• 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!

Oil fired steam locos in the 1950s.

Status
Not open for further replies.

geoffk

Established Member
Joined
4 Aug 2010
Messages
3,223
It's well known that, because of coal shortages during and after WW2, the government sponsored a programme to convert some 1,200 locomotives from all railway companies to burn oil. By 1948, when the railways had been nationalised, almost 100 engines had been altered, but there was insufficient foreign exchange to pay for the additional costs of oil fuel and all locomotives were switched back to coal within nine months.

This wasn't the end of the story as, in 1958, ex GWR pannier tank 3711 was converted to burn oil at Robert Stephenson and Hawthorns' works in Newcastle and remained an oil burner until withdrawal in 1963. I remember seeing this loco at Swindon and noticing the oil tank in the bunker. I read that it was part of an experiment to dispense with a fireman on shunting locos (i.e. to introduce one-man operation). Does anyone know if this is true (and whether any other members of the class were converted)? If true, no doubt ASLEF would have knocked the idea on the head.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Taunton

Established Member
Joined
1 Aug 2013
Messages
10,018
It would still be a bit difficult to run a steam loco single handed if oil fired, as the burner still has to be managed, along with water levels etc. No other oil fired steam locos worldwide seem to have run without firemen. In places like California, remote from coal supplies, oil fired steam locos had been the norm since the 1920s.

The shunting loco run single handed was called the Class 08, and others. By 1958 there were many hundreds of these around, and the remainder of the fleet which cleared steam shunters out completely would be on order. Why the steam loco was converted at such a late date is thus a bit of a mystery.
 

geoffk

Established Member
Joined
4 Aug 2010
Messages
3,223
It would still be a bit difficult to run a steam loco single handed if oil fired, as the burner still has to be managed, along with water levels etc. No other oil fired steam locos worldwide seem to have run without firemen. In places like California, remote from coal supplies, oil fired steam locos had been the norm since the 1920s.

The shunting loco run single handed was called the Class 08, and others. By 1958 there were many hundreds of these around, and the remainder of the fleet which cleared steam shunters out completely would be on order. Why the steam loco was converted at such a late date is thus a bit of a mystery.
Yes, I agree it seems an odd experiment so late in the day for steam.
 
Last edited:

RT4038

Established Member
Joined
22 Feb 2014
Messages
4,180
It would still be a bit difficult to run a steam loco single handed if oil fired, as the burner still has to be managed, along with water levels etc. No other oil fired steam locos worldwide seem to have run without firemen. In places like California, remote from coal supplies, oil fired steam locos had been the norm since the 1920s.

The shunting loco run single handed was called the Class 08, and others. By 1958 there were many hundreds of these around, and the remainder of the fleet which cleared steam shunters out completely would be on order. Why the steam loco was converted at such a late date is thus a bit of a mystery.

Was there a source of waste oil at the works, and this was an means of getting id of it whilst saving money on coal?
 

Clarence Yard

Established Member
Joined
18 Dec 2014
Messages
2,461
It was one of those steam experiments that took a time to get going and by the time it was done, the moment had passed.

WR had a number of relatively young Pannier tanks and this would have been touted as a good way of saving capital spend on diesel shunters as well as saving valuable footplate staff. There was oil tank facilities about WR (left over from the 1947 scheme) and some facilities being constructed anyway, so it would have looked a relatively attractive proposition.

But when capital spend on diesels became easier, the orders for diesel shunters went in and that was that. 3711 remained a one off, being withdrawn on 9/5/63 after having worked from both Swindon and Old Oak Common sheds.
 

randyrippley

Established Member
Joined
21 Feb 2016
Messages
5,079
A better question is why were the GWR/WR still building panniers while everyone else was building diesel shunters?
I detect a hint of Luddite behaviour at Swindon
 

geoffk

Established Member
Joined
4 Aug 2010
Messages
3,223
A better question is why were the GWR/WR still building panniers while everyone else was building diesel shunters?
I detect a hint of Luddite behaviour at Swindon
Most of the 9400 class were built by outside contractors. Slow delivery is said to be due to materials shortages and heavy post-war demand on the British locomotive industry. As a result, many had very short lives of less than 10 years - only 5 or 6 in some cases. Officially they were ordered to replace 0-6-2 tanks from the pre-1923 South Wales companies.
 

Taunton

Established Member
Joined
1 Aug 2013
Messages
10,018
A better question is why were the GWR/WR still building panniers while everyone else was building diesel shunters?
I detect a hint of Luddite behaviour at Swindon
Ask Mr Riddles (ex-LMS), all the new loco budgets were centralised at BRB HQ and put up by him ... :) .
 

Bevan Price

Established Member
Joined
22 Apr 2010
Messages
7,320
A better question is why were the GWR/WR still building panniers while everyone else was building diesel shunters?
I detect a hint of Luddite behaviour at Swindon
And why did they order Class 14 (D95xx) to replace Panniers when work for Panniers was disappearing quickly ?
 

delt1c

Established Member
Joined
4 Apr 2008
Messages
2,125
I believe part of the reason for building steam so late in the day was due to coal being readily available in the UK but oil had to be imported
 

ChiefPlanner

Established Member
Joined
6 Sep 2011
Messages
7,768
Location
Herts
A better question is why were the GWR/WR still building panniers while everyone else was building diesel shunters?
I detect a hint of Luddite behaviour at Swindon

Something of the "we must maintain work at Swindon" ethos. Construction of new steam freight engines nationally ought to have ceased around 1957 , however Swindon made a case for the 9F's up to 1960 for a 6 year life-span. The latter were supposed to replace worn out ex GWR heavy freight. The BRB did balk - but waved it through one gathers in the end. Terrible waste - and as for other builds of the time ........
 

Taunton

Established Member
Joined
1 Aug 2013
Messages
10,018
I think they got more years of useful work out of the last 9Fs than out of the Co-Bos.

Do bear in mind before picking on Swindon too much that although they built the last one, Crewe had built their last, No 92250, only about a year before, and had been building them at a much more substantial rate.
 

ChiefPlanner

Established Member
Joined
6 Sep 2011
Messages
7,768
Location
Herts
I think they got more years of useful work out of the last 9Fs than out of the Co-Bos.

Do bear in mind before picking on Swindon too much that although they built the last one, Crewe had built their last, No 92250, only about a year before, and had been building them at a much more substantial rate.

I understand - but frankly there was always seemingly some strong attempts to "support" Swindon - well into diesel days ,and one can hardly blame them in a changing railway world The workload fell off a cliff.

On a general bigger picture regarding steam , one finds in unimaginable that 3d rail land Brighton (since 1933) , was still building "Standard" class locomotives in modest(ish) numbers well into the 1950's - where re-allocation of work could have (in theory) been done much earlier , and not off the Southern either.

All we can do now , is comment from another century.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top