Is main line steam being pushed too hard?

[EddieB]

The current issue of Steam Railway (SR388) carries a rather timely and thoughful piece written by an "informed insider" (a name-withheld "former BR manager", who presents sufficient grounds for speculation when he writes with authority on "Britannia" loadings on the Great Eastern section ).

 

The points are well made. Most main line steam locomotives are required to exceed the loadings and timings that would have applied during the steam era. Less attention is being paid to the stresses that are placed on components, especially the effects of heating/cooling cycles on fireboxes and boilers.

 

Is he right? Certainly there has been a high rate of attrition for the main line certified steam locmotives over the past couple of years.

 

But is wringing the ultimate performance out of a locomotive an economic necessity nowadays? Do access charges, marketing and other costs require that tours must be fully laden (in response Graeme Bunker counters that profit is made only in the last coach), or that they would otherwise price potential participants out of reach?

 

Does it matter? What if the present steam fleet were to be life-expired in fifteen to twenty years time? Will there still be enough interest to sustain steam specials when the generation that remembers steam have dropped their fires? Will there even be a railway to run such trains? Perhaps we should - although I say perish the thought - let these machines bow out spectacularly rather than moulder gracefully.

[Kris]

Given that the parts of the loco that wear are regularly replaced I see no reason for them to be life expired in 15 to 20 years time. Even those parts that are not regularly replaced are replaceable, you've only got to look at the state that some locos were in before they were repaired to see this. The 2 greatest issues could be the ever increasing use of the system reducing the number of available paths that could be used for tours and a lack of crew to drive and fire the locos.

[LH&JC]

I wonder if it is from the same informed insider who has been intermittently predicting the end of main line steam for years?

 

 

[ben racey]

Main line steam seems to be in good health at present, a goodly selection of off beat tours and regular itinerary workings in the summer as well. Rather than the machines, is the greater threat in the long term a lack of willing qualified steam support crew?

 

Regards

 

Richard.

[The Stationmaster]

There has been a school of thought for some long time that exceeding the original maximum permitted loads is not a good idea (and I am a member of that school of thought as it happens) but that reasoning is based on reliability on the road, especially on gradients, which in turn impacts on timekeeping and hence on the sheer ability to keep steam specials 'on the graph'. The counter to that argument is that the old loads were based on averages and locos today are in far better mechanical condition than they were 'on average' back in BR days - and that is a very reasonable counter argument. However I do think there is an increasing tendency to push loads as high as possible for economic reasons and regrettably that is bound to backfire on timekeeping sometimes because, however good they are, we are dealing with steam locos which by their very nature can suffer vagaries in performance for all sorts of reasons and if a loco is being loaded to the maximum those vagaries can rapidly turn into crippling problems.

 

Steam will only survive on the mainline if it is reliable, profitable and pays its way - but that profit can quickly vanish if it's necessary to get a shove, let alone be recovered from a failure, with the aid of a handy passing diesel which is rather like calling out a plumber (only in this case it's a thousand quid before the charges for time etc are added on).

 

As far as stresses on components are concerned I don't have any worries beyond the ability to keep bearings in good condition and properly lubricated and making sure that injectors work properly all the time. Every large steam loco owner/operator I know of practices sensible steam raising and boiler cooling times but there is of course the slight impediment that locos are only steamed occasionally and that can have a deleterious affect on boiler components however careful the owners are. The result can be a few minor leaks here & there which comes back to the heavy load situation where the loco is required to give of its best but might just be a little short of being able to do so; which neatly takes me back to where I started.

[Oldddudders]

I don't pay a great deal of attention to mainline steam, but occasionally see disappointing headlines when something goes awry. One such recently related to the failure or poor steaming of a Bulleid pacific, allegedly due to poor coal. I was brought up to believe that Bulleid pacifics would steam all day on everything from slack to old socks - what has changed to make such a loco more temperamental?

[TheSignalEngineer]

The biggest concern to my mind is the demographics of steam enthusiasts. I have posted a small number of films on Youtube in the past. Checking who is looking at them I find that about 60% of viewings are by the over 55 age group.

[PhilH]

I don't pay a great deal of attention to mainline steam, but occasionally see disappointing headlines when something goes awry. One such recently related to the failure or poor steaming of a Bulleid pacific, allegedly due to poor coal. I was brought up to believe that Bulleid pacifics would steam all day on everything from slack to old socks - what has changed to make such a loco more temperamental?

 

Urban myth - any steam loco needs good coal to perform at it's best, even Bulleids. Once the thing starts clinkering up you've had it. You can get batches of 'coal' which look like coal but just won't burn - it's just black dirt really.

[Oldddudders]

Urban myth - any steam loco needs good coal to perform at it's best, even Bulleids. Once the thing starts clinkering up you've had it. You can get batches of 'coal' which look like coal but just won't burn - it's just black dirt really.

That seems reasonable, and in view of your weekend activities I'm sure you know! Actually I'm almost pleased that the situation is that simple - I was worried that there might be an EU-mandated requirement to burn lead-free coal!

[craigwelsh]

The biggest concern to my mind is the demographics of steam enthusiasts. I have posted a small number of films on Youtube in the past. Checking who is looking at them I find that about 60% of viewings are by the over 55 age group.

Just like railway modelling I think the real steam preservation moevement will always be dominated by those approaching retirement with more disposable income and time with no kids about. As long as the number of views isn't tailing off I wouldn't be too worried about the demographic remaining relatively old.

 

Mind you that demographic has probably helped mainline steam keep itself quite healthily through the current economic issues.

[James]

One such recently related to the failure or poor steaming of a Bulleid pacific, allegedly due to poor coal. I was brought up to believe that Bulleid pacifics would steam all day on everything from slack to old socks - what has changed to make such a loco more temperamental?

Could it partly be that those who worked on them everyday knew how to get the best out of their machines in a way that those who only occasionally do so, just don't?

[plarailfan]

The last steam loco's were built in 1959 - 1960, they were only intended to last 10 years or so, and were built 'on the cheap' compared to earlier locomotives.

Here we are, over 50 years later, still seeing them in regular service on preserved railways and the main line, it's quite a marvel really.

50 years ago, crews fired and drove these machines on a daily basis and the skills were passed on, over years, by experienced men, however, these days, the skills are taught by qualified people, on a less frequent, (rather than daily) basis, which should be fine, but I fear the current health and safety climate, could impact in some way on steam locomotives in the future, along with legislation regarding rebuilding and overhauls. (the broom with ten new handles and five new heads)

The current work on 'Flying Scotsman' has already had to take account of what is and what's not allowed, regarding replacement / new metal.

I may be mistaken, but I understand the Tornado people wanted a copper boiler, but legislation demanded a steel boiler which is more prone to cracks, caused by the vibration of running on rails.

Thing is though, if steam did bow out gracefully, would preserved railways survive and thrive without steam hauled trains ??

[James]

The last steam loco's were built in 1959 - 1960, they were only intended to last 10 years or so, and were built 'on the cheap' compared to earlier locomotives.

I don't buy that - it was the modernisation plan and then the desire to rid the railway of steam which lead to short working lives.

[PhilH]

A few facts wouldn't go amiss in all this speculation - one is that people like Ian Riley who is a main line steam loco owner/ restorer/ operator with his own works in Bury turn out locomotives for the main line which are far better than they ever were in BR days, They are inspected more rigorously, more regularly, they are maintained to a far higher standard with all repairs / components made by certificated people from materials with audited provenance. The days of knocking any old lump of metal into shape and nailing it on are long gone, even on preserved railways.

 

When a steam locomotive is presented for work on, and audited for, the main line it will be as good as or better than that loco has ever been in it's working life - it's just not allowed to be any other way.

[The Stationmaster]

The last steam loco's were built in 1959 - 1960, they were only intended to last 10 years or so, and were built 'on the cheap' compared to earlier locomotives.

 

 

I don't see quite how - apart from leaving bits off - you can build a steam loco 'on the cheap' but still do so to contemporaneous operating and engineering standards. The 9Fs were designed in the early 1950s with a likely full life envisaged for and no money was spent on re-design when it was realised their working life might be shortened nor could material be skimped as the components of the final locos were largely interchangeable with those of the earliest . Boilers have to designed to a standard set by the pressure they are to contain and similar design criteria apply to other parts too - could, for example, frames be made slightly thinner with a risk that they would fail in traffic or tyres be made thinner on the basis that they wouldn't have to last as long? Somehow I don't think that happened.

[Guest Tom F]

The last steam loco's were built in 1959 - 1960, they were only intended to last 10 years or so, and were built 'on the cheap' compared to earlier locomotives.

 

I was always told that the BR Standards were built to last into the 70s and 80s.....

[Brinkly]

I was always told that the BR Standards were built to last into the 70s and 80s.....

 

Yeah in theory, most BR Standards (and indeed most steam locos) were meant to have a usable life of around 20-25 years. So in theory one built in 1960 would still be usable in 1980, working on the basis of a locomotive built in we'll say 1930 still being used in 1955. (The GWR 64xx class being one example that I can think of quickly)

 

Regards,

 

Nick

[gc4946]

Could the issue also be a lack of paths on the busier main lines? Last year I travelled on the White Rose special from Leeds to London KX and the train was over an hour late by the time it arrived in London. When it did get on the move 46115 Scots Guardsman reached its 75mph limit fairly quickly, but it was held up by delays at watering stops and signal checks, unlike modern traction, takes longer to recover from delays.

The ECML has frequent 125mph services and if steam specials are delayed, even by a few minutes, they lose their path further down the line which leads to cumulative delays, so obviously, in order to meet agreed Network Rail timings, I can imagine engine crews having to work harder and smarter to minimise delays.

[Edwin_m]

Wouldn't the WD 2-8-0s and 2-10-0s be a better example than their 9F cousins of something designed with little regard to lifetime? It would be difficult to compare them with the 9Fs, due to the short service life of the latter, but did the WDs show any signs of wearing out faster than other types (Stanier 8F?) on similar duties? According to Wikipedia most of BR's ex-WD 2-8-0s lasted well into the 60s.

[craigwelsh]

The last steam loco's were built in 1959 - 1960, they were only intended to last 10 years or so, and were built 'on the cheap' compared to earlier locomotives.

As others said they were costed for far longer than 10 years and the last 9F's were built to the same quality as the first ones. They were designed to ease maintenance but not cheap. The WD stuff was built cheap and cheerful and lasted much longer than expected anyway.

 

The current work on 'Flying Scotsman' has already had to take account of what is and what's not allowed, regarding replacement / new metal.

I may be mistaken, but I understand the Tornado people wanted a copper boiler, but legislation demanded a steel boiler which is more prone to cracks, caused by the vibration of running on rails.

Thing is though, if steam did bow out gracefully, would preserved railways survive and thrive without steam hauled trains ??

The Tornado team specified a steel firebox because the German works building it were used to steel, much more common over there in their practice. A copper firebox may have been in keeping with the original design but steel fireboxes had precedence in Britain with the Bullied pacifics anyway I believe.

 

New metal does need certain standards for the main line in terms of its provenance but most of the work on Flying Scotsman was needed anyway for any sort of running. I know the G5 project had to up the spec of some parts to conform to mainline standard but I dont think it was a lot of top of the need to build it from scratch anyway..

 

Why mention preserved lines stopping steam? This thread was about mainline running .

[Tom Bayford]

The Waterloo to Weymouth Route is Busy this year busier than last year so it isnt dying

[t-b-g]

I would suggest that the carriages in use today are probably all roller bearing fitted air braked stock and therefore less hard work to pull, once they are moving. Also the permanent way is much better on most main lines. It is now quite possible to get up to 75mph and just stay there until the next stop, certainly on the ECML.

 

I would like to see the timings of the recent run with Dominion of New Zealand/Sir Nigel Gresley. I have a suspicion that if the times of the stops are taken out, the Kings Cross - Edinburgh running time might be quite close to the pre war streamline times with a much bigger load.

 

My concern would be with crews, doing what highly experienced top link crews, with years and many thousands of miles of express working, used to do. In the old days the crews would really get to know the individual techniques for getting the best out of different locos.

 

Crews today only get a run on the main line a few times a year, probably with a different loco each time, so there is no way thay can gain the level of experience of the steam age drivers and unsuitable firing techniques can have an effect on the lifespan of a firebox.

 

But while it is permitted and the locos and crews are available to do it, why not let them run at a decent speed. Even at 75mph with a 12 or 13 carriage load, most of the bigger locos are working within their capacity by some way.

 

The sight of a big loco getting a decent train underway is something that some of us cannot remember apart from in preservation. Having seen Tornado accelerate away from a stop like she can, or Dominion of New Zealand tearing by with a full load, they are sights worth keeping for future generations.

[EddieB]

I don't think any production steam locomotives (i.e. barring some odd prototypes and "experiments") were envisaged as being built as "stop gaps" with short working lives. That 9Fs were still being built at Swindon while dieselisation was in full sway is more a measure of the "left hand not knowing what the right hand was doing" (hardly unique in a nationalised industry). Not forgetting that pre-Beeching there would continue to be motive power requirements on secondary lines that might necessitate the survival of steam beyond the early projections of its demise. Certainly the standard designs, with their then modern construction and accessibility for maintenance, had every reason to have lasted upwards of thirty years, had the politics of modernisation not intervened.

 

It was perhaps unfair to the author of the piece referred to for me to conflate attrition and renewal of parts with eventual demise of the entire steam fleet. However there must come a point at which renewal ceases to be economic and the locomotive must be retired. It's one thing for a talisman locomotive like "Flying Scotsman" to be financed for what amounts to an almost total rebuild, but will funds be available when other less famous locomotives require extensive repairs?

 

Where the article has clear resonance is that the programme of steam tours has been subject to cancellations, failures and substitutions due to various defects, which do appear to result from locomotives being over-stressed. Yes, they may be more carefully and individually maintained than the "average locomotive" from the steam era, certainly in the last years of steam, but none are turning anywhere near the annual mileages recorded by locomotives at their peak, yet the failure rates (MTBF if you prefer) appear to be much higher.

 

I don't think anyone is calling for an end to main line steam (least of all me), but perhaps we need to do more to conserve the star performers. Perhaps the German Plandampf concept - where locomotives work more normal services with more realistic loads (and, of course, the linesiders contribute to the costs as well as the train particpants) - may be a more viable long-term alternative?

[EddieB]

 

The sight of a big loco getting a decent train underway is something that some of us cannot remember apart from in preservation. Having seen Tornado accelerate away from a stop like she can, or Dominion of New Zealand tearing by with a full load, they are sights worth keeping for future generations.

 

Aye, there's the rub: under the nameplates DONZ is still "Bittern", and just how much of her will be there for future generations if she is being thrashed mercilessly?

[darren01]

Urban myth - any steam loco needs good coal to perform at it's best, even Bulleids. Once the thing starts clinkering up you've had it. You can get batches of 'coal' which look like coal but just won't burn - it's just black dirt really.

 

 

HI All

 

I can agree with that about coal and the right type used ,at nine elms in the 60’s they had three grades of coal for their locomotives , coal for shunting locomotives ,coal for freight and ,coal for passenger, crew would be in trouble if they where found loading up with the wrong type of coal.

 

The better the quality of the coal the better the steaming, during the war they used things called brickkets, powdered coal compressed , fire man hate it.

 

 

I have some coal at home for my fire place and no matter how much wood, fire liters I put on, this stuff won’t burn, I think I have been sold rocks painted black! , anyone wants six bags of rocks?

 

All the best

 

Darren