Plea to bring back steam on Coast line

Press, 20 September 1978, Page 17

Plea to bring back steam on Coast line

By

JOHN WILSON

A retired Christchurch engineer, Mr S. B. Barltrop, has his own solution to a number of national and local problems — the revival of steam railcars for use on the line to the West Coast. Two were in service in New Zealand in the 1920 s and 19305. Steam-driven railcars would, running on an indigenous fuel — coal or LPG — reduce the country’s import bill for oil. (The railcars phased out

The 1920 s was a time of vigorous experiment in various forms of rail passenger transport. Besides the two steam railcars which were brought into service, railways engineers developed their own petrol and diesel driven units. One of the more startling was the mounting of a Model-T on flanged wheels to provide a petrol-driven rail-“car”.

The first of the two steam railcars tested here was the Sentinel-Gammell, which was being

used in Britain and elsewhere and was brought into New Zealand in 1925. Designated RMI, it carried 48 passengers at a maximum speed of 45 m.p.h. in a car which was 56Aft long and weighed 20 tons.

Its articulated powerunit consisted of a vertical steam boiler which delivered steam at 2701 b per sq. inch to cylinders. The engine developed 75 h.p. at 450 r.p.m. and needed to be replenished with water every 50 miles and with coal every 80 miles. RMI was tested on the Hutt line. In 1926 it was taken to Frankton and provided a night passenger service to Thames. It was withdrawn from service the next year because of mechanical shortcomings and because, when partly

by the Railways Department ran on diesel). They would also allow the department to maintain a fast frequent service on those lines where such a service meets the need better than engine and carriage trains or motor coaches. Mr Barltrop sees the introduction of engine and carriage trains in place of railcars as a retrograde step. Equipment of a gross weigh, exceeding 100 tons

laden, it gave its passengers a rough ride. The Sentinel-Gammell was followed in 1926 by the Clayton railcar, RM2, also built in England, but to a different design. It was driven from one end by a steam bogie with a

vertical boiler, water tank, and coal bunker.

Its two cylinders were driven by steam at 2301 b per sq. inch. The engine developed 84 h.p. at 450 r.p.m. and gave the railcar a top speed of 45 m.p.h. on the level. RM2 was 55ft long, weighed 24 tons, and could carry 56 passengers.

The Clayton had a much longer working life than the Sentinel-Gammell. It first went into service on the Kurow line, where it proved satisfactory, and was transferred, in 1930, to the Invercargill-Bluff section of the South Island main trunk line where it remained until 1937.

Neither was used on the line between Christchurch and the West Coast. When railcars were put into service on this line in the mid-1030s they were much smaller diesel-powered units. These railcars, the

is being used to transport about 60 passengers and light freight. A steam railcar capable of taking the same load would not exceed 40 tons, gross weight.

Steam railcars, Mr Barltrop believes, can be built in re-equjpped railways workshops, providing employment within New Zealand and saving on the overseas funds needed to import alternatives — diesel-driven locomotives or railcars.

petto 1-driven railcars which were put into service in the Wairarapa at about the same time, and the Standard railcars which went into service in the North Island soon afterwards, were all designed and built in the Hutt railway workshops. Later rail cars — the Vulcans and Fiats —- which were used extensively in both islands, were, however, designed and built overseas. Mr Barltrop is confident

that Railways Department engineers could, using existing technology of steam boilers and ancillary equipment, produce steam railcar units in double-quick time at an estimated SIM for a prototype and SI2M for all the units the country would require. But will the money be forthcoming?

Both the Railways Department and the National Union of Railwaymen have strong reservations about Mr Barltrop’s proposal. The general manager of the department, Mr T. M. Hayward, agrees that although it would be feasible for the Railways to design and build steampowered railcars, a number of circumstances militate against their re-in-troduction.

The main reason, Mr Hayward points out, for the demise of steam trac-

Mr Barltrop’s claims are largely vidicated by the country’s experience with steam-driven railcars in the 19205. Of the two units imported at that time, one at least proved mechanically and economically sound. But cheap oil from the 1930 s onwards killed the chances of steam railcars proving themselves further. Now with oil much more expensive and likely to increase in price, the economic advantages of

tion throughout the world is the poor thermal efficiency of steam traction units compared to other formis of motive power. Steam traction units have a thermal efficiency generally in the order of 6 to 7 per cent, compared to diesels’ 30 to 40 per cent. Most of the fuel bill of a steam locomotive goes up the chimney. Maintenance costs and availability also weigh against the re-introduction

of steam power. Steam locomotives, Mr Hayward says, had to go into the workshops for overhaul approximately three times as often as diesel locomotives of equivalent power ratings. They were also out of service for depot maintenance (boiler cleaning, cleaning of flues, etc.) more frequently and for longer periods. The president of the National Union of Railwaymen (Mr George Finlayson) has argued that if the railway workshops can refurbish old railcars, surely they can build new ones. But the union as a whole is not enthusiastic about Mr Barltrop’s suggestion. It regards a return to steam as only a stop-gap measure which does not warrant the expense involved. It sees a fully electrified service, backed by New Zealand-manufac-tured rolling stock, as the

using steam power to drive railcars are probably greater. And they can be designed and built, Mr Barltrop points out, to incorporate the spectacular advances which have been made in steam technology in the 50 years that have passed since steam railcars were last given a triaL The innovations Mr Barltrop has in mind are those on which a Mel-

ultimate answer. It believes that unless an urgent move is made in the direction of electrification, the country might find itself the victim of a worsening energy crisis.

But Mr Barltrop has not’ been deterred by these lukewarm responses to his proposal. He believes that Mr Hayward has entirely missed the point — the re-introduction of steam railcars to replace those driven by diesel, not the reintroduction of steam locomotives.

The comments on thermal efficiency, Mr Barltrop says refer to steam locomotives, which are based on steam exhaust to promote draft in the boilers. A steam railcar, incorporating a modern generator, could attain a thermal efficiency as high as 25 per cent — the figure reached by the steam motorcar which is being sponsored by the Federal Government in Australia.

What should be important is the comparative cost of running a unit by steam of diesel. Mr Hayward has only to refer, Mr Barltrop suggests, to the figures of the electricity division of the Ministry of Energy to find out which is cheaper- Mr Barltrop sees a reluctance on Mr Hayward’s part to admit that, the tables have been turned since the 19405, when economic considerations forced steam railcars off the tracks. The steam railcar RM2 ran efficiently for more than 10 years at a cost of 9 cents a kilometre. Under present day conditons

boume engineer, Mr T. Pritchard, has been working for years. The Australian Federal Government has been sponsoring the development and testing of Mr Pritchard’s engine since 1975 — this year to the tune of $150,000. This steam engine is expected to better the performance of internal combustion engines of similar capacity in performance, economy, and ease of maintenance.

the cost would be 95 cents a kilometre. A similar unit today, incorporating a modern coil steam gen-

erator fired by LPG, would certainly operate at a lower cost. With coal as the fuel, the cost would be slightly higher. The Railways Department no longer produces annual figures on the costs of running railcars (or locomotives), as it did in the days of steam. But Mr Barltrop believes, in the absence of official fig-

The omission of a costly transmission system favours the steam engine and this advantage applies equally to steam railcars. Transmission problems have been the major maintrnsnce headaches and running defects of all di-esel-driven railcars. A bonus of steam railcars would be the heating of passenger compartments by steam. This is not an unimportant considera-

ures, that diesel railcars were costing in excess of 51.20 a kilometre to run —on an imported fuel.

Noting that Mr Hayward has agreed the Railways Department could design and build a steam railcar, Mr Barltrop remains sure that it should — to conserve overseas funds and to prevent the further downgrading of rail passenger transport. A cost of S2M would put in service on the West Coast line sufficient steam

tion if the railcars are running on the trans-alpine line. But Mr Barltrop is worried. He was young when steam railcars were tried out. He believes he is one of the last surviving members of the staff of the Railways Department with practical knowledge of the steam railcar units. He wonders who is left to put pressure on the Railways Department to take some action.

railcar units to prove the point. The department thinks nothing, Mr Barltrop says, of spending SI3M in Australia to repair and convert 35 DA locomotives, even though this deprived the railway workshops of work. Mr Barltrop says that the reason underlying the department’s policy to phase out railcars may be that the department thinks (according to statements Mr Hayward made in 1977) that motor coaches

are economical users of fuel, have low operating and capital costs, and cannot be matched by even the most modern rail passenger replacements. But Mr Barltrop remains convinced that this

comparison does not hold up if steam railcars were the replacement rail passenger vehicles.

Mr Barltrop agrees with the National Union of Railwaymen that electrification is the long-term answer. But he knows that

the union is aware of the astronomical cost of electrifying lines and does not see electrification as an immediate, practical answer to the question of what should replace the phased-out diesel railcar units.

Giving the work of designing and building steam railcars now to the railway workshops is the only means Mr Barltrop can see of stemming the downgrading of rail passenger transport.