Bring Back Steam Trains

[furryfeet]

i am sure that there ARE some locos in switzerland that use clean steam
a) a kriegslog ( gas ) - 52 8055
b) some engines on the brienzer rothorn bahn ( light oil )
-- think that they use gas burners
now whether the gas in future will come as gas, or be converted from coal is another question.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_steam_technology

 

[me123]

Hope you didn't really mean that!

I think there's a lot of confusion : electrification still needs the fuel to turn the generators. Most UK electricity comes from fossil fuels. So its no "greener". The real benefit is that electrification allows the heavy fuel and generators to be placed on the ground instead of being added to the trains' weight.

I do mean that. By getting the wires up, we can use more electric trains which, if they run on renewable energy, are much greener than diesel trains. That's why I said to use both renewable and put the wires up.

Of course, Central Trains were the greenest TOC of all...

 

[Phoenix]

The "modern diesel" external appearance has already been tried on the Southern, in the form of Bulleid's 'Leader' class...needless to say they were none too popular, not very reliable and the heat inside was just insane.

I love it how they actually thought that the firem,an could actually stay in there without any windows or anything.

 

[Spaceflower]

Surely steam trains have had their day. They use outdated technological principles which have been supersceded by much more efficient and economically viable forms of power (the diesel engine and electric engine), indeed they had to, otherwise the railways wouldn't have survived at all against the advances of the private car. Surely the way forward is new technologies (such as maglev) or improving current ones, not ressurecting ancient ones?

 

[EE Type 3]

Whats alarming is how locos that were meant to last for a fair while, like the 9Fs for example, were ushered away with all the others, most of them not evening getting a proper running and still brand new!

On the same tune, but a slightly different note, is how classes like the 50, were expected to remain in traffic until 2009, and classes like the 56 and 58 would live on till 2010, possibly longer. Yet the class 37, now still lumbering on at the age of 50, would have only made it to the late 90s, maybe early 00s. So who still wants BR back?

 

[Spaceflower]

Whats alarming is how locos that were meant to last for a fair while, like the 9Fs for example, were ushered away with all the others, most of them not evening getting a proper running and still brand new!

What do you find alarming about that?

 

[EE Type 3]

What do you find alarming about that?

Brand new, powerful, simple to maintain and run, heavy freight steam locomotives being put to rest from near new, when they would have lasted right through the blue period, and possibly into sectorisation. Wouldn't that alarm you?

 

[87015]

IMO what should have happened was a much less rushed modernisation plan with thought out pilot builds, an intensive rolling electrification programme and passenger fleets of ETH class 33/47 in diesel areas to avoid the need for dual heat and dual braked stock. The only drawback would be even more 86s!!

 

[EE Type 3]

IMO what should have happened was a much less rushed modernisation plan with thought out pilot builds, an intensive rolling electrification programme and passenger fleets of ETH class 33/47 in diesel areas to avoid the need for dual heat and dual braked stock. The only drawback would be even more 86s!!

That sounds like a really good plan, but the 90 order should have been extended in all reality. One major failure IMO is the class 92. Such a powerful, expensive and technical class of loco to be so underused just baffles me.

 

[Spaceflower]

simple to maintain and run,

First of all, no, it doesn't alarm me. Now I'm not old enough to remember steam or even much of the 'blue era' as you put it and therefore I am probably not in a position to give an informed answer on this, but will give you my view anyway.

A steam train is a specialist piece of machinery, whether it is an efficient one or not and therefore requires specialist skills and infrastructure to operate and maintain it. At that time BR was going through major change and restructuring in a bid to stay competitive against growing road competition. This involved a network wide transition to diesel/electric. Economically it would not have made sense to maintain facilities and specialist crews for a relatively few number of steam locomotives and may have also been a disadvantage to development of the routes/regions they served.

 

[EE Type 3]

First of all, no, it doesn't alarm me. Now I'm not old enough to remember steam or even much of the 'blue era' as you put it and therefore I am probably not in a position to give an informed answer on this, but will give you my view anyway.

A steam train is a specialist piece of machinery, whether it is an efficient one or not and therefore requires specialist skills and infrastructure to operate and maintain it. At that time BR was going through major change and restructuring in a bid to stay competitive against growing road competition. This involved a network wide transition to diesel/electric. Economically it would not have made sense to maintain facilities and specialist crews for a relatively few number of steam locomotives and may have also been a disadvantage to development of the routes/regions they served.

But they weren't specialist, they were well laid out and had no bodywork, to make access easier. Yes, they were changing to diesel and electric, but the original plan was to retain the 9Fs, simply because of their pulling capabilities. They were the 59s or BR you could say. Drivers got on well with them as they were easy to drive, and fitters did because they didn't have to dismantle the whole thing just to get to one component. They would have easily fit in to BR's fleet. There weren't any heavy freight locos about at the time, just alot of mixed traffic locos.

 

[Spaceflower]

The fact that it is a steam locomotive would mean 'steam facilities and crews' would be needed to operate it.
Unfortunately history has already undone this argument and, as I undestand it, the same fate befell the Woodhead route, which was operated at a different voltage to the rest of the network?

 

[Lancashire 9F]

But they weren't specialist, they were well laid out and had no bodywork, to make access easier. Yes, they were changing to diesel and electric, but the original plan was to retain the 9Fs, simply because of their pulling capabilities. They were the 59s or BR you could say. Drivers got on well with them as they were easy to drive, and fitters did because they didn't have to dismantle the whole thing just to get to one component. They would have easily fit in to BR's fleet. There weren't any heavy freight locos about at the time, just alot of mixed traffic locos.

Technicly the 9F was a mixed traffic loco in peak times in the Western and North Easten regions they pulled passinger trains at speed of up too 90 mph

 

[furryfeet]

two points:-

a) the "alarmist" comments are because assets that were less than 5 years old were sent to the scrapyard. As other posts suggest, it would have been better overall to keep those engines running under they were 20 years old, whilst electrifying more routes.
b) British Rail did not stay competitive - bowing to the DoT's instructions, they closed down routes which would have been useful today / failed to upgrade the existing infrastructure to give higher speeds and leading gauge / failed to invest in modern wagons to carry freight

Because of this lack of foresight, we are now as farepayers and taxpayers paying the price ! Roll on 2012 when the world sees our 3rd world transport system for what it is !
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
woodhead could have been converted to AC - indeed the surviving stub to Glossop and Hadfield is AC

 

[Spaceflower]

it would have been better overall to keep those engines running under they were 20 years old,

Even if it made more sense economically to scrap them?

 

[Metroland]

But did it? The Railways in the UK were break even or profitable until 1955, with all their ancient steam locos, semaphore signalling, shunters, porters, paperwork. They had no public subsidy until 1969 - although cheap government loans in the 1930s and 1950s. Today, they require 4 times more subsidy than even BR, who were supposed to be 'inefficient'. Looking critically, the modernisation plan put an enormous strain on resources, when many very expensive diesel locos came in (costing 4-5 times more than new steam locos). These new locos frequently broke down and many were scrapped a few years after coming into service. Today, we can see some incredible wastes of money with traction that is too heavy or over specified as well as spending vast sums of money on basic facilities such as country halts. So when people talk about the new, efficient railway, that is supposed to be carrying as many passengers as in 1947 on 40% less network, I give a wry smile.

 

[EE Type 3]

Technicly the 9F was a mixed traffic loco in peak times in the Western and North Easten regions they pulled passinger trains at speed of up too 90 mph

Technically anything can be a mixed traffic loco, 56s and 58s are freight locos, but they've had there fair share of passenger trains.

 

[GNERman]

This is a great idea-Steam looks better than some nowadays diesel loco's (not mentioning any cough cough class 67 skip cough cough) but the major problem is environmentalists.
Look at the demonstrations outside power stations!

 

[paul1609]

I do mean that. By getting the wires up, we can use more electric trains which, if they run on renewable energy, are much greener than diesel trains. That's why I said to use both renewable and put the wires up.

Of course, Central Trains were the greenest TOC of all...

i like it! On the ECML we will have the situation where if theres no wind the trains wont run and if theres too much wind all the wires will fall down so no trains will run.

My personal opinion is that Renewable energy only has a very small part to play in our future and that many of the schemes even those in operation now will prove to be white elephants. I'm of the opinion that many of the current wind turbines will not be replaced when the machinery wears out unless there is a huge government subsidy.