What was/is the best class design ever made?

[Demps]

HST isnt

Class 66 is the best.

HST's are good, and have survived the test of time. However, look at the class 66, a worldwide used Freight loco. In the UK its become the no#1 Multi purpose freight engine used by all companies.

Now all of you people saying otherwise, lets be honest, stop being biased because its a prefered loco of yours.

The 47 in its day may well have being a competetor but nothing on the scale of the 66.

 

[me123]

Class 66 is the best.

...look at the class 66, a worldwide used Freight loco. In the UK its become the no#1 Multi purpose freight engine used by all companies.

Now all of you people saying otherwise, lets be honest, stop being biased because its a prefered loco of yours.

The 47 in its day may well have being a competetor but nothing on the scale of the 66.

I have to agree. It's conquered the UK freight market and is clearly doing a fantatsic job at it. The "Yinging" noise is a bit annoying, but that's not really important when looking at this thing. The fact is they do a good job running freight services all over the country.

 

[Demps]

Not bad for something built to a design first penned by the LMS.

The first ancestor protoype was produced in the 30's! to a very similar specification.

Awesome peice of british engineering, simplicity at its best, a competitor, but still not on the scale of the 66.

 

[Respite]

HST isnt

Class 66 is the best.

Try driving one :???: They are an average loco, nothing more. They have taken over european wide but then what other choice is there for the price!

 

[Juniper Driver]

For an out of the "box" train I think the desiros have been very good in the 4 years I have driving them.I have had very few problems with them.(touchwood)

Got to say really Class 47 because there were over 500? built and they are still going today and HST's due to the same fact that I prefer traveling on HST's to those Pendilino trains.More comfortable.

 

[Phoenix]

well ive gotta say hst's because they have been widely used by most companies for passenger services also they have around for over 30 years and have at least another 10 years left but that can allways turn into many more years.

 

[Demps]

Try driving one :???: They are an average loco, nothing more. They have taken over european wide but then what other choice is there for the price!

and a 47 isnt?

A loco as you said, does not have to be aoutstanding in every aspect of its handbook, the 66 is performer, its reliable, cheap, easy to maintain, powerfull, low emmisions, good MPG... if something goes wrong, you just buy another of the shelf.

Where a toc is concerned, that is outstanding!

... and the question being what is the best Loco ever built (with no bias) well this view has to be taken on board! the view of an enthusiast (not meaning you here) has less merit, in real world.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

well ive gotta say hst's because they have been widely used by most companies for passenger services also they have around for over 30 years and have at least another 10 years left but that can allways turn into many more years.

The concept is good but look at the fuel prices.

 

[Kneedown]

Class 45's :- Do anything a 47 could do, but do it quicker despite 5mph less top speed. They'd even keep HST timings on the MML.

Class 56 (Theroetically fitted with 58's PBL brake) :- The perfect colliery loco

Class 60 :- The perfect colliery loco.

HST :- Need i say more? 32yrs young, still going strong and still in demand by punters and TOC's alike!

 

[Edvid]

Well to break these down a tad.........321's are BR built and are AC, 357's are AC, 460's live a very, very charmed life, 360's are AC and the last three are much better than previous years but still a long way from being "respectable".

Any EMU which runs on AC should be capable of achieveing respectable figures. New DC units which are stuffed with technology which lead to an enormous power supply upgrade on the SR which cost millions of pounds should be doing much better.

In that case, what would you define as respectable (for both AC and DC EMUs)?

 

[Tom C]

In that case, what would you define as respectable

If a 321 can achieve P7 MAA of 43,000 then I see no reason why 317's, 318's, 320's & 322's can't start to move towards a figure like this because they share a lot of equipment, its all a matter of the TOC's actually talking with each other to find the best operating practice. The nearest BR built EMU of a simular build is the 317/7's with just over 21,000.

As for the DC stuff well Siemens made a bold promise and said they could achieve 50,000 within 5 years so if an established train manufacturer makes the claim then I see no reason why they shouldn't be held to account if they fail because it wasn't specified, Siemens said it. Then said 50,000 because 400 series EMU's regualrly were in the 60's, 70's and beyond so even if they get to 50,000 its still not quite there yet.

 

[Crompton Karl]

I would say the Class 73's.

Excellent loco's that have stood the test of Time. Able to operate of both 3rd Rail and Diesel engine, Sprightly and safely both at home on a Slow Engineers service or a high speed, high freequency service like the Gat Ex. Able to work in Multipul with other Engines and EMU's too. A totally great all-rounder.

Karl

 

[O L Leigh]

Class 66 is the best.

HST's are good, and have survived the test of time. However, look at the class 66, a worldwide used Freight loco. In the UK its become the no#1 Multi purpose freight engine used by all companies.

Being popular does not make something a "good design".

Lets face it, the only reason why Europe is being flooded with "Sheds" is that General Electric can churn them out at high capacity and for a sensible price. This makes them very attractive to the freight operators. This doesn't discount the possibility that EWS and the rest couldn't have ordered up a UK designed and built loco, but no facility in the UK has the same manufacturing power of GE.

But are they really any better than any of the classes they displaced or any of the others that have graced the UK's metals...? I would say not.

If a 321 can achieve P7 MAA of 43,000 then I see no reason why 317's, 318's, 320's & 322's can't start to move towards a figure like this because they share a lot of equipment, its all a matter of the TOC's actually talking with each other to find the best operating practice. The nearest BR built EMU of a simular build is the 317/7's with just over 21,000.

The problem with quoting bald MPC figures is that very little consideration is given to the usage that each class gets and, while Roger Ford's otherwise excellent work is certainly interesting and broadly informative, the figures are almost always skewed towards the stock that operates high-mileage limited stop services. I would feel happier if the figures were corrected so that some allowance could be made for the average mileage covered per class member and the type of services they generally run, as that would give a truer idea of reliability.

For example, I've never had to declare a Cl315 a total failure or deal with a fault which cost me a huge delay. However, because they run tightly timed metro-style services with short turnaround times, even a minor issue like a door failing to close properly could see the unit being caught under the MPC threshold. When you take into account the low mileage that these trains run you end up with an apparently poor average MPC figure which is probably not a very accurate reflection on their performance. Conversely, the majority of Cl317 diagrams (particularly the StanEx ones) are much more loosely timed, which means that you can have a problem but never break the MPC threshold. My experience is that it is the Cl317's that have more technical problems than the Cl315's. In particular there are Cl317/7 units that have been running around on half power for a considerable amount of time, but the problem never shows up in the figures because they are still able to keep to the timings and don't cause a knock-on effect to other services.

My own personal view is that Bletchley's "Bins" are not necessarily that much more reliable than similar units based elsewhere, but that there is something about the service pattern that means that faults and failures do not generally impact on their service. Running on a predominantly 4-track railway probably has something to do with it, but perhaps their timetable has an impact also. The Cl317's suffer in the MPC stakes because they don't have the same operating advantages.

O L Leigh

 

[Tom C]

My own personal view is that Bletchley's "Bins" are not necessarily that much more reliable than similar units based elsewhere, but that there is something about the service pattern that means that faults and failures do not generally impact on their service. Running on a predominantly 4-track railway probably has something to do with it, but perhaps their timetable has an impact also. The Cl317's suffer in the MPC stakes because they don't have the same operating advantages.

There is something in that!

If you have a 321 running between Euston and Northampton (semi fast) and one between Liverpool Street and Gidea Park (all stations, packed to the rafters at 18omething) thats not really an accurate reflection. West Anglia 321's also have to work nearly double the miles per year which will obviously have impact on the figures simply because units are being worked twice as hard.

The problem is the world "casaulty" and the way this "informed source" presents his figures. To me if a train is a "casaulty" it means the train doesn't run full stop or the train has to be declared a failure however in the fantasy world of the "informed source" this could mean a sticky door which means the driver has to take his keys out, get out of the cab, walk down, kick the door, get back in again and away you go BUT it has delayed the service for little more than 5-10 minutes. The figures are presented in blocks when the trains were actually built but this doesn't accurately reflect the operation of the stock. An example is the 2007 figures for BR EMU's:

FCC 319's (837083 unit miles): 12,756 MPC
One 317/7 (286673 unit miles): 26,624 MPC

So you would assume that 317's are over twice as reliable but 319's have to work almost three times harder than the 317's during a year.

The only thing you can do is try to make comparisons with units of a simular specification as these are the only figures to go on and the industry actually give awards based on these figures.

 

[87015]

The only thing you can do is try to make comparisons with units of a simular specification as these are the only figures to go on and the industry actually give awards based on these figures.

The Bletchley boys seem to be winning said awards though, unless it is the 'Golden Spanner' you are saying is flawed?

IMO its the different definitions of 'a casualty' which makes comparison difficult

 

[Tom C]

The Bletchley boys seem to be winning said awards though, unless it is the 'Golden Spanner' you are saying is flawed?

Its awarded to the operator of the best peforming class on the railway which last year was the 321's but as OLL pointed out the figures only tell half the story. Not saying Bletchley shouldn't be awarded anything at all its just the figures don't tell the full story.

 

[87015]

Not saying Bletchley shouldn't be awarded anything at all its just the figures don't tell the full story.

Absolutely. Someone knock some heads together and create a standard system of measuring MPC!

 

[delt1c]

If I were going to choose a class based on bias it would be the deltics, followed them up and down the ECML in their heyday and all around the country on their farewell tours. But from a practical point of view it would have to the 20's. Solidly built, very reliable and easy to maintain, unsung work horses which could go almost anywhere on the network, and when asked capable of a good turn of speed when put on the front of a passenger service.
On the emu front it would be the 315 again an unsung hero which provides the backbone day in day out on the WAGN routes, the 1st MkIII emu design and the 1st DOO design to operate DOO sevices. Very solidly built.
On the coach front it has to be the Mk2f which was the ultimate Mk2 design and recognised by fitting staff and operating staff as the finest coach on the network.
DMU for me would be the 170, equally at home on suburban or long distance services , for me travelling from london to Birmingham I always take the 168 Clubman service (effectively 170's) from Marylebone in preference to standard class in a Pendelino which to my mind is claustrophobic .
Electric locos is dificult, early AC classes were very troublesome, 86's caused many problems when introduced due to rough riding, 87's would loose their footing on the Nothern streches of the WCML when rails were wet. Probably for me then the 91's again a class which clocks up very high mileages daily doing what they were designed for.

 

[Edvid]

FCC 319's (837083 unit miles): 12,756 MPC
One 317/7 (286673 unit miles): 26,624 MPC

So you would assume that 317's are over twice as reliable but 319's have to work almost three times harder than the 317's during a year.

As a group the 319s do travel almost three times as far as the 317s, but not individually. The size of the fleets is also an important factor.

I have corresponding figures for 2007/08:
Sub-class - P7 MAA (P7 actual) {P7 unit miles}
First Capital Connect 319 - 13,956 (17,082) {888,270} [1]
One 317/(7,8 ) - 16,395 (12,946) {258,913} [2]
One 317/5 - 6,421 (20,210) {101,048} [3]

To the best of my knowledge there are 66 * [1] (not including those leased via NSR), 21 * [2] and 15 * [3]. Per unit the miles travelled in Period 7 are (to the nearest whole number): 13,459 [1], 12,329 [2], and 6,737 [3].

On that basis the average mileages of each of [1] and [2] are not that dissimilar. Mind you I'm struggling to comprehend why the Stansted Express fleet has seemingly covered more than 27,000 fewer unit miles in comparison to the previous 7th Period depsite increasing in size by double and then some.

 

[O L Leigh]

While the maths can be interesting, it only paints an accurate picture if the figures on which you base the calculations and the assumptions that are used are correct. For example, the average per unit mileage figure for the Cl317/5 sub-class as calculated above is wrong because it is based on the assumption that the total mileage has been accumulated by a total of 15 units. Unfortunately this isn't so because 317511 has been hors de combat for over a year and hasn't turned a wheel in the entire time, which is something that Edvid isn't necessarily aware of and hasn't allowed for in his calculation. Likewise, when units run in multiple are the mileages counted twice to allow for each unit or just the once? What happens when the train is formed of units from different sub-classes?

I have to say that I side with Churchill. "Lies, damn lies and statistics".

O L Leigh

 

[Tom C]

From an FCC perspective this also doesn't include units off being "refreshed" and again trains running as an 8 car formation.

Another interesting point is if a train is in an 8 car formation and assuming that the mileage figures take into concideration the fact that two units are working a train but one suffers a door problem and needs to be caped or is delayed does the failure fall to the one unit or both?

It just gets more and more complicated. Think the only way to truely get an accurate figure would be to go unit by unit as it would then be easier to tally up exactly what and where the failures were.

 

[Edvid]

I will admit that I find the seemingly numerous flaws of MPC stats rather intriguing, mainly because I was not aware of most of them in the first place.

(By the way O L Leigh, unit miles are collated for each and every unit regardless of whether they run individually or in multiple.)

 

[hairyhandedfool]

On the loco front it should be the class 43, but there is, I think, a more deserving loco based on years of service. Given that 228 were built (marginally more than the 43) and that dispite their age they are still part of the mainline railway scene, I think it has to be the 20! (50 years young), I would also say that from a personal view I would have picked the Deltics follow up, the 50, for no other reason than I like them.

On the EMU front, I think, had history worked differently we may have been saying APT. However my vote is for the 357. It has the smart looks of the 170 but with more room. The 303 is a nice looking unit though, especially the one with plug doors, and one even got a coat of NSE!! The 319/2s let down the otherwise respectable 319s (especially 214)

As for DMUs, I like the bubbles. No reason really, just like them. Do they count as Multiple units? if not then I guess I don't have one, because none of the current crop are fit for purpose and/or particularly stylish IMO. Never travelled on the first gen units except the 121.

 

[class 313]

The 319/2s let down the otherwise respectable 319s (especially 214)

Though the 319/2s were refurbished by Connex South Central, I have yet to go on one yet but they look ok. 319/4s are the best IMO.

 

[delt1c]

303.035 was the one fitted with Thyristor control and Dean door gear (plug doors)

 

[support-uk-rail]

HST's are probably the best ever class of set, as in not just an independant locomotive.

They've survived the test of time and however fast technology produces itself, we're yet to find a train that can beat it. Voyager is doing well, but reliability problems are more regular than the HST, there's that awful toilet smell and of course that "trapped inside with a headache" thing. Same goes for the Pendalinos. Adelantes were built to replace but couldn't last and are being sold off for HST's instead. The nation's only operator of nationwide rail operations is ONCE AGAIN using them. They have become the basis for several designs of similar trains around the world, notably in Australia. They are generally extremely reliable.
I'm scared - I don't want the HST to leave. But let's face it, it's been over 30 years and it's gotta go in the next decade, surely. I don't know why we can't continue manufactering these, but they were the best trains.

As for locomotives, either the 47, 66 or 37. 47's are still popular with freight, passenger and leasing companies, and have become a staple diet at heritage railways. They look nice and are fairly quiet for their day. Decent speed, decent reliability.

The 37 was partly based on the design of the first ever British diesel mainline locomotive and was back in the days of steam, and is still growling up and down the country with freight. Reliability is amazing. The only let down would be the slow acceleration and for those who don't like it, the characteristic growl. However, 37's bound to leave our tracks soon.

The 66 is a fairly recent arrival, from Canada. But it's used in several nations, including Canada, where most of the rail are big juicy beasts. Their reliability is like nothing before, I personally think the "ying" is lovely, it's like the Average Joe of all locos, so simple - like a man called John Smith who is a bachelor and 38 years old living in Wolverhampton and working in an office (sorry to be so stereotypical), generally good, punctuale, but little character. Frequent complaints about A/C, heating, space and seating positions by crew, but these workhorses are the succesor of the 37/47 I beleive.

 

[Muttley]

The HST was a fabulous concept, and rehabilitated BR just about all on its own. But its biggest downfall has stayed with us in everything that came after, ie-its a fixed formation train, theres no capability to slip a couple of extra coaches on because its a bank holiday or its busy.

Anyone mentioned the 350, (Class 08) ? More made than the 47`s and (used to be) found literally everywhere.

 

[O L Leigh]

Oh yes. Right the way back on the very first page.

O L Leigh

 

[Thornaby]

Locos - I'd vote for the Class 40 for the lovely whistling sound they made and the Royal Mail would never have got anywhere if it hadn't been for the Class 25.

My fave though was the Class 33 Crompton - a lovely little engine that always seemed happy, regardless of what it was pulling.

Didn't 47's have some issue where they couldn't be worked in multiple unless a crew was present in both driving cabs?

 

[hairyhandedfool]

Though the 319/2s were refurbished by Connex South Central, I have yet to go on one yet but they look ok. 319/4s are the best IMO.

The 'Lounge' is a joke, the area under the pan, which on any other 319 holds atleast 20 seats, holds about 10, and on 214 they were all ripped and faded. As for the 'first class', they are the least comfortable first class seats I have ever sat on. 214 was also in the messy 'Family' livery which then had Thameslink covering up all the references to Connex in blue.

The best picture I know of for this livery ishere as carried by 319218.

 

[class 313]

The 'Lounge' is a joke, the area under the pan, which on any other 319 holds atleast 20 seats, holds about 10, and on 214 they were all ripped and faded. As for the 'first class', they are the least comfortable first class seats I have ever sat on. 214 was also in the messy 'Family' livery which then had Thameslink covering up all the references to Connex in blue.

The best picture I know of for this livery ishere as carried by 319218.

They were good back when they were first done though, But the /2s will have to have some work done to the seats before entering service with FCC.