Most Unsuccessful Loco Designs On British Railways

[Schnellzug]

One issue with the Westerns was the lack of ETH for the Aircon Mk2s that were coming on stream - it was easy for a Diesel Electric to provide from the Generator. But not for a Hydraulic which would have required a generator to be fitted

But no different from a diesel-electric, which uses a separate ETH generator rather than tapping off the main generator. DB have ETH on their diesel-hydraulic Class 218s.

 

[dalmahoyhill]

pains me to say it but wasnt the class 50 always unreliable? although i think they were great

The 56 romanian version was pretty unreliable wasnt it?

Also the 58 was built for export and never sold.

So the general gist of this post was there is no outright howlers just problems with non standard locos, small orders and wrong place at wrong time

 

[Rugd1022]

pains me to say it but wasnt the class 50 always unreliable? although i think they were great

The 56 romanian version was pretty unreliable wasnt it?

Also the 58 was built for export and never sold.

So the general gist of this post was there is no outright howlers just problems with non standard locos, small orders and wrong place at wrong time

You've pretty much summed it up there, but the howlers did rise to the surface at various points in the modernisation programme. Some should never have been built in the first place, but once the ball started rolling with the various manufacturers and suppliers concerned, it would have take some stopping with the loss of thousands of jobs to boot.

 

[Scotrail84]

Pacer.

Thats not a loco

 

[Cymroglan]

Probably the class 50. A mess from the word go. They used to double head on the WCML north of Crewe before electrification, partly to get over Shap and Beattock, but mainly because the odds were that one unit would fail!

I'm not the man to contribute to this sort of technical discussion, so forgive any howlers I make!
When the 50s were introduced on my then local line from Exeter to Waterloo in the 80s, I was told that the 50s had been built to run double headed to maintain electric train speeds over the northern WCML until that line's electrification was completed. Once this role was over, the plan was of course that they would be cascaded elsewhere to run as conventional locos.
Wasn't there also a story that they were originally intended to be very simple locos but that BR incresingly added complicated and unnecessary bells and whistles to the electrics which became the main cause of their legendary unreliability?

As I say, I might have got all this wrong! Can't help liking the 50s though, they look like express locos to me!

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I can see where you're coming from but at the time they did fill a huge hole when there wasn't much money around.

Be careful when you mention Pacers and "huge holes" in the same sentence.

It can get fertile minds working overtime
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

What about the class 17's? Weren't some of them withdrawn after about ten years?

This is my nomination for the worst..of the worst. It was not a small build, as 117 were constructed between 1962-1965. The main problems with the class 17 (with its centre cab) were concerned with the 6 cylinder Paxman 6ZHXL diesel engines which were recorded as giving unsuitable performance in service, even after the refurbishments were carried out. Some of the fleet only had a working life of 5 years.

Withdrawals began in 1968 and the final one was withdrawn in 1971.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Thats not a loco

Yes. But but I am not sure that a pacer can be given a better description .
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Be careful when you mention Pacers and "huge holes" in the same sentence.

It can get fertile minds working overtime
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


This is my nomination for the worst..of the worst. It was not a small build, as 117 were constructed between 1962-1965. The main problems with the class 17 (with its centre cab) were concerned with the 6 cylinder Paxman 6ZHXL diesel engines which were recorded as giving unsuitable performance in service, even after the refurbishments were carried out. Some of the fleet only had a working life of 5 years.

Withdrawals began in 1968 and the final one was withdrawn in 1971.

I suppose the 31s might be worse than 17s as there were more of them and they also had unreliable engines before being re-engined. Perhaps the 31s survived because there was a dwindling demand for smaller locos. I also heard once that Carlisle shed had 17s that were more reliable because they attended to the weak points more frequently (I seem to recall there was a fexible oil pipe that regularly perished - achilees heel).

Comparable, in size to the 17s, were the 20s which mostly ran around in pairs - I cannot believe that was the plan. The 17s had the benefit of a centrally located cab with a low body in front of the cab so the driver had a better view both ways ?. But the 20s had an engine that worked well - oh and they were a larger class that was more standard (shared components with 31s, 37s and 40s). The 17s would have been ideal as a replacement 08 especially where they have to go a long way from their home depot to a yard (08s have a very restrictive maximum speed).

In terms of engines everything went except locos with two basic types of engines :-
English electric 8CSVT(20s), 12CSVT(37s then 50s) or 16CSVT(40s) engines
OR
Sulzer 6LDA(24s, 25s, 26, & 27s) 8LDA(33s) or 12LDA (44s, 45s, 46s & 47s).

That says something about standardisation. But also a long time being improved/evolved. For example the 16 cylinder 16CSVT started life as about 1,000hp in the late 1940s (London Midland and Southern monsters), then became 2,000hp in the late 1950s (class 40s), but more power per cylinder (and so a better power to weight ratio) was then squeezed out of the 12 cylinder 12CSVT version(s) in the 1960s (class 37 at 1,750hp and then the class 50s at 2,800hp ?). That was decades of evolution.

Some of the above is not exact as its down to memory. And I cannot remember what the 31s got (but it was English Electric nnCSVT?). But you hopefully get the gist.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

You have made a long and detailed case of the Class 31 (Brush type 2) fleet against my case for the Class 17 (Clayton type 1) fleet. The engine originally supplied to the class 31 was the Mirrlees JVS12T which was eventually replaced by the English Electric 12SVT engine.

Let us look at comparisons. Both had a sizeable fleet size, 117 for the class 17 and 263 for the class 31.

With regard to the Axle Load Class, that governs route availabilty, the class 17 was RA 4, whereas the class 31 were RA 5.

I still feel that the extremely short life of the Class 17 fleet make it a stronger contender than the Class 31.

 

[matchmaker]

That says something about standardisation. But also a long time being improved/evolved. For example the 16 cylinder 16CSVT started life as about 1,000hp in the late 1940s (London Midland and Southern monsters), then became 2,000hp in the late 1950s (class 40s), but more power per cylinder (and so a better power to weight ratio) was then squeezed out of the 12 cylinder 12CSVT version(s) in the 1960s (class 37 at 1,750hp and then the class 50s at 2,800hp ?). That was decades of evolution.
.

No - the class 50 had a 2700bhp 16CSVT which was a 247 litre V16.

 

[40086]

Wrong! A 40 can move a heavier freight train than a 47! Also had rather good MPC figures. In terms of this guessing game MPC & cost per mile to run seem to have been rather ignored!

For example how could anyone seriously claim the 66s are unsuccessful! Nonsense, excellent locos, cheap to maintain & reliable!

Try the Clayton for a really poor performing locomotive, pre-refurb Baby Deltics were pretty unreliable & the Brush 2s became unreliable with Mirless PU but the situation was rescued with re-engining! Co Bo were poor due to an unreliable PU as were the class 21s!

Anything from the modernisation plan that survived into the 80s should be considered successful.

I would also suggest the comments re Hymeks were unfair, they were reliable & had extremely good pulling power, just that they were hydraulic so were culled like the Westerns under the guise of standardisation.

 

[matchmaker]

I would also suggest the comments re Hymeks were unfair, they were reliable & had extremely good pulling power, just that they were hydraulic so were culled like the Westerns under the guise of standardisation.

It also did not help that a lot of duties that the Hymeks would have been ideal for - rural freight services for example - had disappeared by the time they were introduced!

 

[40086]

It also did not help that a lot of duties that the Hymeks would have been ideal for - rural freight services for example - had disappeared by the time they were introduced!

Hymeks were type 3s, so could handle similar duties to class 37s or indeed a class 31! I was reading the memoires of a WR traction inspector who was most uncomplimentary about the class 31s which replaced the Hymeks. Not sure how easy ETH would have been to fit though?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I wouldn't go that far, but there was a definite bias against the Hydraulics from several 'high ups' in BR, some of whom came up the ranks from Derby and Crewe, if you get my drift...

Re- the Hydraulics not being fitted with ETH etc.... Warship D870 'Zulu' was supposed to have been fitted out for electric train heat from new but the idea was abandoned due to lack of space. A scheme was drawn up at Swindon to try and fit the Hymeks too but this didn't get past the drawing board. Lack of internal space was always the main issue with all of these locos - when all but four of the Westerns were dual braked from 1968 onwards, one of the fuel tanks had to be removed to make room for the new equipment.

I was told that Swindon had figured out a way to ETH Westerns but the order came that they weren't being kept so that was that! I presume the boiler could have been removed and a diesel generator installed, or maybe an auxiliary generator fitted to one of the maybachs.