3801 Boiler and it's return to operation

 
  a6et Minister for Railways

I have just been severely taken to task by a person whose knowledge and experience I greatly respect, over my earlier post in which I said that we would never see anything like this in Victoria.
I wasn't very clear about what I meant, so to clarify:-
We do have very great quality of locomotive restoration here - Steamrail's A2 being the latest example, and it is a superb job. I was never comparing our local workmanship with that of the Sydneysiders.

No; my comparison of the two States was simply about government and/or official help; it occurs in NSW and doesn't in Victoria. From the video, it seems that 3801 made two or three return passes between Hawkesbury River and Cowan. I could never envisage such a thing happening on our main north east line.
My apologies to any offended Victorians!
Valvegear
Valvegear, we have exchanged both pleasantries and unpleasantries over the times, and on that scale I personally saw nothing offensive in what you said, while not from south of the border, we have had a lot of issues in regard to steam services here, and the aspect of 3801's RTS has been a long and terrible saga, finally its over, and without doubt both Transport NSW and the government would be very relieved at its return.

Thing is though, NSW is not as steam friendly as many would think, as there's a lot of missing items that hurt the heritage operations, one thing is the issue of water for steam, and sitting at Hawksbury River is a water column decommissed by the State or ARTC that could well be still used for heritage operations. That is but one spot where that sort of thing exists.

From a NSW perspective and mine only, I could see where you were coming from, and maybe those who were critical could use their common sense in seeing/reading what you said.

Sponsored advertisement

  apw5910 Deputy Commissioner

Location: Location: Location.
3801 departing Hawkesbury River this evening returning to Thirlmere.



https://youtu.be/qmNdi1lw478
Bevan Wall
Are the marker lamps LED's now? They're so white compared to the interior lights of the VHO etc.
  a6et Minister for Railways

3801 departing Hawkesbury River this evening returning to Thirlmere.



https://youtu.be/qmNdi1lw478
Are the marker lamps LED's now? They're so white compared to the interior lights of the VHO etc.
apw5910
Its quite possible for them to be LED's now as IIRC 6029 is so fitted out. 3801 also has a sealed beam bulb in the headlight as well, something that started with 3237 when allocated to Dubbo back in the 60's and prior to LVR taking ownership of it.

What I noticed though in the trial video is that when the train ran back down to HR, the marker lights remained as clear rather than being switched to Red to indicate the last vehicle on the train.
  LowndesJ515 #TeamRog

Location: Not in Victoria
I have just been severely taken to task by a person whose knowledge and experience I greatly respect, over my earlier post in which I said that we would never see anything like this in Victoria.
I wasn't very clear about what I meant, so to clarify:-
We do have very great quality of locomotive restoration here - Steamrail's A2 being the latest example, and it is a superb job. I was never comparing our local workmanship with that of the Sydneysiders.

No; my comparison of the two States was simply about government and/or official help; it occurs in NSW and doesn't in Victoria. From the video, it seems that 3801 made two or three return passes between Hawkesbury River and Cowan. I could never envisage such a thing happening on our main north east line.
My apologies to any offended Victorians!
Valvegear
If the infrastructure was in place on the North East line in Vic and the timetable allowed two or three passes there would be nothing stopping it from happening. You could probably timetable a number passes up Islington Bank terminating at Bank Box and Bacchus Marsh.

Sydney Trains through the Asset Standards Authority are pretty strict with 'new' rollingstock coming onto the network. There are several locations on their network that are classified as 'Test' areas. Cowan bank is one of them for the Adhesion Test. The infrastructure between Cowan - Hawkesbury River allows multiple passes up the riverbank. The Up and Down Mains are Bi-Directional. ARTC and John Holland have their tests also and a lot of it can be used between all three stakeholders but Sydney trains have more stringent tests.

When 6029 performed the Adhesion Test in 2016, there was no Government and/or official help. It was all organised through the Canberra Railway Museum through ASA and contractors. All paid for by the CRM. Three trips up the river bank were planned that evening with 6029, the loco passed on the first trip so the other two trips were cancelled.
  petan Chief Commissioner

Location: Waiting to see a zebra using a zebra crossing!
Transport Heritage Facebook notes the trial saw 3801 haul 318-tonnes in simulated wet weather conditions between Hawkesbury River and Cowan.

The older Working Timetables (WTT) state the load for 38 class engine from Hawkesbury River to Cowan, if train is stopped at Hawkesbury River, was 305 tons and 325 tons for a non stopping train. That train started from Hawkesbury River, so its 318 tonnes is about 13 tons above the 305  load so OK.

The freight load from older WTT was 325 tonnes Hawkesbury River to Cowan, with the symbol for Up Goods, Livestock trains and Fruit trains conveying Bogie vehicles, other than Passenger vehicles, may be assisted in the rear by Bank engine, Hawkesbury River to Cowan.

3801's train load did not add up to the stated 318 tons suggesting 4201 fiddled with its dynamic braking to add the extra bits. Not sure if the water tank was SWT5 (54 Tonnes loaded) or L1174 (60Tonnes loaded), the rest of the load was a van and carriage plus 4201.

Transport Heritage Facebook  
https://www.facebook.com/pg/TransportHeritageNSW/posts/?ref=page_internal
  Valvegear Dr Beeching

Location: Norda Fittazroy
If the infrastructure was in place on the North East line in Vic and the timetable allowed two or three passes there would be nothing stopping it from happening. You could probably timetable a number passes up Islington Bank terminating at Bank Box and Bacchus Marsh.
LowndesJ515
The same thought had crossed my mind, and Ingliston Bank would be ideal.

When 6029 performed the Adhesion Test in 2016, there was no Government and/or official help. It was all organised through the Canberra Railway Museum through ASA and contractors. All paid for by the CRM. Three trips up the river bank were planned that evening with 6029, the loco passed on the first trip so the other two trips were cancelled.
LowndesJ515
I take your point, but there must have been help. How else could you get out onto the main line? The relevant authorities had to approve and facilitate your access.  That's where the fun starts in Victoria. It's not that long ago that a V Line honcho was quoted as saying that if he had his way there'd be no heritage trains on Victorian steels.

Let me give an example from my own experience to illustrate the differences in attitudes.
Steamrail had a trip planned to Tocumwal. The train arrived a little early at Southern Cross and a minor shunt took an interminably long time. Despite the fact that the special was timetabled as express to Seymour, it was held for about an hour to let the Down Shepparton depart in front of it. The subsequent late running meant that a shuttle trip out of Tocumwal, with pre-paid tickets, had to be cancelled, and effectively stuffed the day. The whole point is that the special could have departed a few minutes late and still would not have delayed the Shepparton pass.

I was in Sydney later the same year, awaiting a special which was considerably delayed in docking due to signalling issues affecting the Up empty cars movement. As soon as the train docked at Central, there was a flurry of activity to get it going. I commented upon this and received the answer, "It's not the organiser's fault; we stuffed him around with signal failures. Now we have to get him moving".

The prosecution rests.
  a6et Minister for Railways

I have just been severely taken to task by a person whose knowledge and experience I greatly respect, over my earlier post in which I said that we would never see anything like this in Victoria.
I wasn't very clear about what I meant, so to clarify:-
We do have very great quality of locomotive restoration here - Steamrail's A2 being the latest example, and it is a superb job. I was never comparing our local workmanship with that of the Sydneysiders.

No; my comparison of the two States was simply about government and/or official help; it occurs in NSW and doesn't in Victoria. From the video, it seems that 3801 made two or three return passes between Hawkesbury River and Cowan. I could never envisage such a thing happening on our main north east line.
My apologies to any offended Victorians!
If the infrastructure was in place on the North East line in Vic and the timetable allowed two or three passes there would be nothing stopping it from happening. You could probably timetable a number passes up Islington Bank terminating at Bank Box and Bacchus Marsh.

Sydney Trains through the Asset Standards Authority are pretty strict with 'new' rollingstock coming onto the network. There are several locations on their network that are classified as 'Test' areas. Cowan bank is one of them for the Adhesion Test. The infrastructure between Cowan - Hawkesbury River allows multiple passes up the riverbank. The Up and Down Mains are Bi-Directional. ARTC and John Holland have their tests also and a lot of it can be used between all three stakeholders but Sydney trains have more stringent tests.

When 6029 performed the Adhesion Test in 2016, there was no Government and/or official help. It was all organised through the Canberra Railway Museum through ASA and contractors. All paid for by the CRM. Three trips up the river bank were planned that evening with 6029, the loco passed on the first trip so the other two trips were cancelled.
LowndesJ515
For me the so called load test for 6029 on Cowan bank should not have been deemed a load trial as such, in saying that I acknowledge the fact that the test carried out must have satisfied the people who were responsible for the said test and its overall affect on the load that was hauled and to be what it would be into the future.

Being a heavy garratt, the load for it on the up Cowan Bank was 615tons unassisted. For load tests to be approved and considered to be what is to be put down for the locomotive for future working, Load tests were conducted with inspectors and driver - fireman experienced in the working of the type of locomotive on the grade.  One big concept of having these load trials/tests was that the train was brought to a stand in at least one location on the grade, that being where the grade is deemed to be the most problematic and difficult spot on the test grade.

The question is did 6029 have such a load and perform the load test by a standing start with max load?
  LowndesJ515 #TeamRog

Location: Not in Victoria
3801's train load did not add up to the stated 318 tons suggesting 4201 fiddled with its dynamic braking to add the extra bits. Not sure if the water tank was SWT5 (54 Tonnes loaded) or L1174 (60Tonnes loaded), the rest of the load was a van and carriage plus 4201.
petan
The water gin was an NTAF wagon.
  LowndesJ515 #TeamRog

Location: Not in Victoria
If the infrastructure was in place on the North East line in Vic and the timetable allowed two or three passes there would be nothing stopping it from happening. You could probably timetable a number passes up Islington Bank terminating at Bank Box and Bacchus Marsh.
The same thought had crossed my mind, and Ingliston Bank would be ideal.

When 6029 performed the Adhesion Test in 2016, there was no Government and/or official help. It was all organised through the Canberra Railway Museum through ASA and contractors. All paid for by the CRM. Three trips up the river bank were planned that evening with 6029, the loco passed on the first trip so the other two trips were cancelled.
I take your point, but there must have been help. How else could you get out onto the main line? The relevant authorities had to approve and facilitate your access.  That's where the fun starts in Victoria. It's not that long ago that a V Line honcho was quoted as saying that if he had his way there'd be no heritage trains on Victorian steels.

Let me give an example from my own experience to illustrate the differences in attitudes.
Steamrail had a trip planned to Tocumwal. The train arrived a little early at Southern Cross and a minor shunt took an interminably long time. Despite the fact that the special was timetabled as express to Seymour, it was held for about an hour to let the Down Shepparton depart in front of it. The subsequent late running meant that a shuttle trip out of Tocumwal, with pre-paid tickets, had to be cancelled, and effectively stuffed the day. The whole point is that the special could have departed a few minutes late and still would not have delayed the Shepparton pass.

I was in Sydney later the same year, awaiting a special which was considerably delayed in docking due to signalling issues affecting the Up empty cars movement. As soon as the train docked at Central, there was a flurry of activity to get it going. I commented upon this and received the answer, "It's not the organiser's fault; we stuffed him around with signal failures. Now we have to get him moving".

The prosecution rests.
Valvegear
TOC Waiver was gained by relevant authorities for the loco to travel on the Sydney Trains Network. Path Request submitted and approved by all network authorities. Like any other Trip in NSW. Same process in Victoria, submit a path request and see if it gets approved.

The difference in the attitudes is that Victoria's Heritage Operations is run under V/Line. Of course they wont run a Heritage Train if its going to block their own V/Line train. In NSW the Operator is the actual orgainisation whether it be Lachlan Valley Railway, Transport Heritage NSW or the Railmotor Society. Each Operator pays Track Access and they have the same right as Sydney Trains, Pacific National or QUBE. As always you have to stay on your path as much as possible or you will get holed, many trips have been holed for running late. But they will attempt to get you moving as quick as possible. Its on the operator to keep time as best they can. There aren't huge blocks in NSW like Victoria either. Craigieburn to Seymour is a massive block when no one is cut in between those points. You dont have massive block distances in NSW. Its a lot easier to run trains in NSW because the Heritage Group is their own Operator and the Infrastructure regarding signalling is better.
  LowndesJ515 #TeamRog

Location: Not in Victoria
I have just been severely taken to task by a person whose knowledge and experience I greatly respect, over my earlier post in which I said that we would never see anything like this in Victoria.
I wasn't very clear about what I meant, so to clarify:-
We do have very great quality of locomotive restoration here - Steamrail's A2 being the latest example, and it is a superb job. I was never comparing our local workmanship with that of the Sydneysiders.

No; my comparison of the two States was simply about government and/or official help; it occurs in NSW and doesn't in Victoria. From the video, it seems that 3801 made two or three return passes between Hawkesbury River and Cowan. I could never envisage such a thing happening on our main north east line.
My apologies to any offended Victorians!
If the infrastructure was in place on the North East line in Vic and the timetable allowed two or three passes there would be nothing stopping it from happening. You could probably timetable a number passes up Islington Bank terminating at Bank Box and Bacchus Marsh.

Sydney Trains through the Asset Standards Authority are pretty strict with 'new' rollingstock coming onto the network. There are several locations on their network that are classified as 'Test' areas. Cowan bank is one of them for the Adhesion Test. The infrastructure between Cowan - Hawkesbury River allows multiple passes up the riverbank. The Up and Down Mains are Bi-Directional. ARTC and John Holland have their tests also and a lot of it can be used between all three stakeholders but Sydney trains have more stringent tests.

When 6029 performed the Adhesion Test in 2016, there was no Government and/or official help. It was all organised through the Canberra Railway Museum through ASA and contractors. All paid for by the CRM. Three trips up the river bank were planned that evening with 6029, the loco passed on the first trip so the other two trips were cancelled.
For me the so called load test for 6029 on Cowan bank should not have been deemed a load trial as such, in saying that I acknowledge the fact that the test carried out must have satisfied the people who were responsible for the said test and its overall affect on the load that was hauled and to be what it would be into the future.

Being a heavy garratt, the load for it on the up Cowan Bank was 615tons unassisted. For load tests to be approved and considered to be what is to be put down for the locomotive for future working, Load tests were conducted with inspectors and driver - fireman experienced in the working of the type of locomotive on the grade.  One big concept of having these load trials/tests was that the train was brought to a stand in at least one location on the grade, that being where the grade is deemed to be the most problematic and difficult spot on the test grade.

The question is did 6029 have such a load and perform the load test by a standing start with max load?
a6et
Thats your opinion with your opening line.

At the end of day, 6029 (as with 3801 as it just did the same as 6029) completed all the tests that was asked of it by the Asset Standards Authority. If the test said to stop and lift max load from a standing start, that test would have been performed. The test required the locomotive to start from Hawkesbury River and travel through to Cowan in a certain amount of time under simulated wet weather conditions. Should speed be drop under 10km/h, it would be deemed a failure. You can voice your opinion and carry on all you want with the above statement, but it's what had to be performed at the time and it was carried out as per their instructions. CRM was actually asked what the load should be. A number was given to ASA and thats what 6029 can haul up a today unassisted. If CRM said 750 tons and the test was sucessful, it would be 750 tons.

The day before 6029 hauled 1200+ tons from Rhodes to Thornleigh by itself...
  petan Chief Commissioner

Location: Waiting to see a zebra using a zebra crossing!
3801's train load did not add up to the stated 318 tons suggesting 4201 fiddled with its dynamic braking to add the extra bits. Not sure if the water tank was SWT5 (54 Tonnes loaded) or L1174 (60Tonnes loaded), the rest of the load was a van and carriage plus 4201.
The water gin was an NTAF wagon.
LowndesJ515
Thanks LowndesJ515 and NTAF comes in at 76 tonnes loaded. But that plus 4201 comes in around approx 200 tons give or take depending on much water has been used from the NTAF and 4201's fuel tank load but would the van and carriage come up to the required extra 118 tonnes?
  7334 Chief Commissioner

Location: In the workshop wondering why I started 7334 in the first place
3801's train load did not add up to the stated 318 tons suggesting 4201 fiddled with its dynamic braking to add the extra bits. Not sure if the water tank was SWT5 (54 Tonnes loaded) or L1174 (60Tonnes loaded), the rest of the load was a van and carriage plus 4201.
The water gin was an NTAF wagon.
Thanks LowndesJ515 and NTAF comes in at 76 tonnes loaded. But that plus 4201 comes in around approx 200 tons give or take depending on much water has been used from the NTAF and 4201's fuel tank load but would the van and carriage come up to the required extra 118 tonnes?
petan
It might not have required an extra 118 tonnes.

I read somewhere a long time ago that while a 42 class weighed 120 tonnes they were regarded as being equivalent to 140 tonnes if being hauled as a vehicle.  I do not recollect there being a reason stated for the difference but I assumed (rightly or wrongly) that there was additional resistance to moving it due to having to spin the traction motors.

I do not remember where I read it but it may have been in the NSWGR operators manual my grandfather gave me when he retired as a driver in the mid 1950s and which I regrettably no longer have.  That book also covered the 40 class but I do not remember there being an equivalent figure quoted for the 20 of them but that does not mean there was not.

If in fact a 42 class is equivalent to 140 tonnes as a dead weight then I would expect other types to also be rated at a higher figure than their actual weight under similar circumstances because there is nothing unique about a 42 class from that perspective that I am aware of.  If they are not rated higher then either my memory is playing tricks or the rules have changed sometime in the 60+ years since my grandfather's book was written assuming that is where I read it.
  a6et Minister for Railways

I have just been severely taken to task by a person whose knowledge and experience I greatly respect, over my earlier post in which I said that we would never see anything like this in Victoria.
I wasn't very clear about what I meant, so to clarify:-
We do have very great quality of locomotive restoration here - Steamrail's A2 being the latest example, and it is a superb job. I was never comparing our local workmanship with that of the Sydneysiders.

No; my comparison of the two States was simply about government and/or official help; it occurs in NSW and doesn't in Victoria. From the video, it seems that 3801 made two or three return passes between Hawkesbury River and Cowan. I could never envisage such a thing happening on our main north east line.
My apologies to any offended Victorians!
If the infrastructure was in place on the North East line in Vic and the timetable allowed two or three passes there would be nothing stopping it from happening. You could probably timetable a number passes up Islington Bank terminating at Bank Box and Bacchus Marsh.

Sydney Trains through the Asset Standards Authority are pretty strict with 'new' rollingstock coming onto the network. There are several locations on their network that are classified as 'Test' areas. Cowan bank is one of them for the Adhesion Test. The infrastructure between Cowan - Hawkesbury River allows multiple passes up the riverbank. The Up and Down Mains are Bi-Directional. ARTC and John Holland have their tests also and a lot of it can be used between all three stakeholders but Sydney trains have more stringent tests.

When 6029 performed the Adhesion Test in 2016, there was no Government and/or official help. It was all organised through the Canberra Railway Museum through ASA and contractors. All paid for by the CRM. Three trips up the river bank were planned that evening with 6029, the loco passed on the first trip so the other two trips were cancelled.
For me the so called load test for 6029 on Cowan bank should not have been deemed a load trial as such, in saying that I acknowledge the fact that the test carried out must have satisfied the people who were responsible for the said test and its overall affect on the load that was hauled and to be what it would be into the future.

Being a heavy garratt, the load for it on the up Cowan Bank was 615tons unassisted. For load tests to be approved and considered to be what is to be put down for the locomotive for future working, Load tests were conducted with inspectors and driver - fireman experienced in the working of the type of locomotive on the grade.  One big concept of having these load trials/tests was that the train was brought to a stand in at least one location on the grade, that being where the grade is deemed to be the most problematic and difficult spot on the test grade.

The question is did 6029 have such a load and perform the load test by a standing start with max load?
Thats your opinion with your opening line.

At the end of day, 6029 (as with 3801 as it just did the same as 6029) completed all the tests that was asked of it by the Asset Standards Authority. If the test said to stop and lift max load from a standing start, that test would have been performed. The test required the locomotive to start from Hawkesbury River and travel through to Cowan in a certain amount of time under simulated wet weather conditions. Should speed be drop under 10km/h, it would be deemed a failure. You can voice your opinion and carry on all you want with the above statement, but it's what had to be performed at the time and it was carried out as per their instructions. CRM was actually asked what the load should be. A number was given to ASA and thats what 6029 can haul up a today unassisted. If CRM said 750 tons and the test was sucessful, it would be 750 tons.

The day before 6029 hauled 1200+ tons from Rhodes to Thornleigh by itself...
LowndesJ515
My opinion, Yes! and based on the fact that I had worked enough garratt's in my time also performing load tests as driver delegate on more than enough trains to be qualified to state the facts regarding them.
  Valvegear Dr Beeching

Location: Norda Fittazroy
My opinion, Yes! and based on the fact that I had worked enough garratt's in my time also performing load tests as driver delegate on more than enough trains to be qualified to state the facts regarding them.
"a6et"
No doubt all true, however your experience goes back to the era when the 60 class were in regular service. Are you perfectly certain that the requirements in this instance are exactly the same as in your time?
  Graham4405 Minister for Railways

Location: Dalby Qld
I read somewhere a long time ago that while a 42 class weighed 120 tonnes they were regarded as being equivalent to 140 tonnes if being hauled as a vehicle.  I do not recollect there being a reason stated for the difference but I assumed (rightly or wrongly) that there was additional resistance to moving it due to having to spin the traction motors.
7334
The 42 was powering though. It seemed to be assisting at times. I'm no expert on the workings of diesel electric locomotives, but wouldn't the traction motors have been running?
  5810 Junior Train Controller

Location: Wingello
I read somewhere a long time ago that while a 42 class weighed 120 tonnes they were regarded as being equivalent to 140 tonnes if being hauled as a vehicle.  I do not recollect there being a reason stated for the difference but I assumed (rightly or wrongly) that there was additional resistance to moving it due to having to spin the traction motors.
The 42 was powering though. It seemed to be assisting at times. I'm no expert on the workings of diesel electric locomotives, but wouldn't the traction motors have been running?
Graham4405
NO! the 42 was not powering. It was in idle for both entire climbs, I can 100% guarantee you that. People who don't know shouldn't comment
  a6et Minister for Railways

My opinion, Yes! and based on the fact that I had worked enough garratt's in my time also performing load tests as driver delegate on more than enough trains to be qualified to state the facts regarding them.
No doubt all true, however your experience goes back to the era when the 60 class were in regular service. Are you perfectly certain that the requirements in this instance are exactly the same as in your time?
Valvegear
I could not say that they are exactly the same as in my time, thing is though every load testing that I had performed on Goods trains, with the last being in the 80's with 81cl, the very same conditions that I put forward were what we had to abide by.  That also included tests with the converted 45cl along with other working including passenger and the XPT, 42220 converted model on Xpt scheduling prior to introduction on the North.

I would also believe that there would be a different criteria for load testing in todays railways and operations, for steam there is also the likelihood of some stringent tests for the specific locomotive that was in question. Take the example of 3801's tests, this is probably the first time that a loco had the water spray to test it for adhesion, I have never seen nor heard of such a test in the past, but knowing how 01 was back in the 60's with it being prone to slipping as well as other members of the class, & 3812 comes to my immediate memory, its a darn good idea though. The aspect in tests were that the loco used was the candidate and covered all other loco's in that class, that were of the same type, exception being light and heavy for Garratt's, in 01's test the other night while it had the tonneage, it still was a small load size wise though.

The aspect also what Lowndes has said regarding 6029 hauling a 1200tonne load from Rhodes to Thornleigh is interesting as he said it was without assistance.  That load is pretty much double the load that a heavy Garratt would haul on that same grade, but they could haul 685 tonnes from Hornsby to BMD, having worked several through services on Garratt's over that grade, one being on 6017, another on 6032, with both loads being full and a combination of loaded and empty vehicles which made them close to full length. from Denistone to Epping and the from the Epping dip through Cheltenham and Beecroft we were at a crawl, when we reached Pennant Hills the grade eases and a welcome easing even with a stocker and good coal, we were down to around 185psi and 3/4 water in the primary static water gauge, which was a good result.

Interesting is that there was no info about that train either, if the load test done on Cowan bank as was spoken on, that load and test would not normally have been sufficient to cover a test on the down though. For me a question on what he said is did that train have a diesel on the back and working with the Garratt haven't seen anything on that train anywhere even here on RP, as I would believe if it existed then there would have been a few camera hounds out there to record the event.
  a6et Minister for Railways

I read somewhere a long time ago that while a 42 class weighed 120 tonnes they were regarded as being equivalent to 140 tonnes if being hauled as a vehicle.  I do not recollect there being a reason stated for the difference but I assumed (rightly or wrongly) that there was additional resistance to moving it due to having to spin the traction motors.
The 42 was powering though. It seemed to be assisting at times. I'm no expert on the workings of diesel electric locomotives, but wouldn't the traction motors have been running?
NO! the 42 was not powering. It was in idle for both entire climbs, I can 100% guarantee you that. People who don't know shouldn't comment
5810
Its no surprise that the 42 was not powering as such but its a convenient way to boost the actual load and weight without the train being a long length as many passenger trains were like in the past.

Only thing I would imagine with the 42 would be that unless things have changed, it would be required to run in #1 T/N for the traction motors to be provided notional power for the T/M's.
  LowndesJ515 #TeamRog

Location: Not in Victoria
3801's train load did not add up to the stated 318 tons suggesting 4201 fiddled with its dynamic braking to add the extra bits. Not sure if the water tank was SWT5 (54 Tonnes loaded) or L1174 (60Tonnes loaded), the rest of the load was a van and carriage plus 4201.
The water gin was an NTAF wagon.
Thanks LowndesJ515 and NTAF comes in at 76 tonnes loaded. But that plus 4201 comes in around approx 200 tons give or take depending on much water has been used from the NTAF and 4201's fuel tank load but would the van and carriage come up to the required extra 118 tonnes?
petan
NTAF - 76 Tons (I believe it was full). VHO - 55 Tons. MCA - 53 Tons. 42 Class - 122 Tonns (Live). 306 Tons all up according to the TOC Manual. Plus add the 10% for the 42 Class trailing at the back.
  LowndesJ515 #TeamRog

Location: Not in Victoria
My opinion, Yes! and based on the fact that I had worked enough garratt's in my time also performing load tests as driver delegate on more than enough trains to be qualified to state the facts regarding them.
No doubt all true, however your experience goes back to the era when the 60 class were in regular service. Are you perfectly certain that the requirements in this instance are exactly the same as in your time?
I could not say that they are exactly the same as in my time, thing is though every load testing that I had performed on Goods trains, with the last being in the 80's with 81cl, the very same conditions that I put forward were what we had to abide by.  That also included tests with the converted 45cl along with other working including passenger and the XPT, 42220 converted model on Xpt scheduling prior to introduction on the North.
a6et
They aren't the same as your day, thats what i'm trying to get across to you.

I would also believe that there would be a different criteria for load testing in todays railways and operations, for steam there is also the likelihood of some stringent tests for the specific locomotive that was in question. Take the example of 3801's tests, this is probably the first time that a loco had the water spray to test it for adhesion, I have never seen nor heard of such a test in the past, but knowing how 01 was back in the 60's with it being prone to slipping as well as other members of the class, & 3812 comes to my immediate memory, its a darn good idea though. The aspect in tests were that the loco used was the candidate and covered all other loco's in that class, that were of the same type, exception being light and heavy for Garratt's, in 01's test the other night while it had the tonneage, it still was a small load size wise though.
a6et
Every loco that does a test up Cowan, Steam or Diesel or Electric, has the water sprayers put on. The CM's did, The QBX's did, 6029 did and as you pointed out, 3801 did. This practice has been around for a while now. My argument at the time 6029 did the test was that the sprayers were installed right infront of the Driving wheels and not the front truck. The leading truck conditions the rail head before the driving wheels get to that bit of rail. We kept the sprayers where the authorities wanted them and passed on the first trip.

The aspect also what Lowndes has said regarding 6029 hauling a 1200tonne load from Rhodes to Thornleigh is interesting as he said it was without assistance. That load is pretty much double the load that a heavy Garratt would haul on that same grade, but they could haul 685 tonnes from Hornsby to BMD, having worked several through services on Garratt's over that grade, one being on 6017, another on 6032, with both loads being full and a combination of loaded and empty vehicles which made them close to full length. from Denistone to Epping and the from the Epping dip through Cheltenham and Beecroft we were at a crawl, when we reached Pennant Hills the grade eases and a welcome easing even with a stocker and good coal, we were down to around 185psi and 3/4 water in the primary static water gauge, which was a good result. Interesting is that there was no info about that train either, if the load test done on Cowan bank as was spoken on, that load and test would not normally have been sufficient to cover a test on the down though. For me a question on what he said is did that train have a diesel on the back and working with the Garratt haven't seen anything on that train anywhere even here on RP, as I would believe if it existed then there would have been a few camera hounds out there to record the event.
a6et
The trip up to Thornleigh was a decision made on the fly at Nth Strathfield by the Driver and Fireman on 6029 at the time. It wasnt advertised and it wasnt part of any official testing. It was a transfer train from Moss Vale to Hawkesbury River for the actual load test. No Diesels on the back of the train, they were on the front of the train and were told to shut off at Rhodes.

Bevan Wall was out at Beecroft that day. No one knew about what was going to happen up there, not even the crew. Infact the fireman didnt want to do it leaving Moss Vale to save on coal. At Nth Strathfield it was a 'F*%# It, hold my beer' moment.
  a6et Minister for Railways

My opinion, Yes! and based on the fact that I had worked enough garratt's in my time also performing load tests as driver delegate on more than enough trains to be qualified to state the facts regarding them.
No doubt all true, however your experience goes back to the era when the 60 class were in regular service. Are you perfectly certain that the requirements in this instance are exactly the same as in your time?
I could not say that they are exactly the same as in my time, thing is though every load testing that I had performed on Goods trains, with the last being in the 80's with 81cl, the very same conditions that I put forward were what we had to abide by.  That also included tests with the converted 45cl along with other working including passenger and the XPT, 42220 converted model on Xpt scheduling prior to introduction on the North.
They aren't the same as your day, thats what i'm trying to get across to you.

I would also believe that there would be a different criteria for load testing in todays railways and operations, for steam there is also the likelihood of some stringent tests for the specific locomotive that was in question. Take the example of 3801's tests, this is probably the first time that a loco had the water spray to test it for adhesion, I have never seen nor heard of such a test in the past, but knowing how 01 was back in the 60's with it being prone to slipping as well as other members of the class, & 3812 comes to my immediate memory, its a darn good idea though. The aspect in tests were that the loco used was the candidate and covered all other loco's in that class, that were of the same type, exception being light and heavy for Garratt's, in 01's test the other night while it had the tonneage, it still was a small load size wise though.
Every loco that does a test up Cowan, Steam or Diesel or Electric, has the water sprayers put on. The CM's did, The QBX's did, 6029 did and as you pointed out, 3801 did. This practice has been around for a while now. My argument at the time 6029 did the test was that the sprayers were installed right infront of the Driving wheels and not the front truck. The leading truck conditions the rail head before the driving wheels get to that bit of rail. We kept the sprayers where the authorities wanted them and passed on the first trip.

The aspect also what Lowndes has said regarding 6029 hauling a 1200tonne load from Rhodes to Thornleigh is interesting as he said it was without assistance. That load is pretty much double the load that a heavy Garratt would haul on that same grade, but they could haul 685 tonnes from Hornsby to BMD, having worked several through services on Garratt's over that grade, one being on 6017, another on 6032, with both loads being full and a combination of loaded and empty vehicles which made them close to full length. from Denistone to Epping and the from the Epping dip through Cheltenham and Beecroft we were at a crawl, when we reached Pennant Hills the grade eases and a welcome easing even with a stocker and good coal, we were down to around 185psi and 3/4 water in the primary static water gauge, which was a good result. Interesting is that there was no info about that train either, if the load test done on Cowan bank as was spoken on, that load and test would not normally have been sufficient to cover a test on the down though. For me a question on what he said is did that train have a diesel on the back and working with the Garratt haven't seen anything on that train anywhere even here on RP, as I would believe if it existed then there would have been a few camera hounds out there to record the event.
The trip up to Thornleigh was a decision made on the fly at Nth Strathfield by the Driver and Fireman on 6029 at the time. It wasnt advertised and it wasnt part of any official testing. It was a transfer train from Moss Vale to Hawkesbury River for the actual load test. No Diesels on the back of the train, they were on the front of the train and were told to shut off at Rhodes.

Bevan Wall was out at Beecroft that day. No one knew about what was going to happen up there, not even the crew. Infact the fireman didnt want to do it leaving Moss Vale to save on coal. At Nth Strathfield it was a 'F*%# It, hold my beer' moment.
LowndesJ515
So, based on what you have said in the last bit, which you have ignored your wonderous previous statement that said 6029 had a load of 1200tonnes from Rhodes to Thornleigh by itself the previous day, if it was a success then why go to Hawkesbury river for a test the following morning?

And where did the load mysteriously appear at North Strathfield, when they made a decision on the fly? No one knew what was to happen! gee that's a wonderful indictment on how things run these days.
  safeworking Station Master

Location: Bungendore
My opinion, Yes! and based on the fact that I had worked enough garratt's in my time also performing load tests as driver delegate on more than enough trains to be qualified to state the facts regarding them.
No doubt all true, however your experience goes back to the era when the 60 class were in regular service. Are you perfectly certain that the requirements in this instance are exactly the same as in your time?
I could not say that they are exactly the same as in my time, thing is though every load testing that I had performed on Goods trains, with the last being in the 80's with 81cl, the very same conditions that I put forward were what we had to abide by.  That also included tests with the converted 45cl along with other working including passenger and the XPT, 42220 converted model on Xpt scheduling prior to introduction on the North.
They aren't the same as your day, thats what i'm trying to get across to you.

I would also believe that there would be a different criteria for load testing in todays railways and operations, for steam there is also the likelihood of some stringent tests for the specific locomotive that was in question. Take the example of 3801's tests, this is probably the first time that a loco had the water spray to test it for adhesion, I have never seen nor heard of such a test in the past, but knowing how 01 was back in the 60's with it being prone to slipping as well as other members of the class, & 3812 comes to my immediate memory, its a darn good idea though. The aspect in tests were that the loco used was the candidate and covered all other loco's in that class, that were of the same type, exception being light and heavy for Garratt's, in 01's test the other night while it had the tonneage, it still was a small load size wise though.
Every loco that does a test up Cowan, Steam or Diesel or Electric, has the water sprayers put on. The CM's did, The QBX's did, 6029 did and as you pointed out, 3801 did. This practice has been around for a while now. My argument at the time 6029 did the test was that the sprayers were installed right infront of the Driving wheels and not the front truck. The leading truck conditions the rail head before the driving wheels get to that bit of rail. We kept the sprayers where the authorities wanted them and passed on the first trip.

The aspect also what Lowndes has said regarding 6029 hauling a 1200tonne load from Rhodes to Thornleigh is interesting as he said it was without assistance. That load is pretty much double the load that a heavy Garratt would haul on that same grade, but they could haul 685 tonnes from Hornsby to BMD, having worked several through services on Garratt's over that grade, one being on 6017, another on 6032, with both loads being full and a combination of loaded and empty vehicles which made them close to full length. from Denistone to Epping and the from the Epping dip through Cheltenham and Beecroft we were at a crawl, when we reached Pennant Hills the grade eases and a welcome easing even with a stocker and good coal, we were down to around 185psi and 3/4 water in the primary static water gauge, which was a good result. Interesting is that there was no info about that train either, if the load test done on Cowan bank as was spoken on, that load and test would not normally have been sufficient to cover a test on the down though. For me a question on what he said is did that train have a diesel on the back and working with the Garratt haven't seen anything on that train anywhere even here on RP, as I would believe if it existed then there would have been a few camera hounds out there to record the event.
The trip up to Thornleigh was a decision made on the fly at Nth Strathfield by the Driver and Fireman on 6029 at the time. It wasnt advertised and it wasnt part of any official testing. It was a transfer train from Moss Vale to Hawkesbury River for the actual load test. No Diesels on the back of the train, they were on the front of the train and were told to shut off at Rhodes.

Bevan Wall was out at Beecroft that day. No one knew about what was going to happen up there, not even the crew. Infact the fireman didnt want to do it leaving Moss Vale to save on coal. At Nth Strathfield it was a 'F*%# It, hold my beer' moment.
So, based on what you have said in the last bit, which you have ignored your wonderous previous statement that said 6029 had a load of 1200tonnes from Rhodes to Thornleigh by itself the previous day, if it was a success then why go to Hawkesbury river for a test the following morning?

And where did the load mysteriously appear at North Strathfield, when they made a decision on the fly? No one knew what was to happen! gee that's a wonderful indictment on how things run these days.
a6et
Actually having a trial trip, before the official trial makes sense. Time is then available to deal with unexpected issues that could cause failure in the official trial. A second official trial takes expenditure, time, and resources better used elsewhere. Then there is the attractive thought, 'just what can this thing do?'.  After thousands of person-hours over years, this is a very human emotion.  The risk would be low as the diesels could easily be switched in once more and the team was very experienced in rebuilding, operating, and testing steam locos.

My memories of steam in service were that crews were very experienced at making decisions on the fly, it really was a necessary skill. How the job was officially done and what happened in practice were not necessarily the same.
  michaelgm Chief Commissioner

My opinion, Yes! and based on the fact that I had worked enough garratt's in my time also performing load tests as driver delegate on more than enough trains to be qualified to state the facts regarding them.
No doubt all true, however your experience goes back to the era when the 60 class were in regular service. Are you perfectly certain that the requirements in this instance are exactly the same as in your time?
I could not say that they are exactly the same as in my time, thing is though every load testing that I had performed on Goods trains, with the last being in the 80's with 81cl, the very same conditions that I put forward were what we had to abide by.  That also included tests with the converted 45cl along with other working including passenger and the XPT, 42220 converted model on Xpt scheduling prior to introduction on the North.
They aren't the same as your day, thats what i'm trying to get across to you.

I would also believe that there would be a different criteria for load testing in todays railways and operations, for steam there is also the likelihood of some stringent tests for the specific locomotive that was in question. Take the example of 3801's tests, this is probably the first time that a loco had the water spray to test it for adhesion, I have never seen nor heard of such a test in the past, but knowing how 01 was back in the 60's with it being prone to slipping as well as other members of the class, & 3812 comes to my immediate memory, its a darn good idea though. The aspect in tests were that the loco used was the candidate and covered all other loco's in that class, that were of the same type, exception being light and heavy for Garratt's, in 01's test the other night while it had the tonneage, it still was a small load size wise though.
Every loco that does a test up Cowan, Steam or Diesel or Electric, has the water sprayers put on. The CM's did, The QBX's did, 6029 did and as you pointed out, 3801 did. This practice has been around for a while now. My argument at the time 6029 did the test was that the sprayers were installed right infront of the Driving wheels and not the front truck. The leading truck conditions the rail head before the driving wheels get to that bit of rail. We kept the sprayers where the authorities wanted them and passed on the first trip.

The aspect also what Lowndes has said regarding 6029 hauling a 1200tonne load from Rhodes to Thornleigh is interesting as he said it was without assistance. That load is pretty much double the load that a heavy Garratt would haul on that same grade, but they could haul 685 tonnes from Hornsby to BMD, having worked several through services on Garratt's over that grade, one being on 6017, another on 6032, with both loads being full and a combination of loaded and empty vehicles which made them close to full length. from Denistone to Epping and the from the Epping dip through Cheltenham and Beecroft we were at a crawl, when we reached Pennant Hills the grade eases and a welcome easing even with a stocker and good coal, we were down to around 185psi and 3/4 water in the primary static water gauge, which was a good result. Interesting is that there was no info about that train either, if the load test done on Cowan bank as was spoken on, that load and test would not normally have been sufficient to cover a test on the down though. For me a question on what he said is did that train have a diesel on the back and working with the Garratt haven't seen anything on that train anywhere even here on RP, as I would believe if it existed then there would have been a few camera hounds out there to record the event.
The trip up to Thornleigh was a decision made on the fly at Nth Strathfield by the Driver and Fireman on 6029 at the time. It wasnt advertised and it wasnt part of any official testing. It was a transfer train from Moss Vale to Hawkesbury River for the actual load test. No Diesels on the back of the train, they were on the front of the train and were told to shut off at Rhodes.

Bevan Wall was out at Beecroft that day. No one knew about what was going to happen up there, not even the crew. Infact the fireman didnt want to do it leaving Moss Vale to save on coal. At Nth Strathfield it was a 'F*%# It, hold my beer' moment.
LowndesJ515
So, based on what you have said in the last bit, which you have ignored your wonderous previous statement that said 6029 had a load of 1200tonnes from Rhodes to Thornleigh by itself the previous day, if it was a success then why go to Hawkesbury river for a test the following morning?

And where did the load mysteriously appear at North Strathfield, when they made a decision on the fly? No one knew what was to happen! gee that's a wonderful indictment on how things run these days.
"a6et"



Someone Mentioned above, BW has posted footage of the garret trial, at Beecroft? on YouTube.
A quick search And view will explain where the mysterious load came from.
  Graham4405 Minister for Railways

Location: Dalby Qld
I read somewhere a long time ago that while a 42 class weighed 120 tonnes they were regarded as being equivalent to 140 tonnes if being hauled as a vehicle.  I do not recollect there being a reason stated for the difference but I assumed (rightly or wrongly) that there was additional resistance to moving it due to having to spin the traction motors.
The 42 was powering though. It seemed to be assisting at times. I'm no expert on the workings of diesel electric locomotives, but wouldn't the traction motors have been running?
NO! the 42 was not powering. It was in idle for both entire climbs, I can 100% guarantee you that. People who don't know shouldn't comment
5810
No need to be cranky. When watching the video I heard the engine running, what I meant was just that. From the video it did seem that it may have been assisting. I was just wondering is all...
  LowndesJ515 #TeamRog

Location: Not in Victoria
My opinion, Yes! and based on the fact that I had worked enough garratt's in my time also performing load tests as driver delegate on more than enough trains to be qualified to state the facts regarding them.
No doubt all true, however your experience goes back to the era when the 60 class were in regular service. Are you perfectly certain that the requirements in this instance are exactly the same as in your time?
I could not say that they are exactly the same as in my time, thing is though every load testing that I had performed on Goods trains, with the last being in the 80's with 81cl, the very same conditions that I put forward were what we had to abide by.  That also included tests with the converted 45cl along with other working including passenger and the XPT, 42220 converted model on Xpt scheduling prior to introduction on the North.
They aren't the same as your day, thats what i'm trying to get across to you.

I would also believe that there would be a different criteria for load testing in todays railways and operations, for steam there is also the likelihood of some stringent tests for the specific locomotive that was in question. Take the example of 3801's tests, this is probably the first time that a loco had the water spray to test it for adhesion, I have never seen nor heard of such a test in the past, but knowing how 01 was back in the 60's with it being prone to slipping as well as other members of the class, & 3812 comes to my immediate memory, its a darn good idea though. The aspect in tests were that the loco used was the candidate and covered all other loco's in that class, that were of the same type, exception being light and heavy for Garratt's, in 01's test the other night while it had the tonneage, it still was a small load size wise though.
Every loco that does a test up Cowan, Steam or Diesel or Electric, has the water sprayers put on. The CM's did, The QBX's did, 6029 did and as you pointed out, 3801 did. This practice has been around for a while now. My argument at the time 6029 did the test was that the sprayers were installed right infront of the Driving wheels and not the front truck. The leading truck conditions the rail head before the driving wheels get to that bit of rail. We kept the sprayers where the authorities wanted them and passed on the first trip.

The aspect also what Lowndes has said regarding 6029 hauling a 1200tonne load from Rhodes to Thornleigh is interesting as he said it was without assistance. That load is pretty much double the load that a heavy Garratt would haul on that same grade, but they could haul 685 tonnes from Hornsby to BMD, having worked several through services on Garratt's over that grade, one being on 6017, another on 6032, with both loads being full and a combination of loaded and empty vehicles which made them close to full length. from Denistone to Epping and the from the Epping dip through Cheltenham and Beecroft we were at a crawl, when we reached Pennant Hills the grade eases and a welcome easing even with a stocker and good coal, we were down to around 185psi and 3/4 water in the primary static water gauge, which was a good result. Interesting is that there was no info about that train either, if the load test done on Cowan bank as was spoken on, that load and test would not normally have been sufficient to cover a test on the down though. For me a question on what he said is did that train have a diesel on the back and working with the Garratt haven't seen anything on that train anywhere even here on RP, as I would believe if it existed then there would have been a few camera hounds out there to record the event.
The trip up to Thornleigh was a decision made on the fly at Nth Strathfield by the Driver and Fireman on 6029 at the time. It wasnt advertised and it wasnt part of any official testing. It was a transfer train from Moss Vale to Hawkesbury River for the actual load test. No Diesels on the back of the train, they were on the front of the train and were told to shut off at Rhodes.

Bevan Wall was out at Beecroft that day. No one knew about what was going to happen up there, not even the crew. Infact the fireman didnt want to do it leaving Moss Vale to save on coal. At Nth Strathfield it was a 'F*%# It, hold my beer' moment.
So, based on what you have said in the last bit, which you have ignored your wonderous previous statement that said 6029 had a load of 1200tonnes from Rhodes to Thornleigh by itself the previous day, if it was a success then why go to Hawkesbury river for a test the following morning?

And where did the load mysteriously appear at North Strathfield, when they made a decision on the fly? No one knew what was to happen! gee that's a wonderful indictment on how things run these days.
a6et
Well you see, the blokes at Canberra knew Marvin. He zapped the load onto the train at Nth Strathfield...

I haven't ignored anything. Re-read my statement, it wasnt part of any official testing. The Adhesion test at Hawkesbury was in the evening, i never said anything about the following morning.

Like i said, Bevan was out that day. I'm not doing all the work for ya! No one knew what was about to happen from Rhodes to Thornleigh, not even the driver or fireman. It just happened. Which part of that can't you not understand? You search for the video, you watch the video you'll figure it out champ.

Sponsored advertisement

Display from: