• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Hastening The End Of Rail Steam Traction?

RaM said:
The 8F's were built for heavy goods weighed over 72 tones most of that
available for traction tractive force was over 32400 lbf not fast but lots of
grip and pull, so likely better at snow than a Diesel rail car,
Some built for fast freight newspaper trains and the like had a * star under
the number this meant balanced wheels and motion and these could be run
faster at one time BR had over 600 of them.
This was took befor we worried much about a bit of snow or leaves on the line,
when men were men but looked old before there time.

Click to expand...

The driver quite possibly is old - 60+ . 50 years earlier (pre WW1) he might be over 70. It's the modern world that gets worried at old men at the controls.
 
Nowadays quite a few of the drivers working steam trains, even main line excursions, are well past retiring age.
 
Roland Deschain said:
I've read a bit and I'd recommend Mud, Blood and Poppycock and have to concur that what we think of the first world war is mostly a construct of later generations totally at odds with the reality of that war. Bit off topic tho sorry.
Click to expand...

Worth a read that one. Eye-opening.

Although I must confess I found it a tad tiresome how the author details that everything we think we know about WW1 isn't true. After about the fifth chapter I just thought - "I don't need to carry on...I get the gist- everything I think I know about WW1 isn't true." After that realisation there weren't many surprises!
 
I watched a proper interesting BBC programme about 'The Death of Steam' in the UK, focusing on the period between the end of WW2 and the late 60s, and how 'trainspotting' became massively popular as the UK embarked on rebuilding the rail system after the war with a whole load of new steam locomotives being built despite the increasing preference for Diesel and Electric trains globally.
This resulted in a huge amount of still viable locomotives going to the scrapyards as they were replaced en masse during the time of the Beeching cuts.

It set me thinking though.....what would modern Steam Locomotives look like nowadays if there had never been Diesel or Electric replacements, and Steam had continued to be developed throughout the last decades?
 
Trevp666 said:
I watched a proper interesting BBC programme about 'The Death of Steam' in the UK, focusing on the period between the end of WW2 and the late 60s, and how 'trainspotting' became massively popular as the UK embarked on rebuilding the rail system after the war with a whole load of new steam locomotives being built despite the increasing preference for Diesel and Electric trains globally.
This resulted in a huge amount of still viable locomotives going to the scrapyards as they were replaced en masse during the time of the Beeching cuts.

It set me thinking though.....what would modern Steam Locomotives look like nowadays if there had never been Diesel or Electric replacements, and Steam had continued to be developed throughout the last decades?
Click to expand...

https://www.5at.co.uk

5AT project is a conventional steam loco enhanced as far as possible with current technology.

The locos built in the UK post war were mainly designed to be as simple as possible to maintain rather than super efficient, although they were pretty efficient as well, for locos with the standard technology of the time. Worry about oil supplies initially told against diesels, and the plan was to electrify, and use the steam engines where electrification wasn't viable. Somewhere about 1955 some sort of panic set in, and loads of diesels were ordered, some very unreliable, and in any case far too many - large numbers , like the BR built steamers, also only lasted 10 years or so.

With modern technology something much more advanced than the AT would be possible, but vested interests tell against any serious development work on those lines - you'd want the full adhesive weight available for traction, and modern safety would require some design with the driver at the front for a better view of the track.

Something like this as an all purpose unit:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SR_Leader_class

or this as a heavy hauler:


http://www.douglas-self.com/MUSEUM/LOCOLOCO/nwturbine/nflkturb.htm


or even this for secondary passanger service.

http://www.douglas-self.com/MUSEUM/LOCOLOCO/argmotor/argmotor.htm

They all failed at the time, but with experience and modern technology the problems could be overcome. But I doubt something could be contrived that would be a true competitor for a modern diesel.
 
Last edited:
Interesting stuff on development at the time.
I was more thinking fast-forward to now.
I expect we would see streamlined, efficient locomotives that look very similar to modern engines.
I expect the use of 'dirty' coal would have been replaced with something similar to the modern gas boilers in use for central heating systems, albeit on a bigger scale.
And condensing boiler systems too to reduce the loss of water to the atmosphere as steam.
 
Trevp666 said:
Interesting stuff on development at the time.
I was more thinking fast-forward to now.
I expect we would see streamlined, efficient locomotives that look very similar to modern engines.
I expect the use of 'dirty' coal would have been replaced with something similar to the modern gas boilers in use for central heating systems, albeit on a bigger scale.
And condensing boiler systems too to reduce the loss of water to the atmosphere as steam.
Click to expand...
They could use nuclear rods to make the steam :p
 
Souleater said:
They could use nuclear rods to make the steam :p
Click to expand...
What, like the Ford Nucleon car of the 1950s? Yeah I guess so. Surely much safer in a train too.
I don't think they have 'nuclear rods' though do they? It's a nuclear core that provides the heat and then graphite rods are inserted into it to calm the reaction down IIRC.
'Atomic Trains' were already considered (dunno how seriously) back in the day, as a quick google image search shows.
I think the Soviet plan looks a little less sensible, if only due to the size of the damn thing.
1624635386496.png

1624635420657.png
 
Trevp666 said:
Interesting stuff on development at the time.
I was more thinking fast-forward to now.
I expect we would see streamlined, efficient locomotives that look very similar to modern engines.
I expect the use of 'dirty' coal would have been replaced with something similar to the modern gas boilers in use for central heating systems, albeit on a bigger scale.
And condensing boiler systems too to reduce the loss of water to the atmosphere as steam.
Click to expand...
Any of the ones I listed could be run off oil or even alcohol. One of the steam-motors had a Doble boiler which could raise steam in roughly the same time it takes a car to get off choke.

Condensers are very heavy to tow about and very vulnerable from the vibrations inseparable from rail travel. . There were condensing turbine steam locos that failed because of that.

I'm a steam engine nut. But I still don't think it would be easy to build a competitive modern steam loco.

If I was challenged to do it I could come up with several outline designs, but alas I'm no artist to illustrate them. The Bullied Leader with gas firing remotely controlled from the cab with CCTV to monitor the firebox might be one approach. Hopefully modern metallurgic advances would overcome the problems with the sleeve valves. You would of course design the steam cycle with all the improvements mentioned in the 5AT project.

Streamlining really isn't necessary unless the whole train is streamlined to match (as with the late 1930's LNER streamliners ).

Problems that need to be overcome:

Steam engines really need two crew, one to look after the steam cycle , one to drive.

They take a long time to, in modern terms, 'boot' 2-3 hours minimum (but see the Doble and Sentinel boilers)

They are dirty. Not to the atmosphere because they burn fuel at a relatively low temperature, and water vapour never harmed anyone. But combustion equals dirt that has to be cleaned out of the steam cycle periodically.

and things that are difficult to carry forward.

Steam locomotives are relatively simple and cheap to build and to fix. Complexity would change that.

They can usually get themselves home even if there is a failure - see my comments on Deltics. That would be compromised with the designs we are discussing.
 
Sorry if it's been mentioned before (I've not read the whole thread yet)
But 'The Train Now Departing ' is on BBC Iplayer.
Well worth a watch. Six episodes marking twenty years since the end of steam in the UK. First shown in 1988.
 
Actress Dolly Parton rescued a 3 foot narrow gauge steam engine with open passenger cars for her theme park in the Tennessee Smoky Mountains.

When you take a seat it is made clear that coal shoot will get on your clothes.

The 2.5 mile trip around the park with all that steam coming from the engine and that steam whistle was absolutely great.

And yes, we were covered with some shoot.

The whistle was haunting.
 
charliebrown said:
Actress Dolly Parton rescued a 3 foot narrow gauge steam engine with open passenger cars for her theme park in the Tennessee Smoky Mountains.

When you take a seat it is made clear that coal shoot will get on your clothes.

The 2.5 mile trip around the park with all that steam coming from the engine and that steam whistle was absolutely great.

And yes, we were covered with some shoot.

The whistle was haunting.
Click to expand...
They really call it 'shoot' in the US? In the UK is called 'soot', rhyming with foot.
 
This has been a fascinating thread. I served my time on B.R. as an engineering apprentice (mechanical), 1961-65, mostly in the shops at Crewe, and mostly on steam locomotives. I remember we did a light general repair on the last former LNWR freight 0-8-0, probably built 1920ish at the latest, in '61; a couple of years later I watched the frame of a 9F 2-10-0 that couldn't have been more than 7 or 8 years old cut into slabs with an oxy-acetylene torch. Some of the new diesel classes, notably the Metrovick Co-Bos, went for scrap before some of the steamers that they were supposed to replace . . . . I often wondered about the economics of such decisions . . . .

I also wondered about the relative efficiencies of steam versus diesel. A steam engine is self-starting; once you have pressure in the boiler, you open the regulator and she moves, but you need some kind of starting mechanism to start an i/c engine, either electric, compressed air or a hand crank (might be difficult with 2500hp!); also, the explosive combustion of fuel in an i/c cylinder produces far more energy than the engine can use, so anything up to 50% of the energy produced has to be dumped into a cooling system, and ultimately into the environment; a steam engine doesn't need a cooling system, so how come an i/c engine is supposed to be "more efficient"? David Wardale, in his book "The Red Devil and other tales from the age of steam", reports that his Cass 26 4-8-4, rebuilt from a SAR Class 25, had an overall thermal efficiency comparable to an equivalent diesel, and was actually cheaper to operate because of cheaper fuel costs per BTU, but the SAR had already decided that diesels were the future so they didn't want Wardale's engine. Politics, as elsewhere, overrode both engineering and economics.

Then there are turbines, of course. What would have happened, I wonder, if the LMS "Turbomotive" had been developed further? Steam turbines ran successfully in the U.S. and I think Germany, but I don't have any figures on those (Good Ol' Uncle Google probably knows . . .) Gas turbines are inherently inefficient since you use anything up to 75% of the turbine's output to drive the compressor. Some of the exhaust heat can be used to pre-heat the combustion air, but you're still left with a woefully inefficient machine; by all accounts, the gas turbine locos that ran on the BR Western Region burned something like three to four times as much fuel as the equivalent diesel.

So . . . . I wonder a bit, as usual.

And don't get me started of the line closures of the 1960s. I was there, so I know about some of the shenanigans that went on to make some services seem uneconomic, even when they really weren't . . . .
 
Alchymist said:
This has been a fascinating thread. I served my time on B.R. as an engineering apprentice (mechanical), 1961-65, mostly in the shops at Crewe, and mostly on steam locomotives. I remember we did a light general repair on the last former LNWR freight 0-8-0, probably built 1920ish at the latest, in '61; a couple of years later I watched the frame of a 9F 2-10-0 that couldn't have been more than 7 or 8 years old cut into slabs with an oxy-acetylene torch. Some of the new diesel classes, notably the Metrovick Co-Bos, went for scrap before some of the steamers that they were supposed to replace . . . . I often wondered about the economics of such decisions . . . .

I also wondered about the relative efficiencies of steam versus diesel. A steam engine is self-starting; once you have pressure in the boiler, you open the regulator and she moves, but you need some kind of starting mechanism to start an i/c engine, either electric, compressed air or a hand crank (might be difficult with 2500hp!); also, the explosive combustion of fuel in an i/c cylinder produces far more energy than the engine can use, so anything up to 50% of the energy produced has to be dumped into a cooling system, and ultimately into the environment; a steam engine doesn't need a cooling system, so how come an i/c engine is supposed to be "more efficient"? David Wardale, in his book "The Red Devil and other tales from the age of steam", reports that his Cass 26 4-8-4, rebuilt from a SAR Class 25, had an overall thermal efficiency comparable to an equivalent diesel, and was actually cheaper to operate because of cheaper fuel costs per BTU, but the SAR had already decided that diesels were the future so they didn't want Wardale's engine. Politics, as elsewhere, overrode both engineering and economics.

Then there are turbines, of course. What would have happened, I wonder, if the LMS "Turbomotive" had been developed further? Steam turbines ran successfully in the U.S. and I think Germany, but I don't have any figures on those (Good Ol' Uncle Google probably knows . . .) Gas turbines are inherently inefficient since you use anything up to 75% of the turbine's output to drive the compressor. Some of the exhaust heat can be used to pre-heat the combustion air, but you're still left with a woefully inefficient machine; by all accounts, the gas turbine locos that ran on the BR Western Region burned something like three to four times as much fuel as the equivalent diesel.

So . . . . I wonder a bit, as usual.

And don't get me started of the line closures of the 1960s. I was there, so I know about some of the shenanigans that went on to make some services seem uneconomic, even when they really weren't . . . .
Click to expand...
The Turbomotive was probably the most successful experimental engine that ran in the UK. But the trouble with turbines is that they need to be run at full power and constant speed to be properly efficient.

I think I covered some of the reasons why we won't see steam locos back - it's not just to do with the energy efficiency. I'd be very happy if they did come back, mind you! I've nothing like your experience but I have spent time working on rebuilding locos as an - originally unskilled - volunteer on a preserved line. Enjoyed every minute even working in an unheated shed in December :)

Absolutely with you about the line closures. One of the best examples is the Maldon line in Essex. It started from Witham on the London-Norwich main line, which had a similar line in the other direction to Braintree. In the early 60's both were reduced to being served by those ridiculous 4-wheeled railbuses. The Maldon line closed in 1964 - the Braintree line is now electrified with through London services.
 
Cochise said:
Absolutely with you about the line closures. One of the best examples is the Maldon line in Essex. It started from Witham on the London-Norwich main line, which had a similar line in the other direction to Braintree. In the early 60's both were reduced to being served by those ridiculous 4-wheeled railbuses. The Maldon line closed in 1964 - the Braintree line is now electrified with through London services.
Click to expand...

Your whole post, interesting; and appreciated. Responding, however, just to the above-quoted section -- I'd be interested to know precisely what is your quarrel with BR's four-wheeled railbuses, always running singly if I have it correctly, on lightly-used branch lines. Not very many were ever put into service, and they ran for not all that many years, "first to last" (a couple, in the possession of preserved railways, are still serviceable and sometimes used) -- but their less-than-stellar career would seem to me, more a function of "the temper of the times" transport-wise; than of their being in themselves, a lousy idea.

In my perception: beginning something like a hundred years ago, light single-unit internal-combustion railmotors provided salvation for a good while, for passenger services on rural local lines once road motor competition began to "bite": giving a more accommodating and economically viable service, than steam-hauled passenger trains could hope to do. This tactic was employed by railways in very numerous countries worldwide (in Great Britain overall, less than in many) -- such units are still running here and there in the world, even today. Not an idea with which everyone agrees; but I find self wondering, what is your precise "beef" with it. If an argument is being made, that using railbuses on a branch line was part of a ploy to make the line seem less economic and less-used than it in fact was: I honestly don't see the logic, and would be grateful for enlightenment !

A "curious" thing for sure -- as remarked on by you -- how widely the fortunes of the two branches out of Witham, have differed. I find it interesting that as at Britain's rail system's "peak": each of the two, had a prolongation to join with another and more-major line of the system (westward out of Braintree, south-westward out of Maldon) -- both of which prolongations had their passenger services withdrawn, way more than half a century ago. Closures of minor rail lines in Britain, have been happening on a big scale for a long time -- starting to happen in strength, decades before anyone had heard the name Beeching.
 
Squail said:
Your whole post, interesting; and appreciated. Responding, however, just to the above-quoted section -- I'd be interested to know precisely what is your quarrel with BR's four-wheeled railbuses, always running singly if I have it correctly, on lightly-used branch lines. Not very many were ever put into service, and they ran for not all that many years, "first to last" (a couple, in the possession of preserved railways, are still serviceable and sometimes used) -- but their less-than-stellar career would seem to me, more a function of "the temper of the times" transport-wise; than of their being in themselves, a lousy idea.

In my perception: beginning something like a hundred years ago, light single-unit internal-combustion railmotors provided salvation for a good while, for passenger services on rural local lines once road motor competition began to "bite": giving a more accommodating and economically viable service, than steam-hauled passenger trains could hope to do. This tactic was employed by railways in very numerous countries worldwide (in Great Britain overall, less than in many) -- such units are still running here and there in the world, even today. Not an idea with which everyone agrees; but I find self wondering, what is your precise "beef" with it. If an argument is being made, that using railbuses on a branch line was part of a ploy to make the line seem less economic and less-used than it in fact was: I honestly don't see the logic, and would be grateful for enlightenment !

A "curious" thing for sure -- as remarked on by you -- how widely the fortunes of the two branches out of Witham, have differed. I find it interesting that as at Britain's rail system's "peak": each of the two, had a prolongation to join with another and more-major line of the system (westward out of Braintree, south-westward out of Maldon) -- both of which prolongations had their passenger services withdrawn, way more than half a century ago. Closures of minor rail lines in Britain, have been happening on a big scale for a long time -- starting to happen in strength, decades before anyone had heard the name Beeching.
Click to expand...
You raise two points. Yes, some lines were closed before Beeching. There is no doubt that some lines built in the height of the railway era were unnecessary. But they were already being closed as early as the 1930's. That was sensible.

Railbuses were too small and too unreliable. The single unit conventional DMU's were a much better solution.
 
Cochise said:
You raise two points. Yes, some lines were closed before Beeching. There is no doubt that some lines built in the height of the railway era were unnecessary. But they were already being closed as early as the 1930's. That was sensible.

Railbuses were too small and too unreliable. The single unit conventional DMU's were a much better solution.
Click to expand...

Thanks. Point taken -- would say that in some parts of the world, railbuses did sterling service, and were big enough to handle the traffic offered: better conceived / designed, maybe, than BR's specimens.

I've always felt, re a considerable number of minor lines inaugurated late 19th / early 20th century: if their "progenitors" had had any notion of how soon and how intensely and increasingly, road motor transport would get going (this given an additional "kick-start" by World War I -- which war developed in ways which even those who expected it to happen, couldn't have anticipated) -- they'd have scrapped their plans; and the lines concerned, would not have come into being.
 
Hogwarts Express is back in action!

A train service in the UK which featured in several Harry Potter movies can resume after being granted a temporary exemption to a safety rule.

The Office of Rail and Road (ORR) said the Jacobite – often referred to as the Hogwarts Express – can run until the end of November.

The popular tourist attraction, operated by West Coast Railways, has often been suspended in recent weeks after safety inspectors found an issue with the hinged doors of its carriages.

It runs between Mallaig and Fort William across the Glenfinnan Viaduct in the Scottish Highlands.

The ORR said in a statement: “Following an inspection of West Coast Railway Company Limited’s (WCRCL) proposed safety arrangements for the Jacobite service on August 8, ORR has granted it a new exemption certificate which will allow the Jacobite to recommence operation.

https://www.breakingnews.ie/world/h...ices-can-resume-says-safety-body-1512807.html
 
Squail said:
Thanks. Point taken -- would say that in some parts of the world, railbuses did sterling service, and were big enough to handle the traffic offered: better conceived / designed, maybe, than BR's specimens.

I've always felt, re a considerable number of minor lines inaugurated late 19th / early 20th century: if their "progenitors" had had any notion of how soon and how intensely and increasingly, road motor transport would get going (this given an additional "kick-start" by World War I -- which war developed in ways which even those who expected it to happen, couldn't have anticipated) -- they'd have scrapped their plans; and the lines concerned, would not have come into being.
Click to expand...
Was the biggest problem with coal the unionised workforce that was seemingly in perpetual conflict with the Conservative governments? Take away coal as the fuel for Britain's railways and you take away a lot of the power from the miner's unions...

Yes, we always have to remember that new railway lines were built in the age of the horse and cart when the only real competition would have been canals. Also, the railways were always shackled with having to carry any freight customers requested even if it was uneconomical to do so, whereas road hauliers could cherrypick the profitable freight. We also have to put ourselves in the 1950s and the advent post-war of the mass-produced family car and the freedoms it gave coupled with a rundown railway network that was losing money hand-over-fist.

We had to go through our love affair with the motor car and the new motorways for about three decades before in the mid-1980s passengers began to return in ever greater numbers. Back in the 1970s it had been widely believed that the railways were in an inevitable 'death spiral' as freight and people dwindled away. We owe an awful lot to visionary BR chairmen such as Sir Peter Parker and the team who developed the Mark 3 coach and the Inter-City 125: a clock face timetable of air-conditioned rolling stock on smooth, unjointed high-speed lines along with innovations such as parkway stations (park and ride) proved to be a winning formula. In fact, Inter-City was recording a profit just prior to privatisation, a real turnaround that was never recognised.

As regards the unwarranted Beeching closures, I feel the powerful road lobby engaged in building the new motorways (and thus creating jobs) knew it was a case of now or never, and indeed time has shown there would never again be the political will for further closures. So entire lines were closed because a single viaduct was in a poor state of repair or because they stood in the way of new road schemes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top