New locos at UGL

 
  M636C Minister for Railways

M636C might have that answer...
"GT46C-ACe"


M636C has had a really bad day and has had a sense of humour failure.

My recollection is that the ARTC issued TOC Waivers for both the ACs and ACBs.

The ACBs are interesting since they were lettered for QR National but numbered in the ARG horsepower series, yet were given a classification following the ACA which kept their QR numbers.

There isn't much difference between an ACC and an ACB, at least, not that I know about. Of course there wasn't much difference between an AC and an ACA either...  The numbering in different predecessor's number series is one of the biggest.

I'm pretty sure that the first order for 6020 class was 12 units. It seems that there are now thirty 6020 and ACC combined, split 8 ACC and 22 6020 class. My information matches Trent's as far as 6029. Assuming 6033 to 6035 are also non WA units, the remaining ACCs could be anywhere in 6036 to 6050, not necessarily in a single group.

It is all OK as long as you don't try to make sense of it.

M636C

Sponsored advertisement

  GT46C-ACe Assistant Commissioner

Location: Sydney, NSW
Thanks for the info M636C. You wouldn't find a joke in what I said as it wasn't meant to be funny, was only implying you may have the knowledge which you have proven.
  M636C Minister for Railways

Thanks for the info M636C. You wouldn't find a joke in what I said as it wasn't meant to be funny, was only implying you may have the knowledge which you have proven.
"GT46C-ACe"


I wasn't making a point to you, just making a general warning since I might have sounded even more grumpy in my post.

Today is only slightly better since the worst of yesterday's disasters were avoided.

On a related matter, ARTC TOC Waivers seem to have had less useful numbering data for the last couple of years.

M636C
  poppins122325 Chief Train Controller

Location: Hunter Valley
XRN 015 added to the pile up at UGL Tonight, starting to get a few in there.
  alcoworldseries Deputy Commissioner

Location: Auburn
I have heard ACC's only have one driving position, set up for number one end leading.
  Shacks Ghanzel

Location: Sir Big Lens of the Distant Upper Hunter
Word is the next lot of 93's are hitting the paintshop this week, dependes who you hear it from, there are 2, 3,4 or 6 in this group.
  GT46C-ACe Assistant Commissioner

Location: Sydney, NSW
9307 onwards?
  Shacks Ghanzel

Location: Sir Big Lens of the Distant Upper Hunter
I guess so.
  GT46C-ACe Assistant Commissioner

Location: Sydney, NSW
Ah, I ask that as I'm not 100% sure if PN got 6 or 8 the first time round...
  lsrailfan Chief Commissioner

Location: Somewhere you're not
When are the BK Units being Transferred just out of Intrest ?

Kind Regards
  BDA Chief Commissioner

Location: Sydney
The original word was for three more Intermodal spec units but vine seems to think it could be more like 13 .
One hopes they prove to be more reliable than the first batch because the MB/BM services are taking a beating because of them .
  BDA Chief Commissioner

Location: Sydney
Vine suspects that the next group of 93s may be ready soon and it will be interesting to see what the Intermodal Div cab pac looks like .
Word is that Bulk wants some NRs and the 93s will be needed to replace them . I believe they want the NRs for their longer range fuel tanks and more guts than the present 3000 hp units have .
  alcoworldseries Deputy Commissioner

Location: Auburn
Obviously not looking at the rapidly aging NR's then BDA, they fit the only the larger fuel capacity criteria
  BDA Chief Commissioner

Location: Sydney
Not all of Intermodals trains run through three or more states and on the East Coast we regularly fill to minimum fuel levels to get to Melbourne and Brisbane .
93s are a problem because they use more fuel than an NR does and it seems the weight issue here in Sinn City surrounds Rail Corp or whatever they call themselves this week . I don't think its known yet what ARTC will allow axle load wise on SSFL but if its greater than Rail Corps ideas then you may see 93s depart Sydney going south with intermediate or full fuel loads . I was under the impression that C44ACis were allowed to run the three fuel loads and at limited speeds for the intermediate and full fuel levels . Blind Freddy reckons Rail Corps wired perway is mostly better and heavier than much of ARTCs and JHs yet they only allow the lower fuel level .
So until the axle load allowance changes or the in line fueling becomes reliable they will continue to be a problem , the more of them Intermodal uses the bigger ...
The bottom line is that a C44ACi cannot replace an NR and being able to haul more doesn't solve the problem . A long distance go anywhere do anything unit with effectively a small tank is pointless . Many think the answer is more NRs not more ACs , but thats not the market trend is it .
IF RC refuses to budge permanently the answer could be to can the AC business and revert to a DC design with improved bogies and better traction motors .
  alcoworldseries Deputy Commissioner

Location: Auburn
Other option is run the clapped out NR's through Sydney and the new 93 class where there is no "beauracratic restrictions" I am sure the crews working west would appreciate new equipment. Perhaps the new power for working through Sydney should be 38 class about the right vintage of power to be ok with RailCorp.........
  Mufreight Train Controller

Location: North Ipswich
Other option is run the clapped out NR's through Sydney and the new 93 class where there is no "beauracratic restrictions" I am sure the crews working west would appreciate new equipment. Perhaps the new power for working through Sydney should be 38 class about the right vintage of power to be ok with RailCorp.........
"alcoworldseries"


A bit tongue in cheek but tripple 38's would just about handle the load for one of those clapped out NR's
  alcoworldseries Deputy Commissioner

Location: Auburn
Just a tad in cheek, or perhaps blowing rasberries at  the farsical situation that exists in Sydney/NSW.
  M636C Minister for Railways

Not all of Intermodals trains run through three or more states and on the East Coast we regularly fill to minimum fuel levels to get to Melbourne and Brisbane . 93s are a problem because they use more fuel than an NR does and it seems the weight issue here in Sinn City surrounds Rail Corp or whatever they call themselves this week . I don't think its known yet what ARTC will allow axle load wise on SSFL but if its greater than Rail Corps ideas then you may see 93s depart Sydney going south with intermediate or full fuel loads . I was under the impression that C44ACis were allowed to run the three fuel loads and at limited speeds for the intermediate and full fuel levels . Blind Freddy reckons Rail Corps wired perway is mostly better and heavier than much of ARTCs and JHs yet they only allow the lower fuel level . So until the axle load allowance changes or the in line fueling becomes reliable they will continue to be a problem , the more of them Intermodal uses the bigger ...The bottom line is that a C44ACi cannot replace an NR and being able to haul more doesn't solve the problem . A long distance go anywhere do anything unit with effectively a small tank is pointless . Many think the answer is more NRs not more ACs , but thats not the market trend is it . IF RC refuses to budge permanently the answer could be to can the AC business and revert to a DC design with improved bogies and better traction motors .
"BDA"


I don't think there will be any new DC locomotives any time soon. The big problem with NRs is that the present traction motors are too small and bigger motors make the NR as heavy as a 93. The AC motors are actually lighter and more powerful than the DC motors. There is no way ahead with DC motors.

Of course, it is Rail Corp's track and they get to say what it carries and when.

Check their TOC Waivers against those from ARTC. But even ARTC only allow 80km/h at 139t and 100km/h at 136t which is likely to be a problem for a fast container train. They don't burn two tonnes of fuel from Chullora to Macarthur, so the allowance on the SSFL alone won't help.

The 93s will use at least 10% more fuel in notch 8 and will spend longer on grades in notch 8 when two of them haul the load of three NRs. But I bet two 93s don't use as much fuel as three NRs!

In line fuelling can't be that unreliable since every SCT train uses it and they aren't failing all over the country. Maybe PN just need more practice?

M636C
  BDA Chief Commissioner

Location: Sydney
M I refuse to believe that its impossible to have a bit more traction motor , may be impossible with existing examples but not impossible to make .

To have a true weight comparison you'd have to combine the weight of the inverters with the AC motors and then they don't look so light .

Yes Rail Corp certainly do , 90 classes to Delec and 90 classes to Erraring .  Go figure ...

Maybe you're forgetting that SSFL splices back into the ARTC network south of Macarthur .

I doubt two 93s can pull what three NRs can , be interesting to see 93+93+3900T on the 1:40s down south . Tell me how fast again the three 92s went up Cowan Bank with 4500T or 1500 ea . Be really painfull with 1950 each .

We've had plenty of practise but WE didn't design the system .
Now lets see - don't recall SCT running too many eastern state services with in line fueling operating , in NSW anyway .
I also don't know for sure but it sounds like the Gs had a purely gravity feed system from the fuel tanker and it may be the same with the GT46Cs , not sure there . Its seems a minor issue with gravity feeding and no pump is how to detect leaks . NSW doesn't like leaks .
I believe NRs and C44ACis use a pressurised fuel tank system so I guess gravity feeding doesn't work so well .
I believe NSW has a problem with many thousands of litres of diesel fuel potentially being dumped along its rail corridors . This is rumored to have happened out in the wide open spaces where no one else was around to see , in another state .  
Frequency of fuel system failures , I can recall BM4 twice visiting Pt Waratah because of leaks etc with these ACs and at least once pinching an NR to get the train to Melbourne with a dead 93 . Two people got a taxi ride from Chullora to Broadmeadow to work that one to Sydney , guess who one of them was .
Have spent time in our terminal fighting the tanktainer to prime enough fuel into the 93s to make Melbourne , another BM4 layover in Sydney because it missed the afternoon peak . We should virtually never see 93s at our fuel point and they do look rather stupid being refuelled with the tank tainer still attached .
I can recall MB4 being in the terminal several times in recent months , no attach/detach - justs 93s in for a drink .

Do I have to spell out what this does to through trains on time running and reliability ? Would it be any better for an SP5 or Sprinter service to run out of fuel in the middle of nowhere ?
By all means , try them out across the west because it'll be too far away for us be concerned with .

People are initially keen to drive these things and then universally don't want to know any more , curious .
  bevans Site Admin

Location: Melbourne, Australia
Arriving into Melbourne yesterday morning.

ACC6031 and ACC6030

http://www.flickr.com/photos/Railpage/8368766010/

For reference

http://www.railpage.com.au/locos/class/142/

Regards
Brian
  alcoworldseries Deputy Commissioner

Location: Auburn
Just to correct BDA, G class, SCT/LDP/6000 have gravity feed as the back up, the normal system is a pumped feed, the Freight Australia G class system worked on the same principle but with different control equipment. Not worth buying into the values of this system against that used on NR/93 class, suffice to say that PN at the time those NR's fitted owned the intellectual property pertaining to the fuel equipment developed by Freight Australia, but choose to go off on a different development path.
  GT46C-ACe Assistant Commissioner

Location: Sydney, NSW
So they fixed what wasn't broken with the 93cl inline refueling system?
  UserTMP Station Master

The Liquip system as fitted to 6000 class had all the functionality needed, but the parts were assembled from consumer level components. The reliability was smeg. It took a lot of "convincing" from QRN engineers for Liquip to use more robust components. That component change is currently underway or finished and the reliability last I heard was vastly improved. QRN engineer sounded pleased with the outcome when last we spoke.
  DBclass Chief Commissioner

Location: Western Australia
I have posted in another thread. But have not had the answer i was after. Can anyone describe or name the builder, of the brake cylinders used on the QRN6000 class with fabricated bogies, and the AC class in WA ? I am trying to understand how the brake cylinder works. It does not appear to be acting directly on the brake block, rather through some kind of right angle drive/ pusher.
  alcoworldseries Deputy Commissioner

Location: Auburn
I am pretty sure the brake gear is WabTek Fastbrake, is fitted to SCT's etc aand near certain UGL's loco's as well.

Sponsored advertisement

Display from:   

Quick Reply

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