Least reliable steam loco in preservation

[SECR 65]

What steam loco in preservation is the least reliable / fails the most often?

The failure of 1450 today got me thinking.... as well as 1466 - not a great class track record.

My other thoughts would be engines like 926 Repton. Possibly 34059 Sir Archibald Sinclair which lasted two years in its first pres ticket.

Let's have some other ideas!.....

 

[MP33]

Do some classes of Steam and also Diesel locomotives have a poor reliability reputation. That started almost from day 1?

 

[HertiageFan]

What steam loco in preservation is the least reliable / fails the most often?

The failure of 1450 today got me thinking.... as well as 1466 - not a great class track record.

My other thoughts would be engines like 926 Repton. Possibly 34059 Sir Archibald Sinclair which lasted two years in its first pres ticket.

Let's have some other ideas!.....

34067??

 

[SECR 65]

Do some classes of Steam and also Diesel locomotives have a poor reliability reputation. That started almost from day 1?

I suppose various classes have all sorts of inherent design problems. Spam Cans as one example. We can throw those sorts of things into the thread too!

 

[70014IronDuke]

I suppose various classes have all sorts of inherent design problems. Spam Cans as one example. We can throw those sorts of things into the thread too!

I think you've opened a (spam)-can of worms now!

Much as I loved, nay, I was in awe of the aesthetics of Bulleid's air-smoothed beauties, they surely rate, at least in modern steam terms, as the Rankine equivalent of the Metrovicks. Why, they even self-immolated at about the same rate!

In regular service (I don't have a clue as to their performance in preservation) their availability was appalling. Let's not forget, in the early 50s BR considered scrapping the lot and building more Britannias to replace them.

I think you should revert to the original thread title, or this conversation will be swamped by posts on spam cans, Austin 7s, Duke of Gloucester and ... Raven pacifics perhaps - to name but a few.

 

[Trainz6013]

34067??

I don't think anyone will be able to argue with that

 

[Sun Chariot]

@SECR 65 to help us, how do you define "in preservation"? A main line registered + used loco will do more miles per year than a loco that only gets used on a heritage line. So:

a) Is one failure and out of traffic for 4 months, less or more reliable than 3 failures totalling 3 months out of traffic?

b) If the total cost of repairs is high (requires specialist 3rd party materials and/or labour) but the revenue-loss low (it's rarely-used, due to its rarity, its fragility or its low tractive effort), does that make it unreliable?

c) If a loco fails once in 10,000 miles, does that make it more or less reliable than one which fails four times in 40,000 miles?

 

[Harpo]

34067??

Not sure there’d be much WCR steam in northern England without Tangmere? It’s been flogged hard for some time.

 

[SECR 65]

@SECR 65 to help us, how do you define "in preservation"? A main line registered + used loco will do more miles per year than a loco that only gets used on a heritage line. So:

a) Is one failure and out of traffic for 4 months, less or more reliable than 3 failures totalling 3 months out of traffic?

b) If the total cost of repairs is high (requires specialist 3rd party materials and/or labour) but the revenue-loss low (it's rarely-used, due to its rarity, its fragility or its low tractive effort), does that make it unreliable?

c) If a loco fails once in 10,000 miles, does that make it more or less reliable than one which fails four times in 40,000 miles?

Apologies that the description of the thread is slightly vague..... To be honest, I hadn't necessarily thought all of these points through!

By preservation, I was meaning any surviving steam loco that's been operational recently. The purpose of the word 'preservation' was to denote modern reliability, as opposed to BR days.

I would suggest that the number of failures is the greatest indicator of a loco's unreliability. However, if these failures are high profile, significant in nature, or mechanically severe, then this would increase the unreliability.

I think a metric (if we need one) would be number of days failed in traffic out of total number of operational days.

If, for example, a locomotive is rarely used due to wear / unreliability etc, then it would be considered unreliable, especially if it were to later fail despite its limited use.

That said, I didn't really intend to come to a specific mathematical answer, only to hear suggestions of a variety of different engines which may be unreliable for various reasons.

 

[norbitonflyer]

I think a metric (if we need one) would be number of days failed in traffic out of total number of operational days.

One might also want to include those which failed to make it to the start line, so to speak, and were substituted on the day.

 

[Sun Chariot]

One might also want to include those which failed to make it to the start line, so to speak, and were substituted on the day.

Can't argue with that definiton of unreliable!

 

[37069]

34067??

Which is far more reliable than the general consensus suggests.

Failing fitness to run exams is hard to measure, given they're often not publicised, but even 35028, considered very reliable when in service, has been known to do so.

45212 in its final year failed a number of times.

70000 has failed in service in August 23, July 25, and April 26. By the same metric, 34067 has failed in service in September 24 and April 26, since it returned from overhaul in 2021, having worked by my count 80 trains.