Worst Loco ever travelled behind

[Whistler40145]

37705, yep 31410 wasn't one of the best. I found that 31455 & 31465 were better & some of the BR Blue liveried ones looked well knackered, but could still be wound up.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[RichmondCommu]

12CSVT, the one I missed was the Mainline Blue 31+37 combo out of Reading to Brum!

I would have been horrified if I'd been on the platform when that turned up. Thank god for Voyagers.

 

[Whistler40145]

Would have been very happy at that pair.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Hydro]

37705, yep 31410 wasn't one of the best. I found that 31455 & 31465 were better & some of the BR Blue liveried ones looked well knackered, but could still be wound up.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

31465 is still going, *ahem*, strong.

31459 was generally a good sign of a cancelled shift, but we don't use it as often now. Every time it's been involved with a shift I've worked, it's failed somehow.

 

[4SRKT]

Any 31/4 hauled train. With the exception of the 07:38 Hull > Carlisle (and 16:35 return) which was a pair, and made the most hellfire racket imaginable climbing through the cuttings north of Settle

Duffs not much better either, especially when you'd travelled a long distance to get some exotic haulage and one dropped instead

 

[37372]

I remember 47805 being particularly naff.

 

[matchmaker]

Any class 29

 

[atillathehunn]

One particular ancient Alco locomotive working for the Kenyan Railways. It's record delay for me at the moment is 3 days late in getting me to my destination on the sleeper from Kisumu to Nairobi, and I have attempted to catch this train on another occasion to be told that the train wouldn't arrive until the following week due to one thing or another.

 

[33056]

My nomination would probably be the wretched 31/4 one evening between York and Malton in 1985; lost count of how many times it shut down, but we did eventually make it.

 

[Moodster020]

They're just a lot more practical than loco hauled trains. You can go back in the direction where you came from without having the loco to run around.

Use two locos then, one at each end. Then you have it practical AND flexible, unlike units- which now give us the sardine tin treatment 'standing room only' compared to spacious days of old.

 

[sprinterguy]

Use two locos then, one at each end. Then you have it practical AND flexible, unlike units- which now give us the sardine tin treatment 'standing room only' compared to spacious days of old.

A loco at each end isn't practical if you consider the considerable additional deadweight if the loco on the rear is switched off or increased fuel consumption if both locos are providing power at the same time, which also raises the issue of needing the carriages to be throughwired for multiple working. There's also the increased track access charges and the reduction in useful platform space to think about and you still don't have the flexibility of multiple units as extra carriages cannot be added at will without shunting facilities being available.

The concept works with HSTs of course, but I think the application of a similar arrangement elsewhere is limited.

 

[Schnellzug]

A loco at each end isn't practical if you consider the considerable additional deadweight if the loco on the rear is switched off or increased fuel consumption if both locos are providing power at the same time, which also raises the issue of needing the carriages to be throughwired for multiple working. There's also the increased track access charges and the reduction in useful platform space to think about and you still don't have the flexibility of multiple units as extra carriages cannot be added at will without shunting facilities being available..

Not necessarily; two locos @ say, 2000 hp would give plenty of power in hand, and probably be more fule efficient than one fast revving engine under each coach for say an 8 coach train. The issue of needing the carriages to be throughwired for multiple working is hardly than much of a complication, since MU carriages need to be the same, and probably much more complicated into the bargain with power cables & so on. And TDM or the AAR multiple working system is hardly very complicated; all you need is a couple of Cables. The reduction in useful Platform space is hardly much of an issue, since that's only really an issue on commuter routes, most platforms at stations served by IC services were designed for 12 coaches + a loco in any case. With multiple unit style autocouplers, (i.e. incorporating brake pipes and ETS cables), shunting and attachment/detachment of Coaches needn't be any more complicated or time consuming than coupling two MUs.

 

[sprinterguy]

Good point: I was only thinking of what would be possible with the current motley selection of older locos and carriages that are available for such services. I hadn't considered the advantages of new build locos and stock into my reasoning. Given that a recent issue of Modern Railways quoted the fuel consumption for a Voyager at 1 litre of diesel per vehicle mile it's not difficult to imagine that a modern diesel locomotive with a power unit conforming to current regulations could be more fuel efficient than a comparable DMU.

 

[142094]

Would track access charges not be the same whether it was one or two locos on the same working? That is the reason why I thought DB are prone to send 5/6/7 or more 66s coupled together on a tatical movement?