Longevity of steam locomotives

[frankmoh]

The BR Standard Class 9F 92220 was built in 1960 and retired in 1965.
The BR Class 101 101685 was built in 1957 and retired in 2003.
The BR Class 412 2311 was built in 1961 and retired in 2005.

If the ban on steam didn't happen, how long do you think steam locos would have stayed in service for? (assuming they made no new steam trains after the Class 9F)

80s? 90s? Post-privatisation even?

Given the longevity of the Vale of Rheidol Railway's locomotives during the BR era (and still today), I would like to know your thoughts on this.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

I seem to recall reading somewhere that the BR Standards were originally intended to last until the late 1980s / early 1990s.

 

[frankmoh]

I seem to recall reading somewhere that the BR Standards were originally intended to last until the late 1980s / early 1990s.

I'm just imagining a Networker next to a Standard Class. Not sure where unelectrified trains (diesel/steam) mixes with Networker-land outside of London Bridge but that's okay.

Perhaps an HST or a 442 next to a Standard Class would be more fitting

 

[BerkshireRails]

I imagine probably to the 1990s when they would have been replaced by the 66s.

 

[Harpo]

What would have come first: The end of steam or the decimation of coal production?

 

[JamesT]

The BR Standard Class 9F 92220 was built in 1960 and retired in 1965.
The BR Class 101 101685 was built in 1957 and retired in 2003.
The BR Class 412 2311 was built in 1961 and retired in 2005.

If the ban on steam didn't happen, how long do you think steam locos would have stayed in service for? (assuming they made no new steam trains after the Class 9F)

80s? 90s? Post-privatisation even?

Given the longevity of the Vale of Rheidol Railway's locomotives during the BR era (and still today), I would like to know your thoughts on this.

Wasn’t the ban on steam effectively only once they had all been replaced by diesel locomotives anyway? Given the financial pressures that prompted the Modernisation Plan, the end of steam was inevitable. The only reason to have kept steam is if the Government viewed using coal instead of oil as a strategic priority. But they didn’t do that for the Royal Navy 50 years earlier, so I’m not sure why the railway would have been any different.

What would have come first: The end of steam or the decimation of coal production?

Coal production has been declining since the peak in 1913. I’ve not immediately found any figures, but I don’t think railway coal consumption was particularly significant compared to electricity/heating/industrial use.

 

[65477]

What would have come first: The end of steam or the decimation of coal production?

The other consideration was the availability of labour. Despite the "romance of steam" there was a dwindling pool of people wanting to carry out the the range of tasks associated with maintaining and running steam.

Going by West Germany and industrial stream in the UK my guess would have seen the demise of BR steam in the mid 1970's.

As we all know main line steam did not die, it was just sleeping.We have had six decades of main line steam, including seven days a week timetabled services.

 

[HSTEd]

Steam was so uneconomical that even without a ban the railway will jettison them as soon as possible.

Maybe they get a reprieve if the balance of payments situation improves enough to allow conversion to oil firing, but I doubt that.

 

[McRhu]

Maybe they're just biding their time.... (cf. Box Tunnel or is it Woodhead?)

 

[Welly]

I seem to recall reading somewhere that the BR Standards were originally intended to last until the late 1980s / early 1990s.

Imagine where we would have visited if that did happen!