GWU007 was the 100th C44aci built.
GWU007 was the 100th C44aci built.No it wasn't..... The 12 5000 class were C40aci and the 19 5020 class are C44acHi I may have forgotten something but.... 15 92 class 8 AC class 12 6000 class 20 XRN class 6 ACB class 6 CF class 9 GWU class 76 total Meanwhile, back at Cardiff.... 15 SCT class 10 GWA class 3 WH class 36 TT class 64 total M636C
I ain't going to lose any sleep over it. That's what UGL said at the 'handover ceremony' for GWU006 today, so it's their problem. Someone else can ring 'em up and tell 'em.
Seems a bit of a waste to me to buy. locomotive for intermodal that when fully fueled and at 139t is speed limited to 80km/h when there is another type that has been proven to haul more, carry more fuel and is unrestricted speed wise. Me personally I'd go with TTs to replace the NRs and leave the 92/93s on coal trains where they seem to perform best.
92's don't perform well on the coal trains. They are a bugger at low speed when loading / unloading. 3 90's get us up Mininbah better than 3 92's. TT's are better again.
Remember, a NR can not take a full fuel load without a speed restriction.
Some years agoÂ rumor has it that two went out on a superfreighter with 13500 each . The wheels didn't fall off or the rails spread and the sky didn't fall in . Curious . Â
To get back to the subject of the thread, At UGL Broadmeadow this afternoon, GWU 009 and 9301 and 9302 were in the yard.
9301 was fully painted and decalled except, as far as I could see, the end number below the owner's name on the front. Since Intermodal can't agree with Coal on the type of lettering (outlined or not outlined), they might be out of stock, or just not applied yet. 9302 was fully painted but not yet decalled. Both units had builder's plates but too far away to see the numbers. Apart from the end numbers, the markings on 9301 looked the same as the 92 class.
It was interesting that the 31 May UGL press release indicated the 93 class were for "Pacific National in Victoria". Since the Coal fleet is serviced by Downer, it might be just too difficult for the 92s since UGL are unlikely to provide detailed information to their main competitor to allow them to carry out other than running attention, while almost any problem on a TT could be dealt with at Kooragang Island.
Back when they were new I recall seeing 9201 sitting outside at Kooragang Island while technicians drove up in a ute from Broadmeadow and headed for the inverter compartment to correct the fault, just outside one of the best equipped workshops in the country.
M if the access providers were serious there would be a sliding scale of axle loads and allowable speeds , particularly on bridges . In the past I believe the official story was that an NR had to run at 80 over 12500L of fuel .
Its one thing to put double the load in a wagon and another to for example put an extra 1000L of fuel in a locomotive .
Many of the bridges on the short north were probably never intended to carry a 90 class even with a low fuel loadÂ but they did on a semi regular basis .
Having said that most of these runs were in RC territory and they generally maintain their line infrastructure to pretty high levels .Â
Rumor has it that the computer software is direct from GE and because they apparently don't have the variable horsepower (load limit 6/7/8 notch) option or off lining (load limit 1 notch) in the US we can't have it here . To put an engine off line means returning to the dark ages of isolating the engine control switch in each units cab . This will have an affect on fuel consumption if all you can do is isolate the lead unit on the road . We don't even know if its possible to see trailing unit fuel levels from the screens in these engines .
Vine also thinks the fuel filler pipes on the sides are unworkable for Intermodals provisioning locations but thats easily changed .
If the above issues are true then its difficult (ATM) to say whats been gained over the original CV40-9i other than another 300 hp and guesses 300 tonnes per unit on 1:40s .
We'll never know but the 4300 Hp upgrade with larger DC motors and fuel the weight variable could have been an interesting overhaul idea for NRs . Particularly with the ES type DC control system .
Problem is that PN is facing an ever increasing motive power shortage and NRs displaced by 93s are supposed to be going to other divisions .
This time next month they should be starting to show their strengths and weaknesses .
On some trains it will be possible to replace 3 NRs with 2 93s but these will never have the same performance 3 NRs do - even on 1:40 grades . I very much doubt a C44ACs can perform as well as 1 1/2 NRs .
M not all trains are going to weigh 3000 tonnes and it remains to be seen if the all weather loads for these 93s will be more than 1500 tonnes on the ruleing grades .
As for the Cullerin range , there many more miles of significant grades down there aside from that one . How many miles can a superfreighter expect to sloth along at 20-30 km/h before they become unacceptably slow .
The freight operators are getting away with a lot ATM down south because the prolific track speed restrictions force everyone to go slow . We hope that one day these TSRs will go , we know that nothing will stumble along real well with 2000+ T/unit trailing loads .
10'40" and 11'20" intercapital journeys are not going to happen and 16-18 hour ones are a bit pedestrian don't you think ?
Subscribers: 7334, Beta4Me, bevans, beyerpeacock, biqua, Boss, D3639, DounutCereal, EMBaldwin, fzr560, garethsh, Greensleeves, Hairy, james.au, jt393, KngtRider, KRviator, Lord-Data, NR58, phower, PILBARAMAN, Pressman, QR-INTERAIL, Raichase, rhino, seb2351, Shacks, speedemon08, splodgelet, trainman3801, walfactor, Wallip, wn514, wurx
We've disabled Quick Reply for this thread as it was last updated more than six months ago.