XPT Replacement Discussion

 
  br30453 Chief Train Controller

Just because the CTT was built here doesn't mean its the right train for NSW, which it isn't. Remember NSW is not replacing just the XPT, its replacing both XPT and XPL.

I haven't been on the CTT, but if the profile is the same as RTT, its narrow. Certainly the seats are tighter than the XPT in EC for both.

There is no need for trains that operate plus 160km/h as there is no track for them to operate on and there isn't likely for decades if ever, hell just getting to plus 140k/h would be nice. The benefit of +160km/h operation pales into insignificance when compared to getting rid of the track operating less at 100km/h, especially less than 80km/h.

WA built the Prospector for 200km/h running because they planned to upgrade the track, it never happened and never will. No one is going to build 200km/h rated track for a few trains a day and same applies to NSW especially considering the more frequent freight trains are working against you.
The CTT is not the same profile as the RTT. It is wider and has an overall larger profile.
The CTT is 2.975m wide. About the same as the XPT?

Sponsored advertisement

  a6et Minister for Railways

Parkes and district is Roughly the same size catchment as Dubbo (City not region) and has 3 return Coaches per day in and out including the every 2nd day Dubbo Cootamundra service and Condobolin services so yes it does warrant a train service.

Griffith being a major regional city also does require a daily return Rail service which will be fairly well patronised.
Clyde Goodwin2
If one was to go back over time and count passenger numbers when pax trains ran to Parkes including the old CWE connections and Forbes mail, there was not the same amount of numbers using the services as used the Dubbo trains, some slight increases were found on the days there was a connection to the Comet train but that was it.

Some years back I travelled to BH on the XPT to OGE and then the loco hauled set to BH, on that day was when 2x422cl were on test for the service rather than the 81cl. The number of passengers that got off at Parkes was around 5 we returned the next night on the same train through to Sydney and again the numbers were quite low.

In saying that, should these new trains be split capable then it could be a sensible move to reintroduce services to places of the size of Parkes.  When talking of a Griffith connection, its basically a similar position as Parkes as over the years Griffith has been served by passenger rail services for little return, the only thing that may help these days is that those locations have greater population than in days gone by.

One area that I believe could be potentially a benefit for a 2 service train would be Armidale, more especially for a night return on Fridays, with a Night service ex Sydney on Sundays.  Such a service would benefit the university up there as prior to restrictions placed on seat sales in the 80's when only set numbers were allocated to stations, meaning the night trains were all but empty justifying their demise, many passengers were turned away from rail at Armidale. Staff there kept records that were used to counter the governments claims to no avail.

The Friday night trains also carried passengers who had weekend trips to Sydney, and the Sunday night return was very popular as well.
  simstrain Chief Commissioner

The reason it will be so is to gain political points in regional areas for the nationals. This current government isn't going to order too few of these new trains like the case was with the XPT, Xplorer and Endeavour. This new train is going to be ordered in significant numbers to bring the per unit cost down and provide extra services in areas that the libs and nats have lost seats in recently.
Care to say just what seats the Nationals have lost in NSW lately.
Clyde Goodwin2
orange for one off the top of my head.
  Clyde Goodwin2 Chief Train Controller

sims
Yes the ONLY seat they lost and to a offshoot of the Nationals that being to the fishers and shooters redneck mob.
  theanimal Chief Commissioner

sims
Yes the ONLY seat they lost and to a offshoot of the Nationals that being to the fishers and shooters redneck mob.
Clyde Goodwin2
An offshoot of the Nationals, you have little credibility on rail matters, and this proves you have NO credibility on political matters. The Shooters party took its vote from the Nationals, not a splinter party to feed back votes by preferences.

Hint, engage brain before putting tongue into gear.
  Clyde Goodwin2 Chief Train Controller

sims
Yes the ONLY seat they lost and to a offshoot of the Nationals that being to the fishers and shooters redneck mob.
An offshoot of the Nationals, you have little credibility on rail matters, and this proves you have NO credibility on political matters. The Shooters party took its vote from the Nationals, not a splinter party to feed back votes by preferences.

Hint, engage brain before putting tongue into gear.
theanimal
I have pretty much the same level on rail matters as you have.
So i got it a bit wrong about who gave preferences to whom oh no what a major crime that is,considering politics is pretty much a boring topic that i normaly leave to other types who like to bang on like they are such experts on the subject.
Watch out you do not hurt yourself swinging that handbag yeah.
  RTT_Rules Dr Beeching

Location: Dubai UAE
Just because the CTT was built here doesn't mean its the right train for NSW, which it isn't. Remember NSW is not replacing just the XPT, its replacing both XPT and XPL.

I haven't been on the CTT, but if the profile is the same as RTT, its narrow. Certainly the seats are tighter than the XPT in EC for both.

There is no need for trains that operate plus 160km/h as there is no track for them to operate on and there isn't likely for decades if ever, hell just getting to plus 140k/h would be nice. The benefit of +160km/h operation pales into insignificance when compared to getting rid of the track operating less at 100km/h, especially less than 80km/h.

WA built the Prospector for 200km/h running because they planned to upgrade the track, it never happened and never will. No one is going to build 200km/h rated track for a few trains a day and same applies to NSW especially considering the more frequent freight trains are working against you.
The CTT is not the same profile as the RTT. It is wider and has an overall larger profile.
The CTT is 2.975m wide. About the same as the XPT?
br30453
Thanks.

I wonder why the RTT was made so narrow?
  TrainLover222 Junior Train Controller

Location: ...And then all stations to Central
Just because the CTT was built here doesn't mean its the right train for NSW, which it isn't. Remember NSW is not replacing just the XPT, its replacing both XPT and XPL.

I haven't been on the CTT, but if the profile is the same as RTT, its narrow. Certainly the seats are tighter than the XPT in EC for both.

There is no need for trains that operate plus 160km/h as there is no track for them to operate on and there isn't likely for decades if ever, hell just getting to plus 140k/h would be nice. The benefit of +160km/h operation pales into insignificance when compared to getting rid of the track operating less at 100km/h, especially less than 80km/h.

WA built the Prospector for 200km/h running because they planned to upgrade the track, it never happened and never will. No one is going to build 200km/h rated track for a few trains a day and same applies to NSW especially considering the more frequent freight trains are working against you.
The CTT is not the same profile as the RTT. It is wider and has an overall larger profile.
The CTT is 2.975m wide. About the same as the XPT?
Thanks.

I wonder why the RTT was made so narrow?
RTT_Rules
I've had a thought!

You know all those old locomotives built many years before the XPTs? Why not transfer the XPT power cars to freight operations? Of course, they will need a new name - XFT (Express Freight Train)
  s3_gunzel Not a gunzel developer

Location: Western Sydney, AU
I've had a thought!

You know all those old locomotives built many years before the XPTs? Why not transfer the XPT power cars to freight operations? Of course, they will need a new name - XFT (Express Freight Train)
TrainLover222


ComEng beat you to it. They made the XPs so they wouldn't use them for freight.
  TrainLover222 Junior Train Controller

Location: ...And then all stations to Central
I've had a thought!

You know all those old locomotives built many years before the XPTs? Why not transfer the XPT power cars to freight operations? Of course, they will need a new name - XFT (Express Freight Train)


ComEng beat you to it. They made the XPs so they wouldn't use them for freight.
s3_gunzel
Oh. Surely they can be converted to freight use, right? The XPT power cars have 2000hp each, but if you couple two together its got the same amount as an NR class. The XPTs have and continue to prove themselves capable of operating in hot, dusty conditions over long distances. I mean, if a vintage streamliner can do it, why not the XPs? I can picture it in my head - two XPT power cars pulling an intermodal train right through NSW...

...Or maybe V/Line might buy the ones that aren't bought up by preservation groups. Just, by the slightest chance, maybe.
  s3_gunzel Not a gunzel developer

Location: Western Sydney, AU
I mean, if a vintage streamliner can do it, why not the XPs? I can picture it in my head - two XPT power cars pulling an intermodal train right through NSW...
TrainLover222


It isn't going to happen.
  br30453 Chief Train Controller

Just because the CTT was built here doesn't mean its the right train for NSW, which it isn't. Remember NSW is not replacing just the XPT, its replacing both XPT and XPL.

I haven't been on the CTT, but if the profile is the same as RTT, its narrow. Certainly the seats are tighter than the XPT in EC for both.

There is no need for trains that operate plus 160km/h as there is no track for them to operate on and there isn't likely for decades if ever, hell just getting to plus 140k/h would be nice. The benefit of +160km/h operation pales into insignificance when compared to getting rid of the track operating less at 100km/h, especially less than 80km/h.

WA built the Prospector for 200km/h running because they planned to upgrade the track, it never happened and never will. No one is going to build 200km/h rated track for a few trains a day and same applies to NSW especially considering the more frequent freight trains are working against you.
The CTT is not the same profile as the RTT. It is wider and has an overall larger profile.
The CTT is 2.975m wide. About the same as the XPT?
Thanks.

I wonder why the RTT was made so narrow?
RTT_Rules
The RTT was made to conform to the allowable rollingstock outline.
The CTT was made wider to allow for sleeping cars with wheelchair access and thus is in a clearance category of its own.
Consequently it has a very restricted route access in the Brisbane Suburban Area, whereas the RTT can go almost anywhere in the BSA..
  james.au Chief Commissioner

Location: Sydney, NSW
I've had a thought!

You know all those old locomotives built many years before the XPTs? Why not transfer the XPT power cars to freight operations? Of course, they will need a new name - XFT (Express Freight Train)


ComEng beat you to it. They made the XPs so they wouldn't use them for freight.
Oh. Surely they can be converted to freight use, right? The XPT power cars have 2000hp each, but if you couple two together its got the same amount as an NR class. The XPTs have and continue to prove themselves capable of operating in hot, dusty conditions over long distances. I mean, if a vintage streamliner can do it, why not the XPs? I can picture it in my head - two XPT power cars pulling an intermodal train right through NSW...

...Or maybe V/Line might buy the ones that aren't bought up by preservation groups. Just, by the slightest chance, maybe.
TrainLover222

Pretty sure youre just trolling this page.... But...

Get 4 48cl and you have an NR class.  Lets get 12 or 16 of them and replace the 3 or 4 NRs that currently run across to Perth and back and lets see what happens to the cost of operating rail services....

An XPT set or two might find their way into preservation, but the rest will go the way of all other life expired, redundant machinery.
  nswtrains Chief Commissioner

Just because the CTT was built here doesn't mean its the right train for NSW, which it isn't. Remember NSW is not replacing just the XPT, its replacing both XPT and XPL.

I haven't been on the CTT, but if the profile is the same as RTT, its narrow. Certainly the seats are tighter than the XPT in EC for both.

There is no need for trains that operate plus 160km/h as there is no track for them to operate on and there isn't likely for decades if ever, hell just getting to plus 140k/h would be nice. The benefit of +160km/h operation pales into insignificance when compared to getting rid of the track operating less at 100km/h, especially less than 80km/h.

WA built the Prospector for 200km/h running because they planned to upgrade the track, it never happened and never will. No one is going to build 200km/h rated track for a few trains a day and same applies to NSW especially considering the more frequent freight trains are working against you.
The CTT is not the same profile as the RTT. It is wider and has an overall larger profile.
The CTT is 2.975m wide. About the same as the XPT?
Thanks.

I wonder why the RTT was made so narrow?
I've had a thought!

You know all those old locomotives built many years before the XPTs? Why not transfer the XPT power cars to freight operations? Of course, they will need a new name - XFT (Express Freight Train)
TrainLover222
Not a thought, a brain implosion.
  catchpoint Assistant Commissioner

Location: At the end of a loop
I've had a thought!

You know all those old locomotives built many years before the XPTs? Why not transfer the XPT power cars to freight operations? Of course, they will need a new name - XFT (Express Freight Train)


ComEng beat you to it. They made the XPs so they wouldn't use them for freight.
s3_gunzel

Sounds like a fancy "Cargo Sprinter"....
  a6et Minister for Railways

Since moving to the Hunter Valley I have ridden on quite a lot of the Hunter 2 car DMU's, and I have generally found them a bit quieter than the Xplorer cars, not by much but they also provide a lot less motor like vibration than the Explorers no matter which carriage one is in.  

Today I caught a Dungog service and rode in the trailing carriage from Hamilton to Victoria St, the cars number was 2851, on getting into the carriage, I noticed it had the same seating arrangement of 3+2 seats across the carriage with reversing backs, although it did not have the side mounted seats at each end.  The other internal difference I noted was smaller windows and much better air conditioning, also there was only a single partition section one side in the middle. When accelerating there was a huge difference to the run of the mill Hunter carriages and the Xploder carriages that I have ridden in on the Northern line to Tamworth.

I was ultra surprised at how smooth and quiet they were compared to the other trains.   As many are pushing for DMU's of similar type for the XPT replacement I thought I would post this, as it was quite a surprise for me.  I am still not in favour of this type of train for the replacement but, I have to say the one I rode in today has made me a lot happier than what I rode in so far.
  RTT_Rules Dr Beeching

Location: Dubai UAE
Since moving to the Hunter Valley I have ridden on quite a lot of the Hunter 2 car DMU's, and I have generally found them a bit quieter than the Xplorer cars, not by much but they also provide a lot less motor like vibration than the Explorers no matter which carriage one is in.  

Today I caught a Dungog service and rode in the trailing carriage from Hamilton to Victoria St, the cars number was 2851, on getting into the carriage, I noticed it had the same seating arrangement of 3+2 seats across the carriage with reversing backs, although it did not have the side mounted seats at each end.  The other internal difference I noted was smaller windows and much better air conditioning, also there was only a single partition section one side in the middle. When accelerating there was a huge difference to the run of the mill Hunter carriages and the Xploder carriages that I have ridden in on the Northern line to Tamworth.

I was ultra surprised at how smooth and quiet they were compared to the other trains.   As many are pushing for DMU's of similar type for the XPT replacement I thought I would post this, as it was quite a surprise for me.  I am still not in favour of this type of train for the replacement but, I have to say the one I rode in today has made me a lot happier than what I rode in so far.
a6et
Thanks for feedback

The XPL is early 90's technology, the Hunter cars are basically early 2000's technology. What would today's technology deliver?

I don't think people are pushing per-say the DMU concept (including me), rather there is a lack of alt technology for the relatively small trains used by NSW trains plus the significant advantages of a single platform fleet which seems to be working well for Vic.
  a6et Minister for Railways

Since moving to the Hunter Valley I have ridden on quite a lot of the Hunter 2 car DMU's, and I have generally found them a bit quieter than the Xplorer cars, not by much but they also provide a lot less motor like vibration than the Explorers no matter which carriage one is in.  

Today I caught a Dungog service and rode in the trailing carriage from Hamilton to Victoria St, the cars number was 2851, on getting into the carriage, I noticed it had the same seating arrangement of 3+2 seats across the carriage with reversing backs, although it did not have the side mounted seats at each end.  The other internal difference I noted was smaller windows and much better air conditioning, also there was only a single partition section one side in the middle. When accelerating there was a huge difference to the run of the mill Hunter carriages and the Xploder carriages that I have ridden in on the Northern line to Tamworth.

I was ultra surprised at how smooth and quiet they were compared to the other trains.   As many are pushing for DMU's of similar type for the XPT replacement I thought I would post this, as it was quite a surprise for me.  I am still not in favour of this type of train for the replacement but, I have to say the one I rode in today has made me a lot happier than what I rode in so far.
Thanks for feedback

The XPL is early 90's technology, the Hunter cars are basically early 2000's technology. What would today's technology deliver?

I don't think people are pushing per-say the DMU concept (including me), rather there is a lack of alt technology for the relatively small trains used by NSW trains plus the significant advantages of a single platform fleet which seems to be working well for Vic.
RTT_Rules
RTT, thanks.

While I am a bit old school, well more than a bit, the experiences that I have found from both drivers and passengers perspective, and now not just being older, I still suffer much as a consequence of my time on the job. I still love the whole aspect of trains and also travelling on them, with my health issues I find travelling by car these days is hard, even with a new car that is very nice to drive compared to my previous 2003 BA Falcon which was a very nice comfortable car to drive, took me to Port Douglas and back very well indeed.

What amazes me with the new breed of trains is the actual seating and with the Hunter cars, but not the one that I was in that ran to Dungog is the vibration and noise levels in them, also the hardness of the seats of those and the latest EMU's, which look nice and fine for travelling from Maitland/Victoria St to Hamilton but when you have to travel on the EMU trains with the same seats to Sydney and even from Wyong when were there up until last year.  I have to consider the aspect of using the car instead.

Those seats are simply too hard/harsh for the times in the trains, having the old EMU's is a very pleasant experience, I also find that if I travel backward, it also affects my health especially over longer distances. Interestingly when working on Steam and some diesels we had to sit side saddle for longish hours and that had other unpleasant aspects, but nothing like we have here today in this discussion.

When the mk 2 44cl and 48cl came into service a new seat was put into them for the crews, prior to these seats we had a comfortable seat that was wide enough for you to sit on likewise the backrest also curved into you back contour as well.  The new seats however came with s soft square sponge seat around 18" square, when you sat on it air escaped and you sat on the squashed foam that was around 2 inches thick at the most also hard.  Rather than the fall back support there was a backrest that was around 6" high set at an angle that caught you in the kidneys. These seats gradually replaced all the old seats on all diesels until the arrival of the 422, as Clyde refused to fit them. There is a side on view in the 38cl book of a driver sitting on his seat, imagine that seat not of horse hair filled for the main cushion also the backrest dropped to half the height of how it was, and you can see what I am talking about.

Why did we get those seats?  We had a senior locomotive inspector who became the employees rep through dept appointments said we had too much comfort and would cause enginemen to go to sleep, he later even said the back rest on the firemans seat should be removed.  It wasn't really until the 73 and 80cl came out that we got something better than the old seats. When I was AFULE delegate and was involved with the 45 on BE working at Werrise Creek I insisted that we have air ride Balstrom (or similar sounding name) seats cloth covered seats, to me they were bee's knees but nothing compared to whats seen these days.  Comfortable seating is very much part of all OH&S requirements these days, why not for passengers?

Many enginemen with back problems had serious issues with them

I believe that having trains that the customer wants more especially in and for journeys over 90 minutes should be the priority of governments or those who are in charge of getting trains into service.  How much do they consult or ask for feed back on them?  Most people do not get the chance as they do not know until after the event.

With the way of replacement for the current XPL & XPT trains being considered, I hope that the announcement that will be made in time for next years state election and contracts signed that we may well get trains that are not really what is of the type needed for those who will used it.

Outside of that, there is a need to have that provide good and reliable services, also able to run at speeds up to 200Km/h in the future, track and conditions allowing/providing.. There also needs to be enough spare cars both sitting/sleeper as well as power units to allow for extra services as needed. Spare train sets also would allow for hiring out but more importantly for reliability of services when the diagram arrangements are put out owing to late running of the preceding services.

I really also see the need for two types of trains, ones for the very long services such as the interstate and NCL and Wagga Wagga - Albury. Maybe a bit more HE power for them as well.  These trains should be still serviced at Meeks road, most of the empty train running to/from is in the off peak so should not worry that side of things.  If that does not happen, where do the train sets arriving in Sydney go to get fuel and servicing when they get back to Sydney, before their next trip?

The new plant at Dubbo is pure political in its reasoning, as how many sets will actually be serviced there and at what times? Certainly a servicing area could be built there to ensure the train is right for its return to Sydney, but how is a servicing locations how many Km/s from Sydney going to handle the whole fleet. Even if there were two return services a day, meaning that one return would likely take over from the Bx bullet from the preceding days down afternoon service, there is still the need for the other service to be carried out. But, that is still only two trains each way a day. Compared to how many leave Sydney each day.  

z
  RTT_Rules Dr Beeching

Location: Dubai UAE
RTT, thanks.

While I am a bit old school, well more than a bit, the experiences that I have found from both drivers and passengers perspective, and now not just being older, I still suffer much as a consequence of my time on the job. I still love the whole aspect of trains and also travelling on them, with my health issues I find travelling by car these days is hard, even with a new car that is very nice to drive compared to my previous 2003 BA Falcon which was a very nice comfortable car to drive, took me to Port Douglas and back very well indeed.

What amazes me with the new breed of trains is the actual seating and with the Hunter cars, but not the one that I was in that ran to Dungog is the vibration and noise levels in them, also the hardness of the seats of those and the latest EMU's, which look nice and fine for travelling from Maitland/Victoria St to Hamilton but when you have to travel on the EMU trains with the same seats to Sydney and even from Wyong when were there up until last year.  I have to consider the aspect of using the car instead.

Those seats are simply too hard/harsh for the times in the trains, having the old EMU's is a very pleasant experience, I also find that if I travel backward, it also affects my health especially over longer distances. Interestingly when working on Steam and some diesels we had to sit side saddle for longish hours and that had other unpleasant aspects, but nothing like we have here today in this discussion.

When the mk 2 44cl and 48cl came into service a new seat was put into them for the crews, prior to these seats we had a comfortable seat that was wide enough for you to sit on likewise the backrest also curved into you back contour as well.  The new seats however came with s soft square sponge seat around 18" square, when you sat on it air escaped and you sat on the squashed foam that was around 2 inches thick at the most also hard.  Rather than the fall back support there was a backrest that was around 6" high set at an angle that caught you in the kidneys. These seats gradually replaced all the old seats on all diesels until the arrival of the 422, as Clyde refused to fit them. There is a side on view in the 38cl book of a driver sitting on his seat, imagine that seat not of horse hair filled for the main cushion also the backrest dropped to half the height of how it was, and you can see what I am talking about.

Why did we get those seats?  We had a senior locomotive inspector who became the employees rep through dept appointments said we had too much comfort and would cause enginemen to go to sleep, he later even said the back rest on the firemans seat should be removed.  It wasn't really until the 73 and 80cl came out that we got something better than the old seats. When I was AFULE delegate and was involved with the 45 on BE working at Werrise Creek I insisted that we have air ride Balstrom (or similar sounding name) seats cloth covered seats, to me they were bee's knees but nothing compared to whats seen these days.  Comfortable seating is very much part of all OH&S requirements these days, why not for passengers?

Many enginemen with back problems had serious issues with them

I believe that having trains that the customer wants more especially in and for journeys over 90 minutes should be the priority of governments or those who are in charge of getting trains into service.  How much do they consult or ask for feed back on them?  Most people do not get the chance as they do not know until after the event.

With the way of replacement for the current XPL & XPT trains being considered, I hope that the announcement that will be made in time for next years state election and contracts signed that we may well get trains that are not really what is of the type needed for those who will used it.

Outside of that, there is a need to have that provide good and reliable services, also able to run at speeds up to 200Km/h in the future, track and conditions allowing/providing.. There also needs to be enough spare cars both sitting/sleeper as well as power units to allow for extra services as needed. Spare train sets also would allow for hiring out but more importantly for reliability of services when the diagram arrangements are put out owing to late running of the preceding services.

I really also see the need for two types of trains, ones for the very long services such as the interstate and NCL and Wagga Wagga - Albury. Maybe a bit more HE power for them as well.  These trains should be still serviced at Meeks road, most of the empty train running to/from is in the off peak so should not worry that side of things.  If that does not happen, where do the train sets arriving in Sydney go to get fuel and servicing when they get back to Sydney, before their next trip?

The new plant at Dubbo is pure political in its reasoning, as how many sets will actually be serviced there and at what times? Certainly a servicing area could be built there to ensure the train is right for its return to Sydney, but how is a servicing locations how many Km/s from Sydney going to handle the whole fleet. Even if there were two return services a day, meaning that one return would likely take over from the Bx bullet from the preceding days down afternoon service, there is still the need for the other service to be carried out. But, that is still only two trains each way a day. Compared to how many leave Sydney each day.  

z
Hi
Thanks for that, interesting

A few comments

The seats we have today on PT is generally due to actions taken by designers to reduce the likely hood of vandalism. We all remember the nicer seats of the older trains sliced open. Also costs.

As far as tender and selection process is concerned. Heavy industry is usually the same regardless of the output production, minerals, chemicals, metals or people movement. You want to spend a billion dollars, you don't just send the leadership, you send the operators and maintainers to view and inspect and this includes to other customers. I'd be surprised if this isn't what happened in some way.

The vision of 200km/h, agree.

Like anything, you need say 10 units, you order the 10 plus a few spares for down time and over the years you realise the downtime is less than forecast and you screw the whole thing harder to deliver more with same number. Happens everywhere. I doubt the XPT power car numbers were decided on today's operational timetable. On start up there will be spares, but in the future if people numbers increase, guess what will happen.

NSW only needs one type of train, it just doesn't have enough services to have two and the line between two fleets is non-existent. Look at the current operation, the 2nd longest trip is the XPL. The NW service is similar to the Melbourne/Grafton trip in travel time.  Done right it will work. I'd also get rid of the night services and increase the day, this makes it easier again but of course you need more trains. 3h or 12h, the seat comfort needs to be the same.

Servicing location is always as much political as it is practical. The RTT is done in Rockhampton, but only 2/3 of the services go that far. Dubbo is a strange location but I see what they are doing and I'm also supportive of de-centralization, better for rural areas. Also these days things are more modular, so you tend to do less on unit repair and just simply swap it out then out source the modual to a specialised company if it cannot be done in house. Tends to be faster, gets your equipment back into service faster and less down time as the actual repair is done by specialised/experience people and tools. Also land prices in Sydney being the way they are, they can sell of land in Sydney and with the money build a whole new depo outside the Greater Sydney basin. I don't know whats best for this application, but just telling it how it happens in other industries.
  a6et Minister for Railways

Hi
Thanks for that, interesting

A few comments

The seats we have today on PT is generally due to actions taken by designers to reduce the likely hood of vandalism. We all remember the nicer seats of the older trains sliced open. Also costs.

As far as tender and selection process is concerned. Heavy industry is usually the same regardless of the output production, minerals, chemicals, metals or people movement. You want to spend a billion dollars, you don't just send the leadership, you send the operators and maintainers to view and inspect and this includes to other customers. I'd be surprised if this isn't what happened in some way.

The vision of 200km/h, agree.

Like anything, you need say 10 units, you order the 10 plus a few spares for down time and over the years you realise the downtime is less than forecast and you screw the whole thing harder to deliver more with same number. Happens everywhere. I doubt the XPT power car numbers were decided on today's operational timetable. On start up there will be spares, but in the future if people numbers increase, guess what will happen.

NSW only needs one type of train, it just doesn't have enough services to have two and the line between two fleets is non-existent. Look at the current operation, the 2nd longest trip is the XPL. The NW service is similar to the Melbourne/Grafton trip in travel time.  Done right it will work. I'd also get rid of the night services and increase the day, this makes it easier again but of course you need more trains. 3h or 12h, the seat comfort needs to be the same.

Servicing location is always as much political as it is practical. The RTT is done in Rockhampton, but only 2/3 of the services go that far. Dubbo is a strange location but I see what they are doing and I'm also supportive of de-centralization, better for rural areas. Also these days things are more modular, so you tend to do less on unit repair and just simply swap it out then out source the modual to a specialised company if it cannot be done in house. Tends to be faster, gets your equipment back into service faster and less down time as the actual repair is done by specialised/experience people and tools. Also land prices in Sydney being the way they are, they can sell of land in Sydney and with the money build a whole new depo outside the Greater Sydney basin. I don't know whats best for this application, but just telling it how it happens in other industries.
RTT_Rules
Only a couple of comments.

The seat issue really is not a great problem as the both the XPT, and XPlorer seat setups are not just the throwover backrest type, with a minimal movement of the seat itself. Rather the whole seat is in a locked swing round seat. They are very robust, and I have yet to travel in any sets that are problems.  The only changes have been in car c where some seats have been removed for disabled people or elderly to travel in that end of the buffet car.

A similar set up should be what is put in the new sets, they provide good individual back adjustments like airlines for the longer trips.  Thing is that the government will issue specs for the trains, including the seating the primary aspect will be for robustness and able to tolerate rough to reduce repairs.  They should have stats as to the problem which I do not believe are a problem on the country trains.

The other aspect is that the old vinyl seat covers were slasher delights whereas what's in the seat coverings today are finely woven threads that have proven the perfect foil against slashing.  The seats in the EMU and Hunter sets have such covers, and feel soft, yet are very strong and resistant to cutting.

I think you made a mistake, Melbourne/ Grafton trip. But take your point, what is the overall TT for the Sydney-Grafton and the Victorian comparison, also the stopping patterns.

Even with the shorter distance from Grafton than even Casino. let alone from Brisbane, its a damn long trip for many.   The need to attract more passengers will not just depend on the train type, be it XPT or DMU types, it will need to cover comfort levels for the passengers, smoother rides, especially for those walking through the carriages and getting tossed about, serious work has to be done on the bogies for them.  I also believe there must be a concerted effort to reduce the travel times, and we know there is really only way that can happen, so it needs both State and the Feds to come in on some judicious grade and alignment adjustments.

The key though is not what I think or believe, nor anyone individual but before the contracts are called let alone tendered the must be input from those who will use the trains.
  RTT_Rules Dr Beeching

Location: Dubai UAE
Route deviations may come in the future, personal preference is to start with the interurban corridors as the costs are diluted amongst more users, ie commuter, regional and freight. There is probably a good 1h to be saved on the Central Coast and South Main Interurban corridors.

If NSW trains was built on a single fleet platform, lets say a fixed 3 and/or 4 car set, all identical. Far easier to service every route and maintain timetabling and booking without resulting to the level of stupidity built into the XPT fleet timetable. Doesn't need to be a DMU as such, but it will be a fixed set. Shunting is no longer best practice and the train should be able to reverse direction with only the driver swapping ends, nothing else.

Point on trip time is this (actual trip times from memory, feel free to correct)

Canberra - 4.25h XPL - 3 cars
Dubbo - 6h XPT - 4 cars (Power car not included)
NW - 8h XPL - 5 cars
Grafton - 10h XPT - 6 cars (Power car not included)
Mel- 11 h XPT  - 6 cars (Power car not included)
Casino - 12h XPT - 6 cars (Power car not included)
Broken Hill  - 13h XPL - 3 cars
Brisbane - 14h XPT - 6 cars (Power car not included)

Griffith XPL 2 cars, is what ever but its not a short run.

Basically the above demonstrates that if you were to say one group of services should have Train type A and the other Train type B, what is the divider between the two types?  Time, size??? and really what is the different at passenger level. The seats will be the same, the on board service should be the same, baggage considerations should be the same, etc etc. The only thing gunzels are focused for making them different is mode of traction, but the average passenger couldn't care less.
  a6et Minister for Railways

Route deviations may come in the future, personal preference is to start with the interurban corridors as the costs are diluted amongst more users, ie commuter, regional and freight. There is probably a good 1h to be saved on the Central Coast and South Main Interurban corridors.

If NSW trains was built on a single fleet platform, lets say a fixed 3 and/or 4 car set, all identical. Far easier to service every route and maintain timetabling and booking without resulting to the level of stupidity built into the XPT fleet timetable. Doesn't need to be a DMU as such, but it will be a fixed set. Shunting is no longer best practice and the train should be able to reverse direction with only the driver swapping ends, nothing else.

Point on trip time is this (actual trip times from memory, feel free to correct)

Canberra - 4.25h XPL - 3 cars
Dubbo - 6h XPT - 4 cars (Power car not included)
NW - 8h XPL - 5 cars
Grafton - 10h XPT - 6 cars (Power car not included)
Mel- 11 h XPT  - 6 cars (Power car not included)
Casino - 12h XPT - 6 cars (Power car not included)
Broken Hill  - 13h XPL - 3 cars
Brisbane - 14h XPT - 6 cars (Power car not included)

Griffith XPL 2 cars, is what ever but its not a short run.

Basically the above demonstrates that if you were to say one group of services should have Train type A and the other Train type B, what is the divider between the two types?  Time, size??? and really what is the different at passenger level. The seats will be the same, the on board service should be the same, baggage considerations should be the same, etc etc. The only thing gunzels are focused for making them different is mode of traction, but the average passenger couldn't care less.
RTT_Rules
I concede there are advantages in the DMU configuration, especially when the services are split like the NT/NW service.  The Griffith service could work well as a division at Coota to provide a Temora service, Junee for Griffith and 2/3 car to Albury, return early AM before the Melbourne train, which could be faster and not stop at the smaller stations, between those mentioned, with the Albury service doing the stops. A long drag though but at least cuts the interstate time down.

I will think on the others.
  RTT_Rules Dr Beeching

Location: Dubai UAE
I concede there are advantages in the DMU configuration, especially when the services are split like the NT/NW service.  The Griffith service could work well as a division at Coota to provide a Temora service, Junee for Griffith and 2/3 car to Albury, return early AM before the Melbourne train, which could be faster and not stop at the smaller stations, between those mentioned, with the Albury service doing the stops. A long drag though but at least cuts the interstate time down.

I will think on the others.
a6et
Hi
Doesn't have to be a DMU, just I think a fixed set. A 4 car set needs around 2000kW (min) of traction power, that could a 1000kW engine behind the drivers cab at each end. However the reason DMU is likely more popular is because the engines are under the floor and thus the smaller trains have far more carrying capacity efficiency. Not some heavy over powered US looking beast, aka The Ghan.

In this day and age, I would have thought that battery technology would enable the internal combustion engine size to be smaller.
  Matthew Train Controller

MU is where it's at for passenger trains. Very few (European) railways still order coaching stock and most of those that do, order a locomotive to match the rolling stock and they run in fixed formation. Often even including MU capability so that a pair of sets can run together.

Passenger trains run faster and need more 'hotel' power to run the train than a freight locomotive, so hauled stock needs it's own locomotive dedicated loco fleet anyway, making the case for just going MU stronger.

With a DMU with underfloor engines, the power of the train scales with the length making set configuration flexible - as coaches are added to the consist you are adding more power, so the power-to-weight stays the same no matter train length. Makes keeping tight schedules easier.

A lot of work has been done on making those underfloor engines quieter. Still not as pleasant as hauled stock with no engine, but there has definitely been lots of improvement in that area of the years.
  simstrain Chief Commissioner

The hunter railcar seats are irrelevant to what the new regional rolling stock will get. The hunter car is a suburban train for the hunter region and not a long distance train like the new regional train. Any new long distance regional trains will have much more comfortable seating such as what the xplorer or xpt currently have. The hunter's are quieter because they have plug doors for a start and a newer more powerful engine as it is mid 2000's technology.

Basically take the hunter and put better seats, acoustics, a buffet and sleepers for Melbourne and Brisbane services.

Sponsored advertisement

Display from: