The LNER Encyclopedia

I've read many times that the quality of coal available to the railways declined markedly during and after WWII. This directly influenced design parameters, producing designs like the B1 and K1 that could operate successfully on coal of lower quality.

My question is - why was this so? What happened to all the 'good' coal? Was it exported or were other industries given preference?

There are a number of reasons why the general quality of the coal supplied to the railways declined after WW2. As more mines were mechanised with power cutting of coal, supplies of good lump steam coal began to diminish and also coal prices began to rise substantially.The large mechanised coaling plants built at sheds, though a great time and labour saver, also made it more difficult to monitor supplies and in some cases led to fragmentation of certain types of coal. This is one reason given for the lack of such plants at former GWR sheds where soft Welsh coal - very friable - might be the main type supplied. It was less of a problem with harder coals. At King's Cross the engine for the Elizabethan was always coaled after arrival at the small coaling plant in the station loco yard so that supplies could be monitored Another reason for the coal problem was the economic state of the country after WW2 when we were desperate to export anything we could to earn foreign exchange which meant premium grades of coal went abroad. I've also thought that BR was sometimes treated very much as a second class 'captive' customer by another nationalised industry the NCB, even though it was buying some 12-14 million tons per year. The BTC archives at Kew mention meetings between BR and the NCB to try to improve matters and there is a cryptic comment from one railway officer to the effect that the situation was better in Scotland as presumably the NCB did not have more lucrative customers to supply there! Of course there were also times C1949 when services were cancelled due to coal shortages, a result of labour problems and low productivity in the mines and a former Yorkshire locoman I knew remembers their shed burning imported American coal at this time, despite sitting on top of one of the UK's largest and most productive coal fields. There were also the infamous ovoids made from coal dust which made the eyes smart when burned and supplied as a means of extending supplies. Post war the results of this were often poor steaming .For instance, the single chimney Gresley Pacifics could and did have their steaming problems at times post-war and it eventually took the fitting of double kylchap blastpipes and chimneys to overcome the problem. These problems were almost entirely due to the decline in coal quality. Things could also vary at different sheds, coal might be decent one week ,poor the next; or some sheds might do consistently well for coal, depending on where their supplies came from. It was something of a lottery. Things probably did improve overall in the later 1950s but pre-war quality standards were not in general restored. Also poorer coals meant more coal was burned to less effect and coal consumption and of course the railway coal bill rose substantially as a result

The Barnsley seam was a good one and the LNER used Harworth coal for flying Scotsman on its famous run.

This one is an interesting read.
http://www.transportdiversions.com/publ ... pubid=3661

It was ironic that on the old Hull and Barnsley section,a line dedicated to serving the south Yorkshire coalfields,that the Springhead loco's were coaled with about 30% briquettes.
These were a mixture of coal dust and cement powder and used to litter the line between Hull and South Howden(that is as far as Botanic passenger engines went) having been thrown off by disgusted firemen.
During my last year at Botanic shed we were frequently coaled using imported Polish coal (mainly dust) of the very poorest quality.
Even standing with blower full on,it was difficult to raise steam.
The complaints were many and frequently lurid.

In my youth, I walked or cycled most of the H&B route between Willerby & the bridge at Barmby and I can vouch for the brickettes (or were they ovoids?) littered all along the lineside.

You paint a vivid picture, bricam 5 - no romance of the iron road there! It was like when Dick Hardy was on a radio programme not so long ago explaining that there was no glamour involved when a set of men booked on for a nights work disposing of perhaps eight engines arriving on the shed, no romance at all, he said. Maybe people tend to look at steam traction through rose tinted spectacles now, but I can see how most blokes then took to diesels.....

As you say,there was little romance for those who worked engines on a daily basis and the stable and prep link had the least of all but...I would not be subscribing to this forum if I were disenchanted with steam on the contrary,I loved steam locomotives and still do. I only left the railway at the decline of steam which shows that (a) There is a magnetism about the steam loco. Or (b) I was an idiot.
Answers on a postcard please,no prizes.