Numbered 1201, standard NREC demo blue/gold livery. Cab looks to be out of the same Jig as the Qube locos, however the nose section extends further forward. Not fitted with DB, C-C bogies.
What rumours are circulating?
Won't be going anywhere with the wiff of a hill then with no dynamics...
Well, let me be the first to say it. If the long hood is the same height as the other NRE Gensets then it's going to look rather horrible with the 1100-ish cab.
Is ironic many have assumed the "Gen-set" bound for the locomotive equivalent of the Bermuda Triangle (NSW), HOWEVER the only media I have seen regarding NREC/GenSets was several arranged for trial on narrow guage in South Australia (GWA) to supplement loco fleet for upcomming ore contracts into Port Lincoln, this media was sometime ago. This would account for no Dyno, trying to keep weight down, remembering 830 and NJ axle load around the 12 tonne mark.
Is ironic many have assumed the "Gen-set" bound for the locomotive equivalent of the Bermuda Triangle (NSW).
HOWEVER the only media I have seen regarding NREC/GenSets was several arranged for trial on narrow guage in South Australia (GWA) to supplement loco fleet for upcomming ore contracts into Port Lincoln, this media was sometime ago. This would account for no Dyno, trying to keep weight down, remembering 830 and NJ axle load around the 12 tonne mark.
Jmt's, first post seems to infer that the locomotive is of standard gauge proportions. Obviously we don't have proof of that yet, but I think by what he has posted it's unlikely this locomotive if it does indeed make it to this country is bound for Port Lincoln as I'd have expected Jmt's post to indicate that the locomotive was smaller (maybe ex WAGR ‘A Class' size which is a probable limit on the EP) rather than larger in that the “…cab looks to be out of the same jig as the Qube locos, however the nose section extends further forward” and “from the cab after it looks like a standard US 3GS21C”. With those few things in mind, I wouldn't think this locomotive is bound for Port Lincoln.
I only said it'd be useless anywhere there's a hill, meaning it'll be useless there because of no dynamics but i didnt say itd be completely useless....
I'm struggling to think of an operator that could justify a "trip train only" engine in NSW. Is there anyone at SFT that thinks their business would be improved by having units on fleet that can't lift what an NR can or can't be rostered up at short notice to cover a failure. Likewise, most of PN R&Bs trip trains are continuations of mainline jobs. Do you park the mainline unit at Enfield while the genset takes the trip train to the docks, then put the same mainline unit back on the train for the trip to Nowra, Gunnedah etc? Qube seem to be rostering everything, everywhere so they would seem to rate versatility pretty highly. Doesn't leave much else.
Hmm , you'd have to go back a fair way to find a "mainline" diesel designed for use in NSW that didn't have a dynamic or regen brake incorporated into it . I strongly doubt anyone would buy a road unit that didn't have it . They are not an afterthought which is why the builders here all fit them.
Myself and others use the dynamic brake shunting at Chullora to hold back heavy rakes particularly when they are long because using the brakes means they stop all the time - which wastes time ……(insert irrelevant rant)… Chokes on a long train are a PITA because they take longer to release than is usefull on less severe grades and the result is you slow down more than you need to and in some cases virtually stop.
No one uses dynamic brakes going up hill - garbage . I had a longish Perth train recently on the up south and use the dyno brake to slow for the TSR at Bundanoon . Came past the 100 in the previous dip doing 98 bunched up against the dynos and went back to rolling and stretching a little above the restricted speed . Had I applied the brakes that train would have come to a stand on the rising grade.
Over time brake shoes cost a lot more than dynamic brake equipment does and allows higher average speeds on grades than brakes alone do . MZs are a silly example because they were never intended for use in places like Australia . They would be a lot slower down the mountains than say a pair of 81s 82 etc and ultimately cost the owners more in train operating costs . The people operating MZs don't do it because they have a choice they do it because they can't afford anything better .
We've disabled Quick Reply for this thread as it was last updated more than six months ago.