A hypothetical for (perhaps older-generation) sentimentalists

[Calthrop]

I being a railway enthusiast, aged nearly 70, of an admittedly soppy, sentimental and utterly unrealistic kind: as per heading, a “hypothetical” has occurred to me. I’d set up a poll, if my wretchedly poor computer competence allowed it: but it doesn’t, so I won’t.

Supposing you are a teenage railway enthusiast in Great Britain in the very early 1960s. Re what happened in real life: in the course of that decade, regular steam traction on British Railways progressively declined, and came to an end a little while before the end of the decade; also in said decade, an enormous mileage of the system’s on the whole more rural and marginal lines – plus some secondary-and-even-main-lines – lost passenger services, and in many cases were totally abandoned.

You are visited by a genie, or similar being with far-reaching magical powers, who shows you the above scenario, and gives you a choice: he’ll fix things so that either (1) BR keeps steam on in strength, but the lesser lines close down pretty much as in “Our Time-Line”, to use alternative-history-speak; or (2) steam is run down and phased out and ends in the late 1960s, shabbily and miserably (as per “OTL”); but the passenger rail system essentially survives and endures, approximately as it was at the beginning of 1962. A few shortish, utterly hopeless lines will no doubt succumb in the succeeding decades; but the great majority will be safe. (This is “hypothetical-land”; the practicalities are neither here nor there.)

Even genies’ powers are not limitless: let’s figure that under the offered deal, the good stuff will last for a few decades – say till about 1990 (if you choose steam, it will gradually fade out, but an acceptable amount will remain in service, well-cared-for, till very near the end). Whichever you choose – after 1990 anything might happen – likely enough, it won’t be good.

Given these alternatives, I would find it quite horribly difficult to choose. I might incline very slightly toward “let steam go, keep the intricate network” – but the choice would be a very hard one. Would be interested to learn how other folks would choose -- including "neither of the above" (reasons for choice, would be of interest).

 

[Harbornite]

Let steam go, keep the network. It's definitely the better option, especially for passengers and enthusiasts to an extent.

 

[DasLunatic]

Let steam die as per the timeline. I prefer 60s/70s diesels and electrics over steam anyways, and the unclosed lines would provide greater travel opportunities.

 

[Busaholic]

Let steam go, keep the network. It's definitely the better option, especially for passengers and enthusiasts to an extent.

Perhaps unfair for someone like me, who likes railways but have never been attached to/sentimental about trains/locomotives, to give an opinion, but I'd agree with you. Steam would have to go in the end, just as the old buses I grew up with and do have a sentimental attachment to have had to go: far better that the bus services survive. I'm about the same age as the OP, so that makes us both OAPs

 

[Cowley]

Don't remember steam or all the lines that closed, being born in 1973, and always having loved steam (as well as diesel )and wishing I could've experienced it when it was "real". There's only one choice for me and that would've been to keep the railways that we'd lost and to have had them appraised and valued properly rather than the wholesale rapid destruction that we actually had.
There was so much more that could've been done and yes probably a lot of it, maybe at least a third of what was shut needed to be and maybe another third mothballed or at least protected . But there are so many routes that were shut that I'd love to have seen incorporated into the current system.

Of course the railway preservation industry would have shaped up very differently if events had followed this path and maybe there would have been far fewer preserved railways as BR would have released far fewer routes? That could make an interesting thread too.

 

[Bevan Price]

Regrettably, steam would have to go eventually - but it would have been better (& less wasteful) to phase it out more gradually - say by the early 1980s - and mostly replaced by electric rather than diesel traction on many inter-urban lines.
But equally, some lines could never hope to survive, but too many were closed , and we are now suffering some of the consequences.

 

[Phil.]

Steam went too quickly - 9Fs with a four year life! - and diesel came in too quickly. Classes 15,17,22,23,28 all pretty damn useless and built for traffic that was disappearing. ECML should have been wired straight after the WCML.

 

[Harbornite]

Steam went too quickly - 9Fs with a four year life! - and diesel came in too quickly. Classes 15,17,22,23,28 all pretty damn useless and built for traffic that was disappearing. ECML should have been wired straight after the WCML.

Agree with all this, although that would mean no deltics and other users might object to that.

 

[yorksrob]

I'd happily ditch the kettles like a shot if it meant we could avoid the devastating reduction in the passenger network that has subsequently damaged the country. Perhaps if the genie had thrown in a chairman prepared to evaluate and work with operational economies on the lesser routes, thinks might not have looked so bad in 1990.

Infact, I'd settle for a network as at about 1966-67, which would might last until things started picking up.

Steam isn't a sentimental thing for me though. I wonder what I'd have to sacrifice from today to keep the lovely slam door diesels and electrics that I grew up with?

 

[sprinterguy]

From a purely sentimental perspective, had I been a young enthusiast at the time I probably would have wanted to cling on desperately to steam, and the off cuts of the network be damned.

Thinking more practically though, progress is inevitable and steam would have to have been withdrawn eventually, while if the pre-Beeching network had been retained then there would have been the opportunity for innovative measures such as pay-trains and diesel multiple units to be introduced more widely to keep secondary routes open, rather than introducing vast swathes of unreliable low-powered diesel locos to work wagonload traffic that was already dying on its' feet at the time of their introduction. The routes themselves can be kept going ad infinitum (or until a new technology comes along to supplant rail absolutely) if only they are kept open, while once they have been closed it becomes very difficult to open them again.

 

[yorksrob]

Yes indeed.

Even though the first generation of trains I had a sentimental attraction for has gone to the torch, I still seem to have found other rolling stock I'm fond of. I don't think I would have found it as easy to move on had the Marshlink closed for example, with the knowledge that I'd probably never be able to travel on it again.

As for what will happen when the cursed google car comes on stream....

 

[Calthrop]

Thanks, everyone, for the thoughts. Interesting – a definite majority so far, for “ditch the steam, keep the network”: with only one poster, sprinterguy, strongly taking the opposite tack – and qualifying that with the rider that he’d have taken the steam option if he’d been “young and foolish” at the time. I’ll admit that in my OP, I wasn’t really thinking about practical matters and B-being-likely-to-happen-as-a-consequence-of-A: only about how I, aged about thirteen, might have chosen between two aspects of the scene, both of which I greatly loved.

As said in my OP, it would for me have been an agonizing choice. I feel that probably I’d have hesitated and failed to make up my mind, to the point that things would have ended with the genie getting fed-up and going on his way.

Of course the railway preservation industry would have shaped up very differently if events had followed this path and maybe there would have been far fewer preserved railways as BR would have released far fewer routes? That could make an interesting thread too.

It could, could it not? --- which one of us is to start said thread ?

Regrettably, steam would have to go eventually - but it would have been better (& less wasteful) to phase it out more gradually - say by the early 1980s - and mostly replaced by electric rather than diesel traction on many inter-urban lines.
But equally, some lines could never hope to survive, but too many were closed , and we are now suffering some of the consequences.

Steam went too quickly - 9Fs with a four year life! - and diesel came in too quickly. Classes 15,17,22,23,28 all pretty damn useless and built for traffic that was disappearing. ECML should have been wired straight after the WCML.

Indeed: the way things were done in that era was crazy, and unbelievably short-sighted and, as said, wasteful. I'd go so far as to say "heartbreaking".

 

[Taunton]

I'd happily ditch the kettles like a shot if it meant we could avoid the devastating reduction in the passenger network that has subsequently damaged the country.

Taunton lost, in this decade, a whole string of local services, both branch and on the main line.

I can tell you that by the 1960s hardly anyone used them. The few destinations that might have been worthwhile on these lines had a 30-minute bus service from the centre of town, compared to a say 6 times daily train from out at the station. So they were nearly empty. There were a few busier ones, Minehead could be busy for a few weeks in August, although not the early morning or late evening services. Nowadays the main lines could do with semi-fast services that stop at a few places like Wellington or Somerton, but these would be mostly people headed for London or Bristol rather than the old local services, which had really outlived whatever usefulness they might have had.

 

[yorksrob]

Taunton lost, in this decade, a whole string of local services, both branch and on the main line.

I can tell you that by the 1960s hardly anyone used them. The few destinations that might have been worthwhile on these lines had a 30-minute bus service from the centre of town, compared to a say 6 times daily train from out at the station. So they were nearly empty. There were a few busier ones, Minehead could be busy for a few weeks in August, although not the early morning or late evening services. Nowadays the main lines could do with semi-fast services that stop at a few places like Wellington or Somerton, but these would be mostly people headed for London or Bristol rather than the old local services, which had really outlived whatever usefulness they might have had.

I think if in our hypothetical world they could have kept a basic service to Minehead, not to mention a shuttle from Tiverton Jnc to Tiverton (run with a bubblecar maybe ?), Bodmin - Padstow and maybe Kemble - Cirencester, Barnstaple - lfracombe/Bideford we would have had a much better network today. Not convinced the whole Dulverton Junction network would have worked, so maybe they had a point with that one.

On a purely sentimental note though there's no contest. Trains are only ever supposed to last for a limited window of time. Railways should last forever.

 

[Cowley]

On a purely sentimental note though there's no contest. Trains are only ever supposed to last for a limited window of time. Railways should last forever.

Nicely said.

 

[Harbornite]

I think if in our hypothetical world they could have kept a basic service to Minehead, not to mention a shuttle from Tiverton Jnc to Tiverton (run with a bubblecar maybe ?), Bodmin - Padstow and maybe Kemble - Cirencester, Barnstaple - lfracombe/Bideford we would have had a much better network today. Not convinced the whole Dulverton Junction network would have worked, so maybe they had a point with that one.

On a purely sentimental note though there's no contest. Trains are only ever supposed to last for a limited window of time. Railways should last forever.

Some interesting thoughts. I don't think Taunton to Barnstaple should necessarily have been kept, even in this alternative universe.

Also regarding Minehead, there would have been the possibility of the old GWR buildings along the line being knocked down. As mentioned earlier, this raises the whole debate of lines going over to heritage use.

 

[Calthrop]

I think if in our hypothetical world they could have kept a basic service to Minehead, not to mention a shuttle from Tiverton Jnc to Tiverton (run with a bubblecar maybe ?), Bodmin - Padstow and maybe Kemble - Cirencester, Barnstaple - lfracombe/Bideford we would have had a much better network today. Not convinced the whole Dulverton Junction network would have worked, so maybe they had a point with that one.

Lots of people wanting to patronise Mr. Stein's establishment(s) and dine finely on fish, and copiously imbibe alcohol without needing to worry about driving -- a winner might have been onto, there !

 

[yorksrob]

Also regarding Minehead, there would have been the possibility of the old GWR buildings along the line being knocked down. As mentioned earlier, this raises the whole debate of lines going over to heritage use.

Yes, that's the downside I suppose. Perhaps in this alternate universe some of Taunton - Barnstaple could have been preserved
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Lots of people wanting to patronise Mr. Stein's establishment(s) and dine finely on fish, and copiously imbibe alcohol without needing to worry about driving -- a winner might have been onto, there !

Would have been mightily useful for me and my parents over the last few years (even though we tend to just have a bag of chips from Mr Stein's establishment !)

 

[Cowley]

It could, could it not? --- which one of us is to start said thread ?

Well I've given it a go. I'm in a bit of a rush so I'll probably get back later and think I could have worded it a bit better.

 

[St Rollox]

Pity steam wasn't let go quicker and electrification stepped up.

 

[randyrippley]

the real stupidity was that the diesel fleet was ordered in sufficient quantity to run the network pre-Beeching, and then the network was chopped - leaving an excess of new rolling stock. A lot of it was garbage (e.g. most of the type 1 classes, classes 21/22/23/27/29/30/41/42/43) or the wrong product (class 20 was pointless, class 40 and 44 gutless) or misbuilt (i.e. asbestos in the type 2's). With the DMUs, a lot were built with diesel engines that shook themselves apart and autodestructed. And we bought a lot us irrelevant DMUs as well: high density non-corridor stock which ended up on rural lines....Or sets that were underpowered
So what happened? Barring the urgent requirement to build the class 56 fleet, we ended up with an excess of unwanted locomotives and DMUs which blocked for nearly fifteen years the provision of new-build replacements. Yes, BR designated those classes as "non-standard", but it took a long time to get rid of the rubbish and start ordering again. During that hiatus the railways were stuck with having to use expensive unreliable unsuitable crap with no spares, while our rolling stock builders withered and died through lack of orders.
If the full network had remained, all the crud rolling stock purchased as part of the modernisation plan would have naturally life expired much earlier, while purchases of new standardised stock would have continued, keeping the production lines in business.
Of course underlying this is the stupid BR purchasing policies of the time: ordering replacement stock on a line-by-line basis as/when each steam shed was individually closed, resulting in small expensive orders of non-standard types. No-one seems to have ever sat down and calculated just how many locomotives and coaches were required nationally and then decreed overall purchase numbers and types centrally. Allowing the WR to buy its hydraulics, the ER the Deltics and Babies, the MR and WR buying the tiny Diesel Pullman fleets was just plain stupidity

 

[Calthrop]

If some satirist were to write a work, on the basic theme of "how to mismanage things" -- accurately recounting the doings of British Railways as from not long after that body's foundation, but disguised as supposedly taking place in a fictional country -- such a work would be ridiculed as grossly over-the-top and exaggerated, even for satire.

 

[Bevan Price]

the real stupidity was that the diesel fleet was ordered in sufficient quantity to run the network pre-Beeching, and then the network was chopped - leaving an excess of new rolling stock. A lot of it was garbage (e.g. most of the type 1 classes, classes 21/22/23/27/29/30/41/42/43) or the wrong product (class 20 was pointless, class 40 and 44 gutless) or misbuilt (i.e. asbestos in the type 2's). With the DMUs, a lot were built with diesel engines that shook themselves apart and autodestructed. And we bought a lot us irrelevant DMUs as well: high density non-corridor stock which ended up on rural lines....Or sets that were underpowered

Hindsight is easy, but in the 1950s, the danger of asbestos was not widely appreciated, and if I remember correctly, only one of the varieties was considered undesirable. Some types of asbestos were then commonly used in chemistry labs., even in schools.

As for the diesel locos - far too many different classes were bought, partly because the government wanted all the loco builders "to have a chance" to participate in steam replacement. As you write, many of them were not very good. I think that some Class 20s would have been needed, (maybe 50 to 100) but none of classes 14 to 17, or 21 to 29.

A single Type 3 design would have sufficed, probably Class 33 - (as the 37 design came after most of the other types were ordered.).

The Class 40 was definitely underpowered to replace Pacifics on WCML and ECML, but would have been adequate for less arduous passenger duties, and for much freight work. However, it would have been better to wait for something more powerful.

Class 44 was essentially a prototype for the higher-powered Class 45, and can probably be justified on that basis - but I don't think we needed Class 46 as well as Class 45. In the absence of anything better at that time, it would have been better to use Class 45 rather than Class 40 to replace steam on WCML & ECML, at least until electrification was complete.

Class 42 was basically a German design, resized to fit the UK loading gauge, and were fairly good - unlike the NBL equivalent of Class 43. They might have lasted much longer if BR had not been left with a surplus of other diesels after the Marples-Beeching closures.

Class 47 was essentially a further update of Class 45, although I don't think we also needed Class 50s.

But the real omission was BR being unable / not allowed to proceed with a rolling programme of electrication, in which all but the most rural secondary / branch lines could have been electrified by the 1990s.....

 

[yorksrob]

(class 20 was pointless)

Strange example of a pointless loco class, given that we're still using them on the national network, sixty years later.

In terms of large numbers of train types, they did develop standard Mk1, 2 and 3 type carriages, with various unit types being based on these.

 

[Harbornite]

You didn't really need any of the hydraulic classes. If BR had been properly managed, they would have ordered one diesel class for shunting (08), one for trip works and light freights and passenger work (20 OR 31), then a type 3 (37) and a type 4 for heavier freight and passenger work (47).

Therefore, you didn't really need any peaks, hydraulics, 21-29s or 40s. It's a bit complicated because the Westerns, 33s and 25s were decent locomotives.

 

[yorksrob]

You didn't really need any of the hydraulic classes. If BR had been properly managed, they would have ordered one diesel class for shunting (08), one for trip works and light freights and passenger work (20 OR 31), then a type 3 (37) and a type 4 for heavier freight and passenger work (47).

Therefore, you didn't really need any peaks, hydraulics, 21-29s or 40s. It's a bit complicated because the Westerns, 33s and 25s were decent locomotives.

I'm not sure how much of a problem some of the different classes actually were. To take the 33's for example, there were plenty of them on the Southern Region and they did the job they were supposed to do there. They didn't really stray from the region very much in those days, and they would have been looked after in Southern depots by staff who knew them. I'm not convinced there would have been that much of an advantage in having a common diesel locomotive with another region instead.

 

[Bevan Price]

You didn't really need any of the hydraulic classes. If BR had been properly managed, they would have ordered one diesel class for shunting (08), one for trip works and light freights and passenger work (20 OR 31), then a type 3 (37) and a type 4 for heavier freight and passenger work (47).

Therefore, you didn't really need any peaks, hydraulics, 21-29s or 40s. It's a bit complicated because the Westerns, 33s and 25s were decent locomotives.

Yes - again with hindsight. But when they started placing orders in the mid 1950s there were no Class 37 or 47 designs. These only emerged in the early 1960s.

The reason for trying the diesel hydraulic Clss 42 was that could get over 2000 hp in a loco about 50 tons lighter than a Class 40 or 45.

 

[Cowley]

Technology was moving on quickly with regards increasing horsepower being available in power units. When LMS 10000 came out in 1947 it had about 1600 bhp, by the time 50s came out 20 years later the pretty much same sized power unit was putting out 2700. It must have felt at times that by the time a class was introduced it was already out of date.
I agree with the posters that said we should have gone for electrification though. Much as I love my diesels it would have been the best option. They could have made do with the steam that way for a bit longer and just bought the diesels that were needed for the lines that weren't electrified in the late 60s early 70s.
The cost of the diesel madness of the early 60s could have been far better spent on electrification.
Anyway. What was that about hindsight?

 

[Harbornite]

Yes - again with hindsight. But when they started placing orders in the mid 1950s there were no Class 37 or 47 designs. These only emerged in the early 1960s.

The reason for trying the diesel hydraulic Clss 42 was that could get over 2000 hp in a loco about 50 tons lighter than a Class 40 or 45.

That is true, the 37s first emerged in 1964, as did the 47s. Steam should not have been ditched so hastily in order to allow for a more gradual introduction of diesels to avoid the instances of diesels and steam locos sharing the same depots and perhaps less diesels from the pilot classes should have been ordered so thy coukd have ordered more of the better classes in the mid 1960s.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I'm not sure how much of a problem some of the different classes actually were. To take the 33's for example, there were plenty of them on the Southern Region and they did the job they were supposed to do there. They didn't really stray from the region very much in those days, and they would have been looked after in Southern depots by staff who knew them. I'm not convinced there would have been that much of an advantage in having a common diesel locomotive with another region instead.

Economies of scale and all that. It would be better for maintenance to standardise loco classes as there would be more spare parts of the same types available.

 

[Taunton]

Contrary to much belief, the hydraulics worked pretty well and I can hardly recall much of a delay with one. The few things that gave regular trouble were the same as on DE types, such as the train heating boilers. Due to the twin engine layout of Warships and Westerns there were a range of issues that you got out of which would be a complete failure with a DE. The Hymeks were especially reliable, one of the key general problems was a BRB-imposed spending cap on spare parts from German manufacturers of engines and transmissions, which could lead to locos being out of service for long periods just because the finance to buy the spares was not made available and they were out of stock.

The unreliability of early diesels seems more to have been due to poor, in some cases quite incompetent, manufacture, something which North British certainly headed the list (they went bankrupt in 1962 right after the last loco was delivered, which didn't help). In fact it was said that the NB Warships were the most reliable of all the types they produced, mainly because it was someone else's design. Even the 25Kv electric locos they built that looked the same as all the others were without a doubt the poorest of the lot. Both the North British DE D6100 and the equivalent hydraulic D6300 were equally troublesome. However, someone in the back office at 222 Marylebone Road decided that as hydraulics were non-standard, they had to go.

Going back to original manufacture, the products of BRCW were noted for being well put together, and they lasted well and reliably. The Class 27s in Scotland, Class 33s on the Southern, and the large batches of DMUs, all ran well and for a good length of time. Certainly in Scotland in the 1970s a 27 was preferred over a 25, and when the word came from London that the 27 fleet should be reduced and secondhand 25s sent up, there was a general cry of "why?"