by johnmckenzie » Sat Aug 10, 2013 2:03 pm
Yes- strangely it was thought that the Co-Bo wheel arrangement would help route availability. The loco was going to be too heavy for a Bo-Bo wheel arrangement but it was considered underweight for a Co-Co wheel arrangement as a) it would slip under load too much and b) in the UK a considerable number of slow freight trains weren't fitted with brakes(!) so in order to stop a train you had to have a reasonable brake force in the loco (and a brake van at the rear).
In order to try to keep the axle loads similar at each end most of the heavy internal equipment (diesel unit, generator) was mounted at the Co end. Sadly even this didn't stop the Bo end having an overly-heavy axle load, meaning the route availability was worse than expected.
The cab windows tended to shake loose in use, meaning the crew often ended up frozen or soaked.
Reliability was non-existent.
The Crossley HSTV8 2-stroke diesel unit was prone to fractures of the crankshaft and pipework, reputedly one managed to shake its power unit clean off its mountings... Also exhaust fireballs were another major problem. Alleged by railway staff to be the most deafeningly loud machines.
The multiple-working equipment fitted was non-standard.
The steam heat equipment seldom worked.
In its wisdom, BR decided that a fleet of 20 Co-Bos was more than enough and the writing was well and truly on the wall in 1967 when a fireball from one of them set Barrow shed on fire, destroying the loco and another five of the type in the process.
Incredibly one survives, although not in working order. I'm pleased about that, it's so refreshingly different from everything else and such a flop you just have to love it!
