Worst Loco ever travelled behind

[Whistler40145]

What is the worst loco you have ever travelled behind?

There must have been specific locos known for being temperamental and most of you must have thought, oh no, not that blasted loco again, how far will we get this time!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Bastiaan]

Every loco. I prefer multiple units.

 

[asylumxl]

Every loco. I prefer multiple units.

Darn! You got there before me

What if it has a DVT or DB? Then you're travelling infront of it...

 

[Whistler40145]

For me it was usually Class 47/8s pre-Virgin!

Or any loco based at Bescot TMD!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Whistler40145]

Not being judgemental, but what is magical about Units.

For me, sitting in loco hauled stock brings music to the ears & isn't cramped like a unit. I love battered old Mk 1 Stock.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Bastiaan]

Not being judgemental, but what is magical about Units.

There's nothing magical about them, I think. They're just a lot more practical than loco hauled trains. You can go back in the direction where you came from without having the loco to run around. You can attach and detach different portions without the need of a second loco and/or complex shunting movements. Units are ideal for the railways of this time.

For bashing the reason why units are 'better' I can think of, is that the motors are directy in or underneath the carriage, so you can enjoy the traction sound better.

Loco hauled trains with a driving car at the other end are fine as well. You can treat them also as units, by forming them in short compositions of 4 to 6 coaches with the possibility to couple two of them together. Then you would have two working locos in a passenger train, and if you're lucky with both of them together at the middle. How cool is that?

 

[asylumxl]

Not being judgemental, but what is magical about Units.

Same could be said for locos. What's so magical about them?

They're just a form of transport. Gets you from A to B.

To each their own..

 

[eastwestdivide]

Back on topic, worst loco was an anaemic 31 with about 8 Mk1s on a Sheffield-Skegness (I think) Saturdays only train in about 1983. Struggled all the way up the hill from Sheffield, hardly making 20mph until the tunnel at Dore, arriving Chesterfield way behind schedule.
Marginally beating a pair of 25s on a railtour, which came onto the train at New Street, then failed barely a mile away at Washwood Heath.

 

[junglejames]

Same could be said for locos. What's so magical about them?

They're just a form of transport. Gets you from A to B.

To each their own..

Blasphemy!
When did you last see the good old doc?!

 

[Whistler40145]

Where in the subject of this thread have I asked anything about Units, this is only about Locomotives.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ChiefPlanner]

25190 - a dud used on the North&West when I did my signalling training in 1979/80.

Any train "long time in section" could almost be guaranteed to be this thing - hauling a mere 4 MK1.s. Crewe Control / loco arrangers no doubt put it away from domestic LM services and bequeathed it to inter regional services.

Much like the worst (no heat in Winter) DMU garaged at Chester "found" themselves on the Cambrian - the Park Royals being the worst. Things are so much better today !

 

[Schnellzug]

There's nothing magical about them, I think. They're just a lot more practical than loco hauled trains. You can go back in the direction where you came from without having the loco to run around. You can attach and detach different portions without the need of a second loco and/or complex shunting movements. Units are ideal for the railways of this time.

All of which you can do with push-pull; besides which, there's the great advantage with diesel traction in that all the noise is concentrated at one (or both) ends rather than being distributed throughout the train. And things like being able to attach a second unit means that you (usually) have to double the length of the train, when that may be much more than is needed, and not to mention the 'who needs gangways, it doesn't matter if our trains are only 4coaches long' school of thought from our friends at Virgin and so on which hardly makes things more convenient.

 

[wensley]

I'm not too fussed dmu or loco, I can see the pros and cons of both. Intrusive engine noise on some DMU classes is a distinct disadvantage though - take 180 vestibules for example. Not that I'm from the thrash camp either: not too bothered what's on top off a loco hauled train, I personally like 67s on the Fife Circle, best loco hauled diagram I've been on. As for the worst loco I've travelled on, hard to say, but I've often found 47s to be very sluggish at pulling away plus quiete maintenance-heavy.

 

[Minilad]

Any 47. Ever

 

[Whistler40145]

Mind you, if you think 47s are sluggish at starting off, what about 31s?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Schnellzug]

Returning to the original discussion, or rather extending it slightly, there's also noticeable differences among MUs. I remember of the class 442s, at least when they in SWT hands, some were noticeably superior to others. 2406 was always a particularly good one, but 2420 & 2424 were noticeably rubbish. Perhaps it was particularly noticeable with those because they used traction equipment that was 20 years old when they were built, & so some were bound to be in better shape than others.

 

[ChrisCooper]

47s sluggish starting? I always found they flew off from a stand, then seemed to take forever after that.

Hope I don't open *that* can of worms, but some of the ex Virgin powercars (or more often Driving Trailers) MML got were really awful. Again it was that old story that if the train was showing delayed you could quite easily guess it had an ex-Virgin on one or both ends. Even when they were painted in MML colours they were still awful. Thankfully most went once the Manchester service stopped (think the majority ended up at FGW) and the remaining few got the VP185s and other work so are now identical to the old MML ones.

Same story was repeated again on the GEML with some of the 90s from VWC. Again if the train was delayed or cancelled it was almost always a 90, and that was with the 86s being pretty rough by then too. Makes me wonder how Virgin got away with handing trains back in such bad condition.

 

[phil8715]

Any class 86. I used to avoid them like the plague. Class 31's also I didn't really rate either.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[Whistler40145]

I agree with ChrisCooper about 47s, they seem to get sluggish after a while.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[junglejames]

Any 47. Ever

The mans officially gone mad

 

[Whistler40145]

37s set off a lot quicker than any 47!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[sprinterguy]

Hope I don't open *that* can of worms, but some of the ex Virgin powercars (or more often Driving Trailers) MML got were really awful. Again it was that old story that if the train was showing delayed you could quite easily guess it had an ex-Virgin on one or both ends. Even when they were painted in MML colours they were still awful. Thankfully most went once the Manchester service stopped (think the majority ended up at FGW) and the remaining few got the VP185s and other work so are now identical to the old MML ones.

I can't really comment on locos, as the only locos I travel behind (or in front of) with anything approaching regularity on service trains is 91s and 67s, and they all seem to be much of a muchness to me. I've had a few 47s on railtours and back in Virgin XC days, but not enough and not regularly enough to work out any trends with particular examples of the class.

But, I can say that I've always been a bit dubious about power car 43080 (That's another can of worms opened saying that HST power cars aren't really locos!), since Virgin Crosscountry days. It always used to seem quite ill, first with Virgin and then with GNER, and then all the Grand Central power cars, 43080 included, hardly covered themselves in glory when the service was first launched. It doesn't seem to have given me any bother since being MTU fitted and renumbered 43480 though.

 

[Whistler40145]

I think the change to MTU engines has made a massive difference with reliability as previous engines were on borrowed time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[jones_bangor]

37s along the North Wales Coast in the 90s....the rose-tinted memories don't relate to the frequent break downs and late trains.

 

[Whistler40145]

They were thrashed to death, needing refurbishment & the 31s weren't much better!

Did the 37/0s prove more reliable when the 37/4s were grounded with bogie problems?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Whistler40145]

Mind you, I don't know if the Reggie Rail 37/4s were any better than the RfD locos used on the North West Club Trains, especially when one weekend 37/0s worked out of Blackpool.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[wensley]

might just have been the particular 47 I ended up with then!! HSTs are my favourite passenger train formation though...nippy off the mark and the MTUs have made them far more reliable. Best ride being a GC on 2+4 with a certain driver at the helm

 

[12CSVT]

I can remember the days when just about any class of loco could appear on Cross Country services because of the high failure rate of the Virgin XC spoons.

 

[Whistler40145]

12CSVT, the one I missed was the Mainline Blue 31+37 combo out of Reading to Brum!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[37705]

I joined not one but two trains in 93 and 94 upon which 31410 was one of a pair of locos on the front, but said loco had already failed by the time I got on. So this was either bad luck or the loco really was a bit of a cart.