End of Steam

[70014IronDuke]

Bill Alborough is the guy you're thinking of. Did TEFS to Poland in 1990 and Cuba in 1992. Happily we didn't have the problems you did although from experience of other group trips I did before organising my own tours abroad, I find it hard to believe that nobody other than you knew owt about photography.

If they did, they didn't want to apply it. It was fine for those who just wanted to quickly point the camera in a shed, or, on two, max three occasions on the lineside - to catch a P8 and an 01 or 03 (I'm using the old German class names, I forget what they were in on the PKR.)

I had to accept that nobody wanted to get up at 05.00 to catch the dawn light. But what astounded me was on the last day (or maybe penultimate day) we arrived at some narrow gauge (760mm?) terminus place at about 16.15. I think there was a loco or two on the shed or in the yard, nothing much.

But, IIRC, the line left the station (which faced roughly west) and swung 90 degrees to the north, climbing on an embankment. There was a train due at around 17.00, and it was obvious that there was an excellent chance of getting a silhouette of the train with the sun setting behind as it arrived. To me, this was a no brainer. It was about the only potential shot on the trip which used interesting, low light conditions.

But nobody else seemed to even realise this, and after 20 minutes or so everyone was going back to the bus. So I pointed it out that we only needed to wait 20-25 miinutes for a potentially half-decent shot. I was astonished - nobody was interested.
Well, I simply wasn't having this. I could take meandering along roads in hot days, getting the odd shot in a shed or whatever, but I was not walking away from the only decent shot of the trip. So I refused to board the bus until the train came.

And still not a soul joined me.

They all sat on the bus, until, sure enough, a tiny loco hauling maybe 2-3 coaches arrived around 17.00 with the golden sun going down behind the lot.

Only decent shot of the trip. Still have the slide somewhere. Unbelievable to me that nobody else could even be bothered to fight for the right to wait 15-20 mins (having come all that way) to try for it - let alone get out of the bus when I was digging my heels in. On that basis, I think I can say nobody had a clue about photography out of the 20 or so on the trip. At least not what I deem photography.

Had a Dutch guy on an SA trip once. He had a similar opinion as you regarding the rest of the group. Mind you, he always wanted to go "dark side" as opposed to "sunny side". You're not him are you?

Not me.

 

[Spamcan81]

I spend a good deal of time on the linked-to site, and delight in it; but (as you touch on) it doesn't furnish unerring totally-up-to-the-minute gen on real steam worldwide -- does its best, but has at same time, other objectives as well. "Off top of head", I gather (subject to recent bad news) that there is also still a modicum of steam active in the season, on narrow-gauge sugar-cane railways in Java -- maybe, in Indonesia, also on lines serving palm-oil plantations? And the copper-nickel mines at Selebi-Pikwe in Botswana, use ex-main-line steam locos on their private trackage which connects with the main line.

Fireless locomotives do next to nothing for me, I'm afraid -- I don't consider them "proper steam". That's just me -- I enjoy being a miserable, negative ultra-purist !



As above -- just for me, "ultra-purist", etc. -- it counts as "real" for me only if it's used regularly, in strictly commercial (not tourist-and-gricer-inveigling) service, because it's what's there and it's what those in charge of the operation choose to have in use. I agree: with the prospective "morphings" as cited, date of the ultimate end of true regular steam, is likely to be hard to determine.

And there are endless potential hairsplittings concerning this stuff. What if the industrialist in charge is running a genuine commercial concern, but is a steam enthusiast and uses steam locos because he likes them, even though the cost is greater than it would be with modern traction? I forget the details, but seem to recall from a few decades ago, a steelworks or similar plant somewhere in the Midwest of the US, whose owner was a steam-rail fan, and thus continued to use steam locos to shunt his outfit, for many years after commercial steam anywhere else in the States had totally vanished.

What about lines that were built just for tourists such as the Snowdon Mountain Railway? The locos there are still doing the same job for which they were built. Counts as "real" steam in my book.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I admit that I’m a miserable devil, determined to take a negative view of the preservation of steam worldwide -- rather than focus on all the good things about it (because there is, sure as heck, about to be no other kind of working steam in the world). The frustrating thing for me, is that the delight of the steam railway which I knew early in my life, was that its purpose was utilitarian – taking people and goods where they needed to go – and this just happened to be achieved by a delectable method of propulsion. I accept, rather reluctantly, that it’s better still to have steam kept going for its own sake, than to have no working steam whatever; but I find preserved steam at its very best, a sad travesty of what the whole thing used to feel like and be about.

“Very best” for me, is a good self-contained preserved line, of a moderately decent length, basically linking at least “halfway-genuine” places with each other, by regularly scheduled services. Venues like this give for me some slight semblance of what used to be; and have for me the saving grace of carrying a payload of people who travel for the sake of the ride, but are not actually railway enthusiasts. If this scene featured nothing but “railfans playing trains”, I don’t think I could stomach it. “Charter” workings, usually one-off, and operating over steamless modern rail systems (needing various complicated “un-real” expedients, to make this possible); and carrying either, overwhelmingly, railway enthusiasts; or nothing – strike me as utterly contrived and artificial: to the point of inspiring in me far more revulsion, than pleasure.

Revulsion? Each to his own but how on earth a steam "enthusiast" can find anything steam hauled "revolting" is beyond me. Thankfully not too many people share your views and we can still enjoy steam haulage well in to the 21st century. I don't care that it's not like it was in the "good old day," in fact I'm none to keen to recreate steams death throes as I saw enough of that at the time, but I rejoice that I can still experience steam at work all over the UK and elsewhere in the world.

 

[Harbornite]

I admit that I’m a miserable devil, determined to take a negative view of the preservation of steam worldwide -- rather than focus on all the good things about it (because there is, sure as heck, about to be no other kind of working steam in the world). The frustrating thing for me, is that the delight of the steam railway which I knew early in my life, was that its purpose was utilitarian – taking people and goods where they needed to go – and this just happened to be achieved by a delectable method of propulsion. I accept, rather reluctantly, that it’s better still to have steam kept going for its own sake, than to have no working steam whatever; but I find preserved steam at its very best, a sad travesty of what the whole thing used to feel like and be about.

“Very best” for me, is a good self-contained preserved line, of a moderately decent length, basically linking at least “halfway-genuine” places with each other, by regularly scheduled services. Venues like this give for me some slight semblance of what used to be; and have for me the saving grace of carrying a payload of people who travel for the sake of the ride, but are not actually railway enthusiasts. If this scene featured nothing but “railfans playing trains”, I don’t think I could stomach it. “Charter” workings, usually one-off, and operating over steamless modern rail systems (needing various complicated “un-real” expedients, to make this possible); and carrying either, overwhelmingly, railway enthusiasts; or nothing – strike me as utterly contrived and artificial: to the point of inspiring in me far more revulsion, than pleasure.

Well I can see your points, but you should be glad that there are people dedicated to keeping these machines running. Steam has outlived its purpose for timetabled passenger and goods services on the national network, but I don't see anything wrong in allowing people today to appreciate and enjoy seeing steam locomotives on the mainline where they can "stretch their legs" or on preserved lines. You may hark back to the past but the steam locos in use today are cared for considerably better than in the 1960's.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Revulsion? Each to his own but how on earth a steam "enthusiast" can find anything steam hauled "revolting" is beyond me. Thankfully not too many people share your views and we can still enjoy steam haulage well in to the 21st century. I don't care that it's not like it was in the "good old day," in fact I'm none to keen to recreate steams death throes as I saw enough of that at the time, but I rejoice that I can still experience steam at work all over the UK and elsewhere in the world.

Agreed. Revolting is a strange way of describing steam-hauled railtours and I'm glad that such views are ignored.

 

[Altfish]

And weren't there some steam used by NCB until the 80s?

I remember one day whilst fishing at Pennington Flash near Leigh being surprised by the sound of a steam train at work. It'd have been about 1978.
I discovered that it was probably at Bickershaw Colliery; I wish I'd gone and had an explore.

 

[Bevan Price]

A small local oddity on the "end of steam" theme, recalled to my mind by a recent few days on the Isle of Wight. There is on sale at various outlets on the Island -- including at the Isle of Wight Steam Railway's Haven Street headquarters -- a postcard showing various views of steam action on the preserved line. The caption, on the non-picture side, begins: "The Isle of Wight was the last area of the United Kingdom to run steam trains in regular service..." I take it that those words did not proceed from an IOWSR source; because they are of course blatantly wrong. Regular steam elsewhere on BR lasted for another nineteen months after its end on the Island -- and lasted longer still in Northern Ireland (and this is leaving aside the anomaly of the Vale of Rheidol line).

I have in the past written to the IOWSR, pointing out this inaccuracy; but they did not see fit to reply. One assumes, reaction along the lines of "something too petty to be worth the bother and, likely, expense, of altering"; and / or "almost nobody reads the captions on postcards anyway".

I wonder whether whoever originally came up with this bit of postcard misinformation was -- rather than being totally clueless -- conflating "what might have happened" with "what did happen". It is gathered that in the late 1950s / early 60s, BR floated a possible plan for replacing the IOW's aged 02 0-4-4Ts, with modern 2-6-2Ts of the class of no. 41298, recently restored to working order on the IOWSR; and -- with "tourist-bait" ideas -- for these locos to work services on the Island's surviving lines, indefinitely -- quite possibly after the end of BR steam on the mainland. A thing whose occurrence would have been nice; but it wasn't to be,

Technically, as written, their statement is incorrect. However the Isle of Wight was the last area on BR where every passenger service was steam operated (standard guage).

Elsewhere, steam shared a diminishing share of operations with diesel or electric traction.

 

[Calthrop]

What about lines that were built just for tourists such as the Snowdon Mountain Railway? The locos there are still doing the same job for which they were built. Counts as "real" steam in my book.

Lines such as the Snowdon -- or, say the Groudle Glen in the Isle of Man -- I consider to have been as at their inauguration well over a century ago, as matters were at that time, goofy "for-fun" outliers to the main serious railway scene. I like such lines -- find steam mountain rack railways especially, splendid things -- but can't totally regard them as "real, proper" railways.


Spamcan81, Harbornite: I'm aware that my sentiments are, in the context of those of most of the steam-fan community, weird and Scrooge-like. Variously, though, I know personally / have read comments by, a few enthusiasts whose feelings about the issue, are on the same lines as mine; and I don't take well to being told what I should -- or should not -- be, for myself, glad of.

I'm honestly happy for the many enthusiasts who are not as foolishly hard-to-please as I am, and who are able to take joy in a wide range of aspects of the steam preservation scene. I expect my sentiments about this matter, to be ignored; and have no intention of trying to "convert" anyone else -- but I'll express how I feel, if I'm moved to do so. Genuine wishes of "more power to" all who engage with, and enjoy, "one-off" chartered steam specials of whatever kind -- so long as I'm allowed, for myself, to choose not to seek out such events; and am not ordered to, myself, love that which I do not love.

Technically, as written, their statement is incorrect. However the Isle of Wight was the last area on BR where every passenger service was steam operated (standard guage).

Elsewhere, steam shared a diminishing share of operations with diesel or electric traction.

Respectfully -- I find this a rather convoluted argument, for the text concerned being essentially "on target". Still: being fond of the IOWSR, I'm ready to swallow this proposition in order to cease to quarrel with their postcard caption !

 

[birchesgreen]

More power to you Calthrop, its a controversial opinion you have and its easy to shy away and not state it so its good that you have. If anything differing opinions help stimulate debate.

 

[Calthrop]

More power to you Calthrop, its a controversial opinion you have and its easy to shy away and not state it so its good that you have. If anything differing opinions help stimulate debate.

Thanks. I do know that my feelings about this stuff, are more negative than is the norm. An enthusiast friend of mine, and near-contemporary re birthdate -- who has a lot more time than I do, for one-off steam specials on the main line -- sometimes announces: "I'm going to find a new hobby; this one is just too frustrating and depressing". A sentiment which, at times, I share...

 

[Harbornite]

Thanks. I do know that my feelings about this stuff, are more negative than is the norm. An enthusiast friend of mine, and near-contemporary re birthdate -- who has a lot more time than I do, for one-off steam specials on the main line -- sometimes announces: "I'm going to find a new hobby; this one is just too frustrating and depressing". A sentiment which, at times, I share...

Has he got round to going through with this? Perhaps he needs to reevaluate how he partakes in his hobby before seeking a new one.

 

[Calthrop]

No, he just says it with considerable regularity. It's plain to see that he's totally in thrall to the railway-and-steam thing, till the day he dies.

 

[Spamcan81]

Lines such as the Snowdon -- or, say the Groudle Glen in the Isle of Man -- I consider to have been as at their inauguration well over a century ago, as matters were at that time, goofy "for-fun" outliers to the main serious railway scene. I like such lines -- find steam mountain rack railways especially, splendid things -- but can't totally regard them as "real, proper" railways.


Spamcan81, Harbornite: I'm aware that my sentiments are, in the context of those of most of the steam-fan community, weird and Scrooge-like. Variously, though, I know personally / have read comments by, a few enthusiasts whose feelings about the issue, are on the same lines as mine; and I don't take well to being told what I should -- or should not -- be, for myself, glad of.

I'm honestly happy for the many enthusiasts who are not as foolishly hard-to-please as I am, and who are able to take joy in a wide range of aspects of the steam preservation scene. I expect my sentiments about this matter, to be ignored; and have no intention of trying to "convert" anyone else -- but I'll express how I feel, if I'm moved to do so. Genuine wishes of "more power to" all who engage with, and enjoy, "one-off" chartered steam specials of whatever kind -- so long as I'm allowed, for myself, to choose not to seek out such events; and am not ordered to, myself, love that which I do not love.




Respectfully -- I find this a rather convoluted argument, for the text concerned being essentially "on target". Still: being fond of the IOWSR, I'm ready to swallow this proposition in order to cease to quarrel with their postcard caption !

Each to their own of course but thankfully such views are in the very small minority and sufficient enthusiasts young and old are prepared to keep steam running for their own enjoyment and that of countless thousands of visitors. IMO nothing stirs the soul quite like a steam loco in full cry no matter where or when it is running.

 

[Harbornite]

No, he just says it with considerable regularity. It's plain to see that he's totally in thrall to the railway-and-steam thing, till the day he dies.

Everyone has good and bad days whilst pursuing their hobbies, although in this case it sounds like a lot of the latter.

 

[Calthrop]

No, he just says it with considerable regularity. It's plain to see that he's totally in thrall to the railway-and-steam thing, till the day he dies.

Everyone has good and bad days whilst pursuing their hobbies, although in this case it sounds like a lot of the latter.

Like me, this guy is a miserable sod who enjoys being a miserable sod .

 

[Calthrop]

I’m reviving – perhaps I’m at a loose end! -- this thread from June, a propos a matter related to the title, which has occurred to me.

A few years ago I heard put forward, in a TV documentary on world affairs in the aftermath of World War II: the idea that as from the late 1940s – with the world’s then quickly dividing between the mutually hostile Western, and Communist, blocs – powerful political interests in the West exerted pressure for railway administrations, above all in Western Europe, to maximise and intensify the change from steam traction to more modern motive power, especially diesel.

The reason for this being: in Western Europe the work-forces of the coal-mining industry, and the railways, had long been strongly given to radical / socialist / Communist political views. With the Cold War having arisen: working to eliminate steam, was seen as a way to counter the coal miners / railwaymen in the event of their leaders’ receiving instructions from Moscow, for their guys to withhold their labour, to make things difficult for their own countries (the two industries closely linked, with the railways needing coal to fire their steam locos). A strong push politically, for the abolition of steam traction as soon as possible on the railways of Western Europe (including Britain), attempted to nullify the threat of the countries concerned being held to ransom as described.

This is the one and only time when I have been aware of hearing of this idea; I find it interesting, even though gut instinct (I’m no highly knowledgeable history / world affairs buff) suggests its being far-fetched. If there were indeed a politically-motivated effort on the part of the Western alliance, for steam to be got rid of for this reason – it would seem not to have meaningfully taken hold. The Western European countries took their own sweet time to eliminate steam: the UK finally in 1968; with several major Continental nations seen as in the Western alliance, keeping some steam a good deal longer than that. Commercial pressure from the oil and internal-combustion-vehicle industries, to dieselise, was arguably there; seemingly a more believable scenario, than the “political” one.

Would be interested in any comments: might there be something of a grain of truth in this Cold War idea of “frustrate the Reds by getting rid of steam” – or is the general balance of opinion, that it’s just a conspiracy-theory-type notion dreamed up by someone who was, likely, a little odd – or being paid to think up way-out stuff ?

 

[infobleep]

There was also the steam event in 2001 to celebrate the 100th anniversary of the West Highland Extension

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/1574224.stm

Wish I'd been able to see that!

In the late 80s a commuter service was run from Woking hauled by a steam engine to celebrate 150 years of the railways arriving. I'd love to have travelled on it. To many commuters and trains now to allow such a thing to happen.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

 

[70014IronDuke]

I’m reviving – perhaps I’m at a loose end! -- this thread from June, a propos a matter related to the title, which has occurred to me.

A few years ago I heard put forward, in a TV documentary on world affairs in the aftermath of World War II: the idea that as from the late 1940s – with the world’s then quickly dividing between the mutually hostile Western, and Communist, blocs – powerful political interests in the West exerted pressure for railway administrations, above all in Western Europe, to maximise and intensify the change from steam traction to more modern motive power, especially diesel.

The reason for this being: in Western Europe the work-forces of the coal-mining industry, and the railways, had long been strongly given to radical / socialist / Communist political views. With the Cold War having arisen: working to eliminate steam, was seen as a way to counter the coal miners / railwaymen in the event of their leaders’ receiving instructions from Moscow, for their guys to withhold their labour, to make things difficult for their own countries (the two industries closely linked, with the railways needing coal to fire their steam locos). A strong push politically, for the abolition of steam traction as soon as possible on the railways of Western Europe (including Britain), attempted to nullify the threat of the countries concerned being held to ransom as described.

This is the one and only time when I have been aware of hearing of this idea; I find it interesting, even though gut instinct (I’m no highly knowledgeable history / world affairs buff) suggests its being far-fetched. If there were indeed a politically-motivated effort on the part of the Western alliance, for steam to be got rid of for this reason – it would seem not to have meaningfully taken hold. The Western European countries took their own sweet time to eliminate steam: the UK finally in 1968; with several major Continental nations seen as in the Western alliance, keeping some steam a good deal longer than that. Commercial pressure from the oil and internal-combustion-vehicle industries, to dieselise, was arguably there; seemingly a more believable scenario, than the “political” one.

Would be interested in any comments: might there be something of a grain of truth in this Cold War idea of “frustrate the Reds by getting rid of steam” – or is the general balance of opinion, that it’s just a conspiracy-theory-type notion dreamed up by someone who was, likely, a little odd – or being paid to think up way-out stuff ?

Applying knowledge gleaned from my PhD thesis in psychosteamatics, principally Walschaert's Lesser theory of Loosendedness, I can confidently conclude you read too many novels by a) Agatha Christie b) Ian Fleming c) Rev Awdrey

 

[Calthrop]

Applying knowledge gleaned from my PhD thesis in psychosteamatics, principally Walschaert's Lesser theory of Loosendedness, I can confidently conclude you read too many novels by a) Agatha Christie b) Ian Fleming c) Rev Awdrey

I rather suspected so ! Please add to the mix: S.M. Stirling, Harry Turtledove, Constantine Fitzgibbon, Ben Elton, and A.E. Durrant (the last-named wasn't a novelist, but he was very fertile with ideas about nefarious and wrong-headed machinations to get rid of steam).

 

[Peter Mugridge]

In the late 80s a commuter service was run from Woking hauled by a steam engine to celebrate 150 years of the railways arriving. I'd love to have travelled on it. To many commuters and trains now to allow such a thing to happen.

I remember that and was fortunate enough to be able to go on it; it was an "add on" to a railtour which finished at Woking, so rather than run it empty to London they offered it as an additional public service to Waterloo albeit you had to pre-book a special ticket for it, which cost only £5. So not quite a plandampf, but as close as possible to one without actually being one.

What it did do was provide the first instance since the end of steam where a steam hauled train would come into a station on the national network and one load of passengers got off while others got on.

 

[Phil.]

I remember that and was fortunate enough to be able to go on it; it was an "add on" to a railtour which finished at Woking, so rather than run it empty to London they offered it as an additional public service to Waterloo albeit you had to pre-book a special ticket for it, which cost only £5. So not quite a plandampf, but as close as possible to one without actually being one.

What it did do was provide the first instance since the end of steam where a steam hauled train would come into a station on the national network and one load of passengers got off while others got on.

There was also the mid 1990s Woking centenary train hauled by 35028 which worked a morning commuter train from Woking to Waterloo. Passengers carried were limited to Woking annual season ticket holders.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

I’m reviving – perhaps I’m at a loose end! -- this thread from June, a propos a matter related to the title, which has occurred to me.

[snip]

Would be interested in any comments: might there be something of a grain of truth in this Cold War idea of “frustrate the Reds by getting rid of steam” – or is the general balance of opinion, that it’s just a conspiracy-theory-type notion dreamed up by someone who was, likely, a little odd – or being paid to think up way-out stuff ?

While I cannot claim any inside knowledge I am happy to offer comment.

Once it became clear the Allies would eventually win the war there would have been all sorts of committees, both military and civilian, created to "plan for the peace". I consider it perfectly possible that someone sitting on such a committee might have expressed an opinion along the lines you have suggested. But in reality the initial priorities were to provide for more basic needs of war-affected populations, such as maintaining public health, providing adequate shelter, ensuring a reliable food supply (which indirectly led to the creation of the Common Market) and so on.

As to railway motive power I suspect that American experience with modern (ie non-steam) propulsion showed that considerable improvements in system efficiency could be gained and would have encouraged European minds to think along those lines. It is interesting to note that on the continent there was a tendency to move from steam to electric in preference to the British policy of widespread dieselisation though the reasons for this were many and varied.

On a different subject I have only just come across this thread; it seems I have a similar view to yours on the "stuffed-and-mountedness"(!) of heritage operations whether on the mainline or preserved lines. But in my case that feeling covers diesels: I have no memory of proper working steam. And it's a view I only came to after spending much of the 1990s doing a ridiculous number of railtours. It always strikes me as bizarre that tour promoters talk about a particular tour as recreating some particular situation or other: where's the blue and grey coaching stock?! Combine that with a number of years actually working on the mostly multiple unit railway we have today and I actually prefer observing the "real thing" in its everyday mundaneness rather than trying to get excited about a contrived one-off or the theatre of heritage line operation.

 

[Calthrop]

Once it became clear the Allies would eventually win the war there would have been all sorts of committees, both military and civilian, created to "plan for the peace". I consider it perfectly possible that someone sitting on such a committee might have expressed an opinion along the lines you have suggested. But in reality the initial priorities were to provide for more basic needs of war-affected populations, such as maintaining public health, providing adequate shelter, ensuring a reliable food supply (which indirectly led to the creation of the Common Market) and so on.

Re my bolding: I suppose one reckons that in such circumstances, people brainstorm, and some way-out-there ideas are come up with, if only briefly. (If the then pertaining coal-mining / coal-burning-steam-rail interdependence were seen as vulnerable to the "Red menace" -- might widespread conversion of steam fleets to oil-firing not be as effective in countering that, as dieselisation?) It could be that the maker of the documentary which I saw, latched onto this very "fringe" idea from the mid / late 1940s, and expounded on it in the hope of attracting the viewers' attention.

On a different subject I have only just come across this thread; it seems I have a similar view to yours on the "stuffed-and-mountedness"(!) of heritage operations whether on the mainline or preserved lines. But in my case that feeling covers diesels: I have no memory of proper working steam. And it's a view I only came to after spending much of the 1990s doing a ridiculous number of railtours. It always strikes me as bizarre that tour promoters talk about a particular tour as recreating some particular situation or other: where's the blue and grey coaching stock?! Combine that with a number of years actually working on the mostly multiple unit railway we have today and I actually prefer observing the "real thing" in its everyday mundaneness rather than trying to get excited about a contrived one-off or the theatre of heritage line operation.

You and I hold a minority and not altogether popular point of view on this matter of preservation, of whatever kind, versus “the real thing”; but there are others also, who feel this way. I personally feel that the more worthwhile of the self-contained preserved lines, do offer a faint semblance of the genuine rail scene of times gone by – I can find some pleasure in such, and do indeed support via society membership, a few such lines. One-off specials on “proper” national systems , whatever hauling them or hauled on them; or simulated freight trains for the benefit of photographers; do pretty well nothing for me -- as you say, contrived and artificial to a high degree.

I think that folk like us who are “Scrooges” on this issue, nonetheless have only good wishes for those more numerous, and fortunate, souls who delight in the preservation scene; we’d just like to be able to agree to differ with them on the whole business, without things getting rancorous.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I spend a good deal of time on the linked-to site, and delight in it... And the copper-nickel mines at Selebi-Pikwe in Botswana, use ex-main-line steam locos on their private trackage which connects with the main line.

Something just discovered, via the website mentioned above (Rob Dickinson's International Steam site, appropriate thanks to which, for the info): the abovementioned venue in Botswana ceased operations totally w.e.f. 7 /10 / 2016 (the whole mining complex, not just its railway -- the undertaking had reportedly been heavily losing money for some time). Two locos (4-8-2s ex-main-line systems) had been in steam every day to the end, working the site's rail lines. Of those, class 19D no.5 has been plinthed at the road turn-off for the mine.

For genuine commercial steam in the world, it really is feeling like fifteen seconds to midnight !

 

[randyrippley]

Given that Churchill was British Prime Minister between 1951-55: the key years in which the decision to "go for diesel" with the modernisation plan were made, it wouldn't surprise me if there is an element of truth in there being worries about communist incursions into the coal supply.
Remember two things: firstly Churchill was responsible (as First Lord of the Admiralty) for instigating the replacement of coal by oil in the Royal Navy. Secondly, his role in breaking the National Strike in the 1920's (which to him would have been communist-led). The two together would have shown that switching to an oil-based fuel (whether diesel or heavy oil) was both possible and desirable on cost and security grounds.

 

[Bevan Price]

I think that the main influence of US policy post-WW2 was that countries which received American financial aid were encouraged to spend some of that aid on US products.

Post WW2, many European rail systems were in much worse condition than UK railways, but some of them had large numbers of steam freight locos that were relatively recent, and mostly a bit more robust than our WD 2-8-0s.

As one example, unlike UK, (West) Germany chose electrification as the preferred change - but proceeding over a longish timescale. Dieselisation was mostly recognised as an interim solution for routes that could not be electrified in the short term - and was only the main choice for (mostly secondary) routes with no early prospects of electrication. Steam was often allowed to fade out gradually as locos wore out, and electrification proceeded. (And oil-fired steam locos were more widespread than ever adopted by BR, reducing the amount of dirty manual work needed by train crews)



In contrast, for example, Holland proceeded as quickly as possible with electrification and I think that most of their diesel locos were shunters.

In Eastern (Communist) Europe, railways were often neglected after WW2, with many locos moved out of Germany by Russia/USSR & "redistributed" as war reparations. Often with little money for new electrification, and decisions made by "The Party", that is probably why steam survived well into the 1970s (or sometimes later). Diesel locos were steadily introduced - often built at a few chosen factories specified by "The Party" - hence the large numbers of Russian M62 & derivatives spread around Eastern Europe.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

I think that folk like us who are “Scrooges” on this issue, nonetheless have only good wishes for those more numerous, and fortunate, souls who delight in the preservation scene; we’d just like to be able to agree to differ with them on the whole business, without things getting rancorous.

Just to emphasise to anyone still reading these "narrow-minded" outpourings that I totally agree with this statement. The railway heritage sector, along with the wider museum movement, fulfills a valuable role in bringing history to life and when done well it is a delight to see the non-enthusiasts enjoying the spectacle.

I would add that enthusiasts are sometimes disappointed that active staff on the mainline network do not appear to share their enjoyment of particular "events"; in practice there are many who are very much pro-rail but have similar feelings of disinterest in the contrived nature of enthusiasts' specials and prefer to simply carry on with the mundane tasks that ensure the network functions as well as possible.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

There was also the mid 1990s Woking centenary train hauled by 35028 which worked a morning commuter train from Woking to Waterloo. Passengers carried were limited to Woking annual season ticket holders.

Ah... that's probably the event I'm actually thinking of; the morning commuter train certainly ran the same day as the railtour and the later evening run on which I was a passenger.

Infobleep - were you thinking of this event also or are we talking about two separate events?

 

[ChiefPlanner]

I suspect the DDR kept steam going well into the 1980's following the cessation of "cheap" Russian oil in the mid 1970's (they could sell it elsewhere for hard cash following the 1973 crisis) - Honneker's policy was to make up the energy gap by burning even more coal - though presumably not the filthy brown coal in the rail sector. (that was for domestic and power station use etc)

Even the SNCF had a good amount of steam into the early 1970's - post war 141R's and even some vintage traction out in the sticks.....

 

[70014IronDuke]

I suspect the DDR kept steam going well into the 1980's following the cessation of "cheap" Russian oil in the mid 1970's (they could sell it elsewhere for hard cash following the 1973 crisis) ...

I don't think this is true. The USSR continued to supply energy (oil and gas) to its satellite E European states after 73 at very preferential rates under the Comecon agreements, based on 'transferable roubles' (which, of course, were anything but transferrable).

This only came to an end in 1990 - when several of the EE states were eager to free themselves from the Soviet shackles, and rupped up the agreement (effectively). In the USSR, the oligarchs said: Fine, instead of 100 E European buses (say) swapped for 100 tonnes of oil, we'll take market prices, in dollars instead. Oh dear ...... that caused real problems. [/QUOTE]

Even the SNCF had a good amount of steam into the early 1970's - post war 141R's and even some vintage traction out in the sticks.....

"good amount" ? I question that. During 1970 there were pockets of steam operation across France, but from memory that year saw steam largely wiped out.

for example, [Calais] - Boulogne - Amiens still had a far bit of steam in the summer of 1970, but on the last weekend of September, it more or less stopped. i returned around Easter 71, and there was one steam working on the day I was there.

SNCF was still using 141TC tanks out of Paris Nord on certain suburban lines until the December, but then again, electrification killed all that stone dead.

The other main area around then was down in the corner with Spain, on the Meditteranean side (Perpignan?) I don't know when workings there ceased, but i certainly did not deem it worth the time to visit there in 71 compared to what was available still in BDR and Portugal and Spain.

What France seemed to do (totally unlike BR) was allow steam to linger - locos were fired up as and when needed. so, for eg, i saw one 141R working at Sarrgemines around Easter 1973. The rest of the handful of locos were dead on shed.

But saying "Even the SNCF had a good amount of steam into the early 1970's" is an exaggeration in my books I'm afraid.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Once it became clear the Allies would eventually win the war there would have been all sorts of committees, both military and civilian, created to "plan for the peace". I consider it perfectly possible that someone sitting on such a committee might have expressed an opinion along the lines you have suggested. But in reality the initial priorities were to provide for more basic needs of war-affected populations, such as maintaining public health, providing adequate shelter, ensuring a reliable food supply (which indirectly led to the creation of the Common Market) and so on...

Yes, I can fully appreciate this might be a real scenario.

But as you say, conditions after the war were shocking across much of Europe, but especially Germany/Austria. If you get a chance to see a documentary made by Frenchman Olivier Wieviorka this year - I think it's called something like "After Hitler" - this depicts the problems faced by the Allies from May 1945.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

But saying "Even the SNCF had a good amount of steam into the early 1970's" is an exaggeration in my books I'm afraid.

Fair comment - too young to explore in those days - I was just going by pictures and articles in "Railway World" a the time , which showed large depots full of "machines" at places like Le Mans. Must not make sweeping statements.....was it 1974 when the SNCF gave up on steam ?

 

[70014IronDuke]

But saying "Even the SNCF had a good amount of steam into the early 1970's" is an exaggeration in my books I'm afraid.

Fair comment - too young to explore in those days - I was just going by pictures and articles in "Railway World" a the time , which showed large depots full of "machines" at places like Le Mans. Must not make sweeping statements.....was it 1974 when the SNCF gave up on steam ?

SNCF seemed in no hurry to scrap locomotives, and as I mentioned, it seemed to me they took them out of store and steamed a few if traffic demanded it at various depots. So it is quite possible that photos of eg Le Mans depot in 1970 appeared stuffed with steam ! (I don't know, never been there myself.)

It's really difficult to remember exactly but i know that I passed Boulogne s Mer shed in April 74, and I think there were still some 141Rs hanging around in there then. When they last worked would be a different matter.

Yes, 1974 according to:

http://www.sncf.com/en/meet-sncf/sncf-history?date=1959

And, indeed, it was at Sarreguemines (I hadn't realised that before - it may even have been the same loco we saw working 11-12 months earlier.)

"And on 31 March of the same year, the 141 R 73 steam locomotive, based at the Sarreguemines depot, made its last commercial run, ending France’s steam traction era after 142 years."

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Did Munster - Berlin via Hanover in 1984 , apart from the interesting border rigmarole , saw 2 working DDR steam freights around Magdeburg - no chance of photos as there were border guards patrolling the corridors....plenty of stored engines around in various yards. Friend of mine did an exchange in Dresden (lucky bloke) , and he said there were a good number of active steam workings in the Leipzig etc area at the time....