What does withdrawn actually mean

[Andy873]

When BR officially withdrew a steam locomotive does that actually mean it was stored at an mdp just waiting to be scrapped? Or would they sometimes bring it "out of retierment" if needed?

i.e. was it just black and white, or a grey area?

I have several instances of engines supposed to have been withdrawn, yet spotted working on lines.

Thanks,
Andy.

 

[Taunton]

Yes, it was a grey area. It is really an accounting classification of the assets at headquarters, no longer attributed to a certain cost centre etc. Whether, several hundred miles from head office, it is physically able to be steamed and used is sort of separate - and whether the foreman at the depot knows this official status is different again.

The same applies to many other railway aspects. "Allocated" can sometimes be quite different to where it is actually operating from. "Scrapped" can be anything from standing in a siding to being razor blades.

 

[Andy873]

That's very interesting.

So it is perfectly possible that an engine could (on the books) be no longer in use, and yet it's still being used from time to time?

That would tie in nicely with my theory about several engines.

For example, 48218, apparently withdrawn 30 Sept 1967, was still being used (at least until the end of that year).

 

[341o2]

what broadly happened, up to the final few years of BR steam was that the railways scrapped their own locomotives, at most works there was a "graveyard" siding, where withdrawn locomotives awaited their fate.

In the final years, some 16,000 locomotives were withdrawn, and BR could not cope, so locomotives were sold to independant scrapyards, the most famous of course being Barry.

So a withdrawn locomotive would make its way, often under its own steam to its final destination. Adrian Vaughn recalls in "Signalman's Twilight", that in theory from 1964, most of the WR, and certainly the main line into Paddington should be 100% diesel, but due to failures steam locomotives had to be used, one reason - which still gives me a smile - were electrical faults which were inexplicable until it was realised that the ledge above the instrument console was ideal for the driver's tea can, the sugered tea would slop out and cause a short circuit

One substitute steamer was an absolutely decrepit Hall which was only in steam for its final run to the scrapyard. The crew ran it faster and faster enjoying a last fling until it broke an intermediate valve rod (Signalman's twilight) so presumably this loco was already withdrawn before getting a repreive due to diesel failure. It was so decrepit that it's identity was not noted

Christmas 1966, and the Southern region realised they would be short of motive power, so went to see what other regions had. The report was the SR had scrapped better locos, so it was back to their own scrap queue and a repreive for some withdrawn engines

 

[Rover]

When BR officially withdrew a steam locomotive does that actually mean it was stored at an mdp (MPD) just waiting to be scrapped?

Yes, or in a yard/siding.

Or would they sometimes bring it "out of retierment" if needed?

Yes.

was it just black and white, or a grey area?

Definitely a grey area.

 

[Andy873]

So based on what everyone has said regarding withdrawing an engine, does either or both of the following sound reasonable / plausable for engine 48218, officially withdrawn 30th Sept 1967?

1. The engine was withdrawn whilst it was being used as a works train lifting the line but they continued using it until the lifting of the track was finished.

2. The engine now withdrawn (now October for example), was allocated the task of the works train pulling up the track and used until it was completed. As a withdrawn engine, in good condition with no official duties it would have been spare, and was a regular engine on this line.

48218 spent it's last years at Rose Grove mpd only 5 or 6 miles away, and I know it was spotted there in January 68, and there is a photo of it as the works train during the last few months of 67.

What I am really asking, do points 1 and/or point 2 sound logical, reasonable / plausable?

 

[neilmc]

I posted this on a similar thread last year:

Has anyone any incidents of this happening especially in the final years of steam? Some I have picked up in recent times:

J36 65345, the last working steam loco in Scotland, was allegedly used at Thornton Junction as a replacement for "failed" diesels on local trip workings in 1967 until this was discovered and stopped.

Brit 70045 "Lord Rowallan" was sent from Rose Grove to Wigan on January 1st 1968 on a coal train although technically withdrawn the previous day. Possibly a sneaky move by the Rose Grove shed foreman to dump a scrapper on to Springs Branch, where I "ticked" it a few weeks later. If true then the last non-preserved Britannia working.

Jubilee 45562 "Alberta". This worked a railtour in October 1967 after its depot Leeds Holbeck had closed to steam. Not sure whether it was withdrawn at the time or kept in nominal service at Normanton, or temporarily reinstated. I don't think anyone would have rostered a withdrawn engine for a passenger working, surely?

I suppose if depots were about to close and the staff become redundant, they might not be too choosy about the exact status of a given locomotive if they had a duty to fill and a shortage of serviceable locos.

 

[Andy873]

42732 was withdrawn 12/06/1965 and yet it was being used in October to clear out the goods yard at Gt Harwood.

BR were trying to get as many steam engines off the books as quickly as possible which left them short of engines from time to time.

I'm sure there were other instances of engines withdrawn but still being used.

 

[Taunton]

Bear in mind that BR didn't have to go through any certification process on their locos, get them taxed, or anything like that. They just owned them. They didn't declare profits, so no fiddling of this by mis-allocating depreciation. So the concept of being "withdrawn" was just a paper transaction. I presume they allocated repair labour and materials to each loco, and coal, although with the unsophisticated systems about in those days, maybe it was just all averaged.

There were of course a much larger number the other way, locos still theoretically allocated for service which had been stood unserviceable, maybe with key parts missing, for many months.

 

[edwin_m]

Presumably there was an equivalent of the "boiler ticket" that now forces many preserved locos into (sometimes temporary) retirement. If so I guess it would have been much harder to keep a loco working "under the radar" if it became due for boiler inspection/testing.

 

[Rover]

So based on what everyone has said regarding withdrawing an engine, does either or both of the following sound reasonable / plausable for engine 48218, officially withdrawn 30th Sept 1967?

1. The engine was withdrawn whilst it was being used as a works train lifting the line but they continued using it until the lifting of the track was finished.

2. The engine now withdrawn (now October for example), was allocated the task of the works train pulling up the track and used until it was completed. As a withdrawn engine, in good condition with no official duties it would have been spare, and was a regular engine on this line.

48218 spent it's last years at Rose Grove mpd only 5 or 6 miles away, and I know it was spotted there in January 68, and there is a photo of it as the works train during the last few months of 67.

What I am really asking, do points 1 and/or point 2 sound logical, reasonable / plausable?

Yes, quite plausible.

 

[Andy873]

Thanks everyone for all your replies.

The subject of withdrawing an engine was always a question mark for me, but I can now see how in 1967 it would have been quite easy to use a withdrawn engine in Lancashire.

The north west, especially Lancashire was the last bastion of steam at this point, indeed I am told people came from all over the country just to see the engines run.

I am sure now 48218 was indeed the very last engine used (certainly at the Gt Harwood end of the line), and withdrawn or not it was used in the last 3 / 4 months of 67 to lift the last remaining up line.

Thanks everyone again, this has helped to confirm a puzzle I've had for some years now.