Most Unsuccessful Loco Designs On British Railways

[cj_1985]

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

fair enough... but i somehow doubt that on the specification list agreed between GE, The ROSCO and Freightliner.. included the condition that the loco must be able to withstand a drop of 6 foot or over .. and still be fullly operational and not be bent like a banana

 

[matchmaker]

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.

Of course, the reason all the 21's ended up in Scotland was to shorten the inevitable trips to Hyde Park Works for repair..............:roll:

The problem with the 21's was mostly the NBL built (under licence) MAN engines. Mind you, the Paxman engined 29's weren't much cop either!

 

[junglejames]

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..

Is a loco unsuccessful just because traffic is lost?
Anyway, the traffic has not been lost. It is still there. The problem was, the Americans took over. Mr Burkhardt, or however you spell his name decided he didnt like British locos, and he found a loco, which despite being inferior to 56s/ 58s and 60s, was American, so in his book, it was a winner.
All the 66 has going for it, is its new (ish), more reliable (for now) and cheaper to maintain. Heck, do they even use less fuel? Certainly 60s are more efficient than 66s.

56/ 58 and 60s were unfortunate in that they passed to EWS. They were unlucky. Not unsuccessful. Marvellous locos that were very good at their job.

As for unsuccessful. How about 67s? Could never do what they were designed to do, and even if they could (or when they did in Spain), it would take an age to reach it, and would smash the track up. Only any good at hauling light passenger trains, which, are so small, are nearly always more efficient being run as DMUs.

Now had they been designed as a Co Co, and geared for 110mph operation. Now that would have been different.


Oh, and only 30 plus were built. Sort of adds to my argument!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

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.

You already have a good response to this. But to add. The 89 was unlucky. Not unsuccessful.
Plus, why is the 91 superior? Because it could go 140mph?
As mentioned, its unfair to bring up the 89s reliability, and the 91 hardly set the world alight.

If you want to see which is superior though. Get the 89 back running again, put it at the head of a Mk4 set, alongside a 91, at the foot of Stoke Bank.
On your marks.... Set..... Bang! Who do we think is going to reach 125 first?
It certainly wont be the 91 thats for sure.

 

[GB]

All the 66 has going for it, is its new (ish), more reliable (for now) and cheaper to maintain. Heck, do they even use less fuel? Certainly 60s are more efficient than 66s.

Two of the biggest reasons railfreight has remained competitive, they also have the edge over class 60s in the respect of maximum permissible speeds.

 

[LE Greys]

My money's on Leader. It might not be entirely fair to include experimental engines, but Leader was not experimental, she was intended to be the first of a class of 30. The sleeve-valve concept had been tried before on the Midland, and failed there as well. Some other experiments were just unlucky. Turbomotive was a good design, but simply never got put into production because it was too different. There was nothing really wrong with Lion or Falcon, but DP2 was slightly better. Kestrel was another good idea that never got ordered. As for the 'Hush-Hush', just another experimental concept that did not work.

For full-class production, the P2s were powerful, but caused all sorts of nightmares for the Permanent Way Department. The P1s were almost too successful, in that they could move huge loads but most trains were not heavy enough to make them worth keeping. The L1s were not exactly brilliant, and apparently rode like cement mixers. I've heard very bad things about the Midland and LMS Class 3 2-6-2Ts, underpowered and poor steamers apparently (came from having a tiny boiler). What about the Bulleid Pacifics? Oil bath fires, spark-throwing, valve timing problems and major wheelslip. Maybe the GWR 'Krugers', not only coal-eaters, but hideous.

There have been victims of their own success a few times as well. Railmotors, GWR streamlined railcars, Class 120 and 126 DMUs and Voyagers. Common theme, all were designed for relatively light loads, and attracted so many passengers that they turned out to be too small. The GWR eventually replaced their streamlined cross-country railcars with a Hall and six coaches.

 

[150222]

Sorry just to clear it up, i don't think the westerns or hymeks are rubbish it was a typo. I meant to say that they were unsuccesful due to their early withdrawal although i'm aware they were non standard. Points taken about the 66 and i had misinterpreted the title. Actually the if it's allowed i will say the 141 and 151. The 141's going to iran at little over 10 years old. The 151 was never produced in numbers and they were out of action for many years at crewe before being cut up.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I just loco's the 58's. BR didn't like them very much did they

 

[Smudger105e]

I think that this thread depends on your definition of unsuccessful.

The class 66's, although not perfect, do the job asked of them pretty well, they are reliable, and the power unit (engine) is mostly very accessible once the hood is off. They may not have very good cabs, no air conditioning, dodgy seats (originally), and rather noisy, but I don't believe that they can be considered as unsuccessful loco's.

Regarding the Leader, I used to work with some guys who worked in Brighton Works, and apparently one of the reasons the sleeve valves did not work was because of alignment issues, and this was apparently something to do with the fact that one of the bogies was dropped during construction :roll:

 

[E&W Lucas]

What about the Bulleid Pacifics? Oil bath fires, spark-throwing, valve timing problems and major wheelslip.

The problem with the Bulleids was more materials than design. Chain stretch throwing the valve timing out, and inadequate packing materials causing the well known oil bath troubles. All resolved on the preserved examples, by using modern equivalents that are actually up to spec.

I can't help but wonder if some of the Leader's difficulties may have had a similar cause?

 

[stanley T]

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!

They should have kept faith with steam until electrification could be afforded - that's what happened on the continent where they understand long term planning...

Probably the class 50. A mess from the word go. They used to double head on the WCML north of Crewe before electrification, partly to get over Shap and Beattock, but mainly because the odds were that one unit would fail!

 

[LE Greys]

The problem with the Bulleids was more materials than design. Chain stretch throwing the valve timing out, and inadequate packing materials causing the well known oil bath troubles. All resolved on the preserved examples, by using modern equivalents that are actually up to spec.

I can't help but wonder if some of the Leader's difficulties may have had a similar cause?

That's very true, although it's always best if a design can survive traffic conditions. Speaking of designs that did a lot better in preservation, what about Duke of Gloucester? A poor blastpipe and chimney design turned what we now know is a brilliant design into a poor steamer that never got beyond the prototype stage. Once replaced with a Kylchap, we had an excellent performer on tours.

 

[WillPS]

They should have kept faith with steam until electrification could be afforded - that's what happened on the continent where they understand long term planning...

Probably the class 50. A mess from the word go. They used to double head on the WCML north of Crewe before electrification, partly to get over Shap and Beattock, but mainly because the odds were that one unit would fail!

Continental railways needed to be half rebuilt following WWII. They seized the opportunity to go Electric at that stage.

Our networks were largely intact, and the situation immediately following the war was not one of a nation rebuilding its railways, but a handful of railway companies still desperately trying to get a return on their Victorian investments.

If we had waited until we could afford Electric nationwide, as you suggest, we'd probably still have steam running today. The mistake was continuing to build Steam Engines following the nationalisation of the railways.

 

[junglejames]

Two of the biggest reasons railfreight has remained competitive, they also have the edge over class 60s in the respect of maximum permissible speeds.

Oh there is no doubt they helped with the reliability of freight transport (for now. How long until they prove unreliable), and i for one am not saying 66s are unsuccessful, because they have been very successful.

As for comparing the speeds of the 60 and 66 though. Thats not fair. 2 different locos build for different things. Compare the 66 to the 56/ 58. Thats slightly fairer.
Its like saying the 91 is faster than the 66, so its obviously far superior.

The 66 is good, and is very successful, but it has many many faults, wasnt thought about fully, and was built on the cheap. How long can they keep going reliably for?

 

[red circle]

DHP1,Never turned a wheel in revenue earning traffic.

 

[GB]

Oh there is no doubt they helped with the reliability of freight transport (for now. How long until they prove unreliable), and i for one am not saying 66s are unsuccessful, because they have been very successful.

As for comparing the speeds of the 60 and 66 though. Thats not fair. 2 different locos build for different things. Compare the 66 to the 56/ 58. Thats slightly fairer.
Its like saying the 91 is faster than the 66, so its obviously far superior.

The 66 is good, and is very successful, but it has many many faults, wasnt thought about fully, and was built on the cheap. How long can they keep going reliably for?

Other than driver comforts which faults are you talking about? The reason I brought up speeds was becuase you directly compared the 66's effciency with the 60.

 

[Rugd1022]

Other than driver comforts which faults are you talking about? The reason I brought up speeds was becuase you directly compared the 66's effciency with the 60.

Mind if I step in here and answer this one regarding their faults....? The self steering bogies cause problems with the track sometimes and 'shimmy' from side to side when the loco is under load, it's a very peculiar feeling to have this happen right underneath you, and is one reason why they lack grip compared to some other locos. Being built to a price (ie: on the cheap) means other issues will surface in time, such as water ingress into the cabs, it's already quite bad on some members of the class and with no 'main works' attention will get worse. Driver comfort issues aside, there are quite a few areas inside these locos which are hazardous to life and limb, yet they still got through the type approval process, eg: sharp edges to the cab doors, bolts sticking out into the open in the through corridor (nearly lost a kneecap on 66 583 because of this!), door locks which jam - not good in the event of needing a sharp exit etc. I know some of these things are nothing to do with the locos being successful or otherwise, but I can't think of anything similar relating to any of the older BR designed classes.

Despise them as much as I do, I have to conceed that overall from a FOC pont of view they are a 'success', since they just about do the job they were built for. Other locos have done and can do the job better though. If Freightliner had some 60s, I'd be a much happier chappie

 

[Hydro]

60's would be ideal for Heavy Haul, heavy Class 6 work is the bread and butter for the 60. Of course the old trap of DBS not selling locos off to competitors until they're pretty much a body shell with wheelsets that wouldn't look out of place on a bicycle comes into play here.

 

[Rugd1022]

60's would be ideal for Heavy Haul, heavy Class 6 work is the bread and butter for the 60. Of course the old trap of DBS not selling locos off to competitors until they're pretty much a body shell with wheelsets that wouldn't look out of place on a bicycle comes into play here.

Could have done with one last night on 6V14 Sludge (sorry, Stud) Farm - Westbury, had 66 601 with 2374ton and by Jimminy it struggled up Arley Bank.... and Landor St to Bordersley Jcn... and Fosse Bank....and Tackley Bank....

With apologies for veering slightly OT

 

[gg1]

The class 74 has to be in contention for this 'honour'.

It was an electro diesel like the class 73, slightly more powerful but with a very unreliable diesel engine.

 

[driver9000]

DHP1,Never turned a wheel in revenue earning traffic.

I'd like to add GT3, built by EE as a private venture based on a steam engine outline and prone to producing large amounts of heat that would scorch the bodywork. I don't think it ever hauled a revenue train although it was tested hauling loads including over Shap. It was eventually broken up by English Electric.

 

[kennethw]

I think that this thread depends on your definition of unsuccessful.


Regarding the Leader, I used to work with some guys who worked in Brighton Works, and apparently one of the reasons the sleeve valves did not work was because of alignment issues, and this was apparently something to do with the fact that one of the bogies was dropped during construction :roll:

Interesting regarding Leader. One of Bullied's epitaphs was "two years too late" He became an apprentice two years later than normal Had he taken up the appointment with the SR in 1937 instead of 1939, the MN class would have been constructed free of wartime pressures, and Leader would have been started in 1947. Bullied resigned in 1948, disagreeing with nationalisation of the railways.

Much of the work regarding Leader was rushed, and without Bullied's driving force behind the project, it was doomed. The second of the class was 99% complete, and would have been a better engine. However, orders came not to carry out any more work on the project and that was that.

Regarding the pacifics, one of the recurring problems was that smoke was not thrown clear and tended to hang around, obscuring the driver's view. It was not uncommon to have to shut off steam to see signals ahead. 34064 was fitted with a Giesel ejector, and reckoned to be one of the best engines of the class. A scheme to fit others was rejected on the grounds of no more expenditure on steam locos, the subsequent fitting of the ejector to City of Wells has transformed this engine.

Two light pacifics were loaned to the Eastern region in preperation for the new service with the Britannias. It was recorded that on one run, Brentwood bank was tackled at over 50 mph with saftey valves lifting, compare with the existing fleet struggling at a little over 40mph

 

[trainspotter]

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

That was all about money! Swindon had its own way, you could have put another 10 years on the Westerns at least! We are still using Hydraulic gearboxes now on sprinters. Surley by the 80's mods could have been made for the Westerns gearbox and torque converter.

But no lets scrap them for Class 47's!!!!!!

Take the Deltics, how often did they breakdown the the very complex engine that was designed for Royal Navy post war Motor Torpedo Boats that never run flat out for hours and hours!

 

[starrymarkb]

One issue with the Westerns was the lack of ETH for the Aircon Mk2s that were coming on stream - it was easy for a Diesel Electric to provide from the Generator. But not for a Hydraulic which would have required a generator to be fitted

 

[trainspotter]

One issue with the Westerns was the lack of ETH for the Aircon Mk2s that were coming on stream - it was easy for a Diesel Electric to provide from the Generator. But not for a Hydraulic which would have required a generator to be fitted

Again mods that could have been done! lets face it look what was done to the 47's to make them into 57's! Gut them end rebuild them from the chassis up!!!!

 

[kennethw]

My memories of the Deltics is that they were reliable until the end. On their introduction, they proved the experts wrong, the ECML went from strength to strength. Eventually they were ousted by the HST's and a small fleet of non standard locomotives was out, they received only limited maintenance and when engine failure occurred were withdrawn

Hardly sounds like an unsuccessful class & don't forget I'm primarily a steam man, so it takes a lot for me to praise a first generation diesel which directly replaced steam locomotives. I worked for 3 years on the ECML during the 70's and did not hear bad news concerning them.

With the first generation of WR diesels, they should have ousted steam in 1964, but failures meant several times steam had to come to the rescue, in some instances, the steamer was due to make its final run to the scrapyard and won a reprieve due to a failed diesel. Then there was the flawed axle fiasco, leading to the grounding of all Westerns and Hymeks.

I have contributed to another thread re the Beeching effect & agree with another post that the 70's were a bad time for the railways with lines still being closed and unreliable trains. In the 80's after the threat of Serpell had faded, a second generation of more reliable stock - such as the ECML electrification and HST's brought stability, and with it passenger numbers began to increase

and of course I am referring to the introduction of HST's on other lines as well, and the Deltics were only a small part of the diesel fleet.

In fact, I remember the Rolls Royce units which worked the GN suburban services, they certainly wern't on a par with the famous motor cars which "fail to proceed" One duty was to run a unit to Stratford, where it would be patched up and returned as necessary. I drew attention to myself, waking up Kings Cross and St Pancras by virtue of being in charge of one of these units, which staggered out of Gasworks Tunnel, and failed to proceed. So a locomotive was dispatched, in the meantime I carried out train protection with detonators which certainly gave everyone a surprise!

 

[junglejames]

Other than driver comforts which faults are you talking about? The reason I brought up speeds was becuase you directly compared the 66's effciency with the 60.

Surely efficiency is fair? An older loco, with a more powerful engine, and it uses less fuel.

 

[Rugd1022]

Regarding failures in the early days of the WR Hydraulics, a very large percentage of these was nothing to do with the locos themselves as such, and more to do with the method of training the crews on them..... when I did my boiler training at Old Oak my instructor had started his climb up the greasy career pole as an instructor on Westerns in early '62, he told me that many of the failures out on the road were due to the instructors themselves being thrown in the deep end in at the same time as the drivers, so they were both learning as they went along, with simple fuse blowing problems stopping the job day in day out for most of 1962 and into early '63. These 'minor' problems were often compounded by the severe Winter of '62 / '63, namely the big freeze which rendered many of the locos' steam heating boilers useless, just when they were needed the most.

There are many facets to the hydraulic v electric transmission debate (oh alright, argument!) but things weren't always as black and white as they were portrayed in the railway press of the period. When Brush 4' D1682 was allocated brand new to Old Oak, the fitters in The Factory had no end of problems with it due to crankcase and electrical faults, a lot of this stuff was swept under the carpet by senior management at the time but press coverage somehow managed to be biased against the Hydraulics. At least two thirds of the old hands I worked with at OC had been trained on all six mainline Hydraulic types (Classes 22, 35, 41, 42, 43 and 52) in their time, and to a man, those whom I asked said many of the problems were exagerated somewhat by those higher up the food chain. I have to admit to my own bias towards the Hydraulics, but even so, three hundred or so Drivers each with fifteen to twenty years experience on these locos can't all be wrong....

Can't find my tin hat but I await the Sulzer / EE onslaught with relish....!

 

[trainspotter]

Regarding failures in the early days of the WR Hydraulics, a very large percentage of these was nothing to do with the locos themselves as such, and more to do with the method of training the crews on them..... when I did my boiler training at Old Oak my instructor had started his climb up the greasy career pole as an instructor on Westerns in early '62, he told me that many of the failures out on the road were due to the instructors themselves being thrown in the deep end in at the same time as the drivers, so they were both learning as they went along, with simple fuse blowing problems stopping the job day in day out for most of 1962 and into early '63. These 'minor' problems were often compounded by the severe Winter of '62 / '63, namely the big freeze which rendered many of the locos' steam heating boilers useless, just when they were needed the most.

There are many facets to the hydraulic v electric transmission debate (oh alright, argument!) but things weren't always as black and white as they were portrayed in the railway press of the period. When Brush 4' D1682 was allocated brand new to Old Oak, the fitters in The Factory had no end of problems with it due to crankcase and electrical faults, a lot of this stuff was swept under the carpet by senior management at the time but press coverage somehow managed to be biased against the Hydraulics. At least two thirds of the old hands I worked with at OC had been trained on all six mainline Hydraulic types (Classes 22, 35, 41, 42, 43 and 52) in their time, and to a man, those whom I asked said many of the problems were exagerated somewhat by those higher up the food chain. I have to admit to my own bias towards the Hydraulics, but even so, three hundred or so Drivers each with fifteen to twenty years experience on these locos can't all be wrong....

Can't find my tin hat but I await the Sulzer / EE onslaught with relish....!

Was it all about back handers from Brush?????

 

[12CSVT]

One issue with the Westerns was the lack of ETH for the Aircon Mk2s that were coming on stream - it was easy for a Diesel Electric to provide from the Generator. But not for a Hydraulic which would have required a generator to be fitted

Even the class 27s on the Glasgow - Edinbugh push-pulls needed an auxiliary engine to power the ETH

 

[Rugd1022]

Was it all about back handers from Brush?????

I wouldn't go that far, but there was a definite bias against the Hydraulics from several 'high ups' in BR, some of whom came up the ranks from Derby and Crewe, if you get my drift...

Re- the Hydraulics not being fitted with ETH etc.... Warship D870 'Zulu' was supposed to have been fitted out for electric train heat from new but the idea was abandoned due to lack of space. A scheme was drawn up at Swindon to try and fit the Hymeks too but this didn't get past the drawing board. Lack of internal space was always the main issue with all of these locos - when all but four of the Westerns were dual braked from 1968 onwards, one of the fuel tanks had to be removed to make room for the new equipment.

 

[Oracle]

For an example of how to design a loco that will never work, take a gander at the Fell diesel-mechanical. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_10100