Where/how is the prototype Waratah?

 
  nswtrains Chief Commissioner

Politically a nice new train is brag worthy to the press.
simstrain
This is the most pointless thread I have seen in a long while. There was a prototype with who knows what differences? Then the tried and tested A sets introduced successfully, and now some additions in the form of B sets. Much the same as A sets but updated to reflect technological changes that have occurred over the last several years. Whats the big deal? Its not some government plot not to use some useless carbodies. I think some of you guys suffer from OCD.

Sponsored advertisement

  nswtrains Chief Commissioner

Politically a nice new train is brag worthy to the press.
simstrain
And what are you implying???? They are introducing B sets to focus attention away from the derelict prototype car bodies???
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
Oh yes trying to compare a TEST Aircraft with a Low hours Test train well done with that fail you do know they are tested completely differently and are not the same thing at all,Trains do not have a life counted in Airframe hours or pressurisation cycles and takeoff/landing stresses.

Please do explain to us how these Stainless Steel Bodyshell have been left to (your words) Rot away.
Clyde Goodwin2
Clyde,
Do you have to take things so literally (read picky), I feel like I need to be a lawyer to respond to your posts.

The prototype of most things is often different from the production model for numerous reasons because that's why they build prototypes, to see how the real thing actually works and does it do the job the designers intended. This then usually involves significant changes before going into production. I have no idea how the prototype train was built but it could also include different traction parts borrowed from other retired trains because that's not what they were testing. The concept for train and plane prototypes is not that much different if you actually to bother to look up why a prototype was made.

Clyde you know full well the term "rot away" colloquially means roughly to be left and ignored which for a train could include unprotected from vandalism, scavenging for spare parts. So get off your soap box!
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
Gunzel a few points of order

1) What do you actually know of the condition of the prototypes before being left to rot?


That it is there. I have no reason to say I know anything else about it.


2) Do you know  if they were built to the same standards as the main production?
3) Do you know it will be cheaper to fit them out?
4) Do you know there is nothing wrong with them?


You’ve misunderstood me.

@simstrain has basically said that in the event of a collision with a car at Vineyard, it would be cheaper to write off 7 cars that have nothing wrong with them and order a whole new B Set, this is what I am taking issue with.
s3_gunzel
S3,
I don't know what the condition of the Prototype cars is or was and how they may have differed from the main production fleet, but history has shown prototype's of any mode of transport rarely enter full scale operations or if they do not for long.  This is the premise of mine and a few others comments. I think what is obvious is that they are clearly unloved and appears no desire to have them enter RPT operations. Normally I would read this as they are not compatible or suitable to be used for what ever reason and the operator knows what they are doing.

This comment in wiki should sum it up.
A four car pre-production test train was built to test the train sub-systems and compatibility with the Sydney suburban network.[color=#0b0080][1][/color] This was intended to allow any issues with the train to be corrected before the production trains entered service.[color=#0b0080][1][/color] The test train was expected to perform trial runs from mid 2009,[color=#0b0080][1][/color] but did not begin network testing until April 2010.[color=#0b0080][13][/color] The pre-production train concluded testing in August 2010.[color=#0b0080][14][/color]

There was a comment by another that the traction motors sounded different, which may mean that they may have used old bogies???

I suppose for those that know, what happened to the prototypes of previous other trains? I think the original DD was converted to trailer cars?

I think if one driver car was written off as you say, they may likely look at what options they have to have the remaining 7 cars re-enter service as they certainly won't scrap the whole train while its so young, later things maybe very different. Most likely this may involve going back to the manufacturer and seeking quotes for various options and yes it may involve the prototype set being rebuilt to a production model. A one off car would be more expensive to make than normal and they may sway various options that  normally wouldn't be considered and this may also depend on the actual damage incurred. Did the bogies survive?

Obviously this is all 2nd guessing based on an event that hasn't occurred with a huge number of potential variables.

The A sets were made as only 8 car sets. I believe all trains in Sydney now only operate as 8 car sets (open to correction) apart from Carlingford so a 4 car A set would be an odd ball and Carlingford is planned to be converted to LR. So what good would it be?
  s3_gunzel Not a gunzel developer

Location: Western Sydney, AU
S3,
I don't know what the condition of the Prototype cars is or was and how they may have differed from the main production fleet, but history has shown prototype's of any mode of transport rarely enter full scale operations or if they do not for long.  This is the premise of mine and a few others comments. I think what is obvious is that they are clearly unloved and appears no desire to have them enter RPT operations. Normally I would read this as they are not compatible or suitable to be used for what ever reason and the operator knows what they are doing.
RTT_Rules


Correct; I have not said that PPTV would ever enter service; I said it would be cheaper to source two new Waratah cars than build a full new B Set.
  Clyde Goodwin2 Chief Train Controller

Rtt
You like correcting everyone else on all topics so when you get corrected just suck it up,i make mistakes and when shown them i say sorry i got it wrong its a simple concept to understand and do instead of trying to weasel out with yet another long winded inacurate post.

The Prototype A set used NO cobbled together 2nd hand parts or 2nd hand bogies and traction motors.

The whole set was a new build.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
Rtt
You like correcting everyone else on all topics so when you get corrected just suck it up,i make mistakes and when shown them i say sorry i got it wrong its a simple concept to understand and do instead of trying to weasel out with yet another long winded inacurate post.

The Prototype A set used NO cobbled together 2nd hand parts or 2nd hand bogies and traction motors.

The whole set was a new build.
Clyde Goodwin2
Not correcting anyone anyone on this, I did say I don't know or this is likely.

I did also say that I, like others believe that the Prototype is unlikely usable economically. What I did say to S3 was that his view that it looked the same was not reason enough that it is the same or compatible.

Look, it appears the operator has no interest in reusing the prototype now or likely ever and its likely because its of no economic value to them, yes purely my speculation but also that's not unusual for prototpyes of anything really is it? so end of story!!!
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
S3,
I don't know what the condition of the Prototype cars is or was and how they may have differed from the main production fleet, but history has shown prototype's of any mode of transport rarely enter full scale operations or if they do not for long.  This is the premise of mine and a few others comments. I think what is obvious is that they are clearly unloved and appears no desire to have them enter RPT operations. Normally I would read this as they are not compatible or suitable to be used for what ever reason and the operator knows what they are doing.


Correct; I have not said that PPTV would ever enter service; I said it would be cheaper to source two new Waratah cars than build a full new B Set.
s3_gunzel
Who knows? I think most here (and me) are all just speculating really but the likely hood is probably not, just depends on how many and what sort of changes they made for the production models. I guess we will have to wait and see if they trash one to find out.
  M636C Minister for Railways

I think the original intention was that the two power cars would be incorporated in a set.

If my memory is correct the two prototype power cars were numbered 5342 and 5442 and were intended to form part of set A42.

When set 42 was built, new cars with these numbers were built with the rest of the set.

I think the driving cars were numbered 6379 and 6479 and were the only cars of set 79, being intended as spares.

All four cars were stripped of all reusable parts.

At some time it was realised that the contract called for spare D cars so the two cars were moved back out of the weather.

One possible reason for not using the two power cars was that there were problems with the early stainless carbodies since Changchun hadn't built them before. To be fair, there were similar problems at Cardiff with the Millenniums.

Peter
  Colonel Leon Junior Train Controller

Location:
Oh wow the brand new traction motors sound different(in a lousy quality vlogger video) to those on in service A sets so they just must not be the same.

Seriously ? a brand new off the showroom floor Toyota Landcruiser sounds much different to a 1 year old in service Landcruiser too the difference is????
Clyde Goodwin2
I was only trying to point out that the fact that the traction motors sound different may be because they are different motors. A decision may have been made to use different motors on the A sets. Your comparison of a Toyota Landcruiser is totally off. I'm not talking about ageing motors, but the possibility of a completely different model of motor on the prototype... There is absolutely no need to be soo opposing mine and other people's suggestions....
  s3_gunzel Not a gunzel developer

Location: Western Sydney, AU
I was only trying to point out that the fact that the traction motors sound different may be because they are different motors.
Colonel Leon


They aren't, as far as I know. The entire reason PPTV exists was to test compatibility with the whole train, inc motors, and our system.
  Clyde Goodwin2 Chief Train Controller

Exactly the same damn motors across the whole fleet including the 4 test cars.

[color=#222222][size=2][font=sans-serif]A four car pre-production test train was built to test the train sub-systems and compatibility with the Sydney suburban network.[/font][/size][/color][sup][color=#222222][size=1][font=sans-serif][url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sydney_Trains_A_set#cite_note-downer_brochure-1][color=#0b0080][1][/color][/url][/font][/size][/color][/sup][color=#222222][size=2][font=sans-serif] This was intended to allow any issues with the train to be corrected before the production trains entered service.[/font][/size][/color]

[color=#222222][font=sans-serif][size=2]So out of all this colonel leon how do you jump massively to the conclusion that the 4 car test set was different from the production sets.[/size][/font][/color]


[table][color=#000000][size=2][font=sans-serif][tr][th][left]Traction system[/left][/th][td]Two converters per motor car utilising spread spectrum modulation. Four [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternating_current][color=#0b0080]AC[/color][/url] motors per car (Supplier: [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitachi][color=#0b0080]Hitachi[/color][/url], Japan)[/td][/tr][/font][/size][/color][/table]
  Matthew Chief Train Controller

The 4 car prototype was only ever intended to be a source of spares after the testing program completed - spare bodies incase collision damage took out a production car.

The first 8 car pre-production prototype was sent back to China to be bought up to production standard after many defects were identified, and the builders decided to just build another entire 8 car set and scrap the pre-production set.

This may very well be the shorted lived suburban train set in Australian history.


The 'B' sets incorporate all changes to the A sets and presumably a few technology updates,  thus making them a new class of train instead of just a follow-on order of 'A' sets.
  simstrain Chief Commissioner

Politically a nice new train is brag worthy to the press.
And what are you implying???? They are introducing B sets to focus attention away from the derelict prototype car bodies???
nswtrains

No. I'm saying if a waratah train was to derail at say a level crossing as suggested by s3 then it is highly likely that more then just the driver cab would be destroyed in such a collision. Regardless then of the prototype driver carriages and while construction of the b sets are currently underway then an extra b set or 2 added to the order would cover the loss of the a set. The undamaged carriages from said waratah could be stored in case a future incident occured requiring those spare carriages.

I'm also saying that a nice new train is something a politician would parade in front of the cameras for political benefit. There is no attention on the old prototype cars or any need to focus attention away because they have done their job just like the enterprise did for the space shuttle program.

I will also cite set A02 as a reason why it is cheaper to build a whole new set then repairing a damaged set.
  Clyde Goodwin2 Chief Train Controller

sims
So now you are a fully qualified Rail vehicle Engineer/Designer are you,do you have facts to back this up?
  simstrain Chief Commissioner

sims
So now you are a fully qualified Rail vehicle Engineer/Designer are you,do you have facts to back this up?
Clyde Goodwin2

Set A02
  s3_gunzel Not a gunzel developer

Location: Western Sydney, AU
I will also cite set A02 as a reason why it is cheaper to build a whole new set then repairing a damaged set.
simstrain


Set A02 was royally screwed, the whole train. You're not comparing apples to apples here.
  Clyde Goodwin2 Chief Train Controller

sims
So now you are a fully qualified Rail vehicle Engineer/Designer are you,do you have facts to back this up?

Set A02
simstrain
Which was badly damaged as a basic bodyshell set by a load shift caused by extremely rough weather and being covered in ACID from ruptured shipping containers.
Do try again.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
Isn't that the most logically outcome after any major damage in that the cars are effectively replaced with the next order of rolling stock? What's left of the damaged set is scavenged for spare parts.
  Clyde Goodwin2 Chief Train Controller

Isn't that the most logically outcome after any major damage in that the cars are effectively replaced with the next order of rolling stock? What's left of the damaged set is scavenged for spare parts.
RTT_Rules
Reportedly it was fixable but the Chinese decided to just write it off for scrap and build another 8 cars.
  simstrain Chief Commissioner

Isn't that the most logically outcome after any major damage in that the cars are effectively replaced with the next order of rolling stock? What's left of the damaged set is scavenged for spare parts.
Reportedly it was fixable but the Chinese decided to just write it off for scrap and build another 8 cars.
Clyde Goodwin2

Because it was cheaper and hence we have set A80. Just like everything these days it is cheaper to build new then it is to repair something.
  Colonel Leon Junior Train Controller

Location:
Isn't that the most logically outcome after any major damage in that the cars are effectively replaced with the next order of rolling stock? What's left of the damaged set is scavenged for spare parts.
Reportedly it was fixable but the Chinese decided to just write it off for scrap and build another 8 cars.

Because it was cheaper and hence we have set A80. Just like everything these days it is cheaper to build new then it is to repair something.
simstrain
It depends...
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
Isn't that the most logically outcome after any major damage in that the cars are effectively replaced with the next order of rolling stock? What's left of the damaged set is scavenged for spare parts.
Reportedly it was fixable but the Chinese decided to just write it off for scrap and build another 8 cars.
Clyde Goodwin2
I wonder because of all the problems it was about saving their reputation with a minimal cost difference.
  M636C Minister for Railways

I was only trying to point out that the fact that the traction motors sound different may be because they are different motors.


They aren't, as far as I know. The entire reason PPTV exists was to test compatibility with the whole train, inc motors, and our system.
s3_gunzel
Most of what you hear on a variable frequency AC drive is mechanical resonance of the various devices as the frequency changes. The motor speed is completely determined by the frequency of the AC fed to it, while with series wound DC motors, the speed is dependent on the voltage fed to it.

The problem with variable frequency AC is that the frequencies go from close to zero at starting to much higher frequencies. These can sometimes affect jointless track circuits which use AC frequencies in the same range.

So apart from most of what you hear being due to the frequency rather than being a characteristic of the motor, the fact that the purpose of the tests is to check the effect of the variable frequencies on track circuits, so tuning of the inverters to reduce the interference effects may change the sound and the audible resonances. That would seem to explain why the prototype train could sound different even if the motors were the same.

To address another point, yesterday I travelled on two Tangara sets. Both had a replacement driving trailer (6288 and 6289)coupled to otherwise matched power and driving cars.

Clearly there were a number of accidents where only the leading driving car was damaged.

Peter
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE


To address another point, yesterday I travelled on two Tangara sets. Both had a replacement driving trailer (6288 and 6289)coupled to otherwise matched power and driving cars.

Clearly there were a number of accidents where only the leading driving car was damaged.

Peter
M636C
From Wiki from some questions and highlites from me
The following Tangara carriages have been scrapped due to accidents:

Driving Trailer Cars: D6114, D6127, D6274, OD6831 & OD6832Motor
Cars: N5127, ON5816 & ONL5866

A total of 8 cars written off in nearly 30 years for roughly 56 sets.

The following are replacement carriages:
D6285 & N5285 are replacing written-off cars D6127 & N5127, Wentworthville train derailment

D6286 is on set T99 (replacing written-off D6274)  ANYONE KNOW WHAT HAPPENED HERE?

D6287 is on set T73 (replacing written-off D6114)  ANYONE KNOW WHAT HAPPENED HERE?

D6108 is on set T16 (replacing D6241 for unknown reasons)  ANYONE KNOW WHAT HAPPENED HERE?

D6288 is on set T71 (replacing D6108 which is replacing D6241)D6289 is on set T24 (replacing D6148 which is replacing D6106)

D6184 is on set T37 (repaired set back to normal)

D6841 is on ex Outer Suburban Tangara set T121 (replacing D6807 for unknown reasons; D6807 is stabled at Auburn Maintenance Centre)

D6148 was on set T1 (which replaced D6106 because

D6106 had been stripped for parts but was reconstructed and put back on T1)

Driving trailer car D6127 and motor car N5127 were both involved in the [color=#0b0080]Wentworthville train derailment on 27 December 1989, Cityrail's first major accident involving the Tangara fleet. [/color]

D6127 was written off, having collided with the platform. N5127 was sent to [color=#0b0080]Dunheved on the [color=#0b0080]Ropes Creek line[/color] for training fire fighters, along with Sydney Trains S Set car C3866.[color=#0b0080][11][/color][/color]

Sponsored advertisement

Subscribers: Boss, RTT_Rules

Display from:   

Quick Reply

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