New locos at UGL

 
  BDA Chief Commissioner

Location: Sydney
By any chance is 9303 painted and numbered yet ? 

Sponsored advertisement

  bingley hall Minister for Railways

Location: Last train to Skaville
GWU007 was the 100th C44aci built.
  M636C Minister for Railways

GWU007 was the 100th C44aci built.
"bingley hall"


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
  Greensleeves Chief Commissioner

Location: If it isn't obvious by now, it should be.
GWU007 was the 100th C44aci built.
"bingley hall"
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
"M636C"


Would I be right in thinking that the LDP's are omitted because they're part of EDI's leasing subsidiary?
  bingley hall Minister for Railways

Location: Last train to Skaville
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.
  Clyde_AT26HC-2M Chief Train Controller

CEY001-007 should also be in the list I believe.
  M636C Minister for Railways

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.
"bingley hall"


In their recent press release (31 May) UGL said the most recent order of ES44DCi would give Rio a total of 160 locomotives.

I wrote to them saying Rio already had 159 units, and they came back saying they meant to say "169"

Since I forgot the CEYs (and LDPs), if you count the 5020s it would probably be correct that GWU007 is the 100th.

UGL vary in describing them as C44aci or C44acHi but they have quite different frames and bogies and traction motors but the same power equipment above the frame.

So when 9308 emerges, they will have built more AC units than NRs.....

M636C
  BDA Chief Commissioner

Location: Sydney
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.
"GT46C-ACe"

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.
"Shacks"


This is true to a point . I remember Gonads people saying that full to the top of the emergeny filler they can take 14000 but they are set to cut off at the normal fill points at 12500L  . 
Some years ago 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 .  


  M636C Minister for Railways

. 
Some years ago 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 .  

"BDA"


Many years ago, QR ran coal trains from Collinsville to Mt Isa using WHO wagons, which were the biggest open wagons they had with automatic couplers and roller bearings. They were the heaviest wagons in use. In Mt Isa, blocks of processed copper were loaded, one over each bogie and these went back to Townsville where they were taken out and the wagons ran empty to Collinsville.

One day, the guys unloading the coal in Mt Isa found blocks of copper in their coal wagon. One had been missed in Townsville, and been loaded with coal over the copper.

The Maintenenance Engineers all turned pale and checked every bridge between Collinsville and Mt Isa for damage from the excess load. They had got away with it that time.

But because you could run one wagon loaded to nearly twice its rated load and neither it nor the track or bridges failed, it doesn't mean that you can double wagon loads with no effect. It doesn't work like that.

You can use the factor of safety built in to the system every so often but if you regularly exceed the design loads, something will fail eventually.

The NSW main south has rail put in place in the 1930s when an occasional 57 class applied a 23 ton axle load. Now nearly every train has two or three locos with 22 ton axle loads and often even heavier wagons...

M636C
  BDA Chief Commissioner

Location: Sydney

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.

M636C
"M636C"


Black letters numbers and a slightly different yellow . With a nip here and a tuck there should have advantages over a 92 .
  BDA Chief Commissioner

Location: Sydney
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 load 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 . 
.
  Toddy Train Controller

9304 can be seen from Griffiths Road in undercoat waiting to be painted.. Two other 93's that are painted looked to be idling today also in the yard doing some testing
  M636C Minister for Railways

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 load 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 . 
.
"BDA"


There is now a sliding scale:

134t or less - 115km/h

136t - 100km/h

139t - 80 km/h

so an NR with 13500 litres is allowed 100 km/h...

The 90 class even with minimal fuel are limited to a speed less than 80km/h and only run to Enfield for wheel turning, as far as I know...

M636C
  Shacks Ghanzel

Location: Sir Big Lens of the Distant Upper Hunter
 The 90 class even with minimal fuel are limited to a speed less than 80km/h and only run to Enfield for wheel turning, as far as I know... M636C
"M636C"

Correct, they use block working on the way to Enfield also.
  beyerpeacock Assistant Commissioner

Location: Gorton Foundry
50km/h from Iso Junction to Eraring Jct and 40km/h henceforth to Enfield....
  poppins122325 Chief Train Controller

Location: Hunter Valley
Just an update 9305 is out in the yard with full paint and decals
  BDA Chief Commissioner

Location: Sydney
It sounds like a lot of detail things need to be changed in these 93s . Cab switching is said to be all over the place rather than logically grouped like in NRs .
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 .


  M636C Minister for Railways


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 .
"BDA"


There should be much less need to take a unit off line since two 93s will replace three NRs if the trials with the 92 class are anything to go by. The saving in having two units do the job of three will save enough overall to justify the change just on depreciation costs but will save fuel compared to three units even wiyh one off line when not required.


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 .

"BDA"


If you could have fitted larger motors to the NR they would have done so when new. The GE 796 was too light, hence was replaced by the heavier GE 796A1, reportedly adding a ton overall to the weight and officially reducing the fuel to 11500 litres.

The AC motors are lighter which reduces the impact forces from the unsprung mass even if the saving is negated by the inverters being heavier than the DC switchgear, since the inverters are fully sprung up in the hood.

Remember that you would have to add the heavier radiators of the 92 and successors to get 3200 kW, and if you put in heavier motors as well, you probably would cut the fuel to around 7400 litres as in the 92 class to get down to 134 t (if you could).

The 93s may spend a bit more time on Cullerin bank than triple NRs, but they will get to the top every time.

M636C
  BDA Chief Commissioner

Location: Sydney
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 ?  
  M636C Minister for Railways

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 ?  
"BDA"


We don't have to guess what a 93 class can haul.(See TOC Waiver 12007)

ARTC have published loads for C44aci units of 1.25x L2, ie 1.25 times an NR.

So any two 93 class can haul as much as 2.5 NRs.

If a train was loaded to 2.5 times the load of an NR, and you only have NRs you need to use three.
That train could run with two 93 class.

If the operator wants to and believes the train will meet section times, he can load it to 1.4 times , an NR, so two 93s are allowed to haul 2.8 times an NR load, which is 93% of the load of three NR class.

So PN could put two 93s on a train that was 93% of the load of three NR class.

It would be slower on grades with 8700 HP instead of 12000 HP but ARTC believe it would make it up ruling grades with that load.

Do you believe that given an option like that, PN won't load the 93 class up to the maximum to avoid using three NRs?

M636C
  BDA Chief Commissioner

Location: Sydney
I don't doubt it for one second and that is the intention . My point is that its a significant drop in horsepower and tables don't always allow for it . The thing is that this will make the trains slower everywhere that isn't flat or downhill . Thinking about it less dynamic brake capacity will make them slower downhill as well , we all know what happens to a long train when the red handle goes over and the chokes extend release times .  
The significant numbers to crunch are about an 8% increase in horsepower for a possibly 25% increase in hauling capacity .
I know what 2 NRs feels like with 4200T on the up south , what do you reckon 5250T will be like with 2 93s ? It's comparing 1.92 Hp/tonne to 1.66 . Its a different world on road but it would be like a 60T B Double having 100 horsepower ...  
The Americans found out years ago when they tried replacing 5 SD40-2s with 3 60/70MACs or even 3 with 2 . Its possibly why some of their operators chose DC over AC units for intermodal trains .
The situation is different here in that our 22TAL DC units can't pull what their 30TAL DCs can and buying 4300 hp DC unit may not be possible here nowdays .
The proof will be turning up late in Sydney and not being allowed in or out .
Also I know operators don't plan around it but failures are more of an issue with full loads and and more so with larger full loads  .
You can guess what happens with those 10000T coal trains in the Hunter when one of the three lays down on them , much heavier loads than we have but they don't have the grades we have to drag them up .  

Anyway in the next few months we should know how it really pans out and like any operation with new equipment proceedures will need to be fine tuned to meet the operators and customers needs .
I hear that the first 3 escape Gonads in two weeks time and are going to Spotswood to be Intermodalised .
If they prove to be better equipment wise and virtually cost neutral they may become the defacto C44ACi variant .
  M636C Minister for Railways

I expect that the 93 class will see more use on steel traffic rather than container trains, at least at first.

PW4 often slows right down on grades when it has two NR rather than three, even though it consists maybe 2/3 of empties.

Two 93 would be an improvement.

I'm not saying that two AC units replacing three DC is a good idea but it must cost less to run the train.

M636C
  BDA Chief Commissioner

Location: Sydney
Its hard to guess how much better 93s will perform than NRs in less than drag load use , 8% (330 hp) isn't lots more so the difference wouldn't be night and day . All else usually isn't equal but if Hp related directly to speed and you had in round figures 10% more would this mean 44 km/h compared to 40 ?  
  UserTMP Station Master

Consist monitor should be standard on the 93 class. That will show the fuel levels of each loco in the multi. It shows other stuff too like TM loads etc, but fuel level is the main one. It is a feedback system only, no control.

Consist manager is a customer option I think. It's intended use is to supply the requested power according to the driver's selected throttle notch in the most fuel effective way. So if there are 3 locos lightly loaded and driver selects notch 2, requiring "x" amount of hp it might have the lead loco in notch one and the rear locos in notch 3. It needs to have each loco class that could be attached to the C44 programmed in. 

The QR-Interail drivers never really used it much that I know of, but it has possibilities. The system certainly doesn't look as flexible as the much older NR system.

http://www.getransportation.com/rail/rail-products/locomotives/fuel-savings-solutions/consist-manager.html

Trip Optimizer is another optional system, but it's benefits are dubious at best. You log each gradient, curve and speed setting of a route.Logging runs are carried out to gather fuel burn data as well. Before each train departs you email consist length, load and loco arrangement to GE 24hr helpdeask. They use 3G to upload the locos with the parameters for the journey. Theoretically once you leave Melbournes outer limits the driver starts trip optimizer and it runs a cruise control system. Supposedly the most fuel efficient way to run the route. It doesn't do any braking and the driver can override at any time of course. The testing seemed to go ok for the Melbourne-Adelaide route, but doubt it is actually used in operations and it's unlikly QRNational ever paid for more routes to be logged. I don't know what happens in their daily operations of course, so they may be using it.

http://www.getransportation.com/rail/rail-products/locomotives/fuel-savings-solutions/trip-optimizer.html


edited for spelling
  BDA Chief Commissioner

Location: Sydney
Hmm , has potential but whilst lots of these things look good on paper the reality in the real world can be a very different thing .
I used to wonder at times if it were possible for the software to allow multiple units to notch up at different rates as in the leader being one up on the second and so forth for better train handling .
I think the consist monitor system/software while ever it functions properly is the most flexible and its a shame GE have not carried it over to the AC revisions of the NR platform . You could be forgiven for thinking its a bit limiting GETS broadly assuming what works in US operations works best everywhere else as well .
Having used the late Dash 8 screen displays (NRs) what the 92s have is ahh bit basic and its hard to view it as an upgrade .
I hear the 93s will be a little different again but have not seen one yet . 
Running costs are very much in the spotlight these days and I expect the operators will want the most flexible software options they can get . The time they don't get is the time they start ringing alternative motive power providers and threatening to go elsewhere .
More than one way to skin the cat and money talks . Australia is probably buying enough locomotive equipment now to be able to request software revisions particularly if it turns up better fuel consumption - and exhaust emissions . Even the US operators can't ignore these and they buy more units off GE and EMD than anyone else .
"Power" to the people ...        

Sponsored advertisement

Display from:   

Quick Reply

We've disabled Quick Reply for this thread as it was last updated more than six months ago.