the orphan of the aurizon locomotive fleet in western Australia, ALZ3208 is being retired due to ongoing reliability problems and the fact that it seized a pinion last week and now has class 5 skidded wheels and it is not worth the cost of repairs.Ha - good riddance. Never liked the ALF's. Cramped desk top controls. Only good thing was an excellent air con unit in summer!!
wal.
Never should've left SA in the first place...
Well, ALF25 was pretty much based here in SA until that day in '06 (could be wrong?), as well as the other CLF/CLP's.
why?I'm hoping the logic behind that statement is "because it makes sense to keep a fleet of like locos together for ease of maintenence" and not "because it's a South Australian engine, and WA CAN'T HAVE IT". I'd expect the latter from a Victorian, but not a South Australian!
I'm hoping the logic behind that statement is "because it makes sense to keep a fleet of like locos together for ease of maintenence" and not "because it's a South Australian engine, and WA CAN'T HAVE IT". I'd expect the latter from a Victorian, but not a South Australian!
according to an earlier post in this thread he wants the clp/clf's back to.It would seem that they are mainly unemployed now, so he might be able to store at least some of them in his backyard...
Still ironic that 3000hp locos are being retired, whilst B's S's GM's and 44's are still out there working.Well, I'm inclined to agree with you at the face of it, although closer inspection...
Why are older loco's remaining while newer (supposedly higher horsepower) loco's being put out to pasture, easily answered the KISS principle..................keep it simple stupid, far less to malfunction on the old beasts and a 442/700 used to be able to pull 100 tonnes less to Mt Lofty than a CLP/F/ALF, assuming said product of MKo was producing somewhere near rated horsepowerYou are not reading Raichase's posting properly. They are all not being used. And there is no logic in stating a 422 class etc is simpler than a CLP for instance. None of them are really complex machines at all. Applying the same logic to cars I guess an Austin 7 is simple compared to a modern car, but would you really want to travel in one interstate, or anywhere for that matter? I think sentimentality is overcoming practicality and the economics involved.
I always wondered about the logic of how the locos were divided in the break up, and if a "one off" would have maintenance issues.It always seemed unusual that ARG kept one ALF when the other seven were retained by G & W. It would make sense to return it to South Australia where it would be used on the Darwin line. Similarly return the two NJ's, they would be needed at Port Lincoln. You can only patch up Alco's so much plus they are lower horsepower. There are some former ARG locos at Port Lincoln and Whyalla that could return west.
Still ironic that 3000hp locos are being retired, whilst B's S's GM's and 44's are still out there working.
You are not reading Raichase's posting properly. They are all not being used. And there is no logic in stating a 422 class etc is simpler than a CLP for instance. None of them are really complex machines at all. Applying the same logic to cars I guess an Austin 7 is simple compared to a modern car, but would you really want to travel in one interstate, or anywhere for that matter? I think sentimentality is overcoming practicality and the economics involved.I think that crew conditions and reliability far outweigh any notion of "it's simpler because it's older". Talk to any railwayman (I'm lucky that a few talk back) and they'll tell you that, even if they LIKE the older locos, the newer stuff is generally more reliable, more user-friendly, and can pull more. Take Qube's 44 Class, at their prime, they had a fleet of about nine of them. At any given time, the most you would see in service was three. Three from nine? Those are not good numbers - imagine if the 82 Class fleet, or the NR Class fleet had TWO THIRDS out of service at any given time...
It always seemed unusual that ARG kept one ALF when the other seven were retained by G & W. It would make sense to return it to South Australia where it would be used on the Darwin line. Similarly return the two NJ's, they would be needed at Port Lincoln. You can only patch up Alco's so much plus they are lower horsepower. There are some former ARG locos at Port Lincoln and Whyalla that could return west.
That will be up to G&W making a cash offer Aurizon can't refuse...and considering G&W has just bought a bunch of new narrow and standard gauge locos, I doubt they're interested in buying some forty year old members of their legacy fleet.
That will be up to G&W making a cash offer Aurizon can't refuse...and considering G&W has just bought a bunch of new narrow and standard gauge locos, I doubt they're interested in buying some forty year old members of their legacy fleet.
I think that crew conditions and reliability far outweigh any notion of "it's simpler because it's older". Talk to any railwayman (I'm lucky that a few talk back) and they'll tell you that, even if they LIKE the older locos, the newer stuff is generally more reliable, more user-friendly, and can pull more. Take Qube's 44 Class, at their prime, they had a fleet of about nine of them. At any given time, the most you would see in service was three. Three from nine? Those are not good numbers - imagine if the 82 Class fleet, or the NR Class fleet had TWO THIRDS out of service at any given time...Just to be a cuss, and not entirely contradicting...
I think that crew conditions and reliability far outweigh any notion of "it's simpler because it's older". Talk to any railwayman (I'm lucky that a few talk back) and they'll tell you that, even if they LIKE the older locos, the newer stuff is generally more reliable, more user-friendly, and can pull more. Take Qube's 44 Class, at their prime, they had a fleet of about nine of them. At any given time, the most you would see in service was three. Three from nine? Those are not good numbers - imagine if the 82 Class fleet, or the NR Class fleet had TWO THIRDS out of service at any given time...
I think that crew conditions and reliability far outweigh any notion of "it's simpler because it's older". Talk to any railwayman (I'm lucky that a few talk back) and they'll tell you that, even if they LIKE the older locos, the newer stuff is generally more reliable, more user-friendly, and can pull more. Take Qube's 44 Class, at their prime, they had a fleet of about nine of them. At any given time, the most you would see in service was three. Three from nine? Those are not good numbers - imagine if the 82 Class fleet, or the NR Class fleet had TWO THIRDS out of service at any given time...
Just to be a cuss, and not entirely contradicting...As someone who freely admits that he has no experience with the freight side of the railways at all, that is very interesting to read! I was under the impression that the more modern locos were far less thirsty on the fuel, and combined with increased reliability made for lower overall running costs. Fascinating insight, thanks Grantham. Interesting indeed. I guess it was naive of me to suspect that the ONLY reason the clunkers got a second lease in life was a locomotive shortage.
The newer stuff might be generally more reliable, more user friendly and able to pull more, but the older stuff is cheaper and quicker to repair, adequately comfy and able to pull the job at hand. The expenses are far lower, even if the payload is not the same. For example, it is cheaper to keep two Jumbos and say, a B on a job than two Gs or other more modern engines.
M
We've disabled Quick Reply for this thread as it was last updated more than six months ago.