Is there a link between the Clean Air Act and the decision to bring forward the end of steam

[woodenhead]

Just been watching this:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/stories-42357608/death-by-smog-london-s-fatal-four-day-pea-souper

 

Did this prompt the Government to reappraise the use of steam past the end of the 60s and hasten the transition to diesel and electrics?

[RANGERS]

Just been watching this:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/stories-42357608/death-by-smog-london-s-fatal-four-day-pea-souper

 

Did this prompt the Government to reappraise the use of steam past the end of the 60s and hasten the transition to diesel and electrics?

 

If it did, its certainly not still in the minds of politicians and regulators. The current round of Clean Air Plans, resultant pressure on diesel power and the widespread cancellation of the electrification plans, meaning continued use of diesel over so much of the network, is simply incompatible

[Mark Saunders]

If it did, its certainly not still in the minds of politicians and regulators. The current round of Clean Air Plans, resultant pressure on diesel power and the widespread cancellation of the electrification plans, meaning continued use of diesel over so much of the network, is simply incompatible

 

From what it looks like to me the current situation is that Government is avoiding the issue and passing it on to Councils!

 

Mark Saunders

[cheesysmith]

BR did draft the early diesel locos into london because of the local authorities and the clean air act.

[Davexoc]

If it did, its certainly not still in the minds of politicians and regulators. The current round of Clean Air Plans, resultant pressure on diesel power and the widespread cancellation of the electrification plans, meaning continued use of diesel over so much of the network, is simply incompatible

The real reason for the cancellation of electrification (IMO) is that with the growing uptake of electric/hybrid road vehicles, HS2 and the dragging of heels on the nuclear generation program, we are now too close to max'd out on power in this country. The big announcment during the summer that claimed we didn't use any coal and were generating 50% of power using wind sun and nuclear, just doesn't look so good now where it is less than 30%. Wind, great when it blows, but not constant, solar, waste of time this time of year when the skies aren't clear.

 

If London is the place where they are trying to improve air quality, then all those bi-modes are on electric there anyway, and sod the other towns and cities, they are smaller and less polluted in their opinion. It is shortsighted to cancel the electrification, but the GWML hasn't exactly inspired anybodies confidence in rolling it out fully. And I guess there was a point in proceedings where the Hitachi order had to be signed off for unit configurations.

 

Dave

[jjb1970]

Unfortunately very few politicians appear to have any understanding of emissions. In terms of technology, we are going through a technological transition, a very profound one. Transitions always present difficulties.

[The Johnster]

This is a point I had not considered before and a very good one.  As has been said, the early allocation of diesels for local work in London was influenced by 'clean air' regulations, and the city has a high proportion of electrified lines (and did then, too).  IIRC the main cause of the smog was held to be the burning of household coal, which released large amounts of soot and sulphur dioxide into the atmosphere, which was then held in position over London and then allowed to accumulate over several days by a stationary weather system.  Significantly, the problem was not as bad south of the river where more railways were electrified, but geographical and ground conditions are different there, too, which may have had a bearing.

 

The event certainly changed thinking on heating in new homes; nationwide, and very much in London, the biggest and most ambitious ever public housing programme to replace slum stock and war damage was in progress, and central heating was specified for this almost immediately in London; in Cardiff we were still building coal heated council houses in the early 60s.  This was another nail in the coffin of the coal industry, and possibly more detrimental to them than the change from steam power on the railways.  Nowadays a home coal fire is rare and regarded as a 'feature' for middle class homes influenced by magazine articles.  One buys 'smokeless' fuel in bags at petrol stations.

 

Diesel in it's early days was very much hailed as 'clean',  a very illusory perception but seductive at the time.  Nobody had heard of Carbon Monoxide, and the exhaust from a diesel loco is less obvious than that from a steam one.  To this day, media features about industrial pollution often feature photographs of the steam clouds issuing from the cooling towers of large power stations, a visual icon which has outlived their actual use, with the inference that this is a pollutant; it isn't, it condenses into clean water.  The same may be said of steam locomotives which are not being actively fired or working hard; most of what comes out the funnel condenses, and the bit of soot that appears doesn't get very far because it is too heavy to fall far from the railway.  Thus, a steam loco pollutes mostly when it is accelerating or climbing a gradient with a load, and hardly at all at other times, while a diesel pollutes continuously, even on tickover to some extent.

 

But there was a lot of misinformation around in the 50s and early 60s which would not be got away with now; the same may well be true of now, of course!

Edited December 16, 2017 by The Johnster

[Arun Sharma]

Going back to the original post... "I think not", would be my answer. A far bigger factor IMO was the difference in manpower requirement per unit of motive power between steam and diesel/electric and that added pension cost down the line. Whilst pension costs appear to be a new concern, the Treasury has been concerned about this for decades. It is probably the single major factor driving privatisation of state industries and creation of agencies doing governmental work but where the [new] staff are not on Civil service pensions. Any concept that reduces the number of people employed to do a job [i.e., increases productivity] will get a sympathetic hearing from the Treasury.

Additionally, it was becoming more difficult to recruit cleaners [in the sense of them also being part of the progress chain to firemen and eventually drivers] as well as people to do jobs which were frankly physically hard and dirty. Ask yourself now, if we went back to using coal as a staple fuel, do you have any acquaintances who might be prepared to work in a deep shaft coal mine? Don't forget that WINDRUSH was [largely] about getting people to work for London Transport and similar organisations.

Upward changes to the school leaving age also had a negative knock-on effect on [male] kids moving into the industries that their fathers and grandfathers had been in. 

Another less obvious factor was that employing people in road haulage services and car building [and the associated iron and steel plate industries] was seen as a way of keeping people employed - who would then pay car tax, buy taxable fuel, pay road tax etc., This would counter the negative effects of putting steam-age railwaymen out of work if they could then be employed in those "1960s sunrise industries"!

There are, in truth, no shortage of reasons why steam had to go - many of them boil down to economics and IMO none relate to matters Green.

[Reorte]

If it did, its certainly not still in the minds of politicians and regulators. The current round of Clean Air Plans, resultant pressure on diesel power and the widespread cancellation of the electrification plans, meaning continued use of diesel over so much of the network, is simply incompatible

Not really, it depends how much of a contribution towards the issue railways make. Having a general push in one direction doesn't mean that it's sensible to push everything in that direction (just considering this factor in isolation, not the wider pros and cons of spending money on electrification). "One size fits all" approaches mean a lot of hassle changing things that don't need change, which can get in the way of changing the things that do.

[frobisher]

Wind, great when it blows, but not constant,

Chunks of Scotland would beg to differ...

 

solar, waste of time this time of year when the skies aren't clear.

Modern panels will generate some power provided there's some light hitting them, even when overcast.

[The Johnster]

The blurb we all received from NR at the start of the GWML electrification, which will merely restore the timings to late 70s- 80s HST timings despite the claims of journey time cuts, stresses that, while the electric trains will still be responsible for their share of power station pollution (but should not add significantly to it), they will be 'cleaner' in city centres, presumably so long as the bi-mode diesels are not running...

 

'Green' credentials are fertile territory for misinformation.  I recall a few years ago a protest at the waste and pollution caused by Formula 1 motor racing; a year's output being about equivalent to 5 seconds of London Transport's bus operations on a working day.  Too many people are trying to save the world by telling us what we shouldn't do without thinking it through.

Edited December 17, 2017 by The Johnster

[cheesysmith]

I will just point out that the most dammaging cars to the enviroment are these hybrids. The emmisions from making the batteries and everything else are worse than anything done by diesels, but as it is in a different country and doesn`t affect london, the phrase "out of sight out of mind" comes up. The best cars for the environment over the whole life cycle are things like a land rover defender. Basic, lacking all the moulded plastic bits, not needing high tech steels or alloys, and very long lived, so offsetting the emissions from construction over a longer time frame.

 

As to diesel locos Vs steam, remember steam locos burn coal, and some of the most polluted land on the planet is where coke works were. Where do you think all the poisons came from? And steam locos cannot be just turned off when not needed, unlike a diesel. It takes a few hours to raise the stream required.

[The Johnster]

I will just point out that the most dammaging cars to the enviroment are these hybrids. The emmisions from making the batteries and everything else are worse than anything done by diesels, but as it is in a different country and doesn`t affect london, the phrase "out of sight out of mind" comes up. The best cars for the environment over the whole life cycle are things like a land rover defender. Basic, lacking all the moulded plastic bits, not needing high tech steels or alloys, and very long lived, so offsetting the emissions from construction over a longer time frame.

 

As to diesel locos Vs steam, remember steam locos burn coal, and some of the most polluted land on the planet is where coke works were. Where do you think all the poisons came from? And steam locos cannot be just turned off when not needed, unlike a diesel. It takes a few hours to raise the stream required.

 

Coke works have nothing to do with fuelling steam locos, and have not since the 1850s, though earlier locos were fuelled by coke.  Coking ovens generate pollutants not present in steam loco emissions because they burn coal at higher temperatures and release different chemicals.  Steam only needs to be raised from cold once every 3 weeks after the boiler washout; the loco is kept in 'light steam' between jobs in the meantime and raising to working pressure takes no more than about an hour.  The problem in raising steam from cold is the pressure by heat expansion on joints that may be made of different materials.

 

It depends what you mean by 'turned off when not needed'; a steam loco left idle in steam will have minimal emissions for several hours until pressure drops to the extent that the loco has to have the fire seriously rebuilt, which will give the normal coal burning smoke and gases.

 

I agree about hybrid cars, though, and recyclable materials.  Fortunately, the situation when I was young when a car was designed to last for 10 years or 100,000 miles whichever came first if it was meticulously looked after no longer applies; a modern car will last for about 20 years and mileage is more or less unlimited.

Edited December 17, 2017 by The Johnster

[PatB]

Coke works have nothing to do with fuelling steam locos, and have not since the 1850s, though earlier locos were fuelled by coke.  Coking ovens generate pollutants not present in steam loco emissions because they burn coal at higher temperatures and release different chemicals.  Steam only needs to be raised from cold once every 3 weeks after the boiler washout; the loco is kept in 'light steam' between jobs in the meantime and raising to working pressure takes no more than about an hour.  The problem in raising steam from cold is the pressure by heat expansion on joints that may be made of different materials.

 

It depends what you mean by 'turned off when not needed'; a steam loco left idle in steam will have minimal emissions for several hours until pressure drops to the extent that the loco has to have the fire seriously rebuilt, which will give the normal coal burning smoke and gases.

 

I agree about hybrid cars, though, and recyclable materials.  Fortunately, the situation when I was young when a car was designed to last for 10 years or 100,000 miles whichever came first if it was meticulously looked after no longer applies; a modern car will last for about 20 years and mileage is more or less unlimited.

 

I think Cheesysmith was suggesting that as the toxins released in cokeworks came from the coal processed then burning similar coal in a steam locomotive will result in similar toxins going up the exhaust and into the environment.

[Nearholmer]

I've delved fairly deeply into the thinking behind the transition from steam to 'modern' motive power, and although I've seen contemporary references to reduced air pollution as a 'side benefit', and in a couple of cases as a 'selling point', I don't recall seeing anything that suggests that it was a primary factor.

 

The original 1956 Clean Air Act contained a clause (19) specific to railway locomotives, which disapplied most of the Act, but left in place an obligation to prevent "dark smoke" by all means practicable (which implies 'prevent it where doing so doesn't entail disproportionate cost, time and trouble'), and everyone was given a 'get out' for lighting-up, and if no decent fuel was available.

 

My reading is that BR had very good economic reasons for deciding to dieselise east anglia first, and that any benefits to the lungs and Monday morning laundry of East London were a happy byproduct of that.

 

And, talk of London bias in electrification is spurious: London got more electrification sooner because its passenger services were busiest, and struggling to cope without electrification, and the greatest cost-savings could be had by eliminating steam from busy urban and suburban services. Railway electrification in GB started with the Tube, then went to busy urban/suburban railways, not just in London, but also around Manchester and Liverpool. And, it started a good half-century before the post- WW2 Pea Soupers.

Edited December 18, 2017 by Nearholmer

[Reorte]

The original 1956 Clean Air Act contained a clause (19) specific to railway locomotives, which disapplied most of the Act, but left in place an obligation to prevent "dark smoke" by all means practicable (which implies 'prevent it where doing so doesn't entail disproportionate cost, time and trouble'), and everyone was given a 'get out' for lighting-up, and if no decent fuel was available.

How much of that was about "not interested" though, rather than "we'd like to remove smokey trains too but it's just too impractical right now"? Just as well for steam charters and preserved railways, which I can't imagine contribute enough pollution in the grand scheme of things (hardly compares to an intesive day-in day-out steam-powered service) but which might never have got started. For similar reasons I don't expect an outright diesel ban, and there'll come the day where it's enough of a minority to be irrelevent anyway.

 

AIUI (and may be completely wrong) the main point is that the rules concern fixed chimneys, which was the handy loophole. Also means canal boats can burn coal for heating.

Edited December 18, 2017 by Reorte

[D854_Tiger]

Just been watching this:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/stories-42357608/death-by-smog-london-s-fatal-four-day-pea-souper

 

Did this prompt the Government to reappraise the use of steam past the end of the 60s and hasten the transition to diesel and electrics?

 

That's an interesting concept that steam was replaced by Deltics in order to clean up the air we breath.

[jjb1970]

Battersea power station was fitted with flue gas de-sulphurisation in the 1930's (unfortunately the FGD probably did more damage to the river Thames than the damage avoided through cleaner emissions), even in the US one of the initial drivers towards electrification and dieselisation in the 1920's was clean air legislation.

[Nearholmer]

Getting back to the 1956 Act, it looks to me like something that was amended a great deal at the drafting stage, in light of all sorts of comments from those who might be affected by it, including the railways, in that it contains all sorts of 'time to comply' and 'get out' provisions. One can almost hear the railway voices pleading for the broadest exemption that they could get.

 

JJB - I was under the impression that the early (pre-WW1) bans on steam locos in urban areas in the US weren't a product of general concern about pollution, but of accidents where trains overran signals that their drivers simply didn't see, due to railway-specific pea soup in tunnels and cuttings. Some of the early 'rural' electrification in the US were designed to avoid asphyxiation of train crews in long, uphill, narrow-bore, tunnels.

 

Some interesting reading here https://archive.org/stream/smokeabatementel00chicuoft#page/n5/mode/2up

 

It's a good reference, because, as well as talking a lot about smoke, it gives a very good summary of the progress of railway electrification worldwide up to c1910.

Edited December 18, 2017 by Nearholmer

[31A]

Again getting back to the OP (and the point made in post no. 15), it may not have influenced BR policy towards steam traction but they certainly had to take account of the Clean Air Act.

 

In his book 'Top Shed' which includes an autobiographical account of work at King's Cross loco depot in the 1950s and 60s, Peter Townend says "it was an offence under the Clean Air Act if a locomotive in steam emitted smoke "darker than Ringelmann No. 2 for more than a few minutes".  As depot staff didn't know what that looked like a Ringelmann chart was obtained and nailed to a long pole to be held in line with the loco chimney, by the Shed Master and Running Foemen making spot checks.

 

He mentions that this system didn't work very well!, and a more practical solution was to appoint a Smoke Inspector full time to the task of educating the staff at the depot in raising and maintaining steam on locomotives with the minimum emission of smoke.  He also says "Despite the difficulties in getting engines off the shed to time with Council Inspectors frequently on the premises watching for smoke the depot did manage to avoid prosecution and goodwill generally prevailed".

 

He also mentions an incident (which relates to the reference to the point made above about fixed chimneys) where he admonished the member of staff responsible for black smoke coming from the factory-type chimney at the back of the erecting shop, which came from the stationary boiler for water pumping machinery, saying that the Local Authority could well prosecute.  The member of staff replied that he didn't think so, as he was a member of the local council!

[rodent279]

Modern panels will generate some power provided there's some light hitting them, even when overcast.

And they are only going to get better & more efficient. Last time I looked into it, solar panels were under 10% efficient in terms of light energy hitting them to energy output.

[rodent279]

I will just point out that the most dammaging cars to the enviroment are these hybrids. The emmisions from making the batteries and everything else are worse than anything done by diesels, but as it is in a different country and doesn`t affect london, the phrase "out of sight out of mind" comes up. The best cars for the environment over the whole life cycle are things like a land rover defender. Basic, lacking all the moulded plastic bits, not needing high tech steels or alloys, and very long lived, so offsetting the emissions from construction over a longer time frame.

 

As to diesel locos Vs steam, remember steam locos burn coal, and some of the most polluted land on the planet is where coke works were. Where do you think all the poisons came from? And steam locos cannot be just turned off when not needed, unlike a diesel. It takes a few hours to raise the stream required.

Or in deed a Morris Minor! Think of the CO2 locked up in the wood on my Traveller! 49yrs old & still going strong. Very little plastic either.

[rodent279]

Battersea power station was fitted with flue gas de-sulphurisation in the 1930's (unfortunately the FGD probably did more damage to the river Thames than the damage avoided through cleaner emissions), even in the US one of the initial drivers towards electrification and dieselisation in the 1920's was clean air legislation.

Indeed, the famous FL9's, bi-mode diesels from the 1950's (think class 73's with a lot more muscle), were built so they could run on electric for the last few miles into the subterranean NY Central.

[Davexoc]

Chunks of Scotland would beg to differ...

 

 

Modern panels will generate some power provided there's some light hitting them, even when overcast.

While chunks of Scotland would beg to differ, wind is still very erratic. Don't forget when it is too strong they shut down.

As for solar, while they do generate something, it is only a small percentage compared to what you'd get further south.

Combined currently less than 5% of our requirements, so we have a long way to go yet.

Now tidal, there is a much more consistent power source.

 

Dave

[frobisher]

While chunks of Scotland would beg to differ, wind is still very erratic. Don't forget when it is too strong they shut down.

Only if not correctly specified for the range of wind speeds they are likely to encounter... Orkney for instance has probably the best documented set of wind speeds and turbine power generation almost anywhere in the world, hosting a couple of the commercial prototypes since the 70's. It takes extraordinary weather for those turbines to be shut down (i.e. no wind or too much wind).

 

As for solar, while they do generate something, it is only a small percentage compared to what you'd get further south.

You need to qualify that statement, given that peek production for solar panels will be the summer months in any case, and the further north (in the UK) you go, the longer the productive period of the day is during the summer.

 

Combined currently less than 5% of our requirements, so we have a long way to go yet.

Scotland is around the 50% mark of power generation through renewables, and is in clear surplus for local demand. The rest of the UK needs to catch up.

 

Now tidal, there is a much more consistent power source.

Big scheme going in just now in the Pentland Firth which has the most consistent tidal flow you can find anywhere around the UK...

Edited December 21, 2017 by frobisher