Did BR Miss a Trick With Steam Locos

[Magdalia]

Bear in mind, too, that the Wilson government of 1964-70 - the one elected on the promise of stopping many of the Beeching Report closures that were planned, but instead accelerated the process - was wedded to having the UK at the forefront of "The White Heat of Technology", and steam was regarded as going against that, despite the BR Standards having been built with a view to running until the 1990s and replacement by electrics. OK, the 1955 Modernisation Plan had put a big hit on the older steam traction, but there was supposedly scope for both steam and diesel traction until electrification could replace both. Then, of course, you subsequently had what was effectively a p***ing contest between certain Regions as to who could eliminate steam quickest, but, certainly in the case of the Western, the Big Freeze of 1963 showed that up to be a bit premature...

The Wilson government was elected in October 1964 which was too late to have a significant influence on BR traction policy.

The National Traction Plan had been in development since 1963 and was finalised in February 1965, with the aim of eliminating steam by the end of 1967. At that point the Labour government had barely got its feet under the table. Subsequent changes were minor, mainly reflecting the timing of the two big electrification projects on the WCML and the Bournemouth line.

The Wilson government did have more influence on line closure policy, but that didn't knock through into the elimination of steam. Instead line closures decided after 1964 hit various non-standard traction from the Modernisation Plan, such as the A1A Warships, the MAN powered NBL diesel electrics, the Metrovick CoBos and the yellow diamond coupling DMUs.

 

[Carbean]

I find it strange that even in the last month of BR steam there were still about 5 (I think) different classes of steam engine at work. If just one class (LMS Class 5) of say 20 locos were kept at a couple of depots then I think this idea could have worked.

 

[randyrippley]

I find it strange that even in the last month of BR steam there were still about 5 (I think) different classes of steam engine at work. If just one class (LMS Class 5) of say 20 locos were kept at a couple of depots then I think this idea could have worked.

Those still at work were just the random ones that hadn't broken down, been condemned, or needed major surgery.
In other words machines that didn't need money spending.
To keep just one class running would have required expense - and there was no money for that

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

BR intended a slower transition from steam to diesel/electric, but were overtaken by their economic collapse around 1961-62 and the following Beeching closures.
By then they had too many suburban DMU/EMU fleets and redirected them to theremaining regional services - which continued to retrench.
By 1967 there was no need for the steam fleet, and in any case recruitment for manning/servicing the steam fleet collapsed.
BR's only plan was to recover from the steep decline of the early 60s (revenue versus costs).
Barbara Castle's social railway in the 1968 act stopped the headlong decline, inventing Regional Railways (OPS) and regular subsidies.
You can see echoes of that situation in today's railway crisis.

 

[Clarence Yard]

The economic collapse came earlier than that, hence Stedeford. The changes in the civil service at the ministry in about 1959 brought in people who were less well disposed to BR. They guided ministers accordingly.

Some BR regions had been in serious trouble for years. Modernisation was supposed to help with this but when the results didn’t help the rapidly deteriorating situation to the promised extent, more drastic action was required to balance the books. Again, Gourvish is your friend for all the details.

It was actually the rapid drop in freight activity that helped get rid of steam earlier. In the Modernisation plan, the 18400 odd steam engines in existence on BR at the end of 1954 would have whittled down to around 7000 by 1970, the end of that 15 year plan. At that rate, final withdrawal of BR steam would have occurred sometime between 1978-80.

Even before Beeching came on the scene, they were planning (for cost reasons) to bring that date forward - 1972 was the date for a few years but some of the regions were planning earlier - at one stage the WR was aiming for 1968 but they largely achieved it at the end of 1965, only the S&D depots surviving until March 1966, beating the old ER by a month, Doncaster losing it last locos in April 1966.

 

[341o2]

Those still at work were just the random ones that hadn't broken down, been condemned, or needed major surgery.
In other words machines that didn't need money spending.
To keep just one class running would have required expense - and there was no money for that

I recall an incident in the final few days of steam, maybe the last one, where a locomotive derailed within the confines of a shed, and was immediately withdrawn.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

I recall an incident in the final few days of steam, maybe the last one, where a locomotive derailed within the confines of a shed, and was immediately withdrawn.

Not surprising - a few years later vacuum braked wagons had a repair cash limit of £50 - so they were condemned .....

 

[Titfield]

The economic collapse came earlier than that, hence Stedeford. The changes in the civil service at the ministry in about 1959 brought in people who were less well disposed to BR. They guided ministers accordingly.

Some BR regions had been in serious trouble for years. Modernisation was supposed to help with this but when the results didn’t help the rapidly deteriorating situation to the promised extent, more drastic action was required to balance the books. Again, Gourvish is your friend for all the details.

It was actually the rapid drop in freight activity that helped get rid of steam earlier. In the Modernisation plan, the 18400 odd steam engines in existence on BR at the end of 1954 would have whittled down to around 7000 by 1970, the end of that 15 year plan. At that rate, final withdrawal of BR steam would have occurred sometime between 1978-80.

Even before Beeching came on the scene, they were planning (for cost reasons) to bring that date forward - 1972 was the date for a few years but some of the regions were planning earlier - at one stage the WR was aiming for 1968 but they largely achieved it at the end of 1965, only the S&D depots surviving until March 1966, beating the old ER by a month, Doncaster losing it last locos in April 1966.

I suspect that The Treasury had a list of how British Railways had wasted the tax payers money big time 1948 - 1959 and quite simply were not going to be "done" again:

1) The purchase price of the Big 4 to create British Railways - too high a price whether based on asset value or net earnings.
2) The purchase by British Railways in 1948 of thousands of decrepit unrailworthy wagons (the grease lubricated ones) which were scrapped very shortly after purchase.
3) The additional costs of designing and tooling up to build the 999 standard steam locomotives when simply building more of existing designs would have sufficed. (Bonavia is particularly withering in his view of this).
4) The financial fiasco of many elements of the modernisation plan which was way too optimistic in terms of retaining custom or attracting back lost custom however you look at it
5) The inability of British Railways to reduce costs or improve productivity.

Whilst many may say it is easy to be critical in hindsight one thing that the passage of time has done, is that it has blurred the true cost ie in current costs terms of just how much money British Railways was losing.

 

[Clarence Yard]

The good old monetary limits. Applied to just about everything and wagons used to go up and down, according to traffic estimates. 16T Mins and Minfits were the worst, one moment you were sending them for rebody, the next minute the limit was on the floor and you were ringing up to ask which scrapyard you should send them to!

In the case of steam there were some strict monetary limits imposed in 1964, which effectively ended General Repair overhauls. These limits were progressively reduced from later that year and from then on it was the survival of the fittest - the most numeric classes generally did best until they were not needed.

Getting rid of steam early also meant several of the main works could be closed. In the 1950’s/early 1960’s a steam loco would require a classified overhaul roughly at intervals between 18 months (some express classes) and 4 years (shunters) so there were substantial savings to had there.

 

[Andy873]

I hear all the reasons why BR didn't save and run some steam locomotives, image, cost, practicality etc.

The other side of that is that steam engines were very popular with a good percentage of the general public. We have to remember that by 1968 most of the country was diesel or electric, steam being a fond but fading memory for many.

One thing Stuart Taylor mentions in one of his books repeatedly is that on his travels by steam train, where ever he went children would scramble to watch as his train went by, they were always waving and smiling. A new generation ready to pester their parents for a steam train ride if they had been available.

As steam retreated to Lancashire many people came from all over the country to see steam engine sheds like Rose Grove, so many in fact that the staff there were totally outnumbered at weekends.

Now, if you're going to travel from say London, Glasgow, etc to Rose Grove (Burnley) to see steam locomotives then there already was a market for some steam locomotives to not only be saved but also to run excursions. The 15 guinea special was a prime example, 15 guineas per person for a steam special day trip, a heck of a lot of money for the average person, and yet they paid it.

I'm sure some will say, yes they did pay that but it was to be the very last steam train. For me as said, it just showed there was a profitable market already there.

With a little imagination, BR could have selected a suitable location, gathered up say 20 Black 5's, 8F's and a few others, got them up to scratch and operated them pulling specials. These could have run not only on bank holidays etc, but most weekends, holiday periods. It also would have given BR some much needed positive publicity.

I can't believe that in say 1970, running a steam special through some part of the county that hadn't seen steam for 5 years wouldn't have been popular and profitable especially with new young children that had never seen a steam locomotive.

 

[Magdalia]

3) The additional costs of designing and tooling up to build the 999 standard steam locomotives when simply building more of existing designs would have sufficed. (Bonavia is particularly withering in his view of this).

That's easy to say with the benefit of hindsight. In 1948 the new BR would not have foreseen steam being eliminated in 20 years. And 251 of the 999 were 9Fs, which were a significant advance on existing designs.

4) The financial fiasco of many elements of the modernisation plan which was way too optimistic in terms of retaining custom or attracting back lost custom however you look at it

The Modernisation Plan had its feet knocked out from under it before it had really started, through the impact of the 1955 ASLEF strike. Lots of traffic, mainly freight, was lost to the railways and never came back.

5) The inability of British Railways to reduce costs or improve productivity.

The economic collapse came earlier than that, hence Stedeford. The changes in the civil service at the ministry in about 1959 brought in people who were less well disposed to BR. They guided ministers accordingly.

The Guiillebaud inquiry into railway pay was an outcome of the 1955 strike, and it did not report until March 1960. The recently re-elected MacMillan government implemented the report recommendations at significant cost to the railway. Stedeford was basically about revising the Modernisation Plan to fit within the new cost envelope.

 

[simonw]

I hear all the reasons why BR didn't save and run some steam locomotives, image, cost, practicality etc.

The other side of that is that steam engines were very popular with a good percentage of the general public. We have to remember that by 1968 most of the country was diesel or electric, steam being a fond but fading memory for many.

One thing Stuart Taylor mentions in one of his books repeatedly is that on his travels by steam train, where ever he went children would scramble to watch as his train went by, they were always waving and smiling. A new generation ready to pester their parents for a steam train ride if they had been available.

As steam retreated to Lancashire many people came from all over the country to see steam engine sheds like Rose Grove, so many in fact that the staff there were totally outnumbered at weekends.

Now, if you're going to travel from say London, Glasgow, etc to Rose Grove (Burnley) to see steam locomotives then there already was a market for some steam locomotives to not only be saved but also to run excursions. The 15 guinea special was a prime example, 15 guineas per person for a steam special day trip, a heck of a lot of money for the average person, and yet they paid it.

I'm sure some will say, yes they did pay that but it was to be the very last steam train. For me as said, it just showed there was a profitable market already there.

With a little imagination, BR could have selected a suitable location, gathered up say 20 Black 5's, 8F's and a few others, got them up to scratch and operated them pulling specials. These could have run not only on bank holidays etc, but most weekends, holiday periods. It also would have given BR some much needed positive publicity.

I can't believe that in say 1970, running a steam special through some part of the county that hadn't seen steam for 5 years wouldn't have been popular and profitable especially with new young children that had never seen a steam locomotive.

Perhaps you would care to share with us your detailed workings of this 'profitable market ' ?

Remember the answer to the question: how do you make a small fortune? Is : make a large one and then buy a steam engine.

 

[Titfield]

That's easy to say with the benefit of hindsight. In 1948 the new BR would not have foreseen steam being eliminated in 20 years. And 251 of the 999 were 9Fs, which were a significant advance on existing designs.


The Modernisation Plan had its feet knocked out from under it before it had really started, through the impact of the 1955 ASLEF strike. Lots of traffic, mainly freight, was lost to the railways and never came back.






The Guiillebaud inquiry into railway pay was an outcome of the 1955 strike, and it did not report until March 1960. The recently re-elected MacMillan government implemented the report recommendations at significant cost to the railway. Stedeford was basically about revising the Modernisation Plan to fit within the new cost envelope.

1. I dont think that is solely with hindsight. American railroads and German railways (The Flying Hamburger) had commenced introducing diesels in the 1930s onwards and the writing was clearly on the wall. It is also worth noting that the demands of the second world war - the production of so much powered equipment (combat or otherwise) had lead to significant technological developments (the jet engine for example) which was bound to filter down into civilian applications post war. British Railways were extremely conservative (with a small c) and ultimately paid the price twice over.
2. Freight traffic had been switching to road since the the 1930s so much so that the Big Four had launched their square deal campaign and had tried to emasculate the road haulage industry. The ASLEF strike acted as the impetus for those who hadnt considered road haulage to now do so by necessity. The fact that so much traffic never came back demonstrates the superiority of road haulage for many traffic types. (If rail had been superior traffic would have come back to rail as soon as the strike was over).
3. The railways business model had relied heavily on cheap labour. Again it was evident in the general rise of living standards from the turn of the century onwards that this was unsustainable in the long term. British Railways themselves had commented on labour shortages in the early post war period and it was self evident that labour would then migrate to those paying higher wage levels and better working conditions in general. Higher pay itself was not necessarily fatal to the business model - productivity improvements could have offset its impact to a very large extent.

 

[Andy873]

Perhaps you would care to share with us your detailed workings of this 'profitable market ' ?

Supply and demand springs to mind.

Remember the answer to the question: how do you make a small fortune? Is : make a large one and then buy a steam engine.

BR already had the engines, so no need to buy any.

It was very common for good parts of a withdrawn engine to be cherry picked and used on others still in service. You could imagine with so many engines being scrapped there would have been plenty of spares available to maintain a small fleet.

For example 8F 48218, one of its three boilers was taken from another 8F. Its original tender was replaced with another one in 1964, which was in turn taken away from 48218 when it was withdrawn in 1967 and re-used.

What has to be remembered is that a steam loco when built was expected to last around 40 years at least, which means for example 48218 (should things have been different) would probably have still been in service in 1982.

Going back to demand, in 1978 my grandparents saw an ad in the local paper for a steam day trip up the Cumbrian coast. The ad only ran once I believe, the next day my grandparents went down to buy three tickets only to be told they were lucky as there were only a few tickets left. Yes, that's 10 years after steam was stopped by BR but I do remember many people commenting on how they would have liked to have had a steam train ride again in the years up to this day trip.

Demand was clearly there, the real question should have been how to make it profitable.

 

[Gloster]

Sorry, I don’t believe that the demand was there in sufficient quantities to make it profitable. In August 1968 it was a case of, “See it now as it’ll be gone”. Ten yearslater there may have some nostalgia, but would there be enough to keep even one shed operating day in and day out? And would you get enough staff to do the ghastly jobs at the low wages that were all that could be afforded. You could use withdrawn locos for spares, although a yard full of locos being cannibalised is not an attractive sight, but there would still be plenty of spares that still needed to be bought in...and for which the per-unit cost increased as the number of orders fell.

But most of all, BR needed to give a modern, dynamic, forward-looking image if it was going to survive. Steam locos were old and dirty and looked archaic compared to your latest Dagenham Dustbin, but at least an AC electric looked sleek and was as fast.

 

[simonw]

Supply and demand springs to mind.


BR already had the engines, so no need to buy any.

It was very common for good parts of a withdrawn engine to be cherry picked and used on others still in service. You could imagine with so many engines being scrapped there would have been plenty of spares available to maintain a small fleet.

For example 8F 48218, one of its three boilers was taken from another 8F. Its original tender was replaced with another one in 1964, which was in turn taken away from 48218 when it was withdrawn in 1967 and re-used.

What has to be remembered is that a steam loco when built was expected to last around 40 years at least, which means for example 48218 (should things have been different) would probably have still been in service in 1982.

Going back to demand, in 1978 my grandparents saw an ad in the local paper for a steam day trip up the Cumbrian coast. The ad only ran once I believe, the next day my grandparents went down to buy three tickets only to be told they were lucky as there were only a few tickets left. Yes, that's 10 years after steam was stopped by BR but I do remember many people commenting on how they would have liked to have had a steam train ride again in the years up to this day trip.

Demand was clearly there, the real question should have been how to make it profitable.

Supply and demand is not an answer to the question wherever your detailed profit and loss.

The cost of buying the loco is insignificant against the operating costs. Why do you think preserved railways and loco owners are forever running fund raising campaigns? The answer is because few people make money out of operating steam locomotives, the vast majority lose money. In fact those that do make money are most likely cross subsidising from other activities.

I'm afraid your grasp of basic economics leaves a lot to be desired.

 

[Magdalia]

The 15 guinea special was a prime example, 15 guineas per person for a steam special day trip, a heck of a lot of money for the average person, and yet they paid it.

People only paid 15 guineas because it was the last steam train on BR.

On 9 June 1968 BR ran a special train from St Pancras to Manchester that was steam hauled from/to Derby, and the fare was £4.

Going back to demand, in 1978 my grandparents saw an ad in the local paper for a steam day trip up the Cumbrian coast. The ad only ran once I believe, the next day my grandparents went down to buy three tickets only to be told they were lucky as there were only a few tickets left. Yes, that's 10 years after steam was stopped by BR

The 10 years are critical. Distance lends enchantment.

Sorry, I don’t believe that the demand was there in sufficient quantities to make it profitable.

I agree. One factor rarely considered is demography. There was a spike in births after World War 2, with a huge number of births in 1946. Those children were 12 years old when the diesels first appeared in numbers, but 22 years old when steam ended, and ready (their parents probably said overdue) moving onto other things.

The period through the late 1960s and early 1970s was a low point for railway enthusiasm, with few people of the right age. That changed with the boomers reaching their teenage years in the mid to late 1970s. Contrast the end of the Warships in 1972 with the end of the Westerns in 1976/77.

 

[Titfield]

Supply and demand is not an answer to the question wherever your detailed profit and loss.

The cost of buying the loco is insignificant against the operating costs. Why do you think preserved railways and loco owners are forever running fund raising campaigns? The answer is because few people make money out of operating steam locomotives, the vast majority lose money. In fact those that do make money are most likely cross subsidising from other activities.

Exactly. With one very notable exception heritage railways survive on donations, legacies and grants plus a huge amount of free (volunteer) labour. The fare box revenues barely cover the direct operating costs let alone make any contribution towards the overhead costs and depreciation (repairs and renewals).

 

[Strathclyder]

The period through the late 1960s and early 1970s was a low point for railway enthusiasm, with few people of the right age. That changed with the boomers reaching their teenage years in the mid to late 1970s. Contrast the end of the Warships in 1972 with the end of the Westerns in 1976/77.

And later still, the end of the Deltics in 1981/82 and the end of the 40s in 1984/85.

 

[Andy873]

I'm afraid your grasp of basic economics leaves a lot to be desired.

Not from my business experience that's for sure, enough now please.

Sorry, I don’t believe that the demand was there in sufficient quantities to make it profitable.

Fair enough, I do like to post these "what if" questions. Love the different angles that people come up with, the truth is we will never know.

 

[eldomtom2]

One question this thread has brought up is that assuming BR wanted to withdraw all steam as soon as possible, what changed in 1968 that made it possible?

 

[D6130]

One question this thread has brought up is that assuming BR wanted to withdraw all steam as soon as possible, what changed in 1968 that made it possible?

Perhaps it was the delivery of the final batches of class 25s (1966-67), 47s (1967-68) and the entire class 50 fleet (1967-68)?

 

[randyrippley]

............... Contrast the end of the Warships in 1972 with the end of the Westerns in 1976/77.

That's an unfair comparison.........
People were glad to see the back of the Warships........to borrow a phrase from another type of loco they were "wonder machines" i.e. "I wonder if we'll get there today......."
On Waterloo-Exeter passengers were pleased if the booked 42 was replaced by a 35 or 33: you knew that you might get to the destination late, but at least you'd get there.
The Westerns had no such reputation - they were just as reliable as their Sulzer replacements (if not more reliable)

 

[Ianigsy]

Perhaps it was the delivery of the final batches of class 25s (1966-67), 47s (1967-68) and the entire class 50 fleet (1967-68)?

Also the progress on West Coast electrification would have freed up a fair number of Class 40s, which were already known to crews in the North West and could replace the last Black Fives and 8Fs on a one for one basis.

 

[Magdalia]

Perhaps it was the delivery of the final batches of class 25s (1966-67), 47s (1967-68)

Also the progress on West Coast electrification would have freed up a fair number of Class 40s

Both of these were part of the 1965 National Traction Plan.

People were glad to see the back of the Warships........to borrow a phrase from another type of loco they were "wonder machines" i.e. "I wonder if we'll get there today......."
On Waterloo-Exeter passengers were pleased if the booked 42 was replaced by a 35 or 33: you knew that you might get to the destination late, but at least you'd get there.

But the passing of the much more highly regarded Hymeks was almost as completely unmarked as the Warships, with just one commemorative railtour.

 

[70014IronDuke]

I hear all the reasons why BR didn't save and run some steam locomotives, image, cost, practicality etc.

The other side of that is that steam engines were very popular with a good percentage of the general public. We have to remember that by 1968 most of the country was diesel or electric, steam being a fond but fading memory for many.

One thing Stuart Taylor mentions in one of his books repeatedly is that on his travels by steam train, where ever he went children would scramble to watch as his train went by, they were always waving and smiling. A new generation ready to pester their parents for a steam train ride if they had been available.

Children waving and smiling do not buy tickets. A few, now and then, of their parents, might have done. But we are talking of a few. Now and then.

As steam retreated to Lancashire many people came from all over the country to see steam engine sheds like Rose Grove, so many in fact that the staff there were totally outnumbered at weekends.

I don't know if you are stating this out of personal belief, or for your own propaganda purposes, but this is pervesion of the reality. May RAIL/STEAM NUTTERS came from all over the country for some of July and the first days of August, not 'normals'. I was one of those nutters.

'Normals' did turn out to watch the 15-Guinea special, with the emphasis being on watch - not pay fares and travel.

Now, if you're going to travel from say London, Glasgow, etc to Rose Grove (Burnley) to see steam locomotives then there already was a market for some steam locomotives to not only be saved but also to run excursions. The 15 guinea special was a prime example, 15 guineas per person for a steam special day trip, a heck of a lot of money for the average person, and yet they paid it.

It was, it really was a 'heck of a lot of money' - but the average person vaguely interested in steam did NOT travel on it. It was relatively wealthy rail enthusiasts.

I'm sure some will say, yes they did pay that but it was to be the very last steam train. For me as said, it just showed there was a profitable market already there.

Neither you, nor I, have any clue as to whether even the 15-Guineas special was profitable in any real accounting sense. And this was when the locomotives, crews and steam-related infrastucture were in place.

Perhaps it did, but maintaining all that knowledge and infrastructure for years afterwards - and paying staff for it - for the sake of a few specials a year - and this at a time when BR and the country was struggling to cope with a falling pound, rising costs and intensive competition from road and exports - forget it.

With a little imagination, BR could have selected a suitable location, gathered up say 20 Black 5's, 8F's and a few others, got them up to scratch and operated them pulling specials. These could have run not only on bank holidays etc, but most weekends, holiday periods. It also would have given BR some much needed positive publicity.

It would have made BR some less needed increased negative bankruptcy.

I can't believe that in say 1970, running a steam special through some part of the county that hadn't seen steam for 5 years wouldn't have been popular and profitable especially with new young children that had never seen a steam locomotive.

It would have been popular with 25,000 railway enthusiasts and perhaps 200,000 waving, smiling children, most of whose parents would be saying: No, you can't have a ride behind a steam train, but here's an ice-cream instead.

That's easy to say with the benefit of hindsight. In 1948 the new BR would not have foreseen steam being eliminated in 20 years. And 251 of the 999 were 9Fs, which were a significant advance on existing designs.

Agreed. But to be fair, I think the builds of many of the Standard locos allowed the withdrawal of many ageing, highly inefficient locos that would have normally been replaced from 1939 onwards, but were kept in service during the war years. Would you really want eg, the former GC, GER and NER tank locos being replaced by, eg Thompson L1s?

People only paid 15 guineas because it was the last steam train on BR.

On 9 June 1968 BR ran a special train from St Pancras to Manchester that was steam hauled from/to Derby, and the fare was £4.

Ha! I was on that. Was it really only £4? Surely more than that?

I think I got a child's ticket - well, I looked under 14
(After 55 years, surely the statute of limitations will protect me!)

It still seemed like a lot of money for an outing.

ps I think it returned via the Hope Valley and Nottingham, not Derby.

 

[randyrippley]

But the passing of the much more highly regarded Hymeks was almost as completely unmarked as the Warships, with just one commemorative railtour.

But unlike the Warships and Westerns, the Hymeks weren't high in the public eye: they weren't "hero" locomotives so not easily recognisable and so no interest from the public over their passing

 

[simonw]

Not from my business experience that's for sure, enough now please.


Fair enough, I do like to post these "what if" questions. Love the different angles that people come up with, the truth is we will never know.

TBH, I can't believe you have any experience of business. Still waiting on your detailed business case.

 

[eldomtom2]

Also the progress on West Coast electrification would have freed up a fair number of Class 40s, which were already known to crews in the North West and could replace the last Black Fives and 8Fs on a one for one basis.

I'm not sure the timing matches up for the Class 40s to be the sole reason - the Birmingham loop was electrified in March 1967 and then nothing happened for three years until the government authorised electrification north of Weaver Junction.

 

[70014IronDuke]

I'm not sure the timing matches up for the Class 40s to be the sole reason - the Birmingham loop was electrified in March 1967 and then nothing happened for three years until the government authorised electrification north of Weaver Junction.

What about the arrival of 50 very powerful Co-Co D400s, meanwhile?