'good ones' and 'bad ones' in the same class

[cce]

Every so often on here you hear about a certain loco or unit being a good one or a bad one compared to it's classmates

Presumably this is as a result of all the components and adjustments internally lining up at the good or bad end of the ranges of permitted tolerance, although I understand 47501 was known for going like the clappers, but going pop often, presumably as a result of a strong engine overloading other parts?

What I really don't understand is why the bad ones seem to stay like that for an extended period? Surely doing the work to make them at least an average one is worthwhile?

 

[12LDA28C]

Every so often on here you hear about a certain loco or unit being a good one or a bad one compared to it's classmates

Presumably this is as a result of all the components and adjustments internally lining up at the good or bad end of the ranges of permitted tolerance, although I understand 47501 was known for going like the clappers, but going pop often, presumably as a result of a strong engine overloading other parts?

What I really don't understand is why the bad ones seem to stay like that for an extended period? Surely doing the work to make them at least an average one is worthwhile?

You’re right about 47501. Plenty of people at LSL will attest to that. Rumour has it that it was load banked at Crewe and rated at almost 3,000hp which if true would certainly explain why it went like a rocket but was prone to bursting quite regularly.

 

[RichardAsh1981]

What I really don't understand is why the bad ones seem to stay like that for an extended period? Surely doing the work to make them at least an average one is worthwhile?

That assumes that anyone knows why the bad one is bad. Given the complexity (even of mechanical locomotives), quite possibly no-one knows what the cause of the "bad" one is, because it could be tolerance of any of a huge list of parts.

 

[Tony2]

On the DRS class 68 hauled ScotRail Fife Circle services, for a period 68006 was the rogue loco guaranteed to fail regularly and be substituted with a DRS livery 68. 68007 on the other hand was a much more reliable performer.

As 68006 was on show at one of the Kingmoor open days, I mentioned this to one of the DRS staff showing us around the cabs of the locos. He said, ‘Well, if the public notices this, then we will need to do something about it!’

Sure enough, there were much less substitutions of 68006 afterwards!

 

[scotraildriver]

Power car 43164. That thing gives me the absolute fear. All the other power cars we have at ScotRail are much of a muchness but that thing is an absolute dog. No idea why but one minute it's fine then it suddenly throws all sorts of wobblys.

 

[LowLevel]

I suspect much is down to perception, operating styles and so on though some rail vehicles will inevitably have things like tired wiring/electrical components that aren't an easy fix both in terms of identifying the problem and accessing it to repair it with confidence of success.

The maintenance history of the vehicles also seems to live long - the ex TPE 158s at EMR are (with exceptions) the best of the fleet, with the unfortunate vehicles that lived at Cardiff Canton definitely the worst, with the longer term Central Trains ones being a mixed bag.

 

[irish_rail]

Power car 43164. That thing gives me the absolute fear. All the other power cars we have at ScotRail are much of a muchness but that thing is an absolute dog. No idea why but one minute it's fine then it suddenly throws all sorts of wobblys.

Interesting, I don't remember that one being too bad in Western region days, though I seem to recall it caught fire c2017, so that may have done some lasting damage.

I always found 43196 a bit of a dog, and 43153 went for about 3 years with no notch 5 in the middle of the last decade.

 

[Magdalia]

I suspect much is down to perception

For anything with an internal combustion engine the variation is real. Combustion is a chemical reaction of hydrocarbon fuel and oxygen in the cylinders and the power will depend on how much fuel and oxygen is getting into the cylinders. That's particularly affected by the fuel injection and the turbochargers. If the amount of oxygen is insufficient in comparison to the amount of fuel then there will be incomplete combustion, with partially combusted or unburnt fuel in the exhaust, and a loss of power.

Rumour has it that it was load banked at Crewe

quite possibly no-one knows what the cause of the "bad" one is

One of the reasons for having load banks is to detect the causes on the "bad" ones.

 

[12LDA28C]

One of the reasons for having load banks is to detect the causes on the "bad" ones.

Only one of those causes - the performance of the generator.

Load bank testing won't determine if a turbo is underperforming, a traction motor has a problem or a cylinder liner is leaking or many of the other faults that can affect loco performance.

 

[Harpo]

86s had bad ‘uns too but usually down to poor workmanship.

232 was a nightmare until some aborted but unplugged drill holes in its TDM racking were fixed to stop moisture ingress.

A couple of others became bad actors when Springburn took on major exams, traced to them skipping the cleaning of the radiator elements, a pretty unpleasant task.

 

[Halish Railway]

On the DRS class 68 hauled ScotRail Fife Circle services, for a period 68006 was the rogue loco guaranteed to fail regularly and be substituted with a DRS livery 68. 68007 on the other hand was a much more reliable performer.

As 68006 was on show at one of the Kingmoor open days, I mentioned this to one of the DRS staff showing us around the cabs of the locos. He said, ‘Well, if the public notices this, then we will need to do something about it!’

Sure enough, there were much less substitutions of 68006 afterwards!

Re. Class 68s, from my experience 68015 seems to be the best performing of Chiltern’s Class 68s, either that or it’s a coincidence that I always see it or travel on a train that it’s hauling.

One of Chiltern’s Class 172s, now with WMR was well known for being problematic, so much so that it failed on the move to Tyseley depot.

I’m not sure which one it is, but anecdotally there’s a Class 333 which keeps on throwing up faults with the doors. 333009 was out of action for a while a few years ago, but seems to work fine nowadays.

 

[driverd]

In my experience it's all much of a much-ness. A bad one is bad until it gets faulted enough to be repaired/refurbished. A good one is good until it gets a fair way from its last major exam and the cycle continues.

I can't really think of an exception to the rule with everything I've driven (well over 15 types including 3 different loco types, DMUs and EMUs.

 

[70014IronDuke]

Locomotives and traction units are complex systems, but diesel electric in particular, because of the need for transmission systems.

The worst 'rogue' locomotives tended to be (IMX) those with pesky intermittent faults, typically electrical faults which came and went because of some dodgy wiring giving an earth fault or something like low ubricating oil pressure. Pull the loco in and examine it, and find something amiss - but often as not it was not the original fault. Loco goes out and fails again the next day when the original fault re-occurs.

With steam, it seems to be more elusive. And of course, steam did not have all the complicated but necessary safety systems of a diesel-electric, which meant out and out failures were less common. They could usually 'get by', albeit with late running.

A4 60001 seems to have had a record of poor performance, certainly towards the end of its working life, but I don't know why, or how long this lasted. Maybe the shed foreman at Gateshead just wrote it off, knowing the loco was barely needed at that time.

In contrast, a former railway man at Nottingham wrote on an egroup 25 years ago that the depot's best locomotive was one that lived up to its name - Patriot 45532 Illustrious. But the details, if he gave them, I've forgotten.

In 2019 I was talking to the driver of one of the RH&DR's two 4-8-2s (I forget which one) at Hythe towards the end of a day. He said that it always seemed to outperform its sister locomotive in steaming and power, and nobody could fathom why.

Of course, one such loco was sussed out in the end - 71000 Duke of Gloucester had an ignominius career in its short BR life, only for the preservation team to notice the actual build details did not match the design correctly.

 

[Falcon1200]

Back in the days of what we now call Heritage DMUs, 101321 (nicknamed Dusty Bin, not affectionately) was a particularly unreliable part of Scotland's fleet. So much so that the Glasgow Queen Street Controller tried to ensure it went on Edinburgh diagrams, and the Edinburgh Controller vice versa!

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Sometimes the "runt" unit ends up as the depot "Christmas Tree" (so called because it sits in the yard bearing gifts for its classmates). 333009 (iirc) was such an example a while back, as was 141001... although that one never had chance to gain a reputation as a "lemon" as it had bits "borrowed" before it turned a wheel in service. It finally carried passengers only after being refurbished.

 

[skyhigh]

333009 was out of action for a while a few years ago, but seems to work fine nowadays.

333009 (iirc) was such an example a while back

Only because it was stood down for first in class repairs to the bodyside cracking so it took a bit longer to work out what was needed. The rest of the class are going through exactly the same work, just it's done in house so not as obvious.

 

[D365]

86s had bad ‘uns too but usually down to poor workmanship.

232 was a nightmare until some aborted but unplugged drill holes in its TDM racking were fixed to stop moisture ingress.

Goes to show why “making good” is a vital step of any equipment installation.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Only because it was stood down for first in class repairs to the bodyside cracking so it took a bit longer to work out what was needed. The rest of the class are going through exactly the same work, just it's done in house so not as obvious.

I'm happy to be corrected, but I thought the cracking thing was a separate issue that was only discovered later (and initially on the Heathrow Express 332s)... and that 333009 was the first Northern unit to be sent for refurbishment and repairs to the cracks because it had been out of use so long that it wouldn't be missed, as Neville Hill had got used to only having 15 to work with.

 

[skyhigh]

I'm happy to be corrected, but I thought the cracking thing was a separate issue that was only discovered later (and initially on the Heathrow Express 332s)... and that 333009 was the first Northern unit to be sent for refurbishment and repairs to the cracks because it had been out of use so long that it wouldn't be missed, as Neville Hill had got used to only having 15 to work with.

I can't remember that, but you could well be right...!

 

[DarloRich]

surely a lot of this is down to maintenance & repair standards/competence and place within the repair/overhaul cycle - if something has been skipped or done half job style at the last major maintenance event the problem will carry on until it is sorted at the next one surely?

I guess there are also construction standard issues that could carry over also such as poor/bodged/rush/scrimped work to meet a deadline. Same as buying a new house!

 

[WarrenTManager]

18 has been a bit of an unlucky number for me on the Electric side.

 

[Liam L]

One of Chiltern’s Class 172s, now with WMR was well known for being problematic, so much so that it failed on the move to Tyseley depot.

Possibly 104? Does seem to be the worse one out of the 4 in my opinion!

 

[Big Jumby 74]

18 has been a bit of an unlucky number for me on the Electric side.

The railway is no different from the (old) school car world. JD/JP will no doubt have tales to tell you about such railway things, as would certain other former WD peeps tell you same about old cars (Triumph's in the case I am thinking of), albeit I was a fan of something non BL related in that regard, but same applies to all. There will always be examples of any one marque that prove to be bad apples, and identifying the reason/culprit will always be as good as impossible.

 

[Taunton]

The Class 52 Westerns were sometimes described as having mismatched engine and transmission designs. However, there was a subgroup, termed the "Golden Westerns", where this seemed to have been addressed, and these were first choice for the Cornish Riviera, the Golden Hind and the Penzance Newspapers, the fastest Plymouth services of the day. Never apparent what had been done to them, or why not the rest of the class.

 

[QSK19]

EMR’s 170s. A real hodgepodge of units from 4 different operators (ScotRail, WMR, TfW and Southern).

IMO, the /4’s are the most tired (I’ve seen decor from when they were first introduced all those years ago); the /5’s less so, but need some TLC to bring them back up to where they should be. The /2’s are in better condition, probably because they were, I believe, refurbished a few years ago.

 

[12LDA28C]

EMR’s 170s. A real hodgepodge of units from 4 different operators (ScotRail, WMR, TfW and Southern).

IMO, the /4’s are the most tired (I’ve seen decor from when they were first introduced all those years ago); the /5’s less so, but need some TLC to bring them back up to where they should be. The /2’s are in better condition, probably because they were, I believe, refurbished a few years ago.

Of course just because a unit has 'tired' decor inside does not mean it's a poor performer mechanically in the same way that a refurbished unit is not necessarily 100% reliable. There are far more variables at play than merely how recently (or not) a unit or loco has been overhauled as any driver will tell you.

 

[WirralLine]

The 507/8s had their good and bad ones. In some cases it depended on how quickly the camshaft was set to notch up. I believe they were pneumatic controlled and the notching speed was set by the SNR (static notch relay?)- can't remember now! Some of them notched up through each camshaft position slower than others meaning slower acceleration.

 

[InkyScrolls]

I’m not sure which one it is, but anecdotally there’s a Class 333 which keeps on throwing up faults with the doors. 333009 was out of action for a while a few years ago, but seems to work fine nowadays.

That one is fine now to my knowledge (though you're right, it used to be a pain!). 333013 is probably the quickest and 333011 the slowest.

 

[ChristopherJ]

There's a particular 377 on Southern that is renowned for being a pesky little bleeder.

Constant traction converter MCM/ACM faults that occur for no particular reason. It'll happily be taking power in Notch 4 then instantly (and sharply) drop out, with MITRAC screaming of a traction fault.

MCM/ACMs have been replaced multiple times during heavy overhaul but fault persists even with replaced components.

Selhurst / Lovers Walk can only guess it's a leaky wiring fault in the traction control during build that is causing the irregularity. A ghost in the Bombardier machine.

 

[Nym]

Goes to show why “making good” is a vital step of any equipment installation.

Given the state of many cabinets on a lot of 2000s Rolling Stock, I struggle to see how one could ever make it good without some form of fire.