PN BG locos on the move out of Dynon?

 
  Carnot Chief Commissioner

Apparently several out-of-service PN BG locomotives are being marshalled at Dynon.

Looks like a few Y and X class locomotives might be off to new owners.

Sponsored advertisement

  x31 Chief Commissioner

Location: gallifrey
Apparently several out-of-service PN BG locomotives are being marshalled at Dynon.

Looks like a few Y and X class locomotives might be off to new owners.
Carnot

Excellent maybe SSR might have some traffic for them?
  Junction box Chief Commissioner

Location: newy
The PN policy is scrap before someone else can use them isn't it?
  Galron Deputy Commissioner

Location: Werribee, Vic
The PN policy is scrap before someone else can use them isn't it?
Junction box
suspect thats an old policy given the majority of the locos that where stored at Nth Geelong have gone to new owners, with H5 going on to preservation. I think only 3 out of 11 or 12 got the chop.
  lkernan Chief Train Controller

Location: Melbourne
The PN policy is scrap before someone else can use them isn't it?
Junction box

Used to be, but remember PN itself is under different ownership now.
  james.au Chief Commissioner

Location: Sydney, NSW
These locos would hardly be competitive against the NR, TT and other new locos PN has would they?
  speedemon08 Mary

Location: I think by now you should have figured it out
Apparently several out-of-service PN BG locomotives are being marshalled at Dynon.

Looks like a few Y and X class locomotives might be off to new owners.

Excellent maybe SSR might have some traffic for them?
x31
Nooooooooooooooooooooooope.

Probably headed up to Seymour to go North.
  x31 Chief Commissioner

Location: gallifrey
Loco numbers anyone?
  Carnot Chief Commissioner

Loco numbers anyone?
x31
According to FB:  Y157, Y147, Y142, X37 and also X42, X39, A79, A71

Who knows, we might even see the A-class back in action depending on who they might get sold to?
  GD Train Controller

Location: Geelong Vic
Loco numbers anyone?
According to FB:  Y157, Y147, Y142, X37 and also X42, X39, A79, A71

Who knows, we might even see the A-class back in action depending on who they might get sold to?
Carnot
Ironic that more B's are in service than the upgrades to A's
B61,B75,B76,B80 compared to lonely A66
  HardWorkingMan Deputy Commissioner

Location: Echuca
Loco numbers anyone?
According to FB:  Y157, Y147, Y142, X37 and also X42, X39, A79, A71

Who knows, we might even see the A-class back in action depending on who they might get sold to?
Ironic that more B's are in service than the upgrades to A's
B61,B75,B76,B80 compared to lonely A66
GD
The A Class are (or were) not accredited for Standards Gauge so are limited to Broad Gauge tracks.  The B, X and Y classes are already accredited for both making them more useful.

Accreditation is not cheap.  A company I worked for once had HiRails.  They had 2 identical UD trucks with the same running gear and the same HiRail gear. One was set up as a tanker and the other as a flat bed with a removable tank.  Because of these they had to be considered separately and accredited separately.  The second one still cost over $50,000 to get accredited (without counting internal costs such as my time) despite the only update to the documentation being to the attaching, securing and removing of the tank. I imagine a loco would cost a lot more.
  YM-Mundrabilla Minister for Railways

Location: Mundrabilla but I'd rather be in Narvik
Loco numbers anyone?
According to FB:  Y157, Y147, Y142, X37 and also X42, X39, A79, A71

Who knows, we might even see the A-class back in action depending on who they might get sold to?
Ironic that more B's are in service than the upgrades to A's
B61,B75,B76,B80 compared to lonely A66
The A Class are (or were) not accredited for Standards Gauge so are limited to Broad Gauge tracks.  The B, X and Y classes are already accredited for both making them more useful.

Accreditation is not cheap.  A company I worked for once had HiRails.  They had 2 identical UD trucks with the same running gear and the same HiRail gear. One was set up as a tanker and the other as a flat bed with a removable tank.  Because of these they had to be considered separately and accredited separately.  The second one still cost over $50,000 to get accredited (without counting internal costs such as my time) despite the only update to the documentation being to the attaching, securing and removing of the tank. I imagine a loco would cost a lot more.
HardWorkingMan
Not doubting you HWM but this is more bureaucratic w a n k. It took me many months to get the NR relay vans accredited despite the fact that they were really nothing more than a reclassification of Indian Pacific cars that had been running for years.

It is no wonder that rail is not competitive as there is an army of bureaucrats measuring their level of success by what they can stop rather than what they can achieve.
  jakar Chief Train Controller

Location: Melbourne
Before anyone gets too excited, all of the above mentioned loco's have been in the same location near the fuel point for quite some time. All seem to have been canibalised for various parts including most control stands.
  Valvegear The Ghost of George Stephenson

Location: Norda Fittazroy
Accreditation is not cheap.  A company I worked for once had HiRails.  They had 2 identical UD trucks with the same running gear and the same HiRail gear. One was set up as a tanker and the other as a flat bed with a removable tank.  Because of these they had to be considered separately and accredited separately.  The second one still cost over $50,000 to get accredited (without counting internal costs such as my time) despite the only update to the documentation being to the attaching, securing and removing of the tank. I imagine a loco would cost a lot more.
"HardWorkingMan"
50 Grand eh? Wonderful - who said Australia was finished as a criminal nation when that sort of robbery is legal?
  YM-Mundrabilla Minister for Railways

Location: Mundrabilla but I'd rather be in Narvik
Accreditation is not cheap.  A company I worked for once had HiRails.  They had 2 identical UD trucks with the same running gear and the same HiRail gear. One was set up as a tanker and the other as a flat bed with a removable tank.  Because of these they had to be considered separately and accredited separately.  The second one still cost over $50,000 to get accredited (without counting internal costs such as my time) despite the only update to the documentation being to the attaching, securing and removing of the tank. I imagine a loco would cost a lot more.
50 Grand eh? Wonderful - who said Australia was finished as a criminal nation when that sort of robbery is legal?
Valvegear
Sad, but true.
Sir Humphrey Appleby is clearly amongst the multitude of Brits that have been employed in Public transport in Victoria.
I bet he's here permanently and not on a 457 visa either?
  DBclass Chief Commissioner

Location: Western Australia
Rail accreditation does seem expensive but IMO is for a very good reason. The parameters for testing would be extensive. Width, height, weight, track circuit interference, stability, braking, visibility, noise, effect on the track, the list goes on. If we didn't have it I suspect there would be a lot more derailments / collisions etc.

The was a runaway string of wagons once where by the hand brakes were less then the minimum standard for performance on a grade, for maintenance reasons I think. In a well maintained world x number of brakes applied in a train on grade will hold it safely. Far better then " she'll be right I think it's ok".

For what it's worth, I read somewhere that it takes 5 years between initial design to final production of automotive parts. Imagine the extent of detailed planning in that scene. I work in a machine shop, but automating a production line and making it work makes me cringe. The number of things that need to be controlled are seemingly endless, never mind actually making good parts.
  YM-Mundrabilla Minister for Railways

Location: Mundrabilla but I'd rather be in Narvik
Rail accreditation does seem expensive but IMO is for a very good reason. The parameters for testing would be extensive. Width, height, weight, track circuit interference, stability, braking, visibility, noise, effect on the track, the list goes on. If we didn't have it I suspect there would be a lot more derailments / collisions etc.

The was a runaway string of wagons once where by the hand brakes were less then the minimum standard for performance on a grade, for maintenance reasons I think. In a well maintained world x number of brakes applied in a train on grade will hold it safely. Far better then " she'll be right I think it's ok".

For what it's worth, I read somewhere that it takes 5 years between initial design to final production of automotive parts. Imagine the extent of detailed planning in that scene. I work in a machine shop, but automating a production line and making it work makes me cringe. The number of things that need to be controlled are seemingly endless, never mind actually making good parts.
DBclass
'The was a runaway string of wagons once where by the hand brakes were less then the minimum standard for performance on a grade, for maintenance reasons I think. In a well maintained world x number of brakes applied in a train on grade will hold it safely. Far better then " she'll be right I think it's ok".'

You are arguing against yourself here. No doubt the wagons were accredited to run and, as such, met the relevant standard for brake forces. Having achieved accreditation is the end of the story. The fact that the handbrakes did not hold, assuming that the required number were properly applied to hold the rake on the grade comes down to a lack of maintenance which has nothing to do with accreditation.

Maintenance (or lack thereof) seems to be largely ignored by the Rail Safety Authorities (Vlocity wheels in Victoria) until there is an incident of some sort.

Accreditation is necessary but not to the ridiculous extent where mere reclassification (paint only) or where rolling stock that has been operating totally successfully more or less nationwide (GM 1 in WA) is required to undergo physical testing.
  a6et Minister for Railways

Rail accreditation does seem expensive but IMO is for a very good reason. The parameters for testing would be extensive. Width, height, weight, track circuit interference, stability, braking, visibility, noise, effect on the track, the list goes on. If we didn't have it I suspect there would be a lot more derailments / collisions etc.

The was a runaway string of wagons once where by the hand brakes were less then the minimum standard for performance on a grade, for maintenance reasons I think. In a well maintained world x number of brakes applied in a train on grade will hold it safely. Far better then " she'll be right I think it's ok".

For what it's worth, I read somewhere that it takes 5 years between initial design to final production of automotive parts. Imagine the extent of detailed planning in that scene. I work in a machine shop, but automating a production line and making it work makes me cringe. The number of things that need to be controlled are seemingly endless, never mind actually making good parts.
'The was a runaway string of wagons once where by the hand brakes were less then the minimum standard for performance on a grade, for maintenance reasons I think. In a well maintained world x number of brakes applied in a train on grade will hold it safely. Far better then " she'll be right I think it's ok".'

You are arguing against yourself here. No doubt the wagons were accredited to run and, as such, met the relevant standard for brake forces. Having achieved accreditation is the end of the story. The fact that the handbrakes did not hold, assuming that the required number were properly applied to hold the rake on the grade comes down to a lack of maintenance which has nothing to do with accreditation.

Maintenance (or lack thereof) seems to be largely ignored by the Rail Safety Authorities (Vlocity wheels in Victoria) until there is an incident of some sort.

Accreditation is necessary but not to the ridiculous extent where mere reclassification (paint only) or where rolling stock that has been operating totally successfully more or less nationwide (GM 1 in WA) is required to undergo physical testing.
YM-Mundrabilla
Thing to consider is that air brakes and wagons are not always given load tests to see how the braking systems works in real live environment, not sure about things today but generally a R/S item is constructed and fitted to specifications to perform the required work in the design.

Going back to when the first Aluminium Coal hoppers (CH) were introduced into NSWGR operation they were fitted with brake shoes to both outer wheel faces on the bogie, affectively giving it 8 brake shoes to each bogie, 16 per wagon. The first batches were put on Glenlee coal trains, worked wonderfully on empty trains and in mixed consists with the old black steel hoppers with 4 shoes per bogie, but when loaded even with the initial wagons of 6 of the CH's in the consist of 22 wagons (24 BCH were the general consist + BV) drivers noticed that the braking was not as good, main line diesel or Garratts with basically identical brake valves were on those trains.

As the CH's increased in service and consists with them increased the problem also increased, as a result all the trains had locomotive inspectors on the engine along with a Westinghouse brake engineer. The end result was that all the bogies had the outer brake hangers removed and each bogie reverted to having just 4 inner shoes as per the old BCH, and this one action of reducing the shoe numbers resolved the problem, the reason that the original CH and WH wagons and following bogies became the same as the old bogie types.

Apparently when loaded the outer shoes hardly touched the wheels and became an almost identical result of how the old 4 wheel (hail mary) CCH/LCH wagons were when loaded.

Other problems that came up was on the new Aurora Carriages in much the same way as the braking was designed differently with longer travels. Speed boards on the Main South and more especially at signal locations were fitted with new round yellow boards with lower speeds on them to indicate to the driver that if the distant signal was at caution he had to have the speed of the train at or under that speed in order to stop at the home signal.

In each of these cases, all R/S came into service with the required Westinghouse standards.  The case of runaways is likely attributed to issues that were found with Chinese supplied Wheat hoppers a few years back especially on the Illawarra Mountain.
  YM-Mundrabilla Minister for Railways

Location: Mundrabilla but I'd rather be in Narvik
The whole accreditation exercise is a paper one where somebody ticks boxes and signs away his life that such and such meets the required standards.
  DBclass Chief Commissioner

Location: Western Australia
You make good points YM-Mundrabilla. There has to be a standard however. That was the point. If the rules said brakes 'must be effective' I think history would be quite different, for example. In metrology everything is tested. Anything left unchecked is an assumption and the outcome could vary considerably without much certainty at all.

50k is not much in rail. I don't work in rail but I recon a pair of NR class would burn that in fuel in a few days.

Not saying it can't be done better, but the process was developed for a reason.
  a6et Minister for Railways

The whole accreditation exercise is a paper one where somebody ticks boxes and signs away his life that such and such meets the required standards.
YM-Mundrabilla
And that is what I had indicated but it shows how the accreditation standards have been applied to a new contract but operationally they are a failure and often it takes an issue before its resolved.

Having had to do many load and speed trials while driving, rarelly were they an issue using general rolling stock and loco's but when new braking setups on wagons came in they were ticked off on, and only when issues were encountered were they tested.  The early choke valve fitted wagons were problematic, the idea was great to get rid of the old Triple valves but often the released much quicker than the triples and on heavy loads on steep grades, air only operations were often a problem, especially if you had a train and the loco's had no dynamic brakes to assist with the control. Thing is dyno's were only an aid and taught that way whereby the air was the primary braking system.
  djukinX1016 Deputy Commissioner

You make good points YM-Mundrabilla. There has to be a standard however. That was the point. If the rules said brakes 'must be effective' I think history would be quite different, for example. In metrology everything is tested. Anything left unchecked is an assumption and the outcome could vary considerably without much certainty at all.

50k is not much in rail. I don't work in rail but I recon a pair of NR class would burn that in fuel in a few days.

Not saying it can't be done better, but the process was developed for a reason.
DBclass
It is unfortunate has YM has stated here and other pages that we have replaced the "break of gauge" issues at State Borders with different accreditation standards and that $50k is only the start of it, that accreditation also expires and I understand operators also have to pay an annual fee this is why stock ends up having to be redone.

I note how one of the P class locos got missed in the re-accreditation process when the class was reclassified  from 2500's to P, so it is still a 2500 class and does not carry the "P" designation as it costs to get this change done.

I do wonder what our road networks would be like if rail ran them with the rules they have put around themselves?
  DBclass Chief Commissioner

Location: Western Australia
I wouldn't have thought a number change like that would have cost anything or not much anyway. The ACA/ 6000 class we're getting changed all the time.

For what it's worth I have to renew my forklift ticket every 5 years even though it comes with no training. Could say that was a load of bollocks to.

I agree though a national standard would be better. Obviously there are difficulties and expense in achieving that.
  YM-Mundrabilla Minister for Railways

Location: Mundrabilla but I'd rather be in Narvik
No national vision and too many fiefdoms to protect.
What, actually, has the National Regulator achieved and at what cost?
  Trainplanner Chief Commissioner

Location: Along the Line
Where did the A class and other units towed out of Dynon finally end up??

Sponsored advertisement

Display from: