QUBE locomotive restrictions

 
  12CSVT Chief Commissioner

Location: Drowning in accreditation red tape!
I think the argument shouldn't be that there are improving standards in noise control - more that they are randomly and discriminatingly applied between states and specifically hurting the competitiveness of rail vs. road.

There should be ONE national standard for all environmental aspects of rail vehicles, so ANY loco approved / accredited in ANY state should have that recognised in ANY other state.
No, some of the states have rail lines that run through densely populated areas whilst other less so. So it is logical that sound pollution laws may vary from state to state. We are banging on about one life expired loco only. The owners must have known that they faced problems gaining accreditation in NSW. As another poster noted maybe the owners do not think the loco is worth the cost of making it NSW compliant. Anyhow, why should the rules be changed for just one old loco purchased on the cheap?
nswtrains
Regardless of whether states have varying sound pollution laws, the use of such laws to restrict cross border traffic and trade with respect to rail is hypocritical when it doesn't apply to road.

This is far more than an issue over one loco - which in itself is irrelevant - its the principle.

It is unjust when:
* a loco fully compliant in one state is not recognised as such in another;
* a loco quieter than legacy locos in a state is rejected on noise grounds;
* if a road truck is registered in one state (even if a new design), it does not have to be "put over the pits" and re-registered in every other state it travels to. Why is rail different?
* this impacts rails competitiveness with road in an unfair manner.

Additionally, as I said, for a state Govt to impose barriers at state borders and restrict freedom of movement and interstate transit and trade, regardless of the reason, is illegal and unconstitutional, as proven in the Hughes vs. Vale case, that challenged state Govts attempts to control the movements of trucks.

Any new locos introduced into service should in type testing for accreditation, be compliant with an all encompassing national standard, recognised nationally (I think this is coming about, gradually). Meanwhile, if a state's native locos predating EPA restrictions can be "grandfathered", well that should apply equally to all legacy locos predating those standards regardless of their state of origin.

Sponsored advertisement

  Graham4405 The Ghost of George Stephenson

Location: Dalby Qld
https://extranet.artc.com.au/docman/DocManFiles/DocTypes/TOC/Files/17004.PDF?2049067072
Wrigleys
Which is exactly why any loco accredited should be able to run in any state. This document demonstrates the stupidity of the current situation.
  BDA Chief Commissioner

Location: Sydney
Trucks have to comply with national standards , and they generally have Federal Interstate Rego to operate interstate .
As we know they have to meet set noise standards and if they don't they can't be used on public roads . Anywhere .
I agree that its a silly situation having different standards for rail vehicles in different states .
The general public couldn't give a rats about rail trying to compete with road , sadly neither do the regulators in NSW but they do have the power to say meet the standards or go away .
I don't think it would be the end of the world to shut GML10 up . Noise emissions may not be the fault of its operator but maybe its something they should have looked into when they bought the thing .
Its always going to be difficult with a one off orphan and particularly if the original buyer didn't get compliance when standards were lesser or non existent .
Second hand locos may seem cheap but the operators need to do their homework if they want to run them over the length and breadth of the national standard gauge network .
If you think the operators are hard done by now imagine how it would have gone with American Tier 1 2 3 4 exhaust emissions standards here . These proposed imported EMDs wouldn't be wearing a 710 if they had to meet Tier 4 .
  a6et Minister for Railways

Trucks have to comply with national standards , and they generally have Federal Interstate Rego to operate interstate .
As we know they have to meet set noise standards and if they don't they can't be used on public roads . Anywhere .
I agree that its a silly situation having different standards for rail vehicles in different states .
The general public couldn't give a rats about rail trying to compete with road , sadly neither do the regulators in NSW but they do have the power to say meet the standards or go away .
I don't think it would be the end of the world to shut GML10 up . Noise emissions may not be the fault of its operator but maybe its something they should have looked into when they bought the thing .
Its always going to be difficult with a one off orphan and particularly if the original buyer didn't get compliance when standards were lesser or non existent .
Second hand locos may seem cheap but the operators need to do their homework if they want to run them over the length and breadth of the national standard gauge network .
If you think the operators are hard done by now imagine how it would have gone with American Tier 1 2 3 4 exhaust emissions standards here . These proposed imported EMDs wouldn't be wearing a 710 if they had to meet Tier 4 .
BDA
Having looked up some details on this engine seems to me that the owners of it now, being Qube should have done some homework on it before the purchase as to whether there would be any restrictions on it, especially as it was built for use for the Goldsworthy mining group in WA, likely the private operators did not have to worry about noise issues at that location.

Reading of its sale to Qube in 2010 and shipped to NCLE then transferred to Goulburn workshops for overhaul in March 2011 and re-entered service in August of the same year.  Surely Qube would have known about the noise issues if it was to operate across every state and area that Qube was operating in at the time of purchase and surely the common sense thing to have done if it was seen as being a long term purchase would have been to fix the problem on it while in Workshops.

Wiki puts the following in the record of it It was used as the basis for the design of the New South Wales 82 class built from 1994.[1]  Oberg, Leon (2007). Locomotives of Australia: 1850s-2007. Rosenberg Publishing. p. 411. ISBN 1-877058-54-8.  If and assuming thats correct, and GML is noisier than an 81cl then surelly having the same donk in it, the ability to at least have it down to the same sound level as an 81 would be achievable.  To me, don't blame governments for this but the owners who could certainly be able to fix the problem themselves, in the same manner as 81 class and similar operate and overhauled.
  M636C Minister for Railways

Having looked up some details on this engine seems to me that the owners of it now, being Qube should have done some homework on it before the purchase as to whether there would be any restrictions on it, especially as it was built for use for the Goldsworthy mining group in WA, likely the private operators did not have to worry about noise issues at that location.

Reading of its sale to Qube in 2010 and shipped to NCLE then transferred to Goulburn workshops for overhaul in March 2011 and re-entered service in August of the same year.  Surely Qube would have known about the noise issues if it was to operate across every state and area that Qube was operating in at the time of purchase and surely the common sense thing to have done if it was seen as being a long term purchase would have been to fix the problem on it while in Workshops.

Wiki puts the following in the record of it It was used as the basis for the design of the New South Wales 82 class built from 1994.[1]  Oberg, Leon (2007). Locomotives of Australia: 1850s-2007. Rosenberg Publishing. p. 411. ISBN 1-877058-54-8.  If and assuming thats correct, and GML is noisier than an 81cl then surelly having the same donk in it, the ability to at least have it down to the same sound level as an 81 would be achievable.  To me, don't blame governments for this but the owners who could certainly be able to fix the problem themselves, in the same manner as 81 class and similar operate and overhauled.
a6et
Apart from an 82 class being on a longer frame, and having isolated cabs (pretty much a necessity with the original 12-710 engine firing order) the 82 has a muffler the width of the hood and the full length of the engine, so the stack is at the opposite end of the engine from the turbocharger. This could be fitted to GML 10 at any time if QUBE thought it was worth the effort. The dynamic brakes on the 82 have sound absorbing louvres on the dynamic brake air intake, too. Unlike the muffler these weren't fitted from new, so Clyde had some problems getting the 82s qualified for NSW sound regulations. Again this could be done to GML10. It depends on what you want to use it for, and how much you want to spend...

GML10 worked north to Albury today where it met a loaded grain (6CM4?) for Appleton Dock headed by RL303 and RL309. I can't imagine why they think the extra loco was needed, although there were around 40 92 tonne gross wagons. The RLs are rated at 3500 HP each which would seem to be adequate (more than GML10 which is good for 3030 HP). If it is just needed as a bank engine as far as Heathcote Junction, it doesn't need to run in NSW. The RLs and MZ IIIs can do that, not to mention the QBXs.

Whether GML 10 is louder than the 81 isn't relevant. The 81s were operating in NSW before the sound restrictions. GML 10 was not. GML 10 could be considered as a DL class with a different body, but that doesn't seem to matter. I don't think masny DLs operated into NSW before the sound regulations, but NR probably owned them at the critical time.

Peter
  Wrigleys Chief Train Controller

GML10 was sent north to assist 6CM4 (RL303 - RL309) which were a failure,

Due to track work and facing traffic it took around 12 hours for the loco to get to Albury, with the crew out of hours they went to barracks,

6CM1 was next with QBX001 - QBX005, I believe the 2 trains were amalgamated at Albury and divided at Somerton,

7MC1 is on it's way back to Junee / Harefield at present,

The grainy as 1MC5 maybe headed back to Junee around 1600 tomorrow (Sunday).
  Gaz170 Junior Train Controller

Location: Gold Coast
Forget the point about individual locomotives, and whether company A should have purchased locomotive B, the point remains that there is still this bureaucracy that can determine that a locomotive that complies in one state doesn't in another, and the trucking industry faces no such issues.
  Dean C Class Locomotive Fireman

It seems totally hypercritical that a loco pulling a 2000 ton freight train has to be so quiet yet the driver of said freight train, when he finishes work can walk over to the car park, jump on his Harley Davidson motor bike and make more noise in heavily populated areas than the train he just got out of. Gotta love governments.
Dean.
  Trainplanner Chief Commissioner

Location: Along the Line
Yes going back to the fundamental issue.   We have 1 rail regulator now.   We also have 1 set of standards for rollingstock etc.   We also have a constitution that says something about unrestricted free trade.   In NSW like other states, there are NUMEROUS exemptions provided for the operation of heritage and other items of rollingstock.   There is only 1 GML class loco.   Give it an exemption and make the 25 or whatever number of bureaucrats get on with doing something productive to facilitate rather than block trade.

I loved seeing and hearing the 4 engine and 5 engine lash up of Bulldogs as they moved the former Leigh Creek coal wagons from SA to NSW.  I'm sure the beautiful stack talk they made climbing the grades through to Lithgow was far louder than 1 GML.

Grumpy moment now complete!!!
  M636C Minister for Railways


I loved seeing and hearing the 4 engine and 5 engine lash up of Bulldogs as they moved the former Leigh Creek coal wagons from SA to NSW.  I'm sure the beautiful stack talk they made climbing the grades through to Lithgow was far louder than 1 GML.
Trainplanner
For whatever reason, these locomotives are considered as having operated in NSW prior to the introduction of the noise regulations and have "grandfather rights" to operate while exceeding the sound regulations.

If I recall correctly, there was one B class, two S class and one GM class of each type.

There is no question that the GM class operated in NSW prior to the noise regulations (say 1993/94). I can't recall operation of S class in NSW (not North of Albury yard, anyway) and the B class were basically all on broad gauge for most of their lives, apart from one run by B60 on the Spirit of Progress. Equally I don't believe T class operated in NSW.

Some sort of deal might have been done when Rail Australia started operating in NSW to allow the T class.  X class ran through years ago, so they should be allowed.

The regulations seem to have been bypassed for former VR locomotives.

But GML 10 only operated in NSW on it delivery run to WA. QUBE understood that it didn't meet NSW regulations when they bought it and it has seen a lot of operation in Victoria and in SA. With the conversion of the Mildura and Murray basin lines, it will probably be fully employed in Victoria. QUBE have plenty of locomotives that can run in NSW.

M636C
  x31 Chief Commissioner

Location: gallifrey
Now this is a tidbit worth reading in @M636C will Qube consider running on the Mildura line as there is quite a lot of freight available but PN have refused to put additional trains on for the customers with the worry being no yard space to run into and out of on the line after conversion.
  Trainplanner Chief Commissioner

Location: Along the Line
I would like to think that QUBE will be open to looking at developing further business in Victoria after standardization and for that matter even SSR.   Both are largely operating as has been said on another thread in lower to medium density markets right from their entry into the rail business.   Both seem to do it well and would appear to be much more involved with their customers.   PN's business model in regional Victoria particularly is a "take and pay" model whereby the client pays for a complete train based on an agreed number of services.   (Some might even call it a take it or leave it attitude).  

QUBE is on the record as saying they are happy to work at adding additional boxes etc to the services they run, quoting as an example the Maryvale Paper trains where the possibility exists to accept other loading.   I don't know how far that has progressed but QUBE operate twice daily (or were) versus the once daily PN operation.   They have new high capacity container flats and those trains always seem to be full.

So yes, the GML could be fully utilized in Victoria should QUBE seek to operate services to Mildura for example.

Sponsored advertisement

Subscribers: a6et, Pressman, Wrigleys

Display from:   

Quick Reply

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