Most Unreliable Locomotive

[pieguyrob]

and four-foot gauge!) Glasgow Subway

Which is a self contained system. If you are on about the GBRF Caledonian 73's, they go through either Queen St or Central low level on their way to the West Highland Railway. They are also not equipped with 3rd rail supply.

Unless of course you are being sarcastic?

 

[Doomotron]

All right, some of the MTU ones are at St Leonards, the two Cummins-engined ones based at Derby are less than 100 miles from the live rail at Chester, and the Edinburgh-based ones operating the West Highland Sleeper actually pass directly over the live-rail powered (and four-foot gauge!) Glasgow Subway if they are routed via Queen Street Low Level. But how often do any of them use their 3rd rail capability?

I'm pretty sure the GBRF ones use third rail electrification.

 

[xotGD]

Class 73 is an anomaly as they have not been re-classified despite having new engines and suitable unused classifications

See also:
37901-906
47601/901

 

[43096]

See also:
37901-906
47601/901

And 43002-010/012-018/020-198.

 

[rick_suffolk]

Is posting about unreliable DMUs going off topic? Was thinking of the Rolls Royce class 125 DMUs

 

[Whistler40145]

Freightliner Class 70s have had a rather unreliable life

 

[43096]

All right, some of the MTU ones are at St Leonards, the two Cummins-engined ones based at Derby are less than 100 miles from the live rail at Chester, and the Edinburgh-based ones operating the West Highland Sleeper actually pass directly over the live-rail powered (and four-foot gauge!) Glasgow Subway if they are routed via Queen Street Low Level. But how often do any of them use their 3rd rail capability?

The GBRf 73961-965 batch use third rail regularly.

 

[Whistler40145]

The GBRf 73961-965 batch use third rail regularly.

What 3rd rail through Glasgow Queen Street Low Level

 

[43096]

I would like to go out on a whim, and nominate the class 57 as an unreliable locomotive.

My reasons are:-

1) most of the 57/0's are laid up. My tour of carnforth 2 years ago, and, the diesel guy said 57006 is basically a source of spare parts, it won't run again. The number of DRS 57/0's laid up, is testament to this.

That's not unreliability, though. Every loco needs parts and the 57/0s are now around 20 years off rebuild, so one being for bits is unsurprising. Similarly, just because the DRS locos are stored doesn't mean they are unreliable - just they don't fit with what DRS needs currently.

2) the GWR 57/6's aren't exactly known for their reliabilty, especially when other loco's had to rescue the night Riviera due to locomotive failure. GWR had to hire in 57/3"s to cover for them.

I just thought I would put that out there. I stand to be corrected. The reliability of the 57/6's has improved since, possibly due to the 57/0's being used as spare parts!

Any failure of the 57/6s always gets highlighted because it's a high profile service, whereas a 66 failing on a freight train is not going to attract the same attention.

What 3rd rail through Glasgow Queen Street Low Level

73961-965 are the Southern based batch. 73966-971 are the those for Caledonian sleeper.

 

[Whistler40145]

That's not unreliability, though. Every loco needs parts and the 57/0s are now around 20 years off rebuild, so one being for bits is unsurprising. Similarly, just because the DRS locos are stored doesn't mean they are unreliable - just they don't fit with what DRS needs currently.


Any failure of the 57/6s always gets highlighted because it's a high profile service, whereas a 66 failing on a freight train is not going to attract the same attention.




73961-965 are the Southern based batch. 73966-971 are the those for Caledonian sleeper.

Indeed, the 73/9s only work on Diesel Power in Scotland

 

[43096]

Indeed, the 73/9s only work on Diesel Power in Scotland

Well yes, but I am utterly confused by your response to my comment about 73961-965. They are Southern based and use third rail regularly.

 

[Whistler40145]

Well yes, but I am utterly confused by your response to my comment about 73961-965. They are Southern based and use third rail regularly.

I assumed that you meant Scotland had 3rd rail electrification

 

[43096]

I assumed that you meant Scotland had 3rd rail electrification

I specifically excluded the sleeper locos!

 

[Whistler40145]

I specifically excluded the sleeper locos!

I’m completely lost with your comments

 

[43096]

I’m completely lost with your comments

Evidently....

73961-965 are St. Leonard's based (Southern) and use third rail.
73966-971 are Craigentinny based (Scotland) for the sleepers and don't use third rail.

 

[Whistler40145]

Evidently....

73961-965 are St. Leonard's based (Southern) and use third rail.
73966-971 are Craigentinny based (Scotland) for the sleepers and don't use third rail.

I know that good sir

 

[43096]

I know that good sir

The evidence above suggests otherwise.

 

[lord rathmore]

Going back in time, steam locomotives included a goodly number of turkeys. LNWR 0-8-4 tanks, which leaked water and regularly derailed; LYR 2-6-2 tanks much the same. LNWR Webb 4-6-0 compound Bill Baileys (so nicknamed cos the sheds never knew when they would "Come home") . Further back, my reading suggests that the original GWR locos ordered to Brunel's daft specifications were known as "Brunel's Freaks", some of which could barely move themselves, let alone a train. Improvements only started when Daniel Gooch took over leaving Brunel to pursue his better grand ideas, which didn't include loco design.

 

[Irascible]

BTC did add fancy new electricals to the production series of the Class 50, which didn't work well. Likewise the Class 74, which also had new electronics, was never as reliable as the older Class 73.

I don't mean fancy stuff like the slow speed control, but simple things like alternators & better control systems. As can be seen from the pilot electric classes, AC-DC converters were not really usable until solid state electronics came along.

 

[reddragon]

The ultimate winner by a country mile will always be the North British Class 21.

North British hold pretty much the worst loco in every imaginable category and their class 21 was an outstanding failure.

58 were built but at no point were anywhere near 58 ever able to work and some are rumoured to have never successfully completed a duty.

It originated from politics, when it was decided to get North British, a 100% only steam locomotive manufacturer to built diesel locos of which they had no clue how to, in order to save them. Apart from not having a clue how to built a diesel loco, it was decided to use German MAN engines because they were very good & reliable. Unfortunately due to politics, it was decided to manufacture these engines at North British under license. Oh dear what a mistake!! Their conversion from mm to inches was probably done by the catering staff it was so bad, which as you can imagine, in a high compression diesel engine was disastrous.

When they were delivered and didn't work at all, they were moved to Eastfield depot in Scotland to be within rolling distance of North British with the hope of making them work. Unfortunately only around 10 would actually work at any one time and had to operate in pairs because one would break down anyway giving a c 10% availability.

With so many suffering considerable oil leaks, fuel leaks and everything else leaks, bursting into flames and destroying everything above the sole bar was common.

It was decided to save the class by rebuilding them as class 29s with mostly new bits above the sole bar. It was decided to do 20, as that was about all that could be salvaged but in the end even 20 of 58 were not salvageable due to fires or fatal failures.

I am sure nothing else comes close to this!

 

[Grumpy Git]

The ultimate winner by a country mile will always be the North British Class 21.

North British hold pretty much the worst loco in every imaginable category and their class 21 was an outstanding failure.

58 were built but at no point were anywhere near 58 ever able to work and some are rumoured to have never successfully completed a duty.

It originated from politics, when it was decided to get North British, a 100% only steam locomotive manufacturer to built diesel locos of which they had no clue how to, in order to save them. Apart from not having a clue how to built a diesel loco, it was decided to use German MAN engines because they were very good & reliable. Unfortunately due to politics, it was decided to manufacture these engines at North British under license. Oh dear what a mistake!! Their conversion from mm to inches was probably done by the catering staff it was so bad, which as you can imagine, in a high compression diesel engine was disastrous.

When they were delivered and didn't work at all, they were moved to Eastfield depot in Scotland to be within rolling distance of North British with the hope of making them work. Unfortunately only around 10 would actually work at any one time and had to operate in pairs because one would break down anyway giving a c 10% availability.

With so many suffering considerable oil leaks, fuel leaks and everything else leaks, bursting into flames and destroying everything above the sole bar was common.

It was decided to save the class by rebuilding them as class 29s with mostly new bits above the sole bar. It was decided to do 20, as that was about all that could be salvaged but in the end even 20 of 58 were not salvageable due to fires or fatal failures.

I am sure nothing else comes close to this!

What an unmitigated disaster and I bet not one single manager or politician took one shred of the blame, (they probably blamed the blacksmiths for not being able to put a diesel engine together)?

Edit: I've just read that 10 were built originally as a trial, but they still ordered another four dozen after those. It almost beggars belief.

 

[Richard Scott]

The ultimate winner by a country mile will always be the North British Class 21.

North British hold pretty much the worst loco in every imaginable category and their class 21 was an outstanding failure.

58 were built but at no point were anywhere near 58 ever able to work and some are rumoured to have never successfully completed a duty.

It originated from politics, when it was decided to get North British, a 100% only steam locomotive manufacturer to built diesel locos of which they had no clue how to, in order to save them. Apart from not having a clue how to built a diesel loco, it was decided to use German MAN engines because they were very good & reliable. Unfortunately due to politics, it was decided to manufacture these engines at North British under license. Oh dear what a mistake!! Their conversion from mm to inches was probably done by the catering staff it was so bad, which as you can imagine, in a high compression diesel engine was disastrous.

When they were delivered and didn't work at all, they were moved to Eastfield depot in Scotland to be within rolling distance of North British with the hope of making them work. Unfortunately only around 10 would actually work at any one time and had to operate in pairs because one would break down anyway giving a c 10% availability.

With so many suffering considerable oil leaks, fuel leaks and everything else leaks, bursting into flames and destroying everything above the sole bar was common.

It was decided to save the class by rebuilding them as class 29s with mostly new bits above the sole bar. It was decided to do 20, as that was about all that could be salvaged but in the end even 20 of 58 were not salvageable due to fires or fatal failures.

I am sure nothing else comes close to this!

Didn't think the MAN engine was that good in German rail applications, very few were used in V200s most being Maybach or Mercedes engined. Ironically think the Napier turbocharger actually improved it over German equivalent.

 

[Master Cutler]

Didn't think the MAN engine was that good in German rail applications, very few were used in V200s most being Maybach or Mercedes engined. Ironically think the Napier turbocharger actually improved it over German equivalent.

The main advantage of the Maybach was the tunnel bearings on the crank shaft which enabled a shorter and lighter engine block to be used.
However the maintenance costs were quite high and required a lot of specialist knowledge and equipment for servicing.

 

[Richard Scott]

The main advantage of the Maybach was the tunnel bearings on the crank shaft which enabled a shorter and lighter engine block to be used.
However the maintenance costs were quite high and required a lot of specialist knowledge and equipment for servicing.

Think the Mercedes engine was seen as best compromise?

 

[Grumpy]

North British hold pretty much the worst loco in every imaginable category and their class 21 was an outstanding failure.

Not sure what is meant by "category", but I believe they were liked by their crews for giving a good ride compared to their contemporaries. The NBL class 41 were similarly good riders.
It's never been clear to me why the 21's performed so poorly, whilst on the Western Region the class 22 seemed to perform so much better, despite using the same engine. Visiting Scottish sheds, particularly Glasgow area, always revealed lots of 21's dumped showing damage. However there was nothing like this with 22's on the Western.
Perhaps the maintenance regime in Scotland was the problem. After all they had similar difficulties maintaining the Claytons-which didn't seem such a problem when some of these were based in the North Eastern and Eastern, and later on the Midland. A bad workman blames his tools etc.
The same engine was also used on the NBL class 43's. If NBL and the MAN engine were so bad, why were these type 4's giving a higher annual mileage than all the other makes of type 4 in the mid 60's?

I always wonder why NBL have such a bad reputation when compared to Brush. The latter were fortunate in being given long profitable production runs for just 2 designs. Of these the grossly overweight type 2's all had to be expensively re-engined, and the type 4's engine troubles meant it never delivered the promised performance

 

[reddragon]

Not sure what is meant by "category", but I believe they were liked by their crews for giving a good ride compared to their contemporaries. The NBL class 41 were similarly good riders.
It's never been clear to me why the 21's performed so poorly, whilst on the Western Region the class 22 seemed to perform so much better, despite using the same engine. Visiting Scottish sheds, particularly Glasgow area, always revealed lots of 21's dumped showing damage. However there was nothing like this with 22's on the Western.
Perhaps the maintenance regime in Scotland was the problem. After all they had similar difficulties maintaining the Claytons-which didn't seem such a problem when some of these were based in the North Eastern and Eastern, and later on the Midland. A bad workman blames his tools etc.
The same engine was also used on the NBL class 43's. If NBL and the MAN engine were so bad, why were these type 4's giving a higher annual mileage than all the other makes of type 4 in the mid 60's?

I always wonder why NBL have such a bad reputation when compared to Brush. The latter were fortunate in being given long profitable production runs for just 2 designs. Of these the grossly overweight type 2's all had to be expensively re-engined, and the type 4's engine troubles meant it never delivered the promised performance

I read that for the class 22s, they got the measurement right and of course less electricals!

 

[david1212]

... It has actually been proven that this route is far more suited to hydraulic traction over DC electrical traction power as hydraulic transmission can shock absorb with better tolerances. ...

If you had ever rode the line in the days of the class 42 Warships you'd know how ridiculous that sounds. Failures were an almost daily event and the Warship reputation was so bad that passengers were pleased if a 33 or 35 turned up instead: it may be running late, but at least it wouldn't break down.

The 35's i.e. Hymeks were hydraulic transmission. Overall while not brilliant relatively they seemed to be the best of the hydraulics. At times they were thrashed when put on top link trains in place of a Warship. Into the 1970's like all the hydraulics heavy maintenance was cut to a minimum. Had the plan been to carry out heavy overhauls for several years more life parts would have been an issue as Beyer Peacock closed in 1966.

 

[D1537]

Surely there is no greater (and funnier) unreliability story than the 31/4 story of summer 1988? (WARNING: LONG POST)

In 1988 pairs of 31/4s were booked on 3 diagrams on Summer Saturdays, all out and back trips from Birmingham to Paignton and back. The diagrams were

• 1V26 2340 Liverpool-Paignton (from Bham) / 1M37 0840 Paignton-Manchester (to Bham)
• 1V45 0918 Manchester-Paignton (from Bham) / 1M65 1537 Paignton-Liverpool (to Bham)
• 1V46 0933 Stockport-Paignton (from Bham) / 1M63 1835 Paignton-Wolves (to Bham)

Occasionally the locos for 1M63 and 1M65 would swap round as both pairs were at Paignton together.

For brevity, I have left out the occasions when 31/4s operated successfully, well, apart from a couple of weeks, as you'll see.

May 20th
31424+31445 1V26/1M37, fail Exeter, 50021 to Bristol, 47639 fwd
31419+31451 1V45 fail Bristol, 47534 fwd & 1M65

May 27th
31420 1V45 solo after failure, removed Bristol, 47624 fwd & 1M65
31437+31462 1V46, 31437 fail Bristol, 31462 fwd alone & 1M63 (!)

June 3rd
31400+31402 1V45, 31402 fail Cheltenham, diverted into Gloucester. 47142 to Bristol, 47628 fwd to Exeter (caped) & 1M65 (start Exeter)
31424+31446 1V26/1M37 fail Bromsgrove, 37223+37242 to Bham

June 10th
Two pairs successful, but 1V46/1M63 was 47624

June 17th
31406+31424 1V26, fail Bristol, 47826 forward & 1M37
31437+31446 1V45/1M63, 31437 fail Newton Abbot on 1V45, removed at Bristol on 1M63, 50035 fwd

June 24th
47482 1V45/1M65, due to 31/4s failing to multiple at Bham

July 1st - All 31s at least!
31423+31467 1V45, fail Bristol, 31407+31412 forward & 1M65. 31407+31412 happened to be at Bristol as they had worked a railtour.

July 8th
31415+31455 1V26/1M37, fail Bristol , 47142 fwd
31405+31411 1V46/1M65, removed Bristol, 47565 fwd

July 15th
31417+31419 1V26, 31419 fail, removed Bristol, 47618 fwd & 1M37
31408+31455 1V45, 31408 fail @ Parkway, removed Bristol, 47823 fwd & 1M65 to Bristol, amusingly Bath Road had bolted the two good ones they had left over from the morning's carnage together so 31417+31455 fwd

July 22nd
31411+31423 1V26, failed with fuel issues, 47211 1M37

July 29th
One successful pair, but 47459 1V26/1M37 and 47456 1V46/1M63

August 5th
31437+31454 1V26, fail Bristol, 47625 fwd & 1M37

August 12th
31426+31467 1V26, fuel issues again, ran light to Exeter. 47316 was 1M37 to Exeter, 31426+31467 forward, 31426 fail before Bristol, 47052 from Bristol.
1V45/1M65 was 47452

August 19th
31460+31451 1V46, 31451 fail Taunton, 31460 fwd alone & 1M63 to Exeter, 47310 fwd
47639 was 1V26/1M37

August 26th
31423+31446 1V26/1M37, removed Bristol, 47802 fwd
31462+31464 1V45/1M65, failed on the Lickey, 37068+37239 assist to Bham

September 2nd - AND THE NATION REJOICED - ON THE 16th ATTEMPT
31420+31406 1V26/1M37
31444+31466 1V45/1M65
31422+31452 1V46/1M63

September 9th
31415+31459 1V46, 31415 fail Exeter & removed, 31459 solo to Paignton, 47145 1M63

September 16th
31411+31417 1V45, 31417 fail S of Bristol & removed at Exeter, 31411 to Paignton and did 1M65 solo
31415+31457 1V46, diverted to avoid failed 1V45, but failed themselves at Weston-Super-Mare, 47616 fwd to Exeter & caped, a now-repaired 31417 did 1M63

September 23rd - AND THE NATION DID REJOICE AGAIN
31423+31435 1V26/1M37
31400+31453 1V45/1M65
31426+31466 1V46/1M63

September 30th
31410+31446 1V45, fail Exeter, 47290 to Paignton & 1M65 to Exeter, 31410+31446 forward

 

[D365]

73961-965 are St. Leonard's based (Southern) and use third rail.
73966-971 are Craigentinny based (Scotland) for the sleepers and don't use third rail.

This makes sense. For the benefit of others, the earlier comments about Queen Street were quite obviously sarcasm

 

[gimmea50anyday]

They may not operate on third rail in Scotland but they retain the capability to do so, although I would imagine while working in Scotland maintenance on the 3rd rail kit isn’t a priority as long as loco performance or safety isn’t compromised