[quote="dw54"][quote="bingley hall"][quote="dw54"]
I worked the wheat bins in my Uni days. Back then, cockies generally had light duty trucks which were good for the run to the bin, but not for long runs (think "Bedford"). I know many now have heavier duty kit (what %? I don't know) like the one that careered down Greenmount hill and smashed into traffic held at Roe Hwy lights 16-odd years ago. But if cockies have to buy trucks suitable for a 100km+ run to a grain concentration site, why would they bother stopping there? Trucks which can handle 25km and are pretty hot when they get there won't cut the mustard in the brave new world!!

DW in Devonport[/quote]

I work with councils quite a lot and my Wheatbelt ones are very worried about some of the jalopies on the road trying to do longer haulage.

Many farmers have special licence vehicles that only get licenced on a month to month basic when harvest is on. To say a lot should not be on the road is about as polite as you can get.

Presumably farms who now have further to go to deliver grain will get some dispensation with the NG closures from CBH??

Most contract haulers doing grains are sensible drivers on these single lane wheatbelt roads. The problem is usually the 20yo in the souped up ute trying to pass them.

Good luck to the ARG staff. The uncertainty is often worse than the final outcome, especially for the ones with partners and kids.

This was a story in Monday's Geraldton Guardian covering a visit by Watco to Geraldton:
http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/regional/gascoyne/a/-/news/8701730/delegates-discuss-175m-rail-network/

Two unnamed grain export companies have begun discussions with the Port of Bunbury in regards to Exporting thru the port 1mtpa each of grain

No mentioned was made from where the grain will come from or by what means of transport

Source Bunbury Mail 19/1

Further news paper items, have various bodies calling on or supporting the rebuilding of one of the three lines that used to connect Bunbury with the wheat belt to the East. IE Collie - Narrogin, Collie - Wagin, Donnybrook - Katanning. For 2mtpa it could be feasable to go Collie-Wagin requiring about 120km of track to be built.

This was a story in Monday's Geraldton Guardian covering a visit by Watco to Geraldton:
http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/regional/gascoyne/a/-/news/8701730/delegates-discuss-175m-rail-network/

Carts?
Merger?

Never let the facts get in the way of a "good" (well, passable, er maybe junk...) story!!

DW in Devonport

https://www.cbh.com.au/media/197706/partner%20announcement%20faq-4.pdf

I know of some farmers that are disgusted with CBH, they cannot understand why 175mil is being spent on trains & not on receival & out loading upgrades.

The other worry is that if ARG pick up a substantial amount of the grain transport contracts, CBH could take a big hit financially.

$10 says Watco will be ordering gensets from NREC like GWA are doing.

Join the dots and it makes sense - the units will meet T2 compliance (not relevant here!) as per the FAQ from CBH.   The new units will need to meet the light loading gauge of the wheatbelt.   16T axle loading sounds right for a genset unit.

CBH would want to be getting their tenders out pronto if this thing is starting within 12 months!!

$10 says Watco will be ordering gensets from NREC like GWA are doing.

Join the dots and it makes sense - the units will meet T2 compliance (not relevant here!) as per the FAQ from CBH.   The new units will need to meet the light loading gauge of the wheatbelt.   16T axle loading sounds right for a genset unit.

CBH would want to be getting their tenders out pronto if this thing is starting within 12 months!!

I would take that bet....

In view of the rumours coming out of Idaho that CBH have ordered 23 locomotives from MPI, can the navel and crystal ball gazers out West suggest a breakup between the gauges?

For those into "uglies", these drawings are on MPI's site (and have been for several years) http://www.motivepower-wabtec.com/locomotives/international/

Are we taking those diagrams as gospel?

If so, they arn't gensets!   MPI are known for rehashed 645/710 engines.   Parts are in supply here, crew know how to repair 645E3.   Maybe these could be like the DFZ class - 12-645E3 engine.

...time will tell.

Now all we need is grain hoppers!  Gemco?!

How long will it be before CBH outsources its rail transport division as 'not part of the core business'?    

Are we taking those diagrams as gospel?

If so, they arn't gensets!   MPI are known for rehashed 645/710 engines.   Parts are in supply here, crew know how to repair 645E3.   Maybe these could be like the DFZ class - 12-645E3 engine.

...time will tell.

Now all we need is grain hoppers!  Gemco?!

1) The diagrams on the right show a 3 genset design.
2) MPI use a GE contracted Polish sourced cast crankcase for 16V-645F3 engines. This is to overcome the serious shortage of 645 crankcases that preceded the GFC - good description in the New Locomotives Thread under the Tasmania Topic of Railpage.

JMT posted (and I hope he doesn't mind being reposted within Railpage):
  Posted: 15 Mar 2011 23:15  
GE and the 645 Engine

I am going on memory for dates so correct me if I am wrong

MK Rail, a subsidiary of Morrison-Knudsen Co. of Boise, Idaho, negotiated a license from GM to manufacture the 645 engine in the early '90's. The 645 was then out of production, but MK needed this engine for contracts to supply variations of the GP40 to transit authorities, who had specified this engine.

By 1996 MK was bankrupt, and in the subsequent disposal of assets GE picked up the license, together with a group of subsidiary rail technology companies, which were not rolled into Motive Power Industries. MPI was subsequently purchased by Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies Corporation in 1999

A number of US Transit Authorities continued to specify 16-645's so MPI developed the F40 and PH36 series of locomotives around this engine. Initially GE commenced producing piston liner kits, heads, and sundry other parts, using the original GM drawings for the after-market. MPI required a source of new engines as the supply of good quality used blocks was rapidly diminishing, with prices sky-rocketing.

GE subcontracted the development and manufacture of a replacement 16 cylinder block to the Polish Sulzer licensee (Zaklady Urzadzen Technicznych [ZUT] "Zgoda"). This company had wide experience in casting blocks and crankcases, so followed this path. The GE crankcase is therefore quite different in construction from EMD's, but accepts all the same rotating and reciprocating parts. It is also much heavier.

GE has only constructed the 16 cylinder engine. In the early 2000's prior to the mass locomotive withdrawals due to the GFC, used 16 cylinder E' crankcases were in such short supply that one of the eastern back-shops (TMS?), built a jig and were laser cutting 2 cylinders out of either end of 645 V20 crankcases, then welding back the ends! Apparently about 80 crankcases were "manufactured" by this method prior to 2008. Unfortunately this does not work with 16 to 12 due to the journal spacing.

>>>>>>>>>>>>  end of quote  

........and the winner is Motive Power - A Wabtec Company

Will be interesting to see what they look like as they re-manufacture old ones similar to NREC or they could be new "Environmental Friendly" locomotives.

Two unnamed grain export companies have begun discussions with the Port of Bunbury in regards to Exporting thru the port 1mtpa each of grain

No mentioned was made from where the grain will come from or by what means of transport

Source Bunbury Mail 19/1

Further news paper items, have various bodies calling on or supporting the rebuilding of one of the three lines that used to connect Bunbury with the wheat belt to the East. IE Collie - Narrogin, Collie - Wagin, Donnybrook - Katanning. For 2mtpa it could be feasable to go Collie-Wagin requiring about 120km of track to be built.

interesting that you say that about 120km of track would be required, if you have a look at this site they say that they have completed the planning for a 120km line in the southwest but it is for a mining company. http://www.longrun.com.au/projects.asp
wal.

Will be interesting to see what they look like as they re-manufacture old ones similar to NREC or they could be new "Environmental Friendly" locomotives.

They will be new builds.......I dont think Motive Power sell many rebuilds, they only do rebuilds for existing owners.

P2017
Posted: 11 Apr 2011 18:36
Will be interesting to see what they look like as they re-manufacture old ones similar to NREC or they could be new "Environmental Friendly" locomotives.

On the ABC radio news this afternoon, a CBH spokesman said "they will be the most environmentally friendly Loco`s in the world".

Cheers
Steve

Maybe they are getting a bit excited and count the coal mine in Margaret River?!  

On the ABC radio news this afternoon, a CBH spokesman said "they will be the most environmentally friendly Loco`s in the world".

Cheers
Steve

Not if they're going to be diesels

On the ABC radio news this afternoon, a CBH spokesman said "they will be the most environmentally friendly Loco`s in the world".

Cheers
Steve

Not if they're going to be diesels

Err, Noel- this could be the start of a very divergent sub-thread - if some of those on uk.railway are anything to go by.

The issue comes down to how do you deliver the energy to the wheels - by processing to a liquid (or gas) form and converting on board; or convert off-train and deliver by a system of cables. That then takes us back to the source used to provide the energy. Currently, in WA, the sources are petroleum (oil AND gas), coal and a modest amount of wind harvesting.

Now, let me know which of these systems has the most environmentally friendly overall carbon, thermal and atmospheric footprint ... and when you do, please take into account the effect of high tension transmission lines and electro-magnetic radiation at frequencies associated with electrical distribution and wind harvesting on susceptible individuals (not everyone is affected). Also, please take into account the negative visual amenity of transmission lines and wind turbine towers. There may also be a visual amenity issue with OHLE.

Overall, I don't think it's a no-brainer at all. Rather, it's very close and depends on some values which will have to be assumed for the present.

Of course, you may be alluding to using CNG or LPG as a fuel for these locos. This is not beyond the realms of realistic at all. Some engines do require different liners and/or valves for variant fuels, but these are available as options.

Some of the engine auto shut-down systems now available further reduce the emissions from diesel/gas-electric locos.

So let us into your thinking on this subject.

Cheers

DW in Devonport

Wait, a turbine farm is ugly? Worse than comparable alternatives producing the same amount of energy?

If fossil fuel burning machines like engines and boilers had to capture their waste, like nuclear power stations do, instead of spewing it into the atmosphere, causing Global Warming™, sorry, Climate Change™, then they'd be greener up to a point, but hideously impractical. If we compare like with like, then centralised energy conversion systems, such as a power station (of any kind) must be more efficient than distributed systems such as having a motor (of any kind) on board a locomotive and carrying its fuel around with it. Or PV panels on a roof.

Wait, a turbine farm is ugly? Worse than comparable alternatives producing the same amount of energy?

If fossil fuel burning machines like engines and boilers had to capture their waste, like nuclear power stations do, instead of spewing it into the atmosphere, causing Global Warming™, sorry, Climate Change™, then they'd be greener up to a point, but hideously impractical. If we compare like with like, then centralised energy conversion systems, such as a power station (of any kind) must be more efficient than distributed systems such as having a motor (of any kind) on board a locomotive and carrying its fuel around with it. Or PV panels on a roof.

Hi Noel

Yeah, like I said, this topic produced a massive sub-thread on uk.railway, and I don't really want to go there again. I think the upshot is that the differences between the best of each method in each geopoliticoeconomic setting are modest.

For example, there are experts in Perth whose modelling shows that the most effective way to STORE surplus energy (eg from a wind farm, solar farm, wave harvester) is to convert water to hydrogen and store the hydrogen - apparently vastly better than pumped storage (a 2-dam hydo-electric system) or any type of battery. While this lends weight to the hydrogen fuel cell direction, the enduring problem is effective storage of that smallest of atoms, under pressure - remember that a hydrogen atom is just a proton with an electron somewhere in the vicinity.

So, as I've found myself in such discussions and/or presentations, I've found that my previous assumptions have been overturned.

As for wind farms and visual amenity, that's for each community to assess. What I don't understand is why wind turbines have to look like a WW2 aircraft graveyard. Why can't the turbine have a vertical axis, be shaped sympathetically with the surrounding environment - if forested, like the tree type (ie conical or semi-spherical); if man-made, more rectangular (ie cylindrical) - and coloured with something resembling army jungle fatigues so they're not so "in your face."

When you do studies on proposed infrastructure, issues of visual amenity usually arise. As to whether a wind farm is less ugly than a coal-fired power station at Collie - well here's a test:

Propose to install a wind farm at Robb Jetty, just as Cockburn Rd swings away inland now. Right above the North Coogee canals estate, and visible to all those expensive McMansions that will be/have been built there. See what visual amenity arguments arise - just an exercise. Then propose that the old South Fremantle power station be used for a peak period gas turbine genset to assure residents in that area that their air conditioners will always work on the hottest days. See how that goes down (it's close enough to the People's Green Republic of Fremantle to generate some two-way discussion!!).

You get my drift?

Cheers Mate.

DW now in Devonport

Yeah, like I said, this topic produced a massive sub-thread on uk.railway, and I don't really want to go there again. I think the upshot is that the differences between the best of each method in each geopoliticoeconomic setting are modest.

Yep - let it rest there

This has just come through on the Yahoo Group "Greengoats"

"From the upcoming newsletter of the Rocky Mtn. RR Club --

In late Feburary MPI was awarded a contract to build 22 freight locomotives for
an Australian grain transporter called CBH Group. The locomotives will be
designed by the engineering team at MPI in Boise, but will be built in
Australia. The locomotives will be both standard and narrow gauge.

I can say that they are not gensets"

Does anyone have any ideas which Australian shop will be the assembler?

Interesting...I have heard from multiple independant sources that these units will be 3GS21C's.

Strange, 3GS21C is a NREC model designator

Order has been placed with MPI. If 3 engines gensets (with QSK19) should be MP21C
http://www.greenrailnews.com/mpi.html

MPI parent Webtec Corporation have issued a press release re the sale
http://www.wabtec.com/upload/pressrelease/04.11.11%20~%20Wabtec%20Signs%20Contract%20To%20Build%20New%20Locomotives%20For%20CBH%20Group%20Of%20Australia.pdf

There is obviously a bit of misinformation circulating

In the above link to Green Rail News, Pacific Harbour lines are listed as having the following MPI locomotives with MTU 12V4000
2 x Model: MP20B-3 PHL 20-21 built 2008
14 x Model: MP20C-3 PHL 60-73 built 2007-8      
All 16 of these units are to be returned to Progress Rail Services to have the MTU prime-mover replaced with a Cat 3512C in 2011

http://www.progressiverailroading.com/freightnews/article.asp?id=25082