New locos at UGL

 
  Sulla1 Chief Commissioner

The most likely scenario will be these three locomotives being road hauled to Nebo or Partington (Townsville) depending on what depot they will be based at. Getting accreditation for a move on the ARTC network simply won't be worth the effort. There's no depot or staff in place at Moolabin to commission a new locomotive.

Sponsored advertisement

  KRviator Moderator

Location: Up the front
4 axle bogies for a 120t locomotive?
GT46C-ACe
At reduced speed, probably not above 60km/hr, 40 over certain bridges, similar to when the 90's run down to the wheel lathe.
  GT46C-ACe Assistant Commissioner

Location: Sydney, NSW
A 90 has 45t over one of these and a NR 12t so I'm pretty sure normal 3 axle bogies would be more than adequate to travel over ARTC trackage (especially if drained of fluids).
  KRviator Moderator

Location: Up the front
A 90 has 45t over one of these and a NR 12t so I'm pretty sure normal 3 axle bogies would be more than adequate to travel over ARTC trackage (especially if drained of fluids).
"GT46C-ACe"
The 90's and NR's are also designed to run on standard gauge with an axle loading of ~27 tonnes. If these were going to be fitted with freight bogies as they're narrow-gauge units, then they'll be running 30TAL, considerably higher than currently permitted for the DIRN, notwithstanding their lower live weights...
  tazzer96 Deputy Commissioner

The NCL track could easily handle 30 TAL at reduced speeds.  All the bridges are of pretty good quality so that won't be an issue.   Only problem would be loops as most of these are of lighter quality and still on timber sleepers.  So gloucester - qld border may need a free uniterupted run.

Just remember that what a track can actually hold is different to what they usually allow.

The ncl is 23 Tal so maintence is reduced and prolongs the life of everything.   And less noise for those that live close to the line.   It also takes into account up to 4 locos and a fully loaded train travelling past at track speed.

1x 82 class hauling 2 of these to acacia ridge shouldnt be any problem.
  Graham4405 Minister for Railways

Location: Dalby Qld
1x 82 class hauling 2 of these to acacia ridge shouldnt be any problem.
tazzer96
Even if that is the case, it doesn't get them to Nebo or Partington to be provisioned for entering service...
  Sulla1 Chief Commissioner

The PowerHauls will almost certainly be road hauled north from UGL, just like all 63 members of the 3700 class when they were rebuilt at the same UGL plant. Roadhauling non-comliant rollingstock is pretty much standard practice these days.
  EFB5800 Chief Train Controller

Location: On my office roof.
UGL001 is decalled as PH001 and currently still at UGL. Still has UGL in the number boxes. It's a PH class!
  GS4 Train Controller

UGL001 is decalled as PH001 and currently still at UGL. Still has UGL in the number boxes. It's a PH class!
EFB5800
Thanks for the update EFB5800.   Smile

PH's hey , , not to be confused with the 2 PHC's   (Power Haul's Cousins)
  Sulla1 Chief Commissioner

They may not be able to operate in Queensland as 001, 002 and 003 as the DTC authorities needed notth of Townsville and west to Mt Isa are not alphanumeric and will confuse these locos with PN 001 to 003 apparently. Another renumbering is likely it seems.
  M636C Minister for Railways

They may not be able to operate in Queensland as 001, 002 and 003 as the DTC authorities needed notth of Townsville and west to Mt Isa are not alphanumeric and will confuse these locos with PN 001 to 003 apparently. Another renumbering is likely it seems.
Sulla1
I'd expect them to be used on coal traffic.

The classification is a sign of the "One PN" discussed recently.
  Sulla1 Chief Commissioner

The current thinking remains that they will be allocated to Townsville to be close to UGL. Added to that the PH class allocation appears to be in line with PNQ and PN intermodal numbering, whereas all PN Bulk Division locos in Queensland have retained the ex-NSW four digit numbering system. Time will tell, but at the moment the numbering for the PHs does not appear to have been thought through for use in Queensland.
  EFB5800 Chief Train Controller

Location: On my office roof.
  M636C Minister for Railways

The current thinking remains that they will be allocated to Townsville to be close to UGL. Added to that the PH class allocation appears to be in line with PNQ and PN intermodal numbering, whereas all PN Bulk Division locos in Queensland have retained the ex-NSW four digit numbering system. Time will tell, but at the moment the numbering for the PHs does not appear to have been thought through for use in Queensland.
Sulla1
At the Heavy Haul Conference at Mackay last August, the PN speaker made a point of indicating that PN had been reorganised eliminating the internal divisions between intermodal and bulk operations. I know that that is what they say at such events, but there have been significant indications that such a change has happened on the standard gauge. For example, intermodal 81 class lacked the large side numbers. Currently 81s with large numbers are appearing on intermodal and steel trains (and on the Ghan). Equally, 82 class are appearing behind NRs on intermodal and steel trains.

If the difference has been eliminated betweem intermodal and bulk, PN could be happy with either classification system. I would be surprised if the PH class, which are significantly more powerful than the 83 class were not used in coal traffic. They could be maintained in Townsville and still operate in Central Queensland. It isn't that far to Abbott Point.

I am disappointed that they didn't get a numerical designation. I thought 89 or 91 were likely, since these are nearly as powerful as a 90 class.

M636C
  james.au Chief Commissioner

Location: Sydney, NSW
What is the difference in number between the four digit system and a letter/digit system?  What is the impact in the operating environment?
  Sulla1 Chief Commissioner

The issue is that the PHs have the same numbers as the PNs. DTC authorities  (similar to train orders or track warrants, but with added computer interlocked safety overlays) only recognise loco numbers, not letters, so on a DTC controlled section of track in Queensland, PH001 is the same as PN001. Aside from the physical dangers and confusion of two locomotives with the same number meeting or moving along the same section of track, DTC computers would also recognize the "error" and prevent the second loco with the same number entering that section of track, which could cause all sorts of problems for say PH001 trying to leave Cairns when PN001 is still five hours south and heading to Cairns. A simple solution would be to renumber the PHs as 101-103 or 021-023, just not 001-003.
  james.au Chief Commissioner

Location: Sydney, NSW
The issue is that the PHs have the same numbers as the PNs. DTC authorities  (similar to train orders or track warrants, but with added computer interlocked safety overlays) only recognise loco numbers, not letters, so on a DTC controlled section of track in Queensland, PH001 is the same as PN001. Aside from the physical dangers and confusion of two locomotives with the same number meeting or moving along the same section of track, DTC computers would also recognize the "error" and prevent the second loco with the same number entering that section of track, which could cause all sorts of problems for say PH001 trying to leave Cairns when PN001 is still five hours south and heading to Cairns. A simple solution would be to renumber the PHs as 101-103 or 021-023, just not 001-003.
Sulla1

Yep, that is what i was expecting the issue was between PH and PN.  

Should I think of the 4 number approach (e.g. 8101) as just a different language to the letter number approach (e.g. PH001).  Or could PH8101 be also mistaken for 8101 in some operating systems?
  M636C Minister for Railways

They are lettered "Pacific National" and not "Pacific National Queensland" like the PN class (although presumably the difference went away with the "One PN" reorganisation.)

And if they are intended for coal traffic, the numbering is not important since they will run on lines with automatic signalling.

I think that it is likely that PN management have considered the numbering, since presumably there are people within PN who understand this. And why would you use your most powerful locomotives on intermodal trains? They haven't used the similarly powerful 88 class on intermodal trains yet, have they?

I'd expect that they'd want to compare the PH with the 88 in heavy haul service to start with...

Peter
  Sulla1 Chief Commissioner

In low speed, hill climbing coal service, tractive effort can matter more than horsepower, and while having significantly more horsepower to use once a train is moving, the PHs, with a similar tractive effort to the 83s, will still only be able to start a similar sized train to the 83s. Once moving the train could accelerate and haul it faster...the latter making them theoretically better for intermodal, but also useful for 80km/h coal trains. Purely my own speculation, but the new Mt Isa Glencore container traffic  (probably needing three single loco container sets) PN will start hauling in February could use the PHs, or use 83s freed up by the PHs elsewhere. We're going to find out pretty soon I'd say.
  Sulla1 Chief Commissioner

In Queensland a PH8101 could still be mistaken for another 8101, the numbers matter, not the letters...at the time the computer systems were put in place by QR in the 1990s it had no need to consider alternative numbering systems to the one it used.
  M636C Minister for Railways

In Queensland a PH8101 could still be mistaken for another 8101, the numbers matter, not the letters...at the time the computer systems were put in place by QR in the 1990s it had no need to consider alternative numbering systems to the one it used.
"Sulla1"


How does the system cope with track machines?

Aurizon have pairs of tampers and ballast regulators numbered MMA501 and MMB501, for example...

These are intended to work together and have been purchased in pairs.

Peter
  M636C Minister for Railways

In low speed, hill climbing coal service, tractive effort can matter more than horsepower, and while having significantly more horsepower to use once a train is moving, the PHs, with a similar tractive effort to the 83s, will still only be able to start a similar sized train to the 83s. Once moving the train could accelerate and haul it faster...the latter making them theoretically better for intermodal, but also useful for 80km/h coal trains. Purely my own speculation, but the new Mt Isa Glencore container traffic  (probably needing three single loco container sets) PN will start hauling in February could use the PHs, or use 83s freed up by the PHs elsewhere. We're going to find out pretty soon I'd say.
"Sulla1"


The 83 (and 4000 and 4100) can haul as much as a 3700 electric.
The diesel is much slower on hills because the available power to climb hills is much less than the electric.

This can be a problem where diesel trains are interspersed with electric trains.

This is more of a problem on the Blackwater system since there are more diesel trains running with electric trains.

My understanding is that both the 88 and PH classes were intended to address this problem by increasing the power of the diesel trains and reducing the speed differential between electric and diesel trains. With higher power, the speed at the top of the grade is higher and the sectional times are reduced.

Intermodal trains don't generally need the higher power since they are pretty fast with a single loco.

Peter
  EFB5800 Chief Train Controller

Location: On my office roof.


Some interesting things at UGL Broadmeadow this morning. A couple of C44s with light bogies and wide radiators in the shop. I'm not saying they're new, I'm sure someone knows.
  EMBaldwin Chief Commissioner

Location: Amongst the Cane Fields
Wouldn't be the ex CFCLA CF(?) class being repainted by any chance?
  Junction box Chief Commissioner

Location: newy
Looks like an Aurizon cow catcher but they don't use light bogies.

Sponsored advertisement

Display from:   

Quick Reply

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