What was the past really like?

They were a bit more than occasional given that steam after '68 was supposed to have gone forever..................

Somebody somewhere, saw the "value" of keeping it alive - & thank you say I!

As for the driver I know - he spent part of the summer running 46100 at 75mph on the mainline, but last weekend was relegated to driving 43106.................... because he hasn't had 5 years experience!....... rules is rules!

 

Much to the chargrin of many a line............... MHR went from having three type 3's to zero.............. but if the owners got an offer they could'n't refuse, who'd to argue?..... its left a few lines in the lurch, as the TOC's see the value of a box with grandfather rights............. thus getting round the system......

 

So was I in reply to your post about boiler certs........

We'll never ever know, but what I said might well have happened, if someone had intervened to put a check on the headlong rush to modernise, of steam perpetuating in every day use - if only!

 

Indeed, there is no comparison between running an occasional steam special now and running a commercial railway with steam them. Take the sheer scale of the operation; hundreds of locos, thousands of staff, masses of specialised infrastructure, most of it already life-expired.

Added to that, there were other problems that are easily forgotten today; many sheds, especially the larger ones, were in built-up areas which, by the 1960s, were supposed to be smokeless zones. The railways had partial exemptions from these regulations, but they were expected to be temporary and it would have been impossible to resist the pressure from the public and politicians to stop what was seen, by that time, as a public nuisance.

 

The Hymeks were also well regarded, just too few of them compared with the 37s.

 

Ahh but the 37 was a pretty solid machine, worked straight of the drawing board and it's parent company didn't go bust. Not knocking the Hymeks btw, I do like them.

 

Correct but only because they let it get into that state

 

Wasn't the business case for rebuilding the Bulleid Pacifics based on their lasting until 1980? When it became clear that wouldn't happen, they stopped rebuilding them. So presumably there was an assumption in someone's mind at least up to the late 1950s that some steam would last well beyond 1968, or indeed well beyond 1973.

Edit: Just looking at the relevant paper and it has tables showing the MN locos lasting until 1975 and the WC/BB locos lasting until 1987, but with the projected payoffs from rebuilding being in 1962 and 1966 respectively.

Tom

 

yes of course the later built steam was expected to last longer but the points made earlier apply

They were too dirty (this was the era of the Clean Air Act)
They were too labour intensive (few people wanted a dirty hard job for low pay)
They were low availability/ They needed a lot of maintenance/overhauls
Traffic needs changed (Freight volume contracted/ lines shut)

It's actually amazing that steam lasted as long as it did. Even poor old Ireland modernised quicker.

 

that is the opposite of the truth. The Hydraulics were to a tested German design, modified to run in the UK.

 

EE design was heavily influenced by USA design . That much should be obvious to you...check out DELTIC

 

And were never as successful as their German progenitors.

 

The WR hydraulics were, by the time the decision to rationalise and standardise the fleet was made, a very reliable and successful fleet. I would contend they were much better in that respect than the Deltics which needed constant engine changes. Had investment in overhauls in the hydraulics continued, they would have gone on for many years.

 

A much stronger financial case in Ireland due to having to import the coal and with oil becoming cheaper, it was inevitable that dieselisation was the preferred option.

 

depends on your point of view. Political influence caused the class 43 NBL locos to be built which were nowhere near as good a s the purer class 42, which were highly successful in their later years as stated above. The westerns were even more successful.

 

a brave decision almost scuppered by buying from Metro Vick initially. Fortunately CIE persuaded GM to sell it motors to rebuild those locos into a form that worked.

 

A lot of enthusiasts who say things like "the Standards were designed to last 30 years - but were thrown out after 10!" are being somewhat ahistorical, in that they're ignoring the changing pressures on BTC and BR management through the 50s.

Particularly: nationalisation took place in the assumption that the BTC would be profitable, which indeed it was at first. During this period BR appointed Riddles, who set the organisation firmly on a steam-building course, making sure any memos from higher up in the BTC about investigating dieselisation were carefully filed in the round file.

However within a few years it became very clear that not only were the railways heading into the red financially, but predicted losses seemed to be increasing year-on-year with no hope of recovery. Subsidising the railways was seen as politically unviable especially with the re-election of Churchill; so the railways came up with vague hopes of "modernisation" with the promise that it would, eventually, lead to a break-even point within the medium term. Some numbers acceptable to the Treasury were scribbled on an envelope, and it was published as the Modernisation Plan.

 

probably very near to the truth. It's a fact that BR could have modernised 10 years earlier.
I think people like Riddles clung to steam in the hope that more electrification would come along.