Most Unsuccessful Loco Designs On British Railways

[RichmondCommu]

G'day everyone. Whats your vote on this? Mine would be the Class 40. Way too under powered for the work they were designed for and a suspect bogie design fault to boot. In my opinion BR should have kept faith with the Stanier's / Britannia Pacific's until more powerful diesel locomotives became available.

So what's your vote?

Richmond Commuter!

 

[150222]

Pacer.

 

[RichmondCommu]

Pacer.

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.

 

[150222]

seriously though the westerns and hymeks were pretty rubbish. My vote is the 66. Although it was fine at the time they don't have air con and in the summer that means SPAD's.The best must be the 47 as the body was so versetile they turned many into 57's. One survived the eltham crash in 1972 and wasn't withdrawn until the 57's were converted over 20 years later. Still some colas and drs 47's in daily service today!

 

[Smudger105e]

Surely, with that many 66s and pacers around, they cannot be considered as unsuccessful?

And the Class 40's were a type 4 and BR built 200 of them, hardly a failure in my book! Plus the fact that the bogies were designed by Bulleid, and I am a Southern Man!

Surely something like the Co-Bos were spectacularly unsucessful.

 

[150222]

Ah but the DFT want rid off pacers and 66's were poorly designed as i'm sure many will agree.

 

[the sniper]

My vote is the 66. Although it was fine at the time they don't have air con and in the summer that means SPAD's.The best must be the 47 as the body was so versetile they turned many into 57's.

Luckily the air conditioning on the 47s was excellent...

 

[theblackwatch]

Just because a large number were built does not make them a success. I'd say the 30 was one of the most unsuccessful, all 263 were re-engined within a few years of being built.

 

[RichmondCommu]

Surely, with that many 66s and pacers around, they cannot be considered as unsuccessful?

And the Class 40's were a type 4 and BR built 200 of them, hardly a failure in my book! Plus the fact that the bogies were designed by Bulleid, and I am a Southern Man!

Surely something like the Co-Bos were spectacularly unsucessful.

For a type 4 they were grossly under powered. The fact that 200 were built reinforces the case that the decision to build them was a disaster. It would have been far better to have kept faith with the Brits and Stanier pacifics until the 47's and 50's came on stream

 

[CarterUSM]

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

 

[cj_1985]

i dont think that there is a really "unsuccessful loco" in the UK...
certainly there are loco types that were not kept in operation for as long as they could have...

but a lot of that is down to BRs mad dash to get rid of steam and ordering locos for a wide array of traffic, and from loads of manufacturers...

some had faults that simply were not given the attention needed to make them more suitable for the traffic intended, or for other traffic after BR stopped handeling certain traffic for which some of the loco types were ordered specifically to service...

once we (as a country) got past the wide array of classes...
and standardised on class 31s, 37s, 47s etc... we ended up with successfull designs yes... simply because they are ideal for the jobs they are used on..
the class 31s still ideal for ECS moves or test train jobs... 37s are ideal for more or less anywhere that has rails even if a little under powered by comparison to class 47, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60,66 etc

you just have to look at the likes of the steam loco "Duke of Gloucester"... a loco that featured non standard parts as an experiment... BR gave up on it, yet the current owning group has managed to get it to an operational condition where it has surpassed its BR operation

the Baby Deltic Group obviously have high hopes that their "cut and shut" Baby Deltic will be an improvement in reliability compared to their operation for BR...

simply fact is that there were too many non standard designs.. due to a distinct lack of a BR specification. if the designs had been kept working and had been tweaked to get them to the operational condition that was proposed we may have had a much wider range of locos left in operation at the time of preservation.

although personally if you want a simple answer of an unsucessfull design... try the class 56/58 or 60... all classes designed for set work... which have changed, or been lost... or int he case of the 60s... too complicated that was a factor for EWS to run them down... and even now DB seem to be changing their minds every few weeks as regards the class 60s future..

 

[12CSVT]

seriously though the westerns and hymeks were pretty rubbish. My vote is the 66. Although it was fine at the time they don't have air con and in the summer that means SPAD's.The best must be the 47 as the body was so versetile they turned many into 57's. One survived the eltham crash in 1972 and wasn't withdrawn until the 57's were converted over 20 years later. Still some colas and drs 47's in daily service today!

The reason the Westerns and Hymeks were withdrawn so early was that British Rail considered diesel hydraulics to be non-standard.

 

[RichmondCommu]

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

Yes but at least the class 17's were fit for purpose! Sadly at the time they were introduced that purpose was removed! That however doesn't make them unsuccesful!

 

[Eng274]

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

I agree, they had very short lifespans, despite having much time and money spent making them serviceable. The re-engining programme was a relative success, but by then, the more reliable class 20 was chosen as the standard by BR over the 17 and they werre scrapped - re-engined examples included. IMO it's just as well, they are positively HIDEOUS!

I'd nominate the class 89 as a pretty unsuccessful loco design. Yes, only a prototype was ever built, and it wasn't a great design compared to the superior class 91, and it was never renowned for its reliability - despite having a huge sum of money lavished on it by GNER to get it working again. Then it failed badly in 2001, and it was sold to preservation a few years later.

Off-topic a little, it's a pity in some respects that the 89 was unsuccessful, as a Co-Co layout AC loco would have proven to be great freight locos. Brush Traction went on to develop the Le Shuttle locos (with three Co-Co bogies) and the class 92 with Bo-Bo. Was there a specification / design simplicity requirement that insisted in reliable Bo-Bo traction systems?

Of course, since the 92 no electric locos have been introduced to the UK, so on the flip side there'd be no need for extra AC locos, particularly when there are knackered 86s and redundant 90s lying in sidings rotting...

'Mon the ACs!


EDIT: 92s are Co-Co according to some pics I've looked at.. ignore the red bit!

 

[313103]

The most overated, the most polluting, couldnt pull skin of a rice pudding class 31. Give me a pacer anyday.

 

[RichmondCommu]

I agree, they had very short lifespans, despite having much time and money spent making them serviceable. The re-engining programme was a relative success, but by then, the more reliable class 20 was chosen as the standard by BR over the 17 and they werre scrapped - re-engined examples included. IMO it's just as well, they are positively HIDEOUS!

I'd nominate the class 89 as a pretty unsuccessful loco design. Yes, only a prototype was ever built, and it wasn't a great design compared to the superior class 91, and it was never renowned for its reliability - despite having a huge sum of money lavished on it by GNER to get it working again. Then it failed badly in 2001, and it was sold to preservation a few years later.

Off-topic a little, it's a pity in some respects that the 89 was unsuccessful, as a Co-Co layout AC loco would have proven to be great freight locos. Brush Traction went on to develop the Le Shuttle locos (with three Co-Co bogies) and the class 92 with Bo-Bo. Was there a specification / design simplicity requirement that insisted in reliable Bo-Bo traction systems?

Of course, since the 92 no electric locos have been introduced to the UK, so on the flip side there'd be no need for extra AC locos, particularly when there are knackered 86s and redundant 90s lying in sidings rotting...

'Mon the ACs!

Yep, i agree you might be on to something with the class 89! I'd forgotten about that!

 

[Hydro]

Most of the 1950's pilot scheme engines? Especially the Type 1's. Only the 20 survived the test of time really. It doesn't help that the writing was on the wall for the type of traffic they were designed for, which really should have meant less pilot scheme Type 1's considered.

The first 31's weren't much cop when they were introduced, originally known as 30's when TOPS first came in, and with Mirrlees engines. As with most early BR diesels, the weak point was the engine which had a tendency to crack.

The 89 was a superb engine when introduced, let down by neglect in it's later years. After being OOS for so long, I gather it needed a bit more of a comprehensive wash and brush up than GNER eventually gave it. There's a post by the resident AC fiddler-abouter-with captainbiggun that hints the traction motor work wasn't quite up to scratch when carried out for GNER.

 

[EM2]

It surely has to be the Class 16? Closely followed by the 23, 28 and, much as I love them, I guess the 77 has to be in there (although it was economics that killed that order off).

 

[E&W Lucas]

It's got to be one of the prototype concepts that failed totally - Leader or APT in particular. Although there's evidence that both were getting somewhere before the financial plug was pulled. Also, you never innovate unless you try something new, and there's bound to be some failures along the way.

Many of the early diesel "failures" were as much a failure of management as of engineering. The ordering of too many different types, without proper evaluation, or thought to standardisation.

Otherwise, I'd slate the Class 67. Noisy, uncomfortable, cheap and nasty. A flawed design, as only really suitable for lightweight trains. Supposed to be 125 capable, but has never been able to be operated as such in service. A slightly larger loco would have given far more versatility, but the things will last for years, as they will be the only ETS fitted motive power available.

 

[GB]

seriously though the westerns and hymeks were pretty rubbish. My vote is the 66. Although it was fine at the time they don't have air con and in the summer that means SPAD's.The best must be the 47 as the body was so versetile they turned many into 57's. One survived the eltham crash in 1972 and wasn't withdrawn until the 57's were converted over 20 years later. Still some colas and drs 47's in daily service today!

No aircon does not equal an unsuccessful loco and anyone that thinks they are unsuccessful is living on another planet. You might not like them and drivers might not like them but they were built for a purpose and they manage that purpose quite well, and is one of the reasons railfreight is at the current level it is today.

On the other note, how many SPADs have been attributed to no aircon on a class 66? Not many I would have thought.

 

[Hydro]

I think there is some confusion between "unsuccessful" and "worst in your opinion".

The 67; I'd say there is an argument there for it being unsuccessful. It was ordered for a very specific type of work, which vanished in 2004. It's never run in service at it's design speed, and now ekes out a meagre living hauling the last handful of loco hauled services, sitting at Kings X/Doncaster/York/Newcastle/Craigentinny in case the East Coast falls over again and being hired to charter/TOC's in a pinch. It's really quite a "fill in the gaps" locomotive. Even the ETS is a bit flaky, apparently.

ETS locos are certainly in somewhat of a renaissance by 21st century standards, with the Northern Belle and the boat trains being run, and what do we see on them? Overhauled 1960's 47's, still slogging away fairly reliably. DRS seem to want all the 47/4's, /7's and /8's, plus 37/4's, they can get their hands on and get running again.

The 66 unsuccessful? It's fantastically successful. Not since BR have locos been ordered in such numbers. It's got its problems (what loco hasn't?) and has been applied as a bit of a jack of all trades, master of none solution, but without it railfreight wouldn't be what it is.

 

[driver9000]

I'd go for the Fell locomotive. A strange 4 engined beast with connecting rods and awkward gearbox arrangment. It didn't last long in traffic, but well done to them for trying.

 

[OuterDistant]

Got to be the class 17s - but what in God's name were the BTC smoking when they ordered these, instead of the the proven class 20s?

What about the class 14s as well? Not a particularly bad design, but the work they were designed for almost completely disappeared only a few years after they were introduced.

 

[krus_aragon]

My nomination would be Cycloped, of Rainhill fame.

 

[captainbigun]

I agree, they had very short lifespans, despite having much time and money spent making them serviceable. The re-engining programme was a relative success, but by then, the more reliable class 20 was chosen as the standard by BR over the 17 and they werre scrapped - re-engined examples included. IMO it's just as well, they are positively HIDEOUS!

I'd nominate the class 89 as a pretty unsuccessful loco design. Yes, only a prototype was ever built, and it wasn't a great design compared to the superior class 91, and it was never renowned for its reliability - despite having a huge sum of money lavished on it by GNER to get it working again. Then it failed badly in 2001, and it was sold to preservation a few years later.

Off-topic a little, it's a pity in some respects that the 89 was unsuccessful, as a Co-Co layout AC loco would have proven to be great freight locos. Brush Traction went on to develop the Le Shuttle locos (with three Co-Co bogies) and the class 92 with Bo-Bo. Was there a specification / design simplicity requirement that insisted in reliable Bo-Bo traction systems?

Of course, since the 92 no electric locos have been introduced to the UK, so on the flip side there'd be no need for extra AC locos, particularly when there are knackered 86s and redundant 90s lying in sidings rotting...

'Mon the ACs!


EDIT: 92s are Co-Co according to some pics I've looked at.. ignore the red bit!

89 was actually very successful, BR changed it's mind and wanted a 140mph loco, that's why it was never taken as a fleet. Lack of fleet operation meant that the minor issues that do exist were never engineered out. The 91s have required no end of mods. They didn't work, at all, as delivered. The Brush CP6 bogie paved the way for the 92s.

As hydro says, the shambolic motor overhauls that were undertaken for Brush (as it was a partner in the FKI group, not Loughborough that did this work), ultimately put paid to the vehicle. We only know that now having had them to bits to understand why they were goosed.

Le Shuttle is Bo-Bo-Bo.

 

[talltim]

I can't believe how short sighted many of the comments in this thread are. Class 66 and 67 and Pacers unsuccessful? WTF? They might have their faults, but they are far from unsuccessful. Driver 9000 is far more on the right lines with the Fell. And there's loads of steam failures. How about Fowler's Ghost for starters?

 

[matchmaker]

Class 29.

 

[12CSVT]

I think the conclusion that can be made here is that all types of traction have their good points and bad points.

Some facts regarding diesel locos in the 1950s and 1960 :

1) They were driven and maintained by personnel who were more used to steam locos
2) There were very few purpose built diesel maintainence depots at the time, locos having to share facilities with steam, the soot and smoke having an adverse effect on their reliability
3) many classes were withdrawn early because they were redundant, this was also the Beeching era (class 14 being a prime example, with many of them providing reliable service for the National Coal Board until the 1980s.
4) Many classes of shunter were withdrawn early because BR grossly overestimated the number needed to replace steam in depots and yards, with one diesel shunter being eniough to replace 2 or 3 steam locos doing the same job

 

[Rugd1022]

No aircon does not equal an unsuccessful loco and anyone that thinks they are unsuccessful is living on another planet. You might not like them and drivers might not like them but they were built for a purpose and they manage that purpose quite well, and is one of the reasons railfreight is at the current level it is today.

On the other note, how many SPADs have been attributed to no aircon on a class 66? Not many I would have thought.

Very few, if any I'd say. The only time I've come close to having a SPAD with a 66 was because of very slow reacting brake application with a particularly heavy train in bad weather. By the way 66 957 has been fitted with air-con in recent weeks, I had it twice last week and although the air-con itself works, I find it's quite noisy and even more distracting than the hot air blower it has replaced. Driving at 60mph with the side window cracked open the right amount is preferable!

As for a previous posters statement that Hymeks and Westerns were rubbish.... ask any surviving WR driver who worked on them regularly and almost to a man they would tell you that they were superb engines, built for a particular purpose (namely tacking stiff gradients on many parts of the WR) and much more preferrable to any of the ER or LMR locos foisted upon them from the mid 60s onwards. No other loco of the period had as much grip as a Western for starting heavy freights on the South Devon or Cornish banks, I've been told that first hand countless times by the drivers I used to work with at Old Oak. Their achillies heel was always the fact that they were different to everything else on BR at the time.

Back to 66s for a mo.... yes, they're generally good at what they do and putting their 'comfort issues' aside, they still don't have enough poke for the heavier jobs we're taking on these days. They're ok once you've got some momentum going (given a clear road of course which doesn't always happen on my routes) but they often struggle to regain it after speed restrictions or when under restrictive signalling. I love driving trains but sometimes despise 66s..... in the Summer time if you're driving from No.2 end the heat being expelled from the rads finds it's way back into the cabs, sometimes it's unbearable..... you open the side windows and even more heat comes in due to the vortexes created around the loco at speed. Sounds bizarre I know but it's true! I'll be driving one from Stud Farm Quarry to Oxford later on today and I know I'll have the windows open all of the way and have a bottle of cold water handy...

Worst loco...? Virtually all of the early Type 1s and 2s had their faults but the 17s and NBL 21s were probably the worst of the lot. It's often said that the NBL Hydraulics (particulalry the 22s) were terrible but once the fitters and train crew had got used to their foibles they weren't too bad and still did the jobs they were designed for. Compounding the various problems was the fact that NBL were going under before the last locos had been delivered to the Western Region, making spares availability a real worry. It has to be said though that overall, the components causing the most grief were those that had been outscourced and not the engines and transmissions themselves. Whilst all this was going on, the London Midland and Eastern Regions were having serious problems with their brand new Brush Type 4s which they tried to keep quiet about....

 

[142094]

One of the most unsuccessful individual locos must be that 70 that was dropped at the docks. Epic fail.