Still going to have the pre historic desk top and 30A brake valve antiques .
Be interesting to see if a high mileage 710 and a bit less tank is going to fit in with repowered NRs range wise .
Intermodals issues appear to be lack of range with 93s , blame Sydney Trains backwards standards for that , and the consistent failures with the inline fuelling systems .
93s sometimes don't give good fuel consumption in high speed service and I reckon it's because they are geared to pull big loads at lower speeds . Intermodals schedules don't allow for crawling around at 20 km/h even with 1700+ tonnes an engine , the specs say maximum continuous tractive effort of 525 Kn and I've seen them do 500 at 20 km/h . Needs to be 500 at more like 28 to 30 km/h .
Like a DC unit an AC would load its traction motors higher in the medium speed ranges if the gearing was taller and IMO give better fuel consumption because of it . And no doubt still out drag the alternative 130+ tonne 3-4000 Hp DC units . Need a "Fast Forty" upgrade here . 93s like 92s are slugs at 90+km/h , all revs and noise with SFA Nm's to pull with . Probably fine if 60-80 is the norm like in coal service .
Other rumors circulating - like the NRs on Bulk trains not coping too well with low speed loading/tipping .
And rumors of the two TTS on the Tahmoor's going back home .
Supposedly PN trialling a few CF44s on something down south .
I hear that 82s are going different places nowdays and it makes me wonder how long the 81s small tank and consumption will be tolerated .