Most Successful UK Locomotive Design

[asylumxl]

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

[youtube]cdy3G_an65s[/youtube]

Yep. Hence I said "maybe not" . But the 90s are by no means slow light engine.

 

[Beveridges]

But the 90s are by no means slow light engine

Massive understatement

I've not measured a cl90 doing 0-60mph but I did see one accelerate from a 15mph PSR up to over 60mph at Warrington Bank Quay and it only took a few seconds.

It was emerging from Arpley yard and by the time it was half way down platform 3 it looked like it was doing more than 70mph already.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

But the 90s are by no means slow light engine.

Wasn't this proven (rather disasterously) by a FL 90 in the Bletchley area about 15 months ago?

 

[RobShipway]

I am surprised no one has mentioned the Class 55 locos? They where successful in their time and some are still running.

 

[newbryford]

I am surprised no one has mentioned the Class 55 locos? They where successful in their time and some are still running.

Like many of their names, they were extremely highly strung thoroughbreds that needed a lot of expensive care. If they were truly successful they would have lasted longer in full revenue earning service than only 20 years.

Cheers
Mick

 

[12CSVT]

Like many of their names, they were extremely highly strung thoroughbreds that needed a lot of expensive care. If they were truly successful they would have lasted longer in full revenue earning service than only 20 years.

Cheers
Mick

And they weren't exactly economical with fuel either.

Whilst I don't dispute that they were ideal for express passenger services on the relatively flat East Coast Main Line, they were totally useless for other types of traffic.

 

[Beveridges]

I am surprised no one has mentioned the Class 55 locos? They where successful in their time and some are still running.

But they were only good at one thing only. Once replaced from that duty that was it, they rarely got used for anything else again.

They were not as successful as class 37s which could be used on anything.

 

[D365]

But they were only good at one thing only. Once replaced from that duty that was it, they rarely got used for anything else again.

They were not as successful as class 37s which could be used on anything.

Wasn't Deltic eliminated as non-standard, only 22 (+1) being built? With 6 locos surviving (+ 2 cabs, make that one more loco :P), 7/23 or about 30%, doesn't that make them one of the best preserved types?

 

[Beveridges]

Yes theres no doubt that they are hugely popular with enthusiasts as seen by the fact that 30% of them are preserved, and at Diesel Galas any train with a Deltic on the front is invariably overcrowded to full & standing point with trainspotters.

 

[yorksrob]

To be fair to the Deltics, they were built for a purpose that nothing else managed to the same extent (50's and 86's together never got as fast). They did it well and maintained the premier route between the two capitals. They were an improvement over their predecessors in terms of speed and kit requirement.

They were pretty great to be honest.

I just get the impression that people are dismissinng the Deltics in the same way that one might dismiss the InterCity 125 for not being cascadeable to the Coastway lines.

 

[RichmondCommu]

To be fair to the Deltics, they were built for a purpose that nothing else managed to the same extent (50's and 86's together never got as fast). They did it well and maintained the premier route between the two capitals. They were an improvement over their predecessors in terms of speed and kit requirement.

They were pretty great to be honest.

I just get the impression that people are dismissinng the Deltics in the same way that one might dismiss the InterCity 125 for not being cascadeable to the Coastway lines.

In the 1970's I used to take the train to Grantham and wait..... The racket when the mighty Detlics ran through was something else!

 

[yorksrob]

Alas, travelled behind them but never heard them or felt them go by from the outside.

Perhaps similar to being in the booking hall on the overbridge in Ashford station when a boat train went through and everything shook

 

[RichmondCommu]

Alas, travelled behind them but never heard them or felt them go by from the outside.

Perhaps similar to being in the booking hall on the overbridge in Ashford station when a boat train went through and everything shook

Even better if one of the things actually stopped at Grantham. When they began to accelerate away the vibrations went right through your body. Very similar to the feeling you get when you go to a gig and feel the bass going through you. Fantastic stuff! Are they permitted to run at 100 mph on the ECML?

 

[Rhydgaled]

I like the nose of a 91 being able to haul express passenger trains and then turning round to a flat end for sleepers or thunderbird duties

It depends how we're defining successful, is it reliability, longevity, aesthetics or suitability for purpose?

Yes, there are several ways a train can be successful. My own opinion of whether I like a train/loco or not is largely weighted on aesthetics (although how nice they are to travel on is also a factor).

Based on this, my favorite modern-traction (ie. diesel or electric) loco, the most successful in terms of aesthetics, is the class 91. I don't know the figures and rarely get a chance to see them, so don't know about their reliability, but other than that I think they (and the mrk4 coaches, except the DVTs which strangly I don't think are as good looking as 91s, maybe it's just the flaps breaking up the yellow warning pannel) are superbly designed for INTERCITY work. The only time a 91 looks bad is when it is pulling a train blunt-end-first. Replacing the 91s with new locos might make the trains faster and more reliable, but compared to a class 91 the TRAXX and VECTRON (or whatever they are called) locos being proposed look completely uninspired.

Diesel locomotives I would say class 43 (IC125 power cars) and class 47 are successful in terms of aesthetics, and in terms of continued usefullness.

Steam too depends on what you. In terms of engineering achievement the GWR's Kings and Castles are probably up there near the top, while the LNER achived the most famous (4472 Flying Scotsman) and fastest (4468 Mallard) steam locos.

I cannot share this view: The class 91s are geared for high speed express passenger work that makes them less useful for hauling heavier, slower trains such as sleepers, and their reliability has proven to be much less than perfect. The class 90 is a far more versatile, multi-purpose machine – Having even been used alongside the East Coast’s class 91 fleet hauling mark 4 rakes for several years thanks to having a faster rate of acceleration than a 91 due to their lower 110mph top speed, as well as seeing use on West Coast and Crosscountry passenger duties, mail and parcels work, and heavy freight and container trains.

The thing about class 90s for me is, while they are very good looking locos, having two pointy ends just makes it look odd streamlining-wise (esspecially with a DVT on the other end). The streamlined shape looks like it works light engine, but put it on some coaches and there's a problem. A class 91 looks like it belongs on the front of a train, while still having a second cab which (while it isn't used for sleepers and frieghts as intended) I imagine makes swapping locos much easier than with the class 43s.

I can sort of see the point with 43's but are they really loco's ?

See my point above about them only having one cab. However, sometimes two are coupled back-to-back and run light, or haul a failed IC125. Therefore, perhaps two class 43s is a locomotive and one class 43 is half a locomotive.

 

[Kali]

The OP asked for the most *successful* *design* - which is obviously two parts. I went for a few things:

* Original design did not contain any major flaws which had to be expensively rectified - ( which ruled out 47s and 31s )
* How well did the design fit it's purpose
* Did the original design attempt to use at least contemporary engineering - I was a little iffy on Deltics with this because their electrics are somewhat lacking. Similarily not terribly fond of Gresley's pacifics because of correctable flaws, or GWR post-Churchward because they didn't do anything new post-Churchward, unless you count Stanier
* How much hassle has the design been in service

And a few more subjective:

* Has the design become iconic of it's role - the HST pretty much defined it's own role
* Ubiquity - 37s seem to manage to be good at anything; HSTs have shown up everywhere.
* Quality/Longevity ( which are related ) - ... and they're still going. Similarily some steam classes outlasted their first crews, probably.

 

[Beveridges]

Diesel locomotives I would say class 43 (IC125 power cars) and class 47 are successful in terms of aesthetics, and in terms of continued usefullness.

When it comes to aesthetics I think you can't beat a class 37.

 

[Rhydgaled]

When it comes to aesthetics I think you can't beat a class 37.

I think class 37s are better looking than 66s and probably 67s I think, but they don't come close to a right-way-round class 91. 37s score quite well in terms of long-life though (meaning they have remained useful for a long time), if that's your definition of success.

 

[Michael.Y]

I don't think I've seen a 37 look bad in any livery, even when they've really tried!

 

[Kentish Paul]

OK, not the most sucessful, but I will always go for a class 52 Western. As an inhabitant of Penzance for 30 years I will never forget the sound and fury of a Western leaving Penzance station. Never had a failure behind one (that was a class 47 at Wooton Basset, rescued by a class 31 from Swindon which took us all the way to Paddington.) Class 55's had the most wonderfull sound, and never failed on my trips. This was 1970's ALR trips.

Happy Days all !!!

 

[Sun Chariot]

Since the OP was for the most successful loco design, I will go with Worsdell's J72 0-6-0T. A simple, fit-for-purpose design for NER, LNER and BR as well. Its construction spanned 1898-1951! Final examples until steam's closing years.


I think the HST - the overall package of train and BRB's marketing strategy - was the most successful UK design, in terms of:

1) how it captured the public's imagination,
2) how it turned around BR's mid-'70s downward trend in passenger-miles,
3) how it generated export sales (XPT),
4) how it set standards of comfort and safety which, with moderate upgrade, are still with us today.

 

[yorksrob]

Since the OP was for the most successful loco design, I will go with Worsdell's J72 0-6-0T. A simple, fit-for-purpose design for NER, LNER and BR as well. Its construction spanned 1898-1951! Final examples until steam's closing years.


I think the HST - the overall package of train and BRB's marketing strategy - was the most successful UK design, in terms of:

1) how it captured the public's imagination,
2) how it turned around BR's mid-'70s downward trend in passenger-miles,
3) how it generated export sales (XPT),
4) how it set standards of comfort and safety which, with moderate upgrade, are still with us today.

Arguably, we have difficulty meeting those standards of comfort these days!

 

[Sun Chariot]

I would argue that the Bayer-Peacock Garrett's were the "most successful UK locomotive design", they were a UK locomotive, designed in UK and were successful.

One design flaw - its propensity to lose traction (a loss of adhesive weight over the driving wheels as the water-tender emptied) which is why Garratts often ran with a water tank wagon. I love the "double-tap" exhaust-beats.

But a clever design: larger, stubbier boiler made for lower centre-of-gravity, middle-slung boiler countered the centripetal forces around bends (enabled faster travel around curves). And, as a result, a stable machine over poorer quality trackwork in our former Empire's countries. A very successful export.

 

[Smudger105e]

Since the OP was for the most successful loco design, I will go with Worsdell's J72 0-6-0T. A simple, fit-for-purpose design for NER, LNER and BR as well. Its construction spanned 1898-1951! Final examples until steam's closing years.

If going purely on longevity, surely the A1X Terriers had a rather extended service life, the first ones being built in 1872, and the last one being withdrawn in 1963, 91 years!!

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Class 37 for the combination of usefulness and longevity and aesthetics. My only complaint is that the 37/4s were made with a pitifully low ETH index

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

When it comes to aesthetics I think you can't beat a class 37.

Except with a class 40.
If they had been converted to air braking/ETH like the 37s they would have lasted much longer.

 

[IanBanks-Jones]

A 40 was rather overweight as a comparison with a 37, and under powered as a true 'express' engine. That is why they ended up on secondary duties within 10 years of introduction. Don't get me wrong, they were lovely engines, and the sound of a whistler really going for it is really special, but in terms of success, you'd be hard pushed to beat an 08. As boring as they are, they've been (slowly) doing their job in one form or another for 60+ years now. 31's are contenders too. Freight, passengers and p-way, even with (badly designed) ETH. Still think that the 33's probably had another 15 years in them!

 

[euryalus]

In terms of the large numbers that were built, and their long period of service, the 08s are clearly prime contenders. Other candidates for the "most successful" locomotive design would be the Stanier Black Fives, GWR Castles and Great Western 57XX class panniers, together with the class 47 and class 37 diesels.

 

[Kali]

I'd argue about a Castle, overcomplicated & not much improvement over a Saint, Halls & Granges were probably more useful ( why did nobody save a Grange ). I would still go for a 45xx over a Pannier, also - although the basic design of most Pannier classes goes back to the late mid-1800s!

47s out - design was flawed, they were meant to be 2750bhp & needed expensive mods & derating. 31s out - needed engines replaced. 40s seem a bit more of a pioneer class & were basically rebodied versions of the SR 1020x, and just as overweight & flawed ( they broke bogies a fair bit for some time ). 08s for sure - very little difference between them and the EE designs in the 1930s, so way more than 60 years old.

 

[Tiny Tim]

I would argue that the Bayer-Peacock Garrett's were the "most successful UK locomotive design", they were a UK locomotive, designed in UK and were successful.

That's a brave choice, Teaboy1. I'd love to agree with you, Garrets are certainly some of the most impressive steam locos ever built. I'd like to support Ainsworth74 as well with the nomination for 9Fs, but I'm afraid I can't argue with TheEdge in his OP, the GWR 0-6-0; In terms of numbers built and longevity it's hard to beat.

 

[corfield]

Apologies for dragging this to the top, but I'm on leave due to injury and bored, and wandered through old posts.

I think the HST as a design refers to more than the power cars, but the entire semi-fixed-formation push pull and the Mk3s, plus of course, 125mph. It has acquired iconic status as a train (look at what toy trains look like – usually HSTs !) and led to and/or supported the re-birth of the railways as an acceptably modern form of transport. In its context, replacing the engines is just a technicality.

The XC trains 22Xs replaced were horrible (I have horrific memories of Class 47 & Mk2 rakes in the 90s which were grim to get on, grim to stay on and the only possible good moment was getting off again – not to mention slow and noisy). 22Xs are far more comfortable (seat, noise levels, warmth, view, lighting, power supplies, toilet facilities – no shortage of them or space in them !) and get you there faster more frequently. Although yes, they do still seem to stink and someone (else) should have paid for 5th & 6th coaches for them... At least however on the 22Xs the smell does identifiably come from the loos rather than wondering what is in all the grime on every surface around you including the seat.

I think the weight of numbers is on my side – the sheer explosion of usage and the fact their main failing (capacity) comes as a fall out of their very success puts them streets ahead of their predecessors or the 180s which have been so good hardly any were built, they got sacked from their prime job and I can’t see how the frequent changes of ownership inspire any confidence in them at all. A small and rather tangential replacement of 142s hardly makes them a success by any definition. You might not feel the need – but it’s quite an obvious bias.

How is the 56 a success ? many were retired early, maintenance was always an issue and they rapidly vanished once the all vanquishing 66 turned up. Even BR went in a different direction for it's next heavy haul loco with the 58 (and then switched again with the 60). A handful remain, but due probably to them existing and the operators not having the financial firepower or confidence in their business to replace them with new locos. Your criticism that the 66 hasn't prompted a modal shift seems rather a sideline, if not entirely irrelevant – what it did do is standardise and reduce costs, a managers dream of course, but even from a drivers perspective, if it kept freight on the railways, there are probably more drivers now than there would have been had legacy traction been continued with. Albeit fewer maintenance staff...

As for the stored 90s, if something is a success, it adapts to changes in circumstances whether or not they are within or beyond its control (in that respect, the 22Xs have adapted, by still carrying far more people than anticipated, as does the HST). Complaining that “if only Y had been done, they’d show how good they are” may or may not be valid, but it’s the very opposite of evidencing that something is actually a success. The fact that the last regular passenger run on which they operate (GEML) is considering a move to EMUs rather than a refurbishment speaks volumes, as does the fact they can’t even be used to support the ECML without detrimentally affecting timetables, and the decade older HSTs will in all likelihood still be powering on in regular passenger service.