DEFRA BAN WILL HIT MAIN LINE THE HARDEST

I read with considerable interest your article on the DEFRA proposals for phasing out domestic coal as a source of energy in the not-too-distant future and the likely impact of this on steam operations.

I have no doubt that when these proposals become law, the effects on steam organisations will be immense, but remember that the average price per tonne quoted by the preservation scene refers to bulk wagon load, single site deliveries of around 28 tonnes.

Now imagine the effect on main line steam.

For the past 12 or so years, I have been involved with the logistics of organising deliveries of coal directly into the tender of a large ‘Pacific’ on railtours across the country, and the coal price per tonne in real terms was more akin to £450, so in the case of a tentonne capacity tender: £4,500.

While it’s extremely unlikely that a full ten tonnes would be required at some point in the journey, I regularly ordered five to seven tonnes for lineside delivery by assisted transport, and if you got it wrong and could not take the amount ordered, the supplier would add a restocking charge quite simply because tipping coal from a wagon crushes it and you end up with unusable dust.

Invariably, the tour operator wants as many paying passengers as possible, so for a Class 8 ‘Pacific’, adding an extra coach can, so we are told, make the difference between profit or loss.

The addition of a diesel adding some 120 tonnes extra dead weight as specified by some TOCs makes fuel consumption much worse and invariably shortens the operational range, particularly on water consumption where recorded average consumption goes from 55 gallons per mile to 75 gallons per mile, depending on the topography of the route and the way in which the engine is driven and fired.

So what are the alternatives to coal-fired steam locomotives? Heavy oil was tried out by the GWR and other pre-nationalised railways without much success, and oil is also a fossil fuel with a finite lifetime.

Biomass fuels are also fossil fuels, albeit with a lower carbon footprint than burning wood alone. Liquefied petroleum gas is another option, which again is derived from fossil fuel but has the advantage of eliminating smoke and carbon emissions and reducing locomotive maintenance. By replacing the existing fire grate and ashpan with a bespoke bank of fully controllable burner nozzles and modifying the tenders/bunkers to accept LPG, a pressure vessel would be the most realistic option.

Having said all that, reducing the fireman’s role to adjusting burners may remove the romance of steam to those fortunate enough to crew steam locomotives.

Ken Wilcock, Bury

SO WHAT ARE THE ALTERNATIVES TO COAL-FIRED STEAM LOCOMOTIVES?