High Capacity Metro Trains (HCMT) Order

 
  NR61 Station Staff

**not my video**

Only seen one video online of the move



https://youtu.be/PHo_hg64fSY

Sponsored advertisement

  Divine3801 Station Staff

Afraid that’s all I have, YM; that and the motive power will be SSR’s Ts or Ss.
Thanks PIMM.
If it needs 22 wagons trailing it sounds as if the HCMT will be unbraked.

EDIT: 29/11.
Obviously not the case as there were no wagons trailing the spark. The grain hoppers remain a mystery (to me anyway) but there must be a reason.
YM-Mundrabilla
I've been reading into this too and thought it was for braking given NSW Endeavour cars used to be transferred to Bombardier Dandenong after having their bogies switched for temporary broad gauge bogie trucks.

Even though I am not employed in the rail industry or studied railroad physics, I considered another likely possibility.

All of us who follow railways and invest knowledge and/or activity into the operations of trains would have an idea of the effect of chain reaction and damage that results when a freight train impacts a bus or a semi trailer at a crossing.

I suspect, this is the reason for 22 carriages. Once the transfer is past Dandenong, there are railway crossings on the line to Pakenham. Also, the line speed there is significantly high averaging 115 km/h, even if restricted to perhaps 80 km/h (if that is what the HCMT transfer train is limited to anyway it may be even further below speed) is likely more than enough to inflict significant damage to several number of cars in the consist formation, derail even.

I don't presume to know too much about the structural durability of these 22 wagons. They do look like they are sturdy than most freight cars. I suspect the primary purpose is to be the vehicles that will, along with the lead Locomotive, become the entire buffer in the event of impact with a semi trailer, to absorb all the shock possible and most importantly, minimize, or ensure the damaging shockwaves totally bleed out completely preventing them even reaching the coupling of the HCMT coupled to the transfer train.

I think it's considerable to theorize that the factors of the Kerang level crossing carnage coming from a semi trailer impacting a vline train are possible too. Thus, 22 of these types of carriages, which, considering if they are extremely sturdy as thought, absorb plenty of side impact and continue to maintain momentum also keeping away the shockwaves as much as possible from the HCMT at the back.

If a semi trailer was to brake too late coming toward a crossing like the Kerang incident, in fact, even at Abbotsford rd level crossing on the Cranbourne line just after diverging from the main line for Pakenham, we had a semi trailer there impact a Comeng on an active level crossing, having 22 cars in a consist puts the new train ever further back from the probable impact zone of around 6, even 10 cars. One of the first 10 cars would take the impact as intended, while the rest behind absorb the shock transferring excess to the cars further down the consist and hopefully plenty coupled together to bleed out all the damaging virbations before the end locos and the HCMT.

There is also likely not only the shockwaves, considered but also the momentum, having a long train significantly increases momentum and on impact will effectively overcome a lot of resistance with a heavy road vehicle, reducing the initial resisting shock of deceleration as a result of a collision first, before slowing down gradually to a stop.

That's the theory I have come up with, given the significant rate of incidents regarding motorists chancing themselves arrogantly past active bells, whistles and lights.

There are plenty of incidents with Semi trailers becoming the vehicles triggering the carnage at crossings in the past.

Plus, I think in political implications, it would be particularly devastating for the current government, as they are eager to prepare the HCMT for promotion to the public and will have their government staff/agents supervising to mitigate any identifiable high risks, especially those that are likely to result in severe impacts on project scope delivery.

For the HCMT transfer consist to impact a semi trailer with only the locomotive and perhaps 5 cars as the buffer between the new train itself and the offending heavy road vehicle would be disastrous for the new train and it's project deadline to be rolled out.

A derailed HCMT popping up on the news is a terrible political catastrophe (From what I believe in the political sphere anyway), especially if the scale of the destruction of the new train is comparable to the shredding of carriages to which they have taken an extensive amount of time out of service to be repaired.

That's my theory as the likely possible explanation.
  g00r Locomotive Fireman

But then factor in Murphy's Law, all that buffering against a head on collision, only for a truck/bus to roll in to the side and open our shiney new toy like a can of sard...uhh wood lathe
  YM-Mundrabilla Minister for Railways

Location: Mundrabilla but I'd rather be in Narvik
Afraid that’s all I have, YM; that and the motive power will be SSR’s Ts or Ss.
Thanks PIMM.
If it needs 22 wagons trailing it sounds as if the HCMT will be unbraked.

EDIT: 29/11.
Obviously not the case as there were no wagons trailing the spark. The grain hoppers remain a mystery (to me anyway) but there must be a reason.
I've been reading into this too and thought it was for braking given NSW Endeavour cars used to be transferred to Bombardier Dandenong after having their bogies switched for temporary broad gauge bogie trucks.

Even though I am not employed in the rail industry or studied railroad physics, I considered another likely possibility.

All of us who follow railways and invest knowledge and/or activity into the operations of trains would have an idea of the effect of chain reaction and damage that results when a freight train impacts a bus or a semi trailer at a crossing.

I suspect, this is the reason for 22 carriages. Once the transfer is past Dandenong, there are railway crossings on the line to Pakenham. Also, the line speed there is significantly high averaging 115 km/h, even if restricted to perhaps 80 km/h (if that is what the HCMT transfer train is limited to anyway it may be even further below speed) is likely more than enough to inflict significant damage to several number of cars in the consist formation, derail even.

I don't presume to know too much about the structural durability of these 22 wagons. They do look like they are sturdy than most freight cars. I suspect the primary purpose is to be the vehicles that will, along with the lead Locomotive, become the entire buffer in the event of impact with a semi trailer, to absorb all the shock possible and most importantly, minimize, or ensure the damaging shockwaves totally bleed out completely preventing them even reaching the coupling of the HCMT coupled to the transfer train.

I think it's considerable to theorize that the factors of the Kerang level crossing carnage coming from a semi trailer impacting a vline train are possible too. Thus, 22 of these types of carriages, which, considering if they are extremely sturdy as thought, absorb plenty of side impact and continue to maintain momentum also keeping away the shockwaves as much as possible from the HCMT at the back.

If a semi trailer was to brake too late coming toward a crossing like the Kerang incident, in fact, even at Abbotsford rd level crossing on the Cranbourne line just after diverging from the main line for Pakenham, we had a semi trailer there impact a Comeng on an active level crossing, having 22 cars in a consist puts the new train ever further back from the probable impact zone of around 6, even 10 cars. One of the first 10 cars would take the impact as intended, while the rest behind absorb the shock transferring excess to the cars further down the consist and hopefully plenty coupled together to bleed out all the damaging virbations before the end locos and the HCMT.

There is also likely not only the shockwaves, considered but also the momentum, having a long train significantly increases momentum and on impact will effectively overcome a lot of resistance with a heavy road vehicle, reducing the initial resisting shock of deceleration as a result of a collision first, before slowing down gradually to a stop.

That's the theory I have come up with, given the significant rate of incidents regarding motorists chancing themselves arrogantly past active bells, whistles and lights.

There are plenty of incidents with Semi trailers becoming the vehicles triggering the carnage at crossings in the past.

Plus, I think in political implications, it would be particularly devastating for the current government, as they are eager to prepare the HCMT for promotion to the public and will have their government staff/agents supervising to mitigate any identifiable high risks, especially those that are likely to result in severe impacts on project scope delivery.

For the HCMT transfer consist to impact a semi trailer with only the locomotive and perhaps 5 cars as the buffer between the new train itself and the offending heavy road vehicle would be disastrous for the new train and it's project deadline to be rolled out.

A derailed HCMT popping up on the news is a terrible political catastrophe (From what I believe in the political sphere anyway), especially if the scale of the destruction of the new train is comparable to the shredding of carriages to which they have taken an extensive amount of time out of service to be repaired.

That's my theory as the likely possible explanation.
Divine3801
Can't see it myself - but funnier things have happened and this is Victoria after all.Rolling Eyes
  LancedDendrite Chief Commissioner

Location: Trapped in a meeting with Rhonda and Karsten
It's all about braking capacity. There's a really simple answer about why the train consist was so odd and so large:
  1. Apparently this HCMT set has no service brake functionality due to the peculiarities of its ECP braking system (or it mightn't be fully commissioned). It recognises external emergency brake applications though - so it can trail on the end of the train and not have any issues if there's a separation. But it still needs to have at least as many braked wagons attached to the rake as there are carriages in the HCMT set.
  2. The 21x grain wagons and 2x S class locos sounds like it is simply the current push-pull BG consist that SSR uses for the Allied Mills contract. No point mucking around with the consist to make it smaller or what have you when it doesn't adversely affect the braking ability of the train or where it can be parked.
  3. The BVDY (former guards van) has the Scharfenberg transition coupler on board. It's the same van that SSR has used in the past for X'Trap deliveries from Ballarat North to Epping. Ditto with the Ts.

Nothing at all to do with level crossings, just braking ability and convenience.
  YM-Mundrabilla Minister for Railways

Location: Mundrabilla but I'd rather be in Narvik
It's all about braking capacity. There's a really simple answer about why the train consist was so odd and so large:
  1. Apparently this HCMT set has no service brake functionality due to the peculiarities of its ECP braking system (or it mightn't be fully commissioned). It recognises external emergency brake applications though - so it can trail on the end of the train and not have any issues if there's a separation. But it still needs to have at least as many braked wagons attached to the rake as there are carriages in the HCMT set.
  2. The 21x grain wagons and 2x S class locos sounds like it is simply the current push-pull BG consist that SSR uses for the Allied Mills contract. No point mucking around with the consist to make it smaller or what have you when it doesn't adversely affect the braking ability of the train or where it can be parked.
  3. The BVDY (former guards van) has the Scharfenberg transition coupler on board. It's the same van that SSR has used in the past for X'Trap deliveries from Ballarat North to Epping. Ditto with the Ts.

Nothing at all to do with level crossings, just braking ability and convenience.
LancedDendrite
Thanks LD.
Makes sense. I imagined that it was for brakes but couldn't follow the nothing trailing bit but, as you say, unbraked except for emergency. All adds up (now).
  bingley hall Minister for Railways

Location: Last train to Skaville

  1. The BVDY (former guards van) has the Scharfenberg transition coupler on board. It's the same van that SSR has used in the past for X'Trap deliveries from Ballarat North to Epping. Ditto with the Ts.

LancedDendrite

BVDY 52 used for X'traps

BVDY 51 used for HCMT

Smile
  potatoinmymouth Chief Commissioner

Bing/LD - as I noted a while ago, the contract documents specified that the HCMT had to carry its own transition couplers. Any reason they would have used the BVDY instead of testing out the new ones?
  LancedDendrite Chief Commissioner

Location: Trapped in a meeting with Rhonda and Karsten

  1. The BVDY (former guards van) has the Scharfenberg transition coupler on board. It's the same van that SSR has used in the past for X'Trap deliveries from Ballarat North to Epping. Ditto with the Ts.

BVDY 52 used for X'traps

BVDY 51 used for HCMT

Smile
bingley hall
Cheers for that Bing!
  ngarner Train Controller

Location: Seville
It's all about braking capacity. There's a really simple answer about why the train consist was so odd and so large:
  1. Apparently this HCMT set has no service brake functionality due to the peculiarities of its ECP braking system (or it mightn't be fully commissioned). It recognises external emergency brake applications though - so it can trail on the end of the train and not have any issues if there's a separation. But it still needs to have at least as many braked wagons attached to the rake as there are carriages in the HCMT set.
  2. The 21x grain wagons and 2x S class locos sounds like it is simply the current push-pull BG consist that SSR uses for the Allied Mills contract. No point mucking around with the consist to make it smaller or what have you when it doesn't adversely affect the braking ability of the train or where it can be parked.
  3. The BVDY (former guards van) has the Scharfenberg transition coupler on board. It's the same van that SSR has used in the past for X'Trap deliveries from Ballarat North to Epping. Ditto with the Ts.

Nothing at all to do with level crossings, just braking ability and convenience.
LancedDendrite
Based on this video (which is not mine) LD is completely correct. This footage shows the grain set with both S class leaving the grain sidings at Kensington and heading to Newport to match up with the T's and HCMT.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4GK6JkSwmHE

Based on the video posted by Kingoffoxes there must have been some work to connect at least one of the crossovers between up and down lines at East Pakenham as his video show neither were complete when he flew his drone out there not that long ago.

Neil

Edit: Every video I've seen about this move makes me think that S302 doesn't sound all that 'healthy'. There appears to be a difference between it and 317 and the S class sounds that I remember from working on them.
  speedemon08 Mary

Location: I think by now you should have figured it out
It's all about braking capacity. There's a really simple answer about why the train consist was so odd and so large:
  1. Apparently this HCMT set has no service brake functionality due to the peculiarities of its ECP braking system (or it mightn't be fully commissioned). It recognises external emergency brake applications though - so it can trail on the end of the train and not have any issues if there's a separation. But it still needs to have at least as many braked wagons attached to the rake as there are carriages in the HCMT set.
  2. The 21x grain wagons and 2x S class locos sounds like it is simply the current push-pull BG consist that SSR uses for the Allied Mills contract. No point mucking around with the consist to make it smaller or what have you when it doesn't adversely affect the braking ability of the train or where it can be parked.
  3. The BVDY (former guards van) has the Scharfenberg transition coupler on board. It's the same van that SSR has used in the past for X'Trap deliveries from Ballarat North to Epping. Ditto with the Ts.

Nothing at all to do with level crossings, just braking ability and convenience.
Based on this video (which is not mine) LD is completely correct. This footage shows the grain set with both S class leaving the grain sidings at Kensington and heading to Newport to match up with the T's and HCMT.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4GK6JkSwmHE

Based on the video posted by Kingoffoxes there must have been some work to connect at least one of the crossovers between up and down lines at East Pakenham as his video show neither were complete when he flew his drone out there not that long ago.

Neil

Edit: Every video I've seen about this move makes me think that S302 doesn't sound all that 'healthy'. There appears to be a difference between it and 317 and the S class sounds that I remember from working on them.
ngarner
Pretty sure one of them has a different engine to original.
  ngarner Train Controller

Location: Seville
Thanks Speedemon, that would explain it

Neil
  DirtyBallast Chief Commissioner

Location: I was here first. You're only visiting.
also think it will be left at Pakenham after the move.
Codie Burns
If you mean the new Pakenham East depot, then you are correct.

It was clearly visible from the adjacent Princes Freeway yesterday.
  Lockie91 Train Controller

Can we confirm that it is being stored there. My source from CD9 project tells me it is yet to be conected to the main line. The PED project team is apparently running a little behind.

They are hopeful of having this done during the current occupation. That would mean early January.

In other news it does look quite sexy, I also noticed that there is no METRO branding on the EMU just the blue wrap.
  ngarner Train Controller

Location: Seville
Check out KingofFoxes video posted earlier; that clearly shows one complete connection from the up line into the depot and it is a few weeks old now. The second access was not complete neither were either of the crossovers on the main line but that may have changed in the interim.

Neil
  potatoinmymouth Chief Commissioner

In other news it does look quite sexy, I also noticed that there is no METRO branding on the EMU just the blue wrap.
Lockie91
That's a good point - no PTV branding either (since the trend has been to remove operator branding in favour of the unified logo).

Possibly to be added later. There are obvious places for PTV logos to go like the "bonnet" panel and next to the doors.
  jakar Assistant Commissioner

Location: Melbourne
that clearly shows one complete connection from the up line into the depot and it is a few weeks old now.
ngarner
Just a minor pedantic correction for the sake of accuracy, being ATC at that location (with two bi-directional single lines), the current single connection into the depot comes off the North line. If it was a double line system it would have been off the down line anyway.
  DirtyBallast Chief Commissioner

Location: I was here first. You're only visiting.
Can we confirm that it is being stored there. My source from CD9 project tells me it is yet to be conected to the main line. The PED project team is apparently running a little behind.

They are hopeful of having this done during the current occupation. That would mean early January.
Lockie91
CAN YOU NOT READ?

WHAT DID I SAY IN MY POST IMMEDIATELY PREVIOUS TO YOURS?
  ngarner Train Controller

Location: Seville
that clearly shows one complete connection from the up line into the depot and it is a few weeks old now.
Just a minor pedantic correction for the sake of accuracy, being ATC at that location (with two bi-directional single lines), the current single connection into the depot comes off the North line. If it was a double line system it would have been off the down line anyway.
jakar
my bad - thanks for the correction jakar

Neil
  nozza99 Station Master

Location: Warrnambool, Vic
The move into Pakenham East Depot was done under absolute occupation. The mainline connection is yet to be complete as said above. A temporary solution must have been organised. As of Wednesday I have seen the yard disconnected from mainline again at both entrances. also overhead is still incomplete.
HCMT set 1 now lives at Pakenham East until mainline testing next year.
  ptvcommuter Train Controller

Which driving position will the new HCMTs have, central (like The X’trapolis) or the left hand side (Like the Siemens/Comemg)? Another quick question - which is better for drivers ?
  jakar Assistant Commissioner

Location: Melbourne
The mainline connection is yet to be complete as said above. A temporary solution must have been organised. As of Wednesday I have seen the yard disconnected from mainline again at both entrances.
nozza99
I'm sorry nozza99, but you might have your wires crossed somewhere or missed what you saw. There definitely was a complete and permanent connection into Pakenham East which was used for the transfer. It can be clearly seen in 'thekingoffoxes' video running next to the wash shed from the mainline. There were no signals or point machines though hence the occo. The thing only went in there early Thursday morning with the return trip of the locos and wagons was Friday just passed, so i'm not sure what your comment of "disconnected again as of Wednesday" has got to do with anything?
  vlocity27 Junior Train Controller

Location: Pakenham
Drove past Pakenham East Depot and the train can be seen very clearly from the freeway, sitting in the yard sticking out of one the sheds. Looks good, nice and clean.
  thekingoffoxes Chief Train Controller

The mainline connection is yet to be complete as said above. A temporary solution must have been organised. As of Wednesday I have seen the yard disconnected from mainline again at both entrances.
I'm sorry nozza99, but you might have your wires crossed somewhere or missed what you saw. There definitely was a complete and permanent connection into Pakenham East which was used for the transfer. It can be clearly seen in 'thekingoffoxes' video running next to the wash shed from the mainline. There were no signals or point machines though hence the occo. The thing only went in there early Thursday morning with the return trip of the locos and wagons was Friday just passed, so i'm not sure what your comment of "disconnected again as of Wednesday" has got to do with anything?
jakar
Disconnected may be referring to the 3 meters of rail that are "not in position" near the wash which can be seen at the 55 second mark. Could be where a catch point will be installed?


https://youtu.be/xK3n4IP-KmI?t=55
  Lockspike Deputy Commissioner

Disconnected may be referring to the 3 meters of rail that are "not in position" near the wash which can be seen at the 55 second mark. Could be where a catch point will be installed?
thekingoffoxes
My guess is that it is a very deliberate 'control' to prevent a rail vehicle intruding on the worksite, or a worksite rail vehicle making an unauthorised entry to the mainline.

Sponsored advertisement

Display from: