Which diesel locomotives had great performance and bad within their classes?

[Rugd1022]

When 50 003 (as 403) first arrived on the WR it was notoriously unrelieable, much more so than the others, which were often diabolical anyway until the fitters at Bath Road and Laira got their foibles in check.

[Dr Gerbil-Fritters]

I've noticed this with 66s too - some are woefully bad while others are as strong as an ox - I had 66 958 this morning on a ballast turn and it performed fantastically well going up Desborough bank on the Midland. It also had excellent suspension compared to most of the others I've driven.

 

Could it be down to build quality from different manufacturing plants?  The different series of 66s were built at different plants, the first 250 at GMD London, Ontario and certainly the 700 series are from EMD Muncie, Indiana...

 

Different work forces/practices for certain.

 

By the way, planes that are always in for repair are called Hanger Queens.... what's the equivalent term of abuse for unreliable locomotives?

Edited August 6, 2018 by Dr Gerbil-Fritters

[The Johnster]

Differences in diesel power output within classes is more than just the state of the engine or the generator; it seems to be effected by the 'sit' of these and probably other components in the frame or body.  This is the probable explanation of why some locos develop reputations as greyhounds or just dogs even when components are swapped out.  It is noticeable with steam as well, when a known good runner (Drwsllwyn Castle/Earl Bathhurst comes to mind, there will be no doubt other examples) has a boiler change at overhaul, and is still a known good runner after it though the boiler may have come off a weak loco, which now has the one from the good engine but is still a noted bag of nails.

 

My limited experience of this in the 70s as a Canton freight guard showed that Class 45/46, which we called Cromptons and never Peaks, ran much better when the massive bogies were in good low mileage state; the bouncing and banging when they weren't seemed to perceptibly sap the power.  This was true of all classes of course but seemed especially so with these, and I imagine Class 40 as well.  The best run I ever had as a freight guard was a 1,200+ trailing load Freightliner with a 45 that ran from Tramway loop in Gloucester to a stand in the reception roads at Pengam FLT, Cardiff, 55 miles, in 53 minutes, all speed limits obeyed strictly; cracking stuff, any idiot can go fast with a lightly loaded passenger train...

 

And they paid me to sit in the back cab and watch it!!!

Edited August 6, 2018 by The Johnster

[The Johnster]

Could it be down to build quality from different manufacturing plants?  The different series of 66s were built at different plants, the first 250 at GMD London, Ontario and certainly the 700 series are from EMD Muncie, Indiana...

 

Different work forces/practices for certain.

 

By the way, planes that are always in for repair are called Hanger Queens.... what's the equivalent term of abuse for unreliable locomotives?

 

Not repeatable on a family forum, Gerbil...

[adb968008]

31413 and 31418 always seemed to be troublesome around Manchester when they worked the Vic RRNW turns, 31410 and 31439 weren’t much better.

 

31146/7 seemed to be ever reliable when they spent a couple of summers endlessly on Pwheli turns.

Edited August 6, 2018 by adb968008

[brushman47544]

50 024 and 50 033 were both excellent performers when I had them in the early '80s, it's quite strange really when you consider the EE lumps were moved from one class member to another. 50 039 was by far the worst of the Old Oak batch, it was forever sat outside the Factory awaiting parts or attention. 47 484 'IKB' was always on good form, as were most of the WR named batch. 

 

Funny - my experiences with 50024 were exactly the opposite. Had a cab ride from Padd to Reading one day and the turbo was playing havoc.

 

50046 was a good one, as were 50007 (when blue - no idea when green) and 50008. 50022, 50026 and 50039 were awful. My fastest timed run - from Reading into Padd - was with 50042.

 

Of the Peaks, 45132 was known for being fast. Topped the ton on a number of occasions from Leicester into St Pancras.

 

Both 47555s were crap, although very reliable.

Edited August 7, 2018 by brushman47544

[SouthernBlue80s]

Funny - my experiences with 50024 were exactly the opposite. Had a cab ride from Padd to Reading one day and the turbo was playing havoc.

 

50046 was a good one, as were 50007 (when blue - no idea when green) and 50008. 50022, 50026 and 50039 were awful. My fastest timed run - from Reading into Padd - was with 50042.

 

Of the Peaks, 45132 was known for being fast. Topped the ton on a number of occasions from Leicester into St Pancras.

 

Both 47555s were crap, although very reliable.

 

What 47s stood out to you as good performers?

Cheers

Steve

[adb968008]

47901 never seemed to be upto much, similarly 56032 was always resident on Westbury shed every time I went there.

I recall certain 47’s seemed to be ever present in the north west.. 47488, 47541, 47568, 47620, 47461 always seemed to be out and about, even if a long way from “home”. I got the feeling Western and Scottish region 47’s were ok.

I was told once knackered locos around Manchester tended to be put out on Miles platting banking duties (short run, no disaster if they fail)..
I certainly saw 31232 and 31306 on those duties many times.

I guess this was a bad day..

 

(60 is 60058 John Howard).

Similarly if there was a 31/37 parked up in the platforms at Wigan, Southport or somewhere around Preston.. you know it was knackered... if it was there 2 days in a row.. you know they took it back overnight and it failed again next day, sometimes the one rescuing it would end up knackered as a pair.

 

Here's a pair, 31413 on the inside, a regular failure on these turns so not surprising..

 

At one point the reliability was that bad, that 2x 31s would be sent on the 4 coach workings, I know I saw 4x31s on 4 coaches on at least 1 occasion, and of those only 1 was under power.

Such fun was the early 90’s with the Victoria club trains, you never knew what was going to turn up, with what stock..

 

 

Here's a 31 with a failed DMU (note its got passengers on board, so not a recovery ECS), i recall it ran around at VIC and did a return working with the same unit later that day.

 

 

Edited May 9, 2021 by adb968008

[brushman47544]

What 47s stood out to you as good performers?

Cheers

Steve

 

That's not so easy. Some that seemed good on one run would be poor the next one. Those I remember performing well include 47012, 020, 032, 102, 116, 143, 211, 240, 249, 298, 307, 310, 316, 340, 345, 368, 377, 409, 440, 461, 464, 508, 515, 541, 544, 546, 549, 621, 625, 636, 642.

[Rugd1022]

That's not so easy. Some that seemed good on one run would be poor the next one. Those I remember performing well include 47012, 020, 032, 102, 116, 143, 211, 240, 249, 298, 307, 310, 316, 340, 345, 368, 377, 409, 440, 461, 464, 508, 515, 541, 544, 546, 549, 621, 625, 636, 642.

 

508 was often a stormer on the Padd - Oxfords / Newburys when it was on our patch, also had it on the Padd - Brums occasionally and it would fly. The only downside was when it did the typical '47 roll' when shutting off across the big dipper Leamington - Cov stretch.

[SouthernBlue80s]

That's not so easy. Some that seemed good on one run would be poor the next one. Those I remember performing well include 47012, 020, 032, 102, 116, 143, 211, 240, 249, 298, 307, 310, 316, 340, 345, 368, 377, 409, 440, 461, 464, 508, 515, 541, 544, 546, 549, 621, 625, 636, 642.

 

Thanks for that reply - interesting

Cheers

Steve

[adb968008]

That's not so easy. Some that seemed good on one run would be poor the next one. Those I remember performing well include 47012, 020, 032, 102, 116, 143, 211, 240, 249, 298, 307, 310, 316, 340, 345, 368, 377, 409, 440, 461, 464, 508, 515, 541, 544, 546, 549, 621, 625, 636, 642.

A few of those numbers stand out.

I think RES took some of the best 47’s in the late 80 /90’s.. the Royal Mail contract has some strict penalties for delayed services, even under BR days. If a 47 on a cross country failed..so what, passengers got nowt.. but delayed mail...

 

47515/549 /625 were RES regulars up north, agreed also on 47508.. it every time I saw it, it was working hard, and I would see it every time.. I guess it’s the ones you never see.. that’s the reason why.

 

I note two by their absence on the list 079/628... of my haunts these two GW150 machines always eluded me, despite 484 and 500 being ever present... was it coincidence or we’re these a bit “average” ? (To justify every summer I had 4 weeks in the Bristol-Reading-Westbury triangle area from 1984-1991, and took a new Plat5 with me each time to allow me to compare years.. I’d spend 7-8 hours a day on stations in this region, though admittedly the grandparents thought I was picking black currants up a country lane near Trowbridge :-)

Edited August 8, 2018 by adb968008

[Zomboid]

Of the Peaks, 45132 was known for being fast. Topped the ton on a number of occasions from Leicester into St Pancras.

Should be moving under its own power again before too long, too.

[DCB]

I would question the speedo there. We had a 47 that had a history of low power in it's book. A trial run uncovered normal enough readings on charge air, fuel pressure and main generator amps, with all stages of field diversion working. A check of the wheel wear compensator revealed that the indicated 85MPH was nearer an actual 105MPH.

Won't go over 85MPH wasn't the full story, it was never late on arrival.

 

Dave

Its not rocket science to make an accurate speedo, Smiths I believe did a Chronometric speedo for cars and bikes in the 1950s, so why did BR manage to fit something quite useless to the 47s?   A lot of people believe in their car speedos, They believe when the needle sits on 60 it means they are doing 60MPH. 40 years in the Motor trade and apart from Chronometrics I have yet to find an electronic or magnetic which is accurate. I put a 130mph dial on a 150mph speedo  to improve a hopeless Rover one once, oddly the mileage was with in about 2%, and I always do a stopwatch test at steady speed when I buy a new car , 100 metre markers at the side of dual carriageways. 1604 metres per mile....     most are 3 mph fast at 60,   60 ind = 57 actual.  1 was  10 mph fast at 60, 60 ind = 50 actual.      Cars are a bit different to locos, they work well within design parameters and running at maximum speed is unlikely to cause any problems (except getting tugged by plod) but a traction motor flying apart on a Diesel could be catastrophic.  I think the GW realised this when they went for Hydraulics!

[russ p]

Speedos on most loco's are actually voltmeters so are reasonably accurate they have nothing in common with old car speedos

[45125]

Its not rocket science to make an accurate speedo, Smiths I believe did a Chronometric speedo for cars and bikes in the 1950s, so why did BR manage to fit something quite useless to the 47s?   A lot of people believe in their car speedos, They believe when the needle sits on 60 it means they are doing 60MPH. 40 years in the Motor trade and apart from Chronometrics I have yet to find an electronic or magnetic which is accurate. I put a 130mph dial on a 150mph speedo  to improve a hopeless Rover one once, oddly the mileage was with in about 2%, and I always do a stopwatch test at steady speed when I buy a new car , 100 metre markers at the side of dual carriageways. 1604 metres per mile....     most are 3 mph fast at 60,   60 ind = 57 actual.  1 was  10 mph fast at 60, 60 ind = 50 actual.      Cars are a bit different to locos, they work well within design parameters and running at maximum speed is unlikely to cause any problems (except getting tugged by plod) but a traction motor flying apart on a Diesel could be catastrophic.  I think the GW realised this when they went for Hydraulics!

 

Most of the speedos are/where accurate, the main problem is reading  (for some people)the tyre gauge after tyre turning and calibrating the wheel wear compensator correctly. 

[Holmesfeldian]

I had heard previously that engines in 50s were moved about a bit. I wonder if this happened with other larger classes?

 

 

When 50023 was cut up at Barrow Hill it had DP2's engine block - recognisable by the different cylinder head covers.

 

A shame that - would have been a good scheme for the Baby Deltic lads to retro fit it to a Deltic body shell 

[andy stroud]

..... it had DP2's engine block - recognisable by the different cylinder head covers.

 

 

 

Where is that now?  is it in use?

[Titan]

When 50023 was cut up at Barrow Hill it had DP2's engine block - recognisable by the different cylinder head covers.

 

A shame that - would have been a good scheme for the Baby Deltic lads to retro fit it to a Deltic body shell 

 

There are two Deltic cabs... Wonder what it would take to graft them on to a set of class 50 frames, and rebuild the body between to suit....

[adb968008]

There are two Deltic cabs... Wonder what it would take to graft them on to a set of class 50 frames, and rebuild the body between to suit....

You don’t need two, there’s a whole Deltic, which has always been a bit behind the rest of the pack.

Putting a 50 power unit would allow it to maintain that status, just a bit more reliably, and recreate DP2.

[Foden]

Interesting to read about the poor running and reliability of class 31s in particular.

 

They’re a class of loco that appeal to me especially, I remember them vaguely coming through Hinckley in the late 80s, but it’s interesting how people’s opinions of them seem to have been underperforming, and unreliable poor relations to their slightly bigger class 37 brothers.

 

I also remember seeing a couple in the early 90s when I was spotting with my dad, back then I remember a few occasions seeing a pair on 100ton tanks, and in cement tanks. The memory is sketchy but I always remember that even in pairs they always seemed to be struggling, and at that time they always seemed run down and unloved too.

 

Was this typical of the class as a whole?

Edited August 18, 2018 by Foden

[russ p]

31s weren't bad locos at all, they could slip a bit but I liked them

Comfortable cab which wasn't to loud and in summer lots of opening windows.

They weren't as loud as a 37 but they did sound good

[cheesysmith]

The problem with the class 31 was the lack of power. Being a mixed traffic design with a low engine horsepower means they are ok pulling wise until the traction motor field diverts kick in, so once you get above 40 ish MPH the power at rail drops off significantly. You can have less than 900hp at rail for a engine HP of 1470 at speeds of over 70mph. They could pull heavier trains, just not very fast. There was a reason they were nicknamed peds (for pedestrian).

[Foden]

I’m guessing that’s why they found considerable use in engineers use then later in life. Older redundant ex passenger use locos, largely unloved with not much other work to do, but would pull decent loads allbeit at no great speed, perfect for the job really?

[tractor_37260]

It's reputed that L/L 37 114 was a good un - it often outperformed the newly arrived 37/4's on the far north line ex IS.  L/L 37 414  was another stormer.............