XPT replacement thread 2019

 
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
For what its worth here is the documentation:

Bi-mode is a diesel-electric hybrid which will allow the fleet to run on overhead power when operating on the electrified section of the train network.
https://www.transport.nsw.gov.au/system/files/media/documents/2019/Fact%20sheet%20-%20Bi-mode%20technology%20-%20September%202019.pdf

and a nice video:



https://youtu.be/3Cqn10YE8ZU

cheers
arctic
Thanks for that link.

Its both interesting and good to see and i think the right path forward. Longer term, freights should be required to do so as well and before those in the know jump in. Yes there is a max power draw from the OH possible and some diesel power will still be required.

Sponsored advertisement

  a6et Minister for Railways

"It will allow" ... But will it actually happen? Is the UK actually using this hybrid system on its CAFs?
Yes! The Civity UK multiple units ordered by Transport for Wales will have bi-mode power and the operator will have to make penalty payments if they run them using diesel power in electrified sectors.

Outside of units being built by CAF, UK operations using bi-mode (electric, diesel) units are already underway using Hitachi AT300 units (TOPS class numbers 800, 802), Stadler FLIRT units (class 755) and Stadler UKDual (class 88) locomotives.

Soon to enter service will be the Flex bi-mode multiple units, Class 319 EMUs being rebuilt by Brush Traction with MAN gensets feeding into the existing power bus of the EMU. Those ordered by GWR will be capable of running on both AC and DC electrified lines for GWR services between London Gatwick Airport (on the 750V DC lines of the former Southern Region) and destinations such as Oxford.
justapassenger
I would say the big benefit of these trains will be on the western line owing to the mountains and the grades there. If, as I have said before they come with dynamic brake control then they have the potential to put power back into the system as did the old 46cl, thus descending from Katoomba - Emu Plains, also from Clarence - Lithgow there would be no basic operating costs for power/fuel. Given that Dubbo will be the main maintenance centre for them, it can add a lot of savings.

The next line of course is the Short North, even here, Cowan bank on the down and Hornsby down to West Ryde can also create cost saving benefits with dyno.

Should the state gov really look into the bypass rail project for the southern Highlands and have it electrified, there is another line of benefit.  Each of those 3 primary main lines would then have around 150's each of wires for the benefit of the dual power.
  djf01 Chief Commissioner

"It will allow" ... But will it actually happen? Is the UK actually using this hybrid system on its CAFs?
Yes! The Civity UK multiple units ordered by Transport for Wales will have bi-mode power and the operator will have to make penalty payments if they run them using diesel power in electrified sectors.

Outside of units being built by CAF, UK operations using bi-mode (electric, diesel) units are already underway using Hitachi AT300 units (TOPS class numbers 800, 802), Stadler FLIRT units (class 755) and Stadler UKDual (class 88) locomotives.

Soon to enter service will be the Flex bi-mode multiple units, Class 319 EMUs being rebuilt by Brush Traction with MAN gensets feeding into the existing power bus of the EMU. Those ordered by GWR will be capable of running on both AC and DC electrified lines for GWR services between London Gatwick Airport (on the 750V DC lines of the former Southern Region) and destinations such as Oxford.
I would say the big benefit of these trains will be on the western line owing to the mountains and the grades there. If, as I have said before they come with dynamic brake control then they have the potential to put power back into the system as did the old 46cl, thus descending from Katoomba - Emu Plains, also from Clarence - Lithgow there would be no basic operating costs for power/fuel. Given that Dubbo will be the main maintenance centre for them, it can add a lot of savings.
a6et

A few points:
  • I don't know of this is still true, but AFAIK as recently as 10 years ago the RailCorp had a fixed price contract for electricity - paying for X Megawatts a year in bulk, regardless of what they actually consumed.
  • The only places in the world I'm aware of that run DM trains are the UK and New York.  NYC prohibits diesels (and steam) in Manhattan.
  • In the UK their core main lines are electrified *and* medium/high speed, but the extensive branch network is not.  The DMUs can't keep pace with the timetable on the electrified sections.
  • The other thing driving DM in Britain is franchising.  The operators need to be able to bid and counter bid on the various routes, and they can't do it if their fleet is tied to the variegates of a given route.  So there is a trend to design the newer vehicles to be operable on all routes.  I dare say the manufacturers like this idea too.  So the trend is for multi-voltage EMUs - possibly tilting for the West Coast - with Diesel gensets allowing them to operate anywhere.
  • My understanding is the power flow into the rail network is one way.  The only thing regen power can be used for is powering another train in the same electrical segment, otherwise it's dissipated as heat in resistor banks.  I'd be happy if someone knowledgeable - rather than just speculating - could clarify this for me.  In other words, regen braking power is recycled in the City Circle, but not usually on the Cowan Bank.

IMHO DM makes no sense at all in NSW.  As I understand it, the 1500V DC distribution is so energy inefficient it's both cheaper and more environmentally friendly just to generate power on site.  

NSW doesn't need electric traction to maintain a fast timetable, the DMUs are the fastest vehicles in our fleets.

NSW has a dearth of slots into Sydney, and a very small DMU fleet.  Most DMU service will continue to interchange with the electrified network and only rarely operate under wires.

IMHO it's hard not to come to the conclusion the current management - mostly "experts" from England - and following the English trend, because it *must* be the right thing to do.

That said, I have always believed RailCorp (or whatever they are now) has needed a small SD EMU/DMU in the 200-300 seat range for route that don't run directly into the Sydney CBD.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
I would say the big benefit of these trains will be on the western line owing to the mountains and the grades there. If, as I have said before they come with dynamic brake control then they have the potential to put power back into the system as did the old 46cl, thus descending from Katoomba - Emu Plains, also from Clarence - Lithgow there would be no basic operating costs for power/fuel. Given that Dubbo will be the main maintenance centre for them, it can add a lot of savings.Outside of units being built by CAF, UK operations using bi-mode (electric, diesel) units are already underway using Hitachi AT300 units (TOPS class numbers 800, 802), Stadler FLIRT units (class 755) and Stadler UKDual (class 88) l

A few points:
  • I don't know of this is still true, but AFAIK as recently as 10 years ago the RailCorp had a fixed price contract for electricity - paying for X Megawatts a year in bulk, regardless of what they actually consumed.
  • The only places in the world I'm aware of that run DM trains are the UK and New York.  NYC prohibits diesels (and steam) in Manhattan.
  • In the UK their core main lines are electrified *and* medium/high speed, but the extensive branch network is not.  The DMUs can't keep pace with the timetable on the electrified sections.
  • The other thing driving DM in Britain is franchising.  The operators need to be able to bid and counter bid on the various routes, and they can't do it if their fleet is tied to the variegates of a given route.  So there is a trend to design the newer vehicles to be operable on all routes.  I dare say the manufacturers like this idea too.  So the trend is for multi-voltage EMUs - possibly tilting for the West Coast - with Diesel gensets allowing them to operate anywhere.
  • My understanding is the power flow into the rail network is one way.  The only thing regen power can be used for is powering another train in the same electrical segment, otherwise it's dissipated as heat in resistor banks.  I'd be happy if someone knowledgeable - rather than just speculating - could clarify this for me.  In other words, regen braking power is recycled in the City Circle, but not usually on the Cowan Bank.

IMHO DM makes no sense at all in NSW.  As I understand it, the 1500V DC distribution is so energy inefficient it's both cheaper and more environmentally friendly just to generate power on site.  

NSW doesn't need electric traction to maintain a fast timetable, the DMUs are the fastest vehicles in our fleets.

NSW has a dearth of slots into Sydney, and a very small DMU fleet.  Most DMU service will continue to interchange with the electrified network and only rarely operate under wires.

IMHO it's hard not to come to the conclusion the current management - mostly "experts" from England - and following the English trend, because it *must* be the right thing to do.

That said, I have always believed RailCorp (or whatever they are now) has needed a small SD EMU/DMU in the 200-300 seat range for route that don't run directly into the Sydney CBD.
djf01
I'd say you wouldn't bother putting in DC-AC convertors at each sub unless there was a significant opportunity available and unlikely there's not, especially in high traffic areas where the regen energy is easily re-used. QR have them fitted on the newer fleet of EMU's but there is more justification, the older fleet soon to be retired does not.

Fixed price power belongs with the stage coach. Railcorp should be just charging fixed rate fee to access the OH and the rail operators can sign contracts with electricity providers of their choosing to take advantage of peak pricing.

Its quite possible that the trip under the wires on say the NCL simply allows the trains to do a return trip on one tank.

As for using the OH elsewhere, there is a noise and emissions benefit especially sitting there ate Central.

The DMU's maybe the fastest in top end speed, but are they the fastest in acceleration and hence slot in nicely with the EMU fleet without needing large gaps?

The hybrid design may also be used as a cost off-set in that by buying the hybrids they DO NOT have to expand the OH further into marginal to loss making corridors just because people perceive diesels to be old and slow and eliminate "all out, all change" for South Coast and Southern Highlands.

This would also include previous discussions on the Bathurst Bullet being a shuttle to Lithgow or running through. For example using CAF, you could run 2-3 Bathurst Bullets per day all the way to the city and use the service as a express for Lithgow to Katoomba passengers as well.
  justapassenger Chief Commissioner

A few points:
  • The only places in the world I'm aware of that run DM trains are the UK and New York.  NYC prohibits diesels (and steam) in Manhattan.
djf01
Bi-mode is used in a variety of areas throughout mainland Europe too.

It's great for giving direct services to regional areas without choking up

  • The other thing driving DM in Britain is franchising.  The operators need to be able to bid and counter bid on the various routes, and they can't do it if their fleet is tied to the variegates of a given route.  So there is a trend to design the newer vehicles to be operable on all routes.  I dare say the manufacturers like this idea too.  So the trend is for multi-voltage EMUs - possibly tilting for the West Coast - with Diesel gensets allowing them to operate anywhere.
djf01
Incorrect.

Fleets are tied to the various franchise regions and leased by the company which operates them at the time. The train operating companies are not permitted to own their vehicles.

It is true that the modern manufacturers are angling towards modular designs which can be produced with electric/diesel/bi-mode/tri-mode drivetrains as required (and other variations, e.g. taller gearing and longer crumple zones for >160km/h running, door positions, interior configurations, with/without toilets, signalling equipment) without needing to completely redesign the whole platform.

QR have them fitted on the newer fleet of EMU's but there is more justification, the older fleet soon to be retired does not.
RTT_Rules
QR has 25kV electrification, which has much larger distances between neutral sections and therefor allows better use of regeneration.

Fixed price power belongs with the stage coach. Railcorp should be just charging fixed rate fee to access the OH and the rail operators can sign contracts with electricity providers of their choosing to take advantage of peak pricing.
RTT_Rules
All the major manufacturers of modern EMUs - CAF included - offer power metering as an option, allowing for operators to get better deals for themselves than a price per kilometre that offers no incentive for efficiency.

Its quite possible that the trip under the wires on say the NCL simply allows the trains to do a return trip on one tank.
RTT_Rules
One of the big benefits of bi-mode.

As for using the OH elsewhere, there is a noise and emissions benefit especially sitting there ate Central.
RTT_Rules
A better ambience at the major stations is no small deal.

London Paddington has been completely transformed by even just the partial replacement (there are still some IC125 sets hanging) of the InterCity 125 sets with the Hitachi AT300 on GWR intercity routes. As well as passengers not being choked by a dense fog of particulates belching out from engines grandfathered in under emissions rules, the elimination of drop toilets has made a difference too.

Conversion to bi-mode would allow more stations to gain roofs from one side to the other, making for a superior passenger experience in all weather conditions. Good design should ensure they provide good shade in summer while being self-ventilating.
  simstrain Chief Commissioner

Where did you get your information about the Sydney electric network being inefficient. If the 1500vdc was as inefficient as you say then why are any of our trains electric?

Studies in the US have found that powering trains by electricity is at least 50% less expensive then diesel powered vehicles (https://www.eesi.org/articles/view/electrification-of-u.s.-railways-pie-in-the-sky-or-realistic-goal). 25kv ac is more efficient then 1500vdc but there is no way a diesel powered vehicle is more efficient then an electric one.
  djf01 Chief Commissioner

Where did you get your information about the Sydney electric network being inefficient. If the 1500vdc was as inefficient as you say then why are any of our trains electric?
simstrain

1500V DC was cutting edge in 1923.  I've been trying to find a source that quantifies the efficiency of the Sydney Trains electrical distribution system compared with more standard 25KV systems.  My qualitative understanding is lower voltage means more current & commensurate more losses to heating.  It's a trade off is a between acceptable losses, substation frequency, cable thickness.  I've read it numerous times over the years, but I can't recall the sources, and none of those were qualitative.  I really would like to know just how significant the difference is (ie how much I'm talking out my rs).

IMHO it's telling the instant (in the early 1990s IIRC) private operators had the choice of paying extra to use RailCorp overhead or operate diesels, they went for the latter.  Perhaps RailCorp overcharged for access to the overhead.

As I said, I'd really like to read an electrical engineer's assessment of the average/typical distribution losses associated with electric traction, and a comparison of 1500V DV vs 25Kv AC.  So @sims, if you can back up your assertion diesels are less efficient than 1500DC, I'd like to see it.
  tazzer96 Deputy Commissioner

The part where 25kc AC becomes more "efficent" isn't so much the delievrance of the electricity, its just that on busy systems such as sydney and melbourne you need alot more substations, and building them is costly.  Its not a case of a 1500v DC train ends up using 2x as much electricity as a 25kV AC
  a6et Minister for Railways

Where did you get your information about the Sydney electric network being inefficient. If the 1500vdc was as inefficient as you say then why are any of our trains electric?

1500V DC was cutting edge in 1923.  I've been trying to find a source that quantifies the efficiency of the Sydney Trains electrical distribution system compared with more standard 25KV systems.  My qualitative understanding is lower voltage means more current & commensurate more losses to heating.  It's a trade off is a between acceptable losses, substation frequency, cable thickness.  I've read it numerous times over the years, but I can't recall the sources, and none of those were qualitative.  I really would like to know just how significant the difference is (ie how much I'm talking out my rs).

IMHO it's telling the instant (in the early 1990s IIRC) private operators had the choice of paying extra to use RailCorp overhead or operate diesels, they went for the latter.  Perhaps RailCorp overcharged for access to the overhead.

As I said, I'd really like to read an electrical engineer's assessment of the average/typical distribution losses associated with electric traction, and a comparison of 1500V DV vs 25Kv AC.  So @sims, if you can back up your assertion diesels are less efficient than 1500DC, I'd like to see it.
djf01
This is purely from a layman who worked on 46cl and on etr Sydney from 76-78.

I have read much about the benefits of both the 1500volts DC and the later 25Kv AC, given as you say that 1500 v DC was cutting edge when introduced in 1923, that system was the principal power source for not just the Primary Suburban trains at the time but also when time to extend came into being with the line to Lithgow and later to Gosford, which may well have benefitted by the 26kv but did that really exist in 1956 & 59?  By that point of time the wires finished at Gosford, & Marangaroo, Loftus on the Illawarra and Liverpool on the South, at that point of time there was the beginnings of plans for the wider electrification, thing is IF the 25KV AC system was available at say the time of the next primary extension to Glenlee took place, what would the cost have been to shift to the newer system as it would only have been worthwhile if the whole Electrified system at the time had been converted, meaning new power stations, new trains as well as the cost to replace the old O/head at that time???

The aspect of the through running of diesels initially by National rail under Vince Graham was not so much the cost of the O/head but under Graham and the successive opening up of freight services to the many different operators we see today also made the call to run the diesels as through running of crews and no stopping for engine changes at BMD, and at Lithgow on the west.   What seems a minimal cost saving in not having to change engines is more than one would think even if done at BMD station or yards/through roads it would require extra crews to have the engines to carry the loads forward out in engine roads, along with their wages and having to be basically shed crews, for that time. At BMD a minimum of 15 minutes would be required plus a logical place for the crew to have crib, another 10 minutes. Total of 25minutes minimum.

Having the diesels run through meant that a crib break would be made at Controls convenience at a crossing loop, and the train would have the engine change time knocked out, and the costs of the shed/relay crews were also done away with. A fair saving in itself without factoring in the cost of use of the overhead.  Rather than just getting ready to go on the diesels with engine change, the train would likely have gotten to around Metford/Victoria St in that time, or further, as times have to be also taken into consideration of the slowing down - stop - engine change - Restart, not sure how it was at the time but with engine change taking place there were needs to check the train for air testing, meaning some unspecified extra times at the exchange location.

Just in total wage savings on the diesel through running with non stopping/relay and the relay crew needed, the wages add up.
  djf01 Chief Commissioner

The part where 25kc AC becomes more "efficent" isn't so much the delievrance of the electricity, its just that on busy systems such as sydney and melbourne you need alot more substations, and building them is costly.  Its not a case of a 1500v DC train ends up using 2x as much electricity as a 25kV AC
tazzer96

I never said it 2x.  But equally it's not 1x either.  DC - or more accurately lower voltage - means more amps and more heating loss, which is why the substations need to be closer, overhead needs to be heavier and tolerated losses are (probably) greater.
  simstrain Chief Commissioner

The part where 25kc AC becomes more "efficent" isn't so much the delievrance of the electricity, its just that on busy systems such as sydney and melbourne you need alot more substations, and building them is costly.  Its not a case of a 1500v DC train ends up using 2x as much electricity as a 25kV AC

I never said it 2x.  But equally it's not 1x either.  DC - or more accurately lower voltage - means more amps and more heating loss, which is why the substations need to be closer, overhead needs to be heavier and tolerated losses are (probably) greater.
djf01

We aren't talking about 25kv vs 1.5kv however. We are talking about diesel vs 1500vdc. Whatever losses 1500vdc has compared to 25kv is nothing compared to the losses from diesel power. I posted a link in my previous reply to a US transportation article that shows that electric traction is at the very least 50% more efficient then diesel. electric traction gets about 90% usable power vs 30% for diesel.

I would really like to see what article you have that shows diesel being even remotely close to electricity for efficiency?
  Matthew Train Controller

I would really like to see what article you have that shows diesel being even remotely close to electricity for efficiency?
simstrain


I'm sure if you change the objective to 'economic efficiency' instead of a simple physics or engineering efficiency, diesel power becomes much more 'efficient' and closer or even overtakes electricity.

And that's the problem with extending the range and use of electric traction - the money guys only look at relatively short term economic efficiency and not long term engineering/environmental effcienty - things that often don't have clear dollar values attached to them anyway.

That's the problem with long-distance mainline electrification in Australia - diesel fuel is still too cheap, making diesel traction 'more effcient' (in raw $$$$ terms) than electricity.
  djf01 Chief Commissioner

I would really like to see what article you have that shows diesel being even remotely close to electricity for efficiency?

I'm sure if you change the objective to 'economic efficiency' instead of a simple physics or engineering efficiency, diesel power becomes much more 'efficient' and closer or even overtakes electricity.
Matthew


Electric Trains vs. Diesel Trains
Though trains are more efficient than trucks, not all trains are equally efficient. Diesel-powered trains transfer about 30-35 percent of the energy generated by combustion to the wheels, while supplying electricity directly from an overhead powerline transfers about 95 percent of the energy to the wheels. Powering trains with electricity rather than diesel has several other benefits ...

The statement above is ... IMHO ... very misleading as it conflates electrical transmission efficiency with electrical power generation and distribution efficiency.

All electrical power generation has a thermal efficiency.  Generally, in larger scale the efficiency improves, but the actual thermal efficiency varies greatly depending on the technology of generation used.  The idea behind electrification is one big hunking steam turbine is more thermally efficient than 100 little steam engines aboard locomotives.

But ... there are losses distributing the power.  These vary greatly depending on the location of the power stations, the size of the grid, the weather, what else is on the grid etc.  *Then* there is the 1500V vs 25kV.  The later should be more energy efficient, but it may not be.  I'd like to see some hard data on that.

There are also capacity factors to consider.  Most of the power generated by a locomotive is actually used at source for it's intended purpose: moving a train.  The total potential power output of a big hunking power station is not always used, because it can't readily change it's output to match demand.  Typically it's still around 90%.

@RRT_RULES might like to help us out here, there are tables on the all the transmission loss factors for each generator on the NEM, as there are for the distributors - all published somewhere.

But essentially, the argument for diesel is the "small" generator just the right size for the task at had is not as thermally efficient as the large stationary generator.  No question about that.  But it's not more efficient by a factor x2 - though perhaps an older diesel with a 30% efficiency vs a CGST generator of ~60% is the extreme case.  In some cases (Victorian brown coal ?) the off site generator can be less thermally efficient than a modern diesel.

Then, there are the losses from capacity factors, transmission and distribution.

These numbers are just fabrications to illustrate the point, but if:
Large scale power generation is 45% thermally efficient.
Diesel generation at 35%.
But there are 10% losses due to capacity factors, 10% in transmission and 10% in distribution, you are better off simply generating the power at source.

Electric traction is way more efficient that direct steam, but I don't think the case for diesel is as clear cut.
  justapassenger Chief Commissioner

Before going any further, please explain why the rest of the diesel supply chain up to the point of putting the hose in the train's tank is exempt from consideration?
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
Transmission Loss factors link for those excited about
https://www.aemo.com.au/Electricity/National-Electricity-Market-NEM/Security-and-reliability/Loss-factor-and-regional-boundaries

I think in short the term "efficiency" for rail traction basically refers to "cost efficiency", i.e. what is the cheapest way to move the trains and for O/H you need a level of traffic density to justify it, a traffic density rarely found outside the commuter networks with exception of the CQ coal networks and I suspect the Hunter may also be viable but lacks will and vertical integration to drive it.
  ANR Assistant Commissioner

Why couldn't we get WA to build our trains both the XPT replacements and interurban?

We could have used our own steel, labour and knowhow.

https://www.railpage.com.au/f-t11400835.htm
  viaprojects Train Controller



We could have used our own steel, labour and knowhow.
ANR
ask the nsw gov ... nsw has the skills , just not allow to build stuff with government workers / resources ...
  simstrain Chief Commissioner



We could have used our own steel, labour and knowhow. ask the nsw gov ... nsw has the skills , just not allow to build stuff with government workers / resources ...
viaprojects
Skills in NSW were lost in the mining boom. Most of the electricians and technicians fled interstate. After the mbug edi only had enough technical staff to work on the drivers cabs.

None of the other states have any clue of how to build a double deck train and none of them tendered for the XPT replacement which was won by a train that is innovative, efficient and nobody else is making in this country. It is also being made in Aluminium and not steel.
  ANR Assistant Commissioner

Sims, a train is a train, double decker, single deck, etc, if engineers are involved, they can build anything. How did Australia advance this far on its own? Was the Opera House or Sydney Harbour bridge built overseas and sent here for finishing touches?

Whether NSW trains are built in Vic, SA or WA shouldnt matter. We would still be talking about Australian jobs and the All around benefits to the economy.

I think it's time to stop selling ourselves short. Sending construction projects overseas is an act of treason.
  simstrain Chief Commissioner

Sims, a train is a train, double decker, single deck, etc, if engineers are involved, they can build anything. How did Australia advance this far on its own? Was the Opera House or Sydney Harbour bridge built overseas and sent here for finishing touches?

Whether NSW trains are built in Vic, SA or WA shouldnt matter. We would still be talking about Australian jobs and the All around benefits to the economy.

I think it's time to stop selling ourselves short. Sending construction projects overseas is an act of treason.
ANR
A train is not just a train. WA isn't building a train so much as just assembling it. Same goes for Victoria and QLD. Sydney's economy is based on imports nowadays anyway. It has been since manufacturing left the state in the late 80s and 90's.
  ANR Assistant Commissioner

If one state has seen the closure of its manufacturing sector, then another can be used to assemble or construct.

Further to what I have said previously, when putting out tenders, Australian sheet metal should be used.

Time to stop with the excuses and put Australia to work.
  viaprojects Train Controller

If one state has seen the closure of its manufacturing sector, then another can be used to assemble or construct.

Further to what I have said previously, when putting out tenders, Australian sheet metal should be used.

Time to stop with the excuses and put Australia to work.
ANR


afik we don't use much sheet metal on AU rail projects  ...
  route14 Chief Commissioner

I don't think we should bring in so much political influence in train manufacring, as long as the train is reliable at reasonable cost.  Victoria's HCMT comes from China Rail Corp Changchun Rollingstock Factory, whose other products operate on a number of Shanghai lines reliably.
  route14 Chief Commissioner

manufacturing
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
If one state has seen the closure of its manufacturing sector, then another can be used to assemble or construct.

Further to what I have said previously, when putting out tenders, Australian sheet metal should be used.

Time to stop with the excuses and put Australia to work.
ANR
Agree, trains bought in sufficient volume should be forced to be assembled in Aust with a min amount of local content. This still provides plenty of scope for competition.

I know Sim's seems to think the whole thing will arrive in a box but typically the basic frame and body is at least manufactured in the country with traction, control and other similar systems imported and installed. Sydney trains is now large enough to have almost permanent ongoing supply of trains to replace expansion and retirement. Brisbane and Perth between the two of them kept EDI Marybough busy for the best part of 3 decades.

The problem is the state premiers are often too pig headed and self focused to worry about Made in Australia if its not in their state.

Sponsored advertisement

Subscribers: a6et, RTT_Rules, Transtopic

Display from: