Most reliable locomotive?

[randyrippley]

Because in Russia reliability is about something being fixable and continuing to work, not never breaking down. Just thought it might make the topic more interesting.

The mindset of a country that drove Ladas

 

[SolomonSouth]

I've heard of plenty and been caught up in the failure of an odd one over the years BUT 66s for the fleet size are one of the most reliable diesel designs ever run on UK soil much as I found them very unappealing in other respects. Have heard of a lot more failures of their ETH cousins, the 67s though.

I did think they were reliable. They wouldn't run them so much if they were unreliable.

 

[Richard Scott]

Seem to remember reading somewhere that the SNCF BB15000s were about as reliable as locomotives got with rates of well in excess of 100,000 miles per failure.

 

[Adrian1980uk]

I think there are too many variables to say with any confidence, take the 90s for example, notorious on the WCML for being unreliable and initially GEML but once focused on become one of the most reliable. Also over that period in Anglia the intensity of use increased.

Diesel though is probably the 66s as shown by how popular they are.

 

[Jamesrob637]

Seem to remember reading somewhere that the SNCF BB15000s were about as reliable as locomotives got with rates of well in excess of 100,000 miles per failure.

Love the "nez cassés" of the SNCF. Apparently all were very reliable, AC or DC.

 

[MattRat]

I think there are too many variables to say with any confidence, take the 90s for example, notorious on the WCML for being unreliable and initially GEML but once focused on become one of the most reliable. Also over that period in Anglia the intensity of use increased.

Diesel though is probably the 66s as shown by how popular they are.

Popular does not necessarily equal reliable. They could still be reliable, of course.

As for electrics, the 86 has already been discounted. Add the 90 to that, and it leaves you with the 87, 91 and 92. Not too hard to keep whittling those down to one, surely?

 

[Darandio]

I did think they were reliable. They wouldn't run them so much if they were unreliable.

The have to run them so much as they make up the majority of the fleet. You also keep stating we never hear of them breaking down. We do!

 

[MattRat]

The have to run them so much as they make up the majority of the fleet. You also keep stating we never hear of them breaking down. We do!

It's no use, they, like others, appear to be on the 66 hype train. I'd love to be able to discuss what the most reliable electric loco would be, but it's like trying to get blood from a stone....

 

[SolomonSouth]

The have to run them so much as they make up the majority of the fleet.

Good point.

You also keep stating we never hear of them breaking down. We do!

OK.

 

[XAM2175]

I'd love to be able to discuss what the most reliable electric loco would be

You might get somewhere with it now, rather than continually claiming that the most reliable loco full-stop just has to be electric.

 

[MattRat]

You might get somewhere with it now, rather than continually claiming that the most reliable loco full-stop just has to be electric.

Let me reword it. I am of the opinion that electrics on average are more reliable than diesels, but that is an opinion. However, it also means I would like to discuss about electrics, out of curiosity for my own beliefs.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Almost anything that has 'English Electric' engines. Oh and don't forget the various Electric Class locomotives too, certainly Class 86 and Class 87 should be high up.

Agreed with exception of Deltics perhaps

 

[47827]

Agreed with exception of Deltics perhaps

Whilst built by brush EE engines went into the 31s several years into their careers and apart from a few depots that seemed good looking after them they were a lesser reliable product than they should have been that couldn't manage to be pushed too hard and were safer on lighter workings. Although Bescot ones were pretty poor at times and perhaps worse than average. I've heard a few comments about which (sulzer) classes should have survived longer or in bigger numbers but they either had no ETH or in the case of 33s inferior ETH. Ultimately the train supply on 31/4s probably at least helped their survival beyond the mid 1980s. The booked pair that often didn't make it all the way to a Paignton and back on summer Saturdays certainly didn't fit with a reliable class. To be fair, until I stopped bothering with them in the last few years, I never had one sit down between stations on a club train or Regional Railways diagram in the early 90s but had a few terminate en route and saw the aftermath enough times with cancelled trains, late trains, other classes subbing etc. 31s did cover a lot for supposedly ultra reliable 37s a lot up until the mid 90s too on various routes due to their ETH capability up until driver competency dried up at the relevant depots.

Certainly in their Waterloo to Exeter days 50s had very mixed reliability with frequent 33 and 47 substitutions until 47s took over the final couple of years with 50s making only sporadic appearences then. The main generators didn't particular like the constant start stop nature of that line and routes such as London to the South West and Paddington to New St were perhaps more suitable. As they often ran in pairs during their several years on the WCML its probably harder to gauge if they were miles better north of Crewe unless someone with experience of them can advise on this and whether they used to "lose one" very often.

Electrics traditionally seemed to be better but that last 4 or 5 years on WCML passenger does suggest they can't cope with any noticeable run down of maintenance, just like a diesel. Strangely as the 86s on XC and various electrics on the WCML passengers trains slipped in reliability Toton (with Eastleigh assisting) turned out to be the best depot the 47/8s ever got allocated to with them having some of the best fleet reliability and availability going in the last couple of years there thus releasing a few to cover for 86s and HST vices on a regular basis. Often the reason Fragonset and EWS locos still came out to play. When no "vice" diagrams were out the 47/8 fleet rarely needed much if any cover by the end. They were pretty naff at Crewe prior to that and not much better post XC as a small pool at Willesden just before the full 390 takeover.

 

[MattRat]

Electrics traditionally seemed to be better but that last 4 or 5 years on WCML passenger does suggest they can't cope with any noticeable run down of maintenance, just like a diesel. Strangely as the 86s on XC and various electrics on the WCML passengers trains slipped in reliability Toton (with Eastleigh assisting) turned out to be the best depot the 47/8s ever got allocated to with them having some of the best fleet reliability and availability going in the last couple of years there thus releasing a few to cover for 86s and HST vices on a regular basis. Often the reason Fragonset and EWS locos still came out to play. When no "vice" diagrams were out the 47/8 fleet rarely needed much if any cover by the end. They were pretty naff at Crewe prior to that and not much better post XC as a small pool at Willesden just before the full 390 takeover.

Wouldn't that also discount the 87s and 90s? Leaving only the 91s and 92s. Come to think of it, didn't a similar example happen to the 91s that happened to the 47s, with the 91s coming out of storage to fill in for the Azumas whilst they were out of service. And I don't remember seeing many if at all any complaints about the 91s during that time.

 

[43096]

Whilst built by brush EE engines went into the 31s several years into their careers and apart from a few depots that seemed good looking after them they were a lesser reliable product than they should have been that couldn't manage to be pushed too hard and were safer on lighter workings. Although Bescot ones were pretty poor at times and perhaps worse than average. I've heard a few comments about which (sulzer) classes should have survived longer or in bigger numbers but they either had no ETH or in the case of 33s inferior ETH. Ultimately the train supply on 31/4s probably at least helped their survival beyond the mid 1980s. The booked pair that often didn't make it all the way to a Paignton and back on summer Saturdays certainly didn't fit with a reliable class. To be fair, until I stopped bothering with them in the last few years, I never had one sit down between stations on a club train or Regional Railways diagram in the early 90s but had a few terminate en route and saw the aftermath enough times with cancelled trains, late trains, other classes subbing etc. 31s did cover a lot for supposedly ultra reliable 37s a lot up until the mid 90s too on various routes due to their ETH capability up until driver competency dried up at the relevant depots.

There was often a hierarchy in terms of stepping up to cover failures. On the East Coast it was Deltic failed, replaced by 47, which was replaced by 31. Elsewhere it was Duff failed, replaced by 37, replaced by 31. So you ended up with a loco on duties that it wasn't ideally suited for.

Certainly in their Waterloo to Exeter days 50s had very mixed reliability with frequent 33 and 47 substitutions until 47s took over the final couple of years with 50s making only sporadic appearences then. The main generators didn't particular like the constant start stop nature of that line and routes such as London to the South West and Paddington to New St were perhaps more suitable. As they often ran in pairs during their several years on the WCML its probably harder to gauge if they were miles better north of Crewe unless someone with experience of them can advise on this and whether they used to "lose one" very often.

The 47s were no more reliable than the 50s on Waterloo-Exeter, it was just the stuff that broke tended to be cheaper to fix. NSE were certainly glad to get rid of both and get the 159s in. Given the apparently challenging nature of Waterloo-Exeter for traction, the 159s have operated the route reliably for almost 30 years, which does show just how good they have been.

 

[47827]

Wouldn't that also discount the 87s and 90s? Leaving only the 91s and 92s. Come to think of it, didn't a similar example happen to the 91s that happened to the 47s, with the 91s coming out of storage to fill in for the Azumas whilst they were out of service. And I don't remember seeing many if at all any complaints about the 91s during that time.

I think the point I'd make in general regarding the overall reliability of a class is that it can vary through its lifetime and because of overall condition, maintenance quality, depot allocation, type of work, competency and attitude of crews, frequency of use etc. The 47s, like other big fleets, certainly saw massive variations over the years stemming from all that and still do. Competency of crews and amount of time sitting around inactive between use have been increasing problems in the surviving micro fleets along with long lead times for bespoke replacement parts that could have done with being part of a joint order between several loco owners (sadly not something often possible as its hard to get cooperation on such a scale for a whole host of reasons).

There was often a hierarchy in terms of stepping up to cover failures. On the East Coast it was Deltic failed, replaced by 47, which was replaced by 31. Elsewhere it was Duff failed, replaced by 37, replaced by 31. So you ended up with a loco on duties that it wasn't ideally suited for.


The 47s were no more reliable than the 50s on Waterloo-Exeter, it was just the stuff that broke tended to be cheaper to fix. NSE were certainly glad to get rid of both and get the 159s in. Given the apparently challenging nature of Waterloo-Exeter for traction, the 159s have operated the route reliably for almost 30 years, which does show just how good they have been.

I don't overly disagree regarding 47s on the Waterloo to Exeter route, although they were subject to "playing trains" substitutions at times too which marginally upticked unreliability slightly further. The choice of sh*gged 47/7s from Scotland mostly with a lick of NSE colours and a few other worn out supplements off the Thames Valley circuits as a supplement also hampered the reliability. Seems Toton plus Eastleigh (later years) and formerly Stratford and Tinsley were doing what other sheds struggled to do with the class.

 

[SolomonSouth]

I am of the opinion that electrics on average are more reliable than diesels, but that is an opinion. However, it also means I would like to discuss about electrics, out of curiosity for my own beliefs.

I've seen the reliability tables. It appears to be a fact, not an opinion. At least for multiple units. As of 2019-20, the Class 185 was the most reliable DMU with 27,000 miles between failures whilst the most reliable EMU was the c2c 387 with 206000. The 185 was only halfway up the EMU table.

Maybe it is different for locos though - if anyone can comment?

 

[D6130]

The 185 was only halfway up the EMU table.

Presumably you mean 385?

 

[Jamesrob637]

Presumably you mean 385?

No, I think SolomonSouth refers to the 185's 72000 miles between failures being only about the equivalent of mid-table EMUs, meaning electric trains seem to be much more reliable than diesel-powered ones.

 

[D6130]

No, I think SolomonSouth refers to the 185's 72000 miles between failures being only about the equivalent of mid-table EMUs, meaning electric trains seem to be much more reliable than diesel-powered ones.

Fair enough....thanks for the clarification.

 

[SolomonSouth]

No, I think SolomonSouth refers to the 185's 72000 miles between failures being only about the equivalent of mid-table EMUs, meaning electric trains seem to be much more reliable than diesel-powered ones.

Yep that is what I meant - and it is 27000 not 72000

 

[Jamesrob637]

Yep that is what I meant - and it is 27000 not 72000

Shall we turn to the French with their 100k per failures on the 15000 series?!

 

[Richard Scott]

Shall we turn to the French with their 100k per failures on the 15000 series?!

Be interesting to know what their diesel cousins (CC72000) managed? Rode behind them a lot from 2008 onwards and never saw a failed one. Know a couple self combusted but wouldn't be surprised if that was lack of maintenance?

 

[SolomonSouth]

I wonder why loco companies don't readily release reliability figures for locomotives...

 

[coppercapped]

Shall we turn to the French with their 100k per failures on the 15000 series?!

This is a valid comparison only if the SNCF also uses a 3 minute 'Technical Incident' definition. If their definition of a failure is, say, a delay of 15 minutes or more or that the loco has to be changed then the comparison is worthless.

 

[SolomonSouth]

This is a valid comparison only if the SNCF also uses a 3 minute 'Technical Incident' definition. If their definition of a failure is, say, a delay of 15 minutes or more or that the loco has to be changed then the comparison is worthless.

And I don't know if they consider a technical incident the same thing we consider a technical incident

Anyone know how reliable or unreliable Class 43s are?

 

[trainmania100]

73s (on electric), some say they're better than the 73/9 rebuilds.
Diesel, not quite so much.

 

[Grannyjoans]

Most reliable diesel locomotive has got to be the Class 66.

Some of the Electric locomotives might be more reliable, as there are less moving parts and less to go wrong.