What if Steam had lasted until the 1980s

[GRALISTAIR]

The economics of steam operation, even in the 1960s, were so bad, that the failed diesel locomotive programmes were almost certainly still cheaper than continuing with steam.

If any steam locomotives make it to 1975 the railway will almost certainly be dead as a result.

And hardly good working conditions for ASLEF etc. Phasing out steam and progressing to diesel and electric when it happened was the correct thing to do.

 

[eldomtom2]

And hardly good working conditions for ASLEF etc.

Again, I think you'll find that the history of the unions and dieselisation is more complicated than them demanding more and faster dieselisation...

 

[ac6000cw]

Maybe, but dieselisation came with a host of other issues and strings attached that meant that loco crews weren't unanimously eager to make the switch...

What issues and strings attached?

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Again, I think you'll find that the history of the unions and dieselisation is more complicated than them demanding more and faster dieselisation...

I am fully aware of that.

 

[Sun Chariot]

Of course decades back diesels weren't quite so clean... ALCo 'clag' anyone?

ALCo's "signature clag" is what got me into US outline! Also, Tunnel Motors erupting a black fume-blanket out of Moffat Tunnel or Tennessee Pass tunnel.

For the ultimate clag, however - in YouTube, search for Semi Trailer Drag Race.

 

[PMN1]

If you have oil fired steam rather than coal fired steam, what activities are no longer needed?

 

[eldomtom2]

What issues and strings attached?

Training was a major one - in some quarters it was perceived as far too short - and of course there were many issues involving what to do with those jobs that were no longer necessary (everyone knows about the demise of the secondman).

 

[ac6000cw]

If you have oil fired steam rather than coal fired steam, what activities are no longer needed?

There's basically no ash and clinker to deal with on the depot, and liquid fuels are generally easier to handle and store. For cost reasons, oil-fired locos of old generally used very heavy, thick, fuel oil - basically almost refinery residue - which has to be heated to flow easily, but that's not a problem with a hot steam supply to hand. They still needed a fireman to look after the boiler, but obviously that's an easier job than shovelling coal into the firebox. Otherwise it's basically the same loco from a servicing point-of-view.

One thing that is easily possible with liquid fuels is having multiple tenders, as fuel and water just need pipes to get them to the firebox and boiler, so there is potential for much longer runs between servicing stops (e.g. the now oil-fired UP Big Boy #4014 normally pulls three tenders behind it - one black, two yellow). Also it's possible to turn the loco around and put the cab at the front e.g. see SP 'Cab Forwards' - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cab_forward

Training was a major one - in some quarters it was perceived as far too short - and of course there were many issues involving what to do with those jobs that were no longer necessary (everyone knows about the demise of the secondman).

Yes, but that's just normal management and industrial relations stuff, nothing directly to do with the technology - the change to electric and diesel was going to happen anyway at some point, given that both electric and diesel traction were well established technologies by 1950. In a competitive environment, if you don't embrace change, you'll die out eventually (it's called evolution, like nature does...).

 

[eldomtom2]

Yes, but that's just normal management and industrial relations stuff, nothing directly to do with the technology - the change to electric and diesel was going to happen anyway at some point, given that both electric and diesel traction were well established technologies by 1950. In a competitive environment, if you don't embrace change, you'll die out eventually (it's called evolution, like nature does...).

I'm not sure what the relevance of it not being "directly related" to the technology is.

 

[NoOldEngine]

So from what I've heard, British Railways was planning to keep steam and slowly electrify until as late as the early 90s as the Standards were designed to work till then.

Lets say that actually happened, the A4s were withdrawn in the late 70s, The coronations in the mid 80s, the 9fs lasted till the end. Would more steam locos be preserved as they would be retired over a much longer period time? would they have been sent to barry?

Eventually BR customers would have demanded improvements and a move to diesel. Remember the reasons why the class 59 came about.

 

[Sun Chariot]

I'm not sure what the relevance of it not being "directly related" to the technology is.

If I've understood ac6000cw's comment - reskilling/retraining is a natural effect of change (e.g. org productivity / efficiency improvement - Lean Six Sigma) and it isn't specifically due to new types iof motive power being rolled out.

The modernisation of "ways of working" needed in the UK's railways, encompassed more than the motive power alone.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Oct 2023 ==

Eventually BR customers would have demanded improvements and a move to diesel. Remember the reasons why the class 59 came about.

Exactly. The inherent inefficiencies in how the railways of the 1950s were still being operated, meant that the fundamental changes would have had to happen anyway.

Ironically, the poor reliability of BR's own fleet, early-1980s, was a key influence in Foster Yeoman looking to GM (EMD) for reliable, proven haulage capability.

 

[gabrielhj07]

A large factor that enabled so many steam locos to be preserved was the fact that they were all withdrawn at once - far too quickly for scrapyards to dispose of them. Having fewer locos sat around would have meant less opportunity to take them into preservation.

 

[eldomtom2]

If I've understood ac6000cw's comment - reskilling/retraining is a natural effect of change (e.g. org productivity / efficiency improvement - Lean Six Sigma) and it isn't specifically due to new types iof motive power being rolled out.

Yes, I understand that. I still don't understand what sort of point he's trying to make with it.

 

[ac6000cw]

Yes, I understand that. I still don't understand what sort of point he's trying to make with it.

Below are the relevant parts of the string of posts:

It's good fun for a day out, but it's easy to understand why sitting in the warm, clean, cab of a diesel loco was rather more attractive to drivers than a draughty steam cab with coal dust blowing around.

Maybe, but dieselisation came with a host of other issues and strings attached that meant that loco crews weren't unanimously eager to make the switch...

What issues and strings attached?

Training was a major one - in some quarters it was perceived as far too short - and of course there were many issues involving what to do with those jobs that were no longer necessary (everyone knows about the demise of the secondman).

Yes, but that's just normal management and industrial relations stuff, nothing directly to do with the technology - the change to electric and diesel was going to happen anyway at some point, given that both electric and diesel traction were well established technologies by 1950. In a competitive environment, if you don't embrace change, you'll die out eventually (it's called evolution, like nature does...).

I'm not sure what the relevance of it not being "directly related" to the technology is.

My original point was just about the working environment of steam versus diesel and electric motive power (which is related to the technology and design of it) - the re-training and loss of fireman's jobs is not directly because of the difference in working environment. You could say some early diesel loco cabs in the US were rather closer to (and as spartan as) a steam loco cab of similar vintage, without the firebox and less draughty.

Steam motive power got more powerful and fuel-efficient over time to improve the economics of operating trains - it enabled longer and heavier trains to be operated with the same number of crew. Changing to diesel and electric power just continued that evolution, and as a step-change also reduced the servicing costs and made the fireman's job mostly redundant. How you handle that loss of jobs from an employee relations point-of-view is a separate issue.

 

[eldomtom2]

My original point was just about the working environment of steam versus diesel and electric motive power (which is related to the technology and design of it) - the re-training and loss of fireman's jobs is not directly because of the difference in working environment.

But you weren't bringing up the working environment for no reason - you were bringing it up to presumably make a point about dieselisation improving labour relations. My response was to point out that it was more complicated than that.

 

[ac6000cw]

But you weren't bringing up the working environment for no reason - you were bringing it up to presumably make a point about dieselisation improving labour relations. My response was to point out that it was more complicated than that.

I was just commenting on the relative footplate/cab working conditions, nothing else implied or ulterior motives.