what you say, nothing can ever beat steam in my mind! This is just my opinion though. Ok so maybe I was wrong about the freight company's and their loco's, they have invested in new diesel loco's but only because the original heritage loco's were so unreliable.
I have also explained all the things these steam loco's could be doing on the other few weeks of the year. They wouldn't just be sitting at the bluebell railway unless they needed to be sold or hired out. There is still a case here!
Last edited by a moderator:
sprinterguy
Established Member
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 its 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 its perfectly reasonable to assume that reliability would have deteriorated by that point.
SussexSpotter
Member
If I won the lottery I would!
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?
Detail, as you might find in a well thought out business plan, appears to be sadly lacking.
However, this is almost made up for in passion and determination (at least in terms of thread contributions!)
- Status