Problem children in loco fleets?

 
  james.au Chief Commissioner

Location: Sydney, NSW
In the airline world, there are individual aircraft in fleets that are known as 'hangar queens', where they spend a lot of time compared to others in the same fleet class for maintenance issues.

In Australian rail, are there similar locos?  Eg are there specific NR class or N class etc etc that are problematic in the fleet???

Sponsored advertisement

  speedemon08 Mary

Location: I think by now you should have figured it out
Yes.

Fairly certain B74 and G515 are on that list.
  Trainplanner Chief Commissioner

Location: Along the Line
I think if you asked any operator/ loco maintainer they would probably tell you that almost every class of locomotive had "a problem child".  I remember in WA the narrow gauge A class (1310-1500HP) units were highly successful but one unit A1508 was a problem child right from day 1 and even had the engineers from Clyde Engineering and EMD swarming all over it for months trying to figure out the problem.   In the end it was determined that unit needed to be run around the system only on relatively lightly loaded trains whilst the "engine" bedded in and after sometime whatever the problem was it was resolved and the unit performed reliably and gave good service for decades.  (I only knew about this as my uncle was a diesel maintainer seconded to work in the "commissioning" team as part of the delivery of the units to WAGR).
  YM-Mundrabilla Minister for Railways

Location: Mundrabilla but I'd rather be in Narvik
How about the Victorian N class fleet?
  M636C Minister for Railways

I seem to recall that VR C510 had problems.

It was the last of the ALs and Cs built at Rosewater, so got all the parts that had been tried on the earlier locomotives and put back on the shelf when they didn't work as expected.

QR 1344 had been built with a solid state voltage regulator (a major part of the EE control system) instead of a big rotating device. It refused to load up, and ended up being driven up and down Rockhampton yard light engine while technicians tried to get it to work. I think they put in the old voltage regulator eventually.

QR 1270, painted gold in 1965 spent a lot of time in Brisbane. It had a very distinctive sound from its turbochargers, which may or may not have been why it didn't make it to the Coal Traffic.

Peter
  Carnot Chief Commissioner

Some locos have a habit of crashing.  Such as S317 (Broadford in 1967 & Barnawartha in 1982).
  7334 Chief Commissioner

Location: In the workshop wondering why I started 7334 in the first place
Some locos have a habit of crashing.  Such as S317 (Broadford in 1967 & Barnawartha in 1982).
Carnot
So did 4620 (Wentworth Falls & Granville) and I think 3817 (Geurie & Glenlee) but that was hardly due to any fault with either of them.
  nswtrains Chief Commissioner

Some locos have a habit of crashing.  Such as S317 (Broadford in 1967 & Barnawartha in 1982).
So did 4620 (Wentworth Falls & Granville) and I think 3817 (Geurie & Glenlee) but that was hardly due to any fault with either of them.
7334
4620 derailed at Granville due to poor track maintenance. However, it is possible 4620 had some problems after the Wentworth Falls derailment that contributed to the Granville incident, but we will never know. The coupled bogie design of the 46 class generally may have made them more prone to derailment on poor track whereas they may have tracked better on the smoother track that existed in the UK at the time. They were purchased to haul coal trains up and down the Blue Mountains at slower speeds, a use they were never actually utilised for because the coal traffic never eventuated.
  michaelgm Chief Commissioner

The big engines 57/58 were replaced by 46 class on west virtually overnight, after electrication.
I have witnessed hundreds of coalies around Parramatta in the 80's. Diesels under the wires were exceedingly rare. Most dragged along by 46's. Supplemented by 85's and later 86 class.

Granville is a subject I'd prefer to leave alone.

3817, as mentioned above, actually had three prangs. Rocky Ponds, Glenlee and Guerie? Was referred to a hoodoo/voodoo engine. Just a victim of circumstance wrong place wrong time.

IIRC! 4451 crashed into a landslide on the NC line, and was called the mole.
  Clyde Goodwin2 Chief Train Controller

Some locos have a habit of crashing.  Such as S317 (Broadford in 1967 & Barnawartha in 1982).
Carnot
Yes some loco,s wake up one morning and straight away decide i am going to have a fatal accident today,sheesh such a stupid statement you made.
  nswtrains Chief Commissioner

The big engines 57/58 were replaced by 46 class on west virtually overnight, after electrication.
I have witnessed hundreds of coalies around Parramatta in the 80's. Diesels under the wires were exceedingly rare. Most dragged along by 46's. Supplemented by 85's and later 86 class.

Granville is a subject I'd prefer to leave alone.

3817, as mentioned above, actually had three prangs. Rocky Ponds, Glenlee and Guerie? Was referred to a hoodoo/voodoo engine. Just a victim of circumstance wrong place wrong time.

IIRC! 4451 crashed into a landslide on the NC line, and was called the mole.
michaelgm
The 46 class only went as far as Bowenfels and not Wang, so they were not actually used for their original purpose. In fact changing locos was not really efficient. The coal traffic planned was far higher than actually eventuated. Multiple diesels could have easily done the job but I don't think the management at the time wanted to take on train crewing who were opposed to large lash ups at the time. In the 1950's the NSWGR was generally a basket case and a huge drain on government resources.
  michaelgm Chief Commissioner

You said "They were purchased to haul coal trains up and down the Blue Mountains at slower speeds, a use they were never actually utilised for"
I said Parramarra, not Wang, Bowenfells or anywhere else. Loco change was generally performed in Lithgow yard.
  justapassenger Chief Commissioner

Some locos have a habit of crashing.  Such as S317 (Broadford in 1967 & Barnawartha in 1982).
So did 4620 (Wentworth Falls & Granville) and I think 3817 (Geurie & Glenlee) but that was hardly due to any fault with either of them.
7334
There is merit to this theory, but as a psychological issue rather than any technical fault.

I recall reading that at least one operator in North America (I think it was Canadian National, can't remember for sure) instigated a policy of retiring locos involved in any fatal incident (using them for spare parts if they were owned by CN, or returning them to the lessor if they were leased) rather than repairing them and returning them to service. They did this after finding that the distraction of driving a loco 'with a history' led to crews making more errors than usual.
  james.au Chief Commissioner

Location: Sydney, NSW
Some locos have a habit of crashing.  Such as S317 (Broadford in 1967 & Barnawartha in 1982).
So did 4620 (Wentworth Falls & Granville) and I think 3817 (Geurie & Glenlee) but that was hardly due to any fault with either of them.
There is merit to this theory, but as a psychological issue rather than any technical fault.

I recall reading that at least one operator in North America (I think it was Canadian National, can't remember for sure) instigated a policy of retiring locos involved in any fatal incident (using them for spare parts if they were owned by CN, or returning them to the lessor if they were leased) rather than repairing them and returning them to service. They did this after finding that the distraction of driving a loco 'with a history' led to crews making more errors than usual.
justapassenger

Quite similar to airlines where they retire flight numbers after crashes where the airframe is written off.

BTW, thread is getting off topic guys, perhaps start a new thread for 46cl discussion?
  justapassenger Chief Commissioner

Some locos have a habit of crashing.  Such as S317 (Broadford in 1967 & Barnawartha in 1982).
So did 4620 (Wentworth Falls & Granville) and I think 3817 (Geurie & Glenlee) but that was hardly due to any fault with either of them.
There is merit to this theory, but as a psychological issue rather than any technical fault.

I recall reading that at least one operator in North America (I think it was Canadian National, can't remember for sure) instigated a policy of retiring locos involved in any fatal incident (using them for spare parts if they were owned by CN, or returning them to the lessor if they were leased) rather than repairing them and returning them to service. They did this after finding that the distraction of driving a loco 'with a history' led to crews making more errors than usual.

Quite similar to airlines where they retire flight numbers after crashes where the airframe is written off.
james.au
Completely the opposite. We are talking about retiring actual physical assets to avoid distracted crew making errors, not the minor administrative change to a flight number which is usually done to appease passengers.
  YM-Mundrabilla Minister for Railways

Location: Mundrabilla but I'd rather be in Narvik
Some locos have a habit of crashing.  Such as S317 (Broadford in 1967 & Barnawartha in 1982).
So did 4620 (Wentworth Falls & Granville) and I think 3817 (Geurie & Glenlee) but that was hardly due to any fault with either of them.
There is merit to this theory, but as a psychological issue rather than any technical fault.

I recall reading that at least one operator in North America (I think it was Canadian National, can't remember for sure) instigated a policy of retiring locos involved in any fatal incident (using them for spare parts if they were owned by CN, or returning them to the lessor if they were leased) rather than repairing them and returning them to service. They did this after finding that the distraction of driving a loco 'with a history' led to crews making more errors than usual.

Quite similar to airlines where they retire flight numbers after crashes where the airframe is written off.

BTW, thread is getting off topic guys, perhaps start a new thread for 46cl discussion?
james.au
Big difference between changing a flight number 'on a bit of paper' and writing off an otherwise undamaged asset.
  awsgc24 Minister for Railways

Location: Sydney
I recall reading that at least one operator in North America (I think it was Canadian National, can't remember for sure) instigated a policy of retiring locos involved in any fatal incident (using them for spare parts if they were owned by CN, or returning them to the lessor if they were leased) rather than repairing them and returning them to service. They did this after finding that the distraction of driving a loco 'with a history' led to crews making more errors than usual.
NR3 had an accident, but was repaired and returned to service. To avoid 'a history', it was renumbered NR121.
  Clyde Goodwin2 Chief Train Controller

I recall reading that at least one operator in North America (I think it was Canadian National, can't remember for sure) instigated a policy of retiring locos involved in any fatal incident (using them for spare parts if they were owned by CN, or returning them to the lessor if they were leased) rather than repairing them and returning them to service. They did this after finding that the distraction of driving a loco 'with a history' led to crews making more errors than usual.
NR3 had an accident, but was repaired and returned to service. To avoid 'a history', it was renumbered NR121.
awsgc24
It had a FATAL accident due to a bridge abutment moving towards the track after heavy rains.
It was supposed to never be allowed to work into NSW after its rebuild.
  james.au Chief Commissioner

Location: Sydney, NSW
Some locos have a habit of crashing.  Such as S317 (Broadford in 1967 & Barnawartha in 1982).
So did 4620 (Wentworth Falls & Granville) and I think 3817 (Geurie & Glenlee) but that was hardly due to any fault with either of them.
There is merit to this theory, but as a psychological issue rather than any technical fault.

I recall reading that at least one operator in North America (I think it was Canadian National, can't remember for sure) instigated a policy of retiring locos involved in any fatal incident (using them for spare parts if they were owned by CN, or returning them to the lessor if they were leased) rather than repairing them and returning them to service. They did this after finding that the distraction of driving a loco 'with a history' led to crews making more errors than usual.

Quite similar to airlines where they retire flight numbers after crashes where the airframe is written off.
Completely the opposite. We are talking about retiring actual physical assets to avoid distracted crew making errors, not the minor administrative change to a flight number which is usually done to appease passengers.
justapassenger
Well considering the physical assets in this case are often strewn across land or ocean and are definitely retired, that cannot be done.  I guess flight numbers are the next most connected thing to passengers.....?  And after talking to many cabin crew over time and understanding some of their quirks, a retired flight number in this instance is a big thing for them too.

Sponsored advertisement

Subscribers: 7334, awsgc24, james.au

Display from:   

Quick Reply

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