Most Successful UK Locomotive Design

[D365]

It's the EuroSprinter, not what I would describe a piano sound but yes please! :P

[youtube]cdy3G_an65s[/youtube]

 

[Cheshire Rover]

The humble Rat - Class 25. Went everywhere, hauled mixed traffic and was running for years.

 

[D841 Roebuck]

Rocket (1829).
###
Or for more modern tea-making devices the Churchward 28xx and Saint designs were the genesis of all subsequent GWR tender locos, all LMS post 1932 and most of the BR standards.
###
Diesels? Type 3 locos (33/37/Hymek) have an intrinsic "rightness" about them...

 

[12CSVT]

What about 56's despite 66-isation they are a few being reactivated. And they definately have an impressive sound.

Personally I think it takes more than a good sound to make a locomotive amongst the 'most successful'

One major flaw with the 56s (and the 47s) is that they are an absolute nightmare to maintain. Unless you're anorexic you may have problems getting into the engine room, and you have to dismantle part of the roof to access some of the engine components. I don't think you'll find many loco fitters who are impressed with the 47s or 56s.

 

[GatwickDepress]

I'd like to nominate effectively every electrical multiple unit in use on the Southern region; from the 2-BIL to the 4Cig. All did the job required of them and did it well. The LMS Fowler 3F was an absolutely wonderful kettle in my books, along with the SR Q1 and the SR V class.
And yes, yet another vote for the Class 08.

Well, you could say the same about a Motor Luggage Van and that's not a loco ! I tend to think of them more as Power Cars - admittedly without passenger accommodation, but the Guards van could still be used as revenue earning space.

The Office of Rail Regulation defines a locomotive as “any railway vehicle which has the capacity for self-propulsion (whether or not the power by which it operates is derived from a source external to the vehicle)". I wonder if by that definition, a 20t brake-van being pushed by some workmen could count as a locomotive!

 

[andro]

My nomination goes to the production Deltics, Class 55. I think they did more to attract positive public attention to the railways than any other locomotive of their time, with the timetable changes they made possible, and the experience of riding behind them that even the most insensitive passenger couldn't ignore. Accelerating up Stoke bank instead of the traditional heroic struggle is an indelible memory, and who can forget the sound they made while they did it? Second nomination is to the Class 26, mostly because I spent a happy summer as a student working on them at Inverness. Somewhat basic and unexciting, but still a better locomotive than the Derby equivalent.

 

[chris89]

GWR Pannier, Manor due to being basically go anywhere locomotives and of such great use as well.

Class 9F's such powerful locomotives that sadly had such a short life due to BR's wanting to rid all steam locomotives.

Another vote for the Class 08/09/10/11 shunter series such a huge success and a large amount in preservation and full time use as well. Also not forgetting exported to Netherlands and a version for Australia?

Class 37 due to its extensive and wide amount of use and availability.
Class 47 and later 57 same as the 37's.

Chris

 

[yorksrob]

I'd like to nominate effectively every electrical multiple unit in use on the Southern region; from the 2-BIL to the 4Cig. All did the job required of them and did it well. The LMS Fowler 3F was an absolutely wonderful kettle in my books, along with the SR Q1 and the SR V class.
And yes, yet another vote for the Class 08.

I would agree, but would include Thumpers and VEP's (since they came a little after the CIG's).

The Office of Rail Regulation defines a locomotive as “any railway vehicle which has the capacity for self-propulsion (whether or not the power by which it operates is derived from a source external to the vehicle)". I wonder if by that definition, a 20t brake-van being pushed by some workmen could count as a locomotive!

Or those old pump trucks that seem to crop up a lot in old films (e.g the Great St Trinians Train Robery - which also includes a very new looking Hampshire unit !).

 

[LE Greys]

I would agree, but would include Thumpers and VEP's (since they came a little after the CIG's).

Surely you mean the MkI coach.

 

[newbryford]

Not convinced with 47's - early engine problems led to a permanent de-rating. If BR weren't so hasty in their rush to replace steam, maybe we would've had a 500 strong fleet of DP2's instead of the aberration that resulted in the 50's.
D*lt*cs - highly thoroughbred and expensive to maintain - albeit mostly successful at what they were introduced to do. (22 locos to replace 55 pacifics)
73's - maybe, but lack power under diesel mode - maybe the upcoming diesle upgrade will raise their standing.
HST/43 - yes it did re-invent inter-city travel, but are only part of the success - step forward the Mk3.

My vote is for the 08 - the original of which was introduced long before many of this forum (including me) were born. I hope I can celebrate 100 years of the genesis of the 0-6-0 diesel electric shunter in about 20 years time.

Second joint vote is for the 20 and 37. Go anywhere and get on with it. Simple.


Not a locomotive, but most of the early DMU's deserve recognition for transforming rural train travel in the 1950's.

Cheers,
Mick

 

[Bevan Price]

Very difficult to identify any single type, because they were built for a wide range of duties. So, just a few thoughts:

Diesel.
Passenger: Class 55
Freight: Claases 37 & 47.
Shunter: Class 08 & LMS predecessors

Electric:
Class 86.

Steam.
Express passenger:
GWR Castle,
LMS Duchess
LNER A4
SR Merchant Navy as rebuilt.

Mixed traffic:
LMS Stanier Black 5 4-6-0 (& BR Standard 5)
GWR Hall 4900/6959 4-6-0
LNER B1 4-6-0
SR N & U Classes 2-6-0

Branch / suburban Passenger:
LMS (& BR Standard) 4MT 2-6-4 tanks, 2MT 2-6-0 & 2-6-2 tanks
GWR 4500 & 5100 Class 2-6-2 tanks
SR M7 0-4-4 tanks.
LNER: N2 & N7 0-6-2 tanks.

Heavy Freight:
BR 9F 2-10-0
Stanier 8F 2-8-0
GWR 2800 2-8-0
LNER O4 2-8-0
SR Q1 0-6-0

Light Freight
LMS (L&YR) 3F 0-6-0
LMS (Mid.R.) 3F 0-6-0
LMS (Caledonian R.) 3F 0-6-0
LNER J39 0-6-0
LNER (NER) J27 0-6-0
GWR 4300 Class 2-6-0

Shunter:
LNER J94 (Austerity type)
LMS "Jinty" 3F 0-6-0T
GWR 5700 & 9400 Class Pannier Tanks.

 

[Beveridges]

Hard to say whats the most successful as everything is built for different reasons. You can't compare a Class 60 to a HST-Power Car for example.


Most successful...

Mixed traffic diesel: Class 37
Mixed traffic electric: Class 90
Light freight loco: Class 20
Regular freight: Class 56
Heavy freight diesel: Class 60
Heavy freight electric: Class 92
Passenger diesel loco: Class 45
Passenger electric loco: Class 90
High speed traction: Class 43-HST power car
Royal Mail hauler: Class 90
Classic loco: Class 37
1st Generation Unit: Class 101
2nd Gen Unit: Class 156
3rd Gen Unit: Class 180
EMU: Southern slam door stock
Shunter: Class 08
Dual-voltage loco: Class 92
Rebuild: Class 57
Imported loco: Class 70
Exported loco: Class 56

 

[corfield]

How can you put a class 60, 58 or 56 ahead of a 66 ? So successfull they built more than all of the others combined, mostly replaced those aforementioned and have been used abroad in numbers also. The former were so "good" they were retired early and sit rotting ot got scrapped.

180s? So successfull only a handfull have been built and they got binned from their job. Surely the antithesis of success ! I'd say 3rd gen unit has to be 220s, replaced several types (47 & Mk2 & HSTs), their numbers and performance led to/supported an explosion of usage introduced HS DMUs and led to a tilt capable version and the 222s and, despite failures to extend them to deal with their success, still shift huge numbers of people.

Class 90s? So good most sit un-utilised (as with 92s). Whilst older 86s continue.

Defining success as acheiving its intended purpose or aquiring fame and prosperity - surely the outright winner has to be the HST ?

Other than that the 37 did that and then had a long and continuing usage in a variety of other roles.

 

[Michael.Y]

Well I see it like this -- the 37 is Stephen Fry. Talented and able in practically anything it turns its hands to. Instantly recognisable and familiar. Stephen Fry is an example of a successful human being, a polymath almost. And they both have distinctive noses.

The HST Class 43 is more like Darcy Bussell - pretty, elegant but talented at doing one thing, and one thing only. And, like many dancers, has to work in a pair to get the full effect.

Would you value strength in depth above elitism in a single field? Who would you rather have round to dinner or share a pint with in the pub? A HST would probably bore you to tears (yeah I can go fast...) whereas a 37 could probably tell you some tales (You'll never guess what I had on the back of my buffers last week).

 

[Beveridges]

How can you put a class 60, 58 or 56 ahead of a 66 ? So successfull they built more than all of the others combined, mostly replaced those aforementioned and have been used abroad in numbers also. The former were so "good" they were retired early and sit rotting ot got scrapped.

Remember this thread is all opinions, if I think 56 & 60 were more successful than the class 66, then I'm not going to put it the other way round???
Class 60's haulage capabilities are unmatched by any other diesel in the country [1]. The 56 was the main freight mover in this country for at least two decades. 66's may be successful from a managers point of view (keep running costs low) but from what I heard they are awful from a Drivers point of view and have not really done any better than the 56/58/60 ever did when it comes to getting freight off the roads and onto the rails.

[1] Unless the class 70 ever gets the chance to prove otherwise!

180s? So successfull only a handfull have been built and they got binned from their job. Surely the antithesis of success ! I'd say 3rd gen unit has to be 220s, replaced several types (47 & Mk2 & HSTs), their numbers and performance led to/supported an explosion of usage introduced HS DMUs and led to a tilt capable version and the 222s and, despite failures to extend them to deal with their success, still shift huge numbers of people.

Not a big fan of any 3rd gen DMUs but I used to drive 180s on Newton Heath when Northern had them and they had one of the best cabs.

All 22X's are about to me is a downgraded replacement of loco-hauled trains which (in my opinion) were more spacious and comfortable. So I really do not feel the need to put 22X units as the most successful 3rd gen unit.

The 180s under Northern however replaced paired 142s. Don't think any passenger or traincrew would ever argue that is anything but a huge upgrade, possibly the best upgrade in rolling stock ever seen in history. That is until the 180's were taken away a few years later and it went back to 142s..

Class 90s? So good most sit un-utilised (as with 92s). Whilst older 86s continue.

It really is a close one between the class 86 or 90 when it comes to the most successful mixed traffic electric. I think the 90 is the winner as its quite a lot faster than the 86 and they are extremely powerful. However there is also the point that the 86's have had quite a lot more use out of them than some of the 90's which are already stored [2]; so like I said, its a very close one.
As for 92's - what other loco can shift heavy loads like a 92 can? They can pull anything effortlessly.

[2] The fact that 90's are stored is not the fault of the design, but rather EWS/DB Schenker incompetency. They lost mail traffic and have failed to win any traffic that could utilise them proper. They also failed to put them up for sale, FL would almost certainly have bought them to replace 86s if they could.

Defining success as acheiving its intended purpose or aquiring fame and prosperity - surely the outright winner has to be the HST ?

For the purpose it was built for yes, but you can't rule out the success of another UK design that was built in the same decade for a completely different purpose - the class 56 - and unlike the HST, some members of that class are still in traffic today without needing to be rebuilt with a completely different type of engine.

 

[sprinterguy]

It really is a close one between the class 86 or 90 when it comes to the most successful mixed traffic electric. However I think the 90 is the winner as its quite a lot faster than the 86 and they are extremely powerful.

A class 90 is only 10mph faster than a class 86, and they both have the same power rating. I agree though that the class 90 has, overall, been a successful design, and the policies of one major operator of the class in sidelining anything that isn't a "shed" cannot be considered in isolation when deciding how successful they have been.

 

[Beveridges]

A class 90 is only 10mph faster than a class 86, and they both have the same power rating

Class 86 power rating is around 5000hp while a Class 90 has about 7900hp at rail or something rediculous like that.
Acceleration wise the 90 is also faster. It does 0-60mph in like 5 seconds light engine. Not that I'm saying the success of a loco is judged by how fast it runs light engine.

 

[LE Greys]

Class 86 power rating is around 5000hp while a Class 90 has about 7900hp at rail or something rediculous like that.
Acceleration wise the 90 is also faster. It does 0-60mph in like 5 seconds light engine. Not that I'm saying the success of a loco is judged by how fast it runs light engine.

That's because they also have thyristor control, SepEx and what was considered in the 1980s all mod-cons to make power delivery much more effective at the rail. 30 years of development of the basic design (the AL5) tends to have that effect. 90s are just the sort of fast-mixed-traffic loco that often gets overlooked, but does a lot of hard work very well. 47s, V2s, Counties, Patriots and Britannias are other examples.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Well I see it like this -- the 37 is Stephen Fry. Talented and able in practically anything it turns its hands to. Instantly recognisable and familiar. Stephen Fry is an example of a successful human being, a polymath almost. And they both have distinctive noses.

The HST Class 43 is more like Darcy Bussell - pretty, elegant but talented at doing one thing, and one thing only. And, like many dancers, has to work in a pair to get the full effect.

Would you value strength in depth above elitism in a single field? Who would you rather have round to dinner or share a pint with in the pub? A HST would probably bore you to tears (yeah I can go fast...) whereas a 37 could probably tell you some tales (You'll never guess what I had on the back of my buffers last week).

Or...

"I was the best! I redefined Inter-City! I was Inter-City! I still hold the world diesel speed record, and practically saved BR single-handed. But now I'm just old. Oh, and I used to have a really great voice and now listen to me <low rumble>."

Vs...

"I picked up where the Black 5s and 9Fs left off, moved everything, can shift a thousand tons alone if I have to. And I can shift 'em fast, worked passengers too. Trouble is, a load of Yanks came over and kicked me off my job. Guess I'm past it now, but I can still pull my weight."

Either one's kind of like listening to any old man about to retire, they just did different things (equally well, though).

 

[yorksrob]

But now I'm just old.

But still a lot more comfortable than many of the younger whippersnappers !

 

[sprinterguy]

Class 86 power rating is around 5000hp while a Class 90 has about 7900hp at rail or something rediculous like that.
Acceleration wise the 90 is also faster. It does 0-60mph in like 5 seconds light engine. Not that I'm saying the success of a loco is judged by how fast it runs light engine.

A class 90 has a continuous power rating of 5000hp – The same as a class 86. A Class 90 has a MAXIMUM output – That cannot be sustained for more than a short period of time – of 7860hp. Again, the same as a class 86. To suggest that a class 90 has a power rating of 7900hp is ridiculous when even a class 92 “only” generates 6760hp – It is the continuous rating that counts.

 

[Beveridges]

A Class 90 has a MAXIMUM output – That cannot be sustained for more than a short period of time – of 7860hp.

The 7860hp for the Class 90 is enough to accelerate that 1500 ton Intermodal to 75mph that much faster, or get that 10 carriage express up to 110mph faster... Or run light engine 0-60mph in 5 seconds.
Even if the power is only sustained for a short time, thats all it needs to be.

I have never seen it anywhere stating that Class 86's put down that much power at rail. 5000hp is the only figure ever quoted for Class 86.

 

[sprinterguy]

That 7860hp for the Class 90 is enough to accelerate that 1500 ton Intermodal to 75mph that much faster, or get that 10 carriage express up to 110mph faster... Or run light engine 0-60mph in 5 seconds.
Even if the power is only sustained for a short time, thats all it needs to be.

I have never seen it anywhere stating that Class 86's put down that much power at rail. 5000hp is the only figure ever quoted for Class 86.

I've just checked a few different written sources and I can assure you that, for the 86/1s, the continuous and maximum rating is the same for a class 90. Class 90s are rated for 5,000hp. Again, the continuous power rating is used to give a figure for how much power a loco provides. It does turn out though that the class 86/2s, the regular passenger locos, had a continuous rating of 4,040hp and a maximum power rating of 6,100hp. So it does turn out that the class 90s are more powerful than the "standard" 86s, I apologise for not recalling that, but that does not detract from the fact that class 90s are not 7900hp machines (And it also turns out that 5000hp is not the only figure ever quoted with regards to class 86s, not by a long way). That would be comparable to the Swiss Re 460 and 465 locos, or the Euroshuttle locomotives, and they're huge!

 

[RichmondCommu]

My nominations are the Class 66 and the Black 5.

The Class 66's are on the face of it very reliable (perhaps the two stroke engine helps here) and easy to maintain. Not only that but they appear to be a 'go anywhere' loco. Whilst I would agree that they are not a mixed traffic loco the railway network in the UK no longer has a need for diesel powered mixed traffic loco's so why bother to design one? Not only that but they have been a big success all over Europe.

As for the Black 5, they were equally suited for passenger and freight, had a great route rating and were still running at the end of steam in 1968. Not bad for a loco design dating back to 1934.

 

[Michael.Y]

When the 66 has 50 years of continuous service get back to me.

 

[jopsuk]

The 59s, which are pretty much a "Mark 1" 66, are going to be 30 soon. The 58s, built only two years earlier, and for similar Heavy Haul purposes, are notably AWOL

 

[Beveridges]

The 59s, which are pretty much a "Mark 1" 66, are going to be 30 soon. The 58s, built only two years earlier, and for similar Heavy Haul purposes, are notably AWOL

58s sold abroad due to EWS/DB incompetency. There is now not enough work in the UK for them.


You can't compare 58s and 59s

59s - used by 1 small company on slow heavy freights that are not likely to disapear anytime soon.

58s - used on general freight trains across the country. EWS/DB have lost much of that freight and downsized.

 

[ungreat]

I would,based on personal experience,plump for the 47. I've driven plenty of the things. Good turn of speed,relatively powerful,decent cab. Not my favourite class by a long chalk but for day to day railway work,it has to be the 47

 

[matchmaker]

Class 86 power rating is around 5000hp while a Class 90 has about 7900hp at rail or something rediculous like that.
Acceleration wise the 90 is also faster. It does 0-60mph in like 5 seconds light engine. Not that I'm saying the success of a loco is judged by how fast it runs light engine.

So a class 90 light engine does 0-60mph faster than a Porsche 911? Really? :roll:

 

[asylumxl]

So a class 90 light engine does 0-60mph faster than a Porsche 911? Really? :roll:

Maybe not, but check Youtube. They're no slouches

 

[D365]

Maybe not, but check Youtube. They're no slouches

Eurosprinter/Taurus does 0-120km/h (≈75mph) in only about 15 seconds, and that's a modern locomotive!

[youtube]cdy3G_an65s[/youtube]