Surival of the 442 Class

 
  M636C Minister for Railways

Down Gunning for a few days and got this for a change from the usual 81 & 82 procession,  44202 leading Qube's up grain yesterday (2/1/12) at top bridge Cullerin RangesBooly
That leading 44202 is fast approaching its half century as wiki says it left AE Goodwin's Sydney factory in 1971. I am ignoring the possible 'Grandfather's Axe' scenario regarding how much is original etc etc. I am also ignoring any parts that were originally in the 40 class and reworked and fitted to the 442s, which is all covered in various books readily available anyway. If interested in these 442 matters, start a separate thread or read
[color=#0066cc][size=2][font=Roboto, wf_SegoeUI,]https://www.railpage.com.au/locos/442-class[/font][/size][/color]

-Petan


The above was posted in the NSW Sightings thread with the suggestion that a new thread might be started to discuss the 442 class.


Checking Wikipedia, ten 442 class remain in their original condition, all but one still operational.
Twelve were rebuilt as GL class, retaining the original frames and bogies.

Another twelve were sold to Morrison Knudsen and were moved to Whyalla for rebuilding as RL class
Of this twelve, eight were actually rebuilt as RL class by MK, although not completed to operational standards.
Two, 44223 and 44226 were resold to Silverton becoming 442s5 and 442s6.
The remaining two were dismantled but not rebuilt as RL class by MK.

After some years the eight RLs were moved to Islington, but in this process one was damaged (so RL 308 was never completed).

The work in Islington was controlled by the American company NREC.
MK had cut the centre section (including the integral fuel tank) out of the 442 frame and added a new longer centre section with an EMD style recess for the engine and alternator.

NREC were concerned that the sections of original 442 class frame were not strong enough and designed and built new frame sections to replace them. This meant that none of the original 442 class frames were used, although the bogie pivot was reused on the new frames. The new frames were slightly deeper, but since the MK bodywork was used, the RL class were right at the limit of the loading gauge. This made fitting radio antennas a bit difficult, and the new locomotives were also close to the maximum allowed weight, and carbon fibre side panels had to be used instead of steel.

RL309 and 310 did not use any 442 class frame components but did use the bogies and traction motors.

So the nine RL class all use 442 class bogies and traction motors.

Thus of the forty 442 class locomotives built, 31 of the forty are still around in recognisable form, 30 operational...

Peter

Sponsored advertisement

  M636C Minister for Railways

My apologies regarding the misspelling of "Survival" in the title.

I find I can neither edit the title to correct the spelling nor delete the thread...

Peter
  petan Chief Commissioner

Location: Waiting to see a zebra using a zebra crossing!
Down Gunning for a few days and got this for a change from the usual 81 & 82 procession,  44202 leading Qube's up grain yesterday (2/1/12) at top bridge Cullerin RangesBooly
That leading 44202 is fast approaching its half century as wiki says it left AE Goodwin's Sydney factory in 1971. I am ignoring the possible 'Grandfather's Axe' scenario regarding how much is original etc etc. I am also ignoring any parts that were originally in the 40 class and reworked and fitted to the 442s, which is all covered in various books readily available anyway. If interested in these 442 matters, start a separate thread or read
[color=#0066cc][size=2][font=Roboto, wf_SegoeUI,]https://www.railpage.com.au/locos/442-class[/font][/size][/color]

-Petan

The above was posted in the NSW Sightings thread with the suggestion that a new thread might be started to discuss the 442 class.

Checking Wikipedia, ten 442 class remain in their original condition, all but one still operational.
Twelve were rebuilt as GL class, retaining the original frames and bogies.

Another twelve were sold to Morrison Knudsen and were moved to Whyalla for rebuilding as RL class
Of this twelve, eight were actually rebuilt as RL class by MK, although not completed to operational standards.
Two, 44223 and 44226 were resold to Silverton becoming 442s5 and 442s6.
The remaining two were dismantled but not rebuilt as RL class by MK.

After some years t recessed section to accomodatehe eight RLs were moved to Islington, but in this process on was damaged (so RL 308 was never completed.

The work in Islington was controlled by the American company NREC.
MK had cut the centre section (including the integral fuel tank) out of the 442 frame and added a new longer centre section with an EMD style recess for the engine and alternator.

NREC were concerned that the sections of original 442 class frame were not strong enough and designed and built new frame sections to replace them. This meant that none of the original 442 class frames were used, although the bogie pivot was reused on the new frames. The new frames were slightly deeper, but since the MK bodywork was used, the RL class were right at the limit of the loading gauge. This made fitting radio antennas a bit difficult, and the new locomotives were also close to the maximum allowed weight, and carbon fibre side panels had to be used instead of steel.

RL309 and 310 did not use ant 442 class frame components but did use the bogies and traction motors.

So the nine RL class all use 442 class bogies and traction motors.

Thus of the forty locomotives built, 31 of the forty are still around in recognisable form, 30 operational...

Peter
M636C
Thanks for this thread as I thought this class earned its keep!  I would have started the thread myself, Peter, but I would have just copied from your own 1973 'An Australian diesel locomotive pocketbook' or your later books or the Comeng Vol 3 book. Cheers Peter Cokley
  Booly Junior Train Controller

Here is 442s2 still earning its keep sandwiched in-between the all EMD line-up of C509 RL301 C504 & C510 at Sutherland 29/12/2020

https://flic.kr/p/2koYqMs
  sam6778 Junior Train Controller

Location: Rockingham, WA
Is there any chance of SSR re-activating 44226 in the future?  Cheers.
  Booly Junior Train Controller

Here is a zoomed in shot of 44202 with the oil running down the side in typical AlCo fashion
https://flic.kr/p/2kpjrBt
  petan Chief Commissioner

Location: Waiting to see a zebra using a zebra crossing!
Some 442 load data;

Working Timetables (WTT) such as the 1974 and 1979 Northern WTTs, issued after the introduction of the 442 class, showed loco loads as either 43 class, main line types or branch line types, with the 442 class in with the 44 and 45 classes. The GMs were not generally in the north at that stage.

The 1979 Northern WTT showed Brisbane Limited Nos l and 2 Express Services timed to convey a load of 542 tonnes Sydney-South Brisbane -Sydney, worked by two 442 class locomotives Sydney-Taree-Sydney and single 442 class locomotive Taree-South Brisbane-Taree. In the event of No. I Brisbane Limited Express being worked by a single 442 class locomotive between Sydney and Taree, the following Permissible Loss of Time applied: (I won't list southbound permitted loss of time as you get the general idea)
Sydney-Gosford-7.5 minutes.
Gosford-Broadmeadow-2.5 minutes.
Broadmeadow-Taree-5.5 minutes

Nos 3 and 4 Express Services (Murwillumbah MotoRail) timed to convey a load of 500 tonnes Sydney-Murwillumbah-Sydney, worked by single 44 class locomotive.

Despite that WWT instruction, I recall the Brisbane Limited usually was double locos, 442 + 442 or 442 + 44 or double 44 etc, north of Casino in that era. Similarly I also recall the Murwillumbah MotoRail as double 442 or 44 class around Casino Murwillumbah many times in that period. 80 class came later and were similar operating to the 442 class around Brisbane.
  Cubologist Station Staff

Is there any chance of SSR re-activating 44226 in the future?  Cheers.
sam6778
No. It was donated to the Junee museum. Not sure exactly why it was beyond economical repair, but it was likely stripped of internal parts that could be used to maintain/repair their other locos.
  M636C Minister for Railways

I remember looking at the monthly locomotive distance returns in the early 1970s and the locomotives from the second order of the 442 class (numbered in the high 20s and low 30s) were running very high distances, presumably due to being rostered on to return Brisbane services. Some of these were running around 50% further than the average main line unit and definitely were running further than the 42 and 421 classes and slightly more than the 422 class, all of which were running to Albury. It is often assumed that the EMD locomotives were more reliable than the Alcos, but certainly when new, the 442 class were earning more for their owners than any other units.

The original intention for the first twenty 442 class units was that they would use the GE GT581 generators and GE 752 traction motors from the 40 class. Of course, there were 40 fewer traction motors than needed, since each 442 had two more motors than the 40 class. The GE GT581 was only marginally capable of supplying the current needed by six GE752 motors. Alco built a six motor equivalent of the 40 class, the RSD-4 but this was replaced by an RSD-5 which had a larger GT586 generator. The 44 class used the GT581 but it had smaller GE761 or GE731 motors (or their AEI equivalents.

The earliest listings of equipment showed a couple of the earliest 442 class fitted with GT581 generators.

At this stage a major problem developed. AEI had been using plastic insulation while GE had been using mica insulation. The NSWGR had the practice of using a fairly nasty liquid, carbon tetrachloride to clean motors and generators prior to overhaul. Carbon Tetrachloride, whilst being carcinogenic and probably a poison was a very effective solvent for many types of plastic.
Around the time the 442 class were being introduced, the AEI 5301 generators from the 45 class became due for major maintenance and the NSWGR (or PTC depending on exactly when it happened) discovered the hard way that the AEI5301 used plastic insulation.

The second batch of 442 class were to use AEI 5301s but these were taken to replace those from the 45 class that the NSWGR had destroyed. Large numbers of refurbished GE GT586s were obtained from the USA to make up for the loss of AEI 5301s and these ended up in both batches of 442 class as well as the 45 class.

The 442 class bogies were a new design at the time. These used rubber metal sandwich pads to support the locomotive frame directly from the bogie frame. The 422 class used similar pads, but used a conventional bogie bolster that increased the cost and weight. The design of these pads was still under way when 44201 was completed, and 44201 was "handed over" with black painted wooden blocks where the rubber pads were supposed to be. The pads were supplied within a couple of weeks and the loco was able to start testing.

The bogie design was very good and is still used on new locomotives.

The EL class used Canadian bogies to the same design (because GE had taken over Montreal Locomotive Works, along with all their designs). These became known as "type 5650" after the MLW drawing number. The Motive Power built CBH and CM class and the NREC 1100 and 1200 classes all use this bogie design.

So it was obvious that the rebuilding of the GL class was at least partly inspired by the EL class having the same bogies, and by rebuilding the 442 with the same GE engine as the EL would give you a double ended EL.

Equally, the good performance of the bogie influenced the rebuilding of the RL class, with even more power than the EL class.

SSR and QUBE wouldn't be using the 442 class now if they were unreliable or costly to maintain.

Peter
  petan Chief Commissioner

Location: Waiting to see a zebra using a zebra crossing!
I remember looking at the monthly locomotive distance returns in the early 1970s and the locomotives from the second order of the 442 class (numbered in the high 20s and low 30s) were running very high distances, presumably due to being rostered on to return Brisbane services. Some of these were running around 50% further than the average main line unit and definitely were running further than the 42 and 421 classes and slightly more than the 422 class, all of which were running to Albury. It is often assumed that the EMD locomotives were more reliable than the Alcos, but certainly when new, the 442 class were earning more for their owners than any other units.

(lots of very interesting data snipped for space)

Peter
M636C
For those who aren't aware, the reason for the high 442 distances on the Brisbane trips is Brisbane is 986.8 km from Sydney while Albury is only 643 km from Sydney. That 643km Sydney to Albury won't even get you as far north as Grafton, 699 km, from Sydney. In fact that 643 km Sydney Albury distance is similar to the 642 km  Broadmeadow (Newcastle district) to Casino.

 
  M636C Minister for Railways

I remember looking at the monthly locomotive distance returns in the early 1970s and the locomotives from the second order of the 442 class (numbered in the high 20s and low 30s) were running very high distances, presumably due to being rostered on to return Brisbane services. Some of these were running around 50% further than the average main line unit and definitely were running further than the 42 and 421 classes and slightly more than the 422 class, all of which were running to Albury. It is often assumed that the EMD locomotives were more reliable than the Alcos, but certainly when new, the 442 class were earning more for their owners than any other units.

(lots of very interesting data snipped for space)

Peter
For those who aren't aware, the reason for the high 442 distances on the Brisbane trips is Brisbane is 986.8 km from Sydney while Albury is only 643 km from Sydney. That 643km Sydney to Albury won't even get you as far north as Grafton, 699 km, from Sydney. In fact that 643 km Sydney Albury distance is similar to the 642 km  Broadmeadow (Newcastle district) to Casino.

 
petan
I should point out that the Brisbane Limited and Brisbane Express (via Kyogle) ran through with diesel power until the electrification was extended to Broadmeadow (and rather more electric locomotives were obtained). I'm not sure about North Coast freight traffic, but I suspect these worked through with electric assistance from Hawkesbury River to Cowan on the southbound journey.

After the extension of electrification, double 86 class were used on the Brisbane (and by then, Murwillumbah) passenger trains and also on the through container trains, so diesel locomotive distances presumably fell to similar figures as those on the Main South, then dropped below the South as through running to Dynon and Spencer Street was introduced.

Peter
  YM-Mundrabilla Minister for Railways

Location: Mundrabilla but I'd rather be in Narvik
Sydney - Melbourne is as near 1,000 km as doesn't matter.
  YM-Mundrabilla Minister for Railways

Location: Mundrabilla but I'd rather be in Narvik
Some 442 load data;

Working Timetables (WTT) such as the 1974 and 1979 Northern WTTs, issued after the introduction of the 442 class, showed loco loads as either 43 class, main line types or branch line types, with the 442 class in with the 44 and 45 classes. The GMs were not generally in the north at that stage.

The 1979 Northern WTT showed Brisbane Limited Nos l and 2 Express Services timed to convey a load of 542 tonnes Sydney-South Brisbane -Sydney, worked by two 442 class locomotives Sydney-Taree-Sydney and single 442 class locomotive Taree-South Brisbane-Taree. In the event of No. I Brisbane Limited Express being worked by a single 442 class locomotive between Sydney and Taree, the following Permissible Loss of Time applied: (I won't list southbound permitted loss of time as you get the general idea)
Sydney-Gosford-7.5 minutes.
Gosford-Broadmeadow-2.5 minutes.
Broadmeadow-Taree-5.5 minutes

Nos 3 and 4 Express Services (Murwillumbah MotoRail) timed to convey a load of 500 tonnes Sydney-Murwillumbah-Sydney, worked by single 44 class locomotive.

Despite that WWT instruction, I recall the Brisbane Limited usually was double locos, 442 + 442 or 442 + 44 or double 44 etc, north of Casino in that era. Similarly I also recall the Murwillumbah MotoRail as double 442 or 44 class around Casino Murwillumbah many times in that period. 80 class came later and were similar operating to the 442 class around Brisbane.
petan
Interesting Petan. Many thanks.
So ON PAPER a second engine was run Sydney to Taree to save a THEORETICAL 15½ minutes?
  petan Chief Commissioner

Location: Waiting to see a zebra using a zebra crossing!
Sydney - Melbourne is as near 1,000 km as doesn't matter.
YM-Mundrabilla
That Sydney Melbourne distance came into play in June 1982 (**) with through running of each state's locomotives. Until then each state's locomotives were detached at Albury and replaced by the other state's locomotives. Standard gauge Albury Melbourne dated from 1962, so 20 years of swapping locos at Albury, while the consist, freight or passenger, continued through to the other state.

Sydney Melbourne rail 960km
Sydney Brisbane rail 987km
Sydney Albury 643km

(**) June 1982 Though working of locomotives between NSW and Victoria officially commenced on 4/6/82 according to August 1982 Railway Digest P.273. That Railway Digest also reported 42219 and X54 hauled S2 Southern Aurora into Sydney on 7/6/82; 42206 and X46 hauled SI Southern Aurora from Sydney on 13/6/82 ; X45 was trailing 42216 into Sydney on S2 on 17/6, and the X left on SI the same night behind 42206.
  petan Chief Commissioner

Location: Waiting to see a zebra using a zebra crossing!
Interesting Petan. Many thanks.
So ON PAPER a second engine was run Sydney to Taree to save a THEORETICAL 15½ minutes?
YM-Mundrabilla
Yes to that saving of a THEORETICAL 15½ minutes, although, due to single line north of the Hunter, it would only take a missed cross due to any number of reasons to change the arrival time. While double headers could offer better recovery time potential, the 1979 WTT, 442 era so on topic, did state southbound recovery time including;
N2 Brisbane Limited Express:- 9½ minutes, Telarah-Maitland.
N4 Gold Coast Motorail Express:- 3½ minutes, Killawarra -Kimbriki and 15 minutes Telarah-Maitland.


The local Gold Coast radio used to give announcements for the expected arrival of the MotoRail at Murwillumbah that day.
  a6et Minister for Railways

I remember looking at the monthly locomotive distance returns in the early 1970s and the locomotives from the second order of the 442 class (numbered in the high 20s and low 30s) were running very high distances, presumably due to being rostered on to return Brisbane services. Some of these were running around 50% further than the average main line unit and definitely were running further than the 42 and 421 classes and slightly more than the 422 class, all of which were running to Albury. It is often assumed that the EMD locomotives were more reliable than the Alcos, but certainly when new, the 442 class were earning more for their owners than any other units.

The original intention for the first twenty 442 class units was that they would use the GE GT581 generators and GE 752 traction motors from the 40 class. Of course, there were 40 fewer traction motors than needed, since each 442 had two more motors than the 40 class. The GE GT581 was only marginally capable of supplying the current needed by six GE752 motors. Alco built a six motor equivalent of the 40 class, the RSD-4 but this was replaced by an RSD-5 which had a larger GT586 generator. The 44 class used the GT581 but it had smaller GE761 or GE731 motors (or their AEI equivalents.

The earliest listings of equipment showed a couple of the earliest 442 class fitted with GT581 generators.

At this stage a major problem developed. AEI had been using plastic insulation while GE had been using mica insulation. The NSWGR had the practice of using a fairly nasty liquid, carbon tetrachloride to clean motors and generators prior to overhaul. Carbon Tetrachloride, whilst being carcinogenic and probably a poison was a very effective solvent for many types of plastic.
Around the time the 442 class were being introduced, the AEI 5301 generators from the 45 class became due for major maintenance and the NSWGR (or PTC depending on exactly when it happened) discovered the hard way that the AEI5301 used plastic insulation.

The second batch of 442 class were to use AEI 5301s but these were taken to replace those from the 45 class that the NSWGR had destroyed. Large numbers of refurbished GE GT586s were obtained from the USA to make up for the loss of AEI 5301s and these ended up in both batches of 442 class as well as the 45 class.

The 442 class bogies were a new design at the time. These used rubber metal sandwich pads to support the locomotive frame directly from the bogie frame. The 422 class used similar pads, but used a conventional bogie bolster that increased the cost and weight. The design of these pads was still under way when 44201 was completed, and 44201 was "handed over" with black painted wooden blocks where the rubber pads were supposed to be. The pads were supplied within a couple of weeks and the loco was able to start testing.

The bogie design was very good and is still used on new locomotives.

The EL class used Canadian bogies to the same design (because GE had taken over Montreal Locomotive Works, along with all their designs). These became known as "type 5650" after the MLW drawing number. The Motive Power built CBH and CM class and the NREC 1100 and 1200 classes all use this bogie design.

So it was obvious that the rebuilding of the GL class was at least partly inspired by the EL class having the same bogies, and by rebuilding the 442 with the same GE engine as the EL would give you a double ended EL.

Equally, the good performance of the bogie influenced the rebuilding of the RL class, with even more power than the EL class.

SSR and QUBE wouldn't be using the 442 class now if they were unreliable or costly to maintain.

Peter
M636C
Peter, Interesting in regard to the bogies on the jumbo's & from an engineman's side of the equation there was definitely differences in them pretty much across the whole diesel fleet especially with the in cab ride.  Out of all diesels the 40cl & 47 were the best riding loco's out of the fleet, with the 422's next in line, then the 43's. The 44cl at speed developed a sideways swishing movement which was quite an experience especially at speed, but that was much about track and any holes in the line.

OTOH, the 42cl under those areas that the 44's swished the GM could throw you out of the seat, the old original seats though with the arm rests gave one some feeling of safety. The 421's were terrible riding loco's and a big reason for their removal from the Broken Hill running, even the 45's rode better out there.  Although in general I found the 45's ok, they were much more rigid though, unlike many other drivers, I actually liked the 45's except for the drafts in the cab.

The jumbo's though were quite rough riding and between WCK & MBK especially on fast trains and passengers, it was a test at times standing and getting the staff exchanger set up, there was marked bounce in the cab, also the swishing aspect as per the 44's many men tagged them as Squeak - Rattle & Rolls, they certainly also found any hole in the road as well.  Generally they were quieter than earlier diesels though.  For the few occasions I worked on the 80cl they too were not the greatest riding Engine but at least were air conditioned.

As a point with the 44's, I was on loan at Parkes for a month when the SG was opened and the IP began running, on my first two trips to Euabalong West the 421's showed very rough riding and generally stayed east of Parkes, I had the misfortune of working on one 421cl to Euabalong and the other on 45cl.  I was also rostered as fireman to work the up interstate freighter to Bathurst into barracks and then with the return on the IP, (Hiawatha). When we signed on and walked to the station, my driver stopped and asked what that Loco was at the station, at the time I had not taken any notice but, a look revealed it was a 44cl, the driver said to me he was not qualified and had never set foot on one in his career, but we continued to the station where we were met by a senior Locomotive Inspector, who I knew well.

He looked at me and swept his brow and told us that the 44's were on test to see how they go to BH, he also mentioned that the Roster Clerk at Parkes had been directed to have someone familiar with the 44cl as driver or fireman, so I was the familar one.

Both 44's were of the Mk 2 types, and they both swished well, the worst aspect of them though was the different governors in them compared to the Mk1's, which transitioned smoothly and without any real movement on the load meter. The Mk2's though were another thing again, when making the normal transition at around the 22mph they would all but drop their power with amps going almost down to zero before the engine picked up again. When we hit Tumulla and the first transition took place, both loco's transitioned at the same time & speed, causing the loco's to drop back into the train itself, I oft wondered about whether it was noticed in the carriages or not.  At this point the inspector said from now on when dropping speed and before transition shut the throttle off until under the speed and then open up. Do that on grades if likely to drop speed below the transition speed.

That worked for us, but for me as I later found with them when becoming a driver, I rarely had double Mk2 44's and much better operation.  The trial was a success and ended up with the transfer of almost all of the Mk2 44's to Bathurst and the removal of the 421's first up followed by the 45's.
  petan Chief Commissioner

Location: Waiting to see a zebra using a zebra crossing!
Wonder about the real haulage difference between 2 x 442 or 2 x 422 on the Southern Aurora, remembering the Aurora load may have been close to a full single unit, so an extra locos would have been nice. But, the Aurora load may not necessarily have needed the total full power of two 442 or two 422 units. One data set (**) I have shows the 422 as capable of 630 tons at 11.25 mph on a 1 in 40 grade so two 422s could manage something like approx 1200 tons. The Aurora was somewhere around 630 tons so just on the 422 limit but two of the 422 class would be overkill for 630 tons

So, if only a single 442 or 422, I wonder which class had the better haulage capacity on the Aurora? Some myths circulated when the 442 were introduced that a single 442 was to eliminate the need for double 422s on the Aurora. I am interested in factual haulage ability, not if someone liked GMs or Alcos better as a personal preference.

(**) Loco data from Modern Locomotives in Service on NSWR, 1971 but does not have the 442 data.
  a6et Minister for Railways

Wonder about the real haulage difference between 2 x 442 or 2 x 422 on the Southern Aurora, remembering the Aurora load may have been close to a full single unit, so an extra locos would have been nice. But, the Aurora load may not necessarily have needed the total full power of two 442 or two 422 units. One data set (**) I have shows the 422 as capable of 630 tons at 11.25 mph on a 1 in 40 grade so two 422s could manage something like approx 1200 tons. The Aurora was somewhere around 630 tons so just on the 422 limit but two of the 422 class would be overkill for 630 tons

So, if only a single 442 or 422, I wonder which class had the better haulage capacity on the Aurora? Some myths circulated when the 442 were introduced that a single 442 was to eliminate the need for double 422s on the Aurora. I am interested in haulage ability, not if someone liked GMs or Alcos better as a personal preference.


(**) Loco data from Modern Locomotives in Service on NSWR, 1971 but does not have the 442 data.
petan
Both had the same load capacities as both had the same horse power. The rating and load you mention on a 1:40 grade would be pretty much correct (will check loads in a WTT, for the Northern line but not sure if it shows 422's in it though only latish TT I have that would include them) Jumbo's on the North were ultra common but only time I know of a 422 on the North was for repairs at Cardiff or when converted 42220 had the upgrade and was used with a speed allowance of 130Km/h during tests for the coming XPT, I did the test between WCK & BMD.

The 422's with their better system of amp change at transition gave them an advantage over the 442, and also in acceleration, especially when M.U'd together. Likewise they seemed to have a better acceleration owing to the rootes blower allowed for faster motoring up and down, also the transition was only seen on the amp metre with a small flick of the needle. The Jumbo's with the WoodWard governors were slow in transition, and often would drop the rev's down to near zero before picking the PM up again.

With the Aurora and a single diesel on it, it would have struggled to maintain the TT on grades and track sections that had a lot of curves, certainly those between Campbelltown to Goulburn, especially to Exeter would have taxed a single standard type engine in that section.

Another aspect to consider is that the SA & SOP both had built in recovery times in their TT's, another aspect was that owing to the long brake travel on the carriages to provide for smoother braking there were different large round speed boards on the South that set a slower speed to brake when a caution indication showed on a distant signal, in many of the cases if the speed exceeded the board's speed, the train could not stop at the home signal.  This was especially the case on downhill grades.
  firefox Station Master

A few comments on the original post.

There were a number of other components from the 40 Class used in the construction of the first 20 442 Class besides traction motors, such as power take offs, eddy current clutch etc. Some of these individual components were not suitable for recycling, while preserved 4001 and the two 40 Class sold to CRRIA (Robe River) were not able to donate components, so there was a shortfall. This was made up by sourcing components from Missouri Pacific in the US

If you look at the delivery dates of the class, you will find that 44216-44220 entered service after 44221-44225 of the second order for this reason.

The survival of some members of the class which have been used in the construction of other locomotives raises the question of when is a locomotive considered scrapped? I have always used the working definition of "when the frame has been cut". This is why Fleet Lists such as in Motive Power magazine still list loco frames being used for such purposes as engine test beds. I think it is drawing a long bow to suggest that 442 class locos still exist in the form of some of the surviving RLs.

Therefore, by my count, there are 22 surviving 442s, of which 17 are still in regular service - that is less the two preserved (44211 & 44226) and three in long term store (GL105/44201), (GL101/44207) and (442s5/44223).
  lowtensionearth Station Master

If I can offer some insights and thoughts in a more concise format:

-       With the exception of the bogie under the 45 and 600 classes (anecdotally the 600 rode better than the 45), Goodwin Alco’s drop-equalised bogies were generally acknowledged as riding better than Clyde Engineering’s locally adapted Broad and Standard Gauge EMD designs of the time. Both Clyde variants of the Flexi-coil as well as the 49 and 421 bogies displayed (and still do) especially poor ride quality. On a personal level, I would accept the Tri-Mount design under the G and BL classes as the first Clyde bogie to approach what could be considered as a truly acceptable level of ride quality. Ride quality issues with N and 81 class locomotives of the same period which don't use the Tri-Mount further attest to the generally poor ride given by the locally modified EMD designs.

-       What developed into the ‘5650’ is from an engineering perspective a fine design. However, it rides very poorly. This trait has never been succesfully remedied by any locomotive builder or railway system and all locomotives using this design share the affliction of poor ride quality. 44201’s first mainline trial run out of Goodwin Alco quite literally saw the testing crew thrown to the cab floor resulting in the locomotive returning to the builder for bogie modifications.

The only reason this design has proliferated recent designs is it was available through 442 class rebuild programs or in the case of NRE and Motive Power Industries is a form of “off-license” design which could be produced cheaply and is able to accept a wide variety of traction motor types.

-       Clyde Engineering built locomotives are widely acknowledged as having a better build quality than their parent Electro-Motive Division’s US and Canadian built locomotives. Goodwin Alco’s locomotives more closely matched their US parents build quality. Additionally, EMD locomotives by their nature are generally viewed as being more refined designs particularly due to the electrical systems and layouts employed. However, those traits should not be confused with robustness. As NSW and AN in some cases found; an Alco could limp home with a fault which was fatal to an EMD (an auxiliary generator failure for example). Locomotive crews and fitters too often arrived at the same conclusions.


From my personal experience I don’t feel that the 442 or 700 classes were Goodwin’s best. The Clyde equivalent, the 422 is a better locomotive which displays Clyde’s better workmanship and the better refined EMD design traits. A well maintained 442 or 700 was however a successful locomotive which did what was asked of it and as has already been quoted often ran higher mileages than other equivalent EMD's.

Regardless, any rail operators running main generator equipped locomotives from any builder that haven’t received electrical overhauls or rewiring in over twenty years on heavy haul mainline trains are foolhardy at best. The 442 is not in service today because it was a good locomotive. It's in service today out of pure necessity while their current performance is a reflection of the largely tired ex SRA withdrawal condition of electrical systems combined with current maintenance procedures.
  fzr560 Chief Train Controller

Thanks everyone for your contributions. Railpage at it's best, in my opinion.
  a6et Minister for Railways

If I can offer some insights and thoughts in a more concise format:

-       With the exception of the bogie under the 45 and 600 classes (anecdotally the 600 rode better than the 45), Goodwin Alco’s drop-equalised bogies were generally acknowledged as riding better than Clyde Engineering’s locally adapted Broad and Standard Gauge EMD designs of the time. Both Clyde variants of the Flexi-coil as well as the 49 and 421 bogies displayed (and still do) especially poor ride quality. On a personal level, I would accept the Tri-Mount design under the G and BL classes as the first Clyde bogie to approach what could be considered as a truly acceptable level of ride quality. Ride quality issues with N and 81 class locomotives of the same period which don't use the Tri-Mount further attest to the generally poor ride given by the locally modified EMD designs.

-       What developed into the ‘5650’ is from an engineering perspective a fine design. However, it rides very poorly. This trait has never been succesfully remedied by any locomotive builder or railway system and all locomotives using this design share the affliction of poor ride quality. 44201’s first mainline trial run out of Goodwin Alco quite literally saw the testing crew thrown to the cab floor resulting in the locomotive returning to the builder for bogie modifications.

The only reason this design has proliferated recent designs is it was available through 442 class rebuild programs or in the case of NRE and Motive Power Industries is a form of “off-license” design which could be produced cheaply and is able to accept a wide variety of traction motor types.

-       Clyde Engineering built locomotives are widely acknowledged as having a better build quality than their parent Electro-Motive Division’s US and Canadian built locomotives. Goodwin Alco’s locomotives more closely matched their US parents build quality. Additionally, EMD locomotives by their nature are generally viewed as being more refined designs particularly due to the electrical systems and layouts employed. However, those traits should not be confused with robustness. As NSW and AN in some cases found; an Alco could limp home with a fault which was fatal to an EMD (an auxiliary generator failure for example). Locomotive crews and fitters too often arrived at the same conclusions.


From my personal experience I don’t feel that the 442 or 700 classes were Goodwin’s best. The Clyde equivalent, the 422 is a better locomotive which displays Clyde’s better workmanship and the better refined EMD design traits. A well maintained 442 or 700 was however a successful locomotive which did what was asked of it and as has already been quoted often ran higher mileages than other equivalent EMD's.

Regardless, any rail operators running main generator equipped locomotives from any builder that haven’t received electrical overhauls or rewiring in over twenty years on heavy haul mainline trains are foolhardy at best. The 442 is not in service today because it was a good locomotive. It's in service today out of pure necessity while their current performance is a reflection of the largely tired ex SRA withdrawal condition of electrical systems combined with current maintenance procedures.
lowtensionearth
I did not mention the 48 & 49classes, also avoided much regarding the 421's.  The 48cl as for ride were ok and very much like a mini 45cl. Cannot compare the 600's as they left PTK as I got there, but there were some better creature comfort in the cab on them, except the old BV.

The 42cl I have already mentioned as to their ride, ok except for track holes, being much higher and seemingly wider they tended to roll a bit as well as the other areas I mentioned.

Then there are the 421 & 49cl.  Both of these loco's were likely the roughest riding loco's that one could imagine, they were worse than a 36cl could ever be. The offset bogies were shockers, & I have had some good discussions with a former Clyde engineer and test fellow in our model club about them, which were interesting to say the least. Owing to those bogies, if running #2 end leading on the 421's and long end on the 49's it was not very pleasant to say the least.  

At Parkes worked on both classes, and long end on a 49 was frightening with the bounce and sway of them, should never have been allowed to run long end, however even short end leading they were crook, at WCK when they came there they were avoided as far as working the Mail to Moree, owing to the poor track between Narrabri & Moree, I had one trip only and that was enough for me out on that line.

The 421'S were as bad if not worse than the 49's owing to the overall noise in the cabs, #2 end was worse with noise also with the banging of the shutters, rough riding as bad as the 49cl along with similar ride as with the 42's was the common thing with them.  The one big area of problem though was that both of them were very much prone to slipping, especially when working the #2 end leading aspect.  Heading to Moss Vale on the first train from PTK on the Sunday evening/Monday morning with one 421 and a full block of empty limestone hoppers, with the rails being coated with dew, had us in almost constant slip mode.  This was one of the problem areas I had discussions about with the Clyde fellow.  He was also critical of the bogies used under those loco's.

I would say that the 422's were exceptionally good riding engines, likewise the 81's in fact I would say both were the best riding diesels I worked on, with the 40's & 43's next in line along with the 47cl, which also held the mantle of being the quietest diesel going as far as in cab was concerned.

For actually hauling power of the older loco's the 45cl beat the other Alco mainliners hands down, over the range to Ardglen on a full load they could get down to a level of speed where the load metre would be in the low minutes band and not miss a beat.
  lowtensionearth Station Master

I feel it would be amiss not to mention the 80 class when talking about the 442. The last six 442’s of course shared some electrical equipment with the 80 while the 80 also drew heavily on the 442 as inspiration.

Reading the ComEng series of books it’s interesting to note that ComEng embarked on the 80 redesign to address shortcomings in the 442. From an operational standpoint while more powerful, the 80 was an inferior locomotive to the 442 sharing its worst traits such as the bogies and introducing the 80 classes biggest achilles heel in the form of its unreliable Mitsubshi electrical system and at times troublesome 12-251CE engine.

While I wholeheartedly agree with the then NSWPTC that the earlier pre–Super Series 3000 horsepower EMD designs such as the AL were not the locomotive for NSW, I feel the SRA would have been better served had ComEng designed to persevere with the 442. By shoehorning the Sigma air conditioning units along with retaining the existing AEI DC-DC electrical system the 80 could have been treated as an air-conditioned extension of the 442 class in all background aspects rather than a new locomotive with its own spare parts and servicing requirements.

That is not to say that my suggestion is the right either. By the late 1970s I don’t believe an extension of the 442 class or even an upgraded 442 with air conditioning and possibly the 12-251CE engine and associated cooling and main generator upgrades was a good buy. And, I think history has proven the 80 class to be a mistake. Short of waiting for the 81 class and the emergence 42220, the first order of 80 class should have been AR10 main alternator equipped 422 class. Furthermore, the second order of 80 class would have been better served as additional 81 class or funding allocated to further Super Series rebuilds of the 422 class.
  M636C Minister for Railways

firefox
The survival of some members of the class which have been used in the construction of other locomotives raises the question of when is a locomotive considered scrapped? I have always used the working definition of "when the frame has been cut". This is why Fleet Lists such as in Motive Power magazine still list loco frames being used for such purposes as engine test beds. I think it is drawing a long bow to suggest that 442 class locos still exist in the form of some of the surviving RLs.


I take it that you don't allow transverse cuts while allowing longitudinal cuts

I have photos of a 442 class frame at Broadmeadow in the process of being rebuilt to a GL. It consisted only of the two main frame members and the plating between them. Most of the integral fuel tanks were gone and the whole thing was about one third of the width of a 442 class. I imagine the two thirds of new material added helped strengthen the frame ends as did the new sections of the RL frames.

In the USA many locomotives were lengthened using the original frames, many of these staring out as GP40s being rebuilt as various types of commuter locomotives, in order to fit a separate HEP generator set.. In the case of the Virginia Rail Express locomotives rebuilt by AMT in Montreal, the builder's plates carried the original EMD builder's number so these were regarded as rebuilds.

MK needed to fit an EMD 16-645F3 in place of the Alco 12-251. While both Alco and GE use a single bearing generator or alternator bolted up to the engine, which allow the engine to sit on a flat floor. EMD mount the alternator and engine separately in a recess in the frame, each being secured separately. THere was not enough room to fit the engine above the flat floor and still fit standard EMD dynamic brakes above the engine. so a new centre section was needed. The new centre section can be seen on the RL class today.

I can confirm that this took place, because I have photos showing six 442 class frame centre sections (basically including the fuel tanks and air reservoirs) tacked up outside the MK workshop in Whyalla, (It is possible that 44223 and 44226 were also stored outside, but I certainly saw those two later at Port Augusta awating repair and painting as 442s5 and 6).

As I indicated, the bodywork was erected at least partly, at Whyalla on the locomotives that became RL 301 to 307 so these all started life as rebuilds of 442 class. NREC decided to replace those 442 class frame sections, and removed the physical link to the former 442 class on these seven units. But the whole design still reflects their origin as rebuilds of the 442 class. Of course the two additional units RL 309 and 310 had no 442 class frame sections used, but were still built to the same design, and used 442 class bogies.

The RLs also reflect MK's work on the CLF, CLP and ALF classes in the layout of equipment and the MKA rebuilds in the shape of the cab.

Peter
  M636C Minister for Railways

I feel it would be amiss not to mention the 80 class when talking about the 442. The last six 442’s of course shared some electrical equipment with the 80 while the 80 also drew heavily on the 442 as inspiration.

Reading the ComEng series of books it’s interesting to note that ComEng embarked on the 80 redesign to address shortcomings in the 442. From an operational standpoint while more powerful, the 80 was an inferior locomotive to the 442 sharing its worst traits such as the bogies and introducing the 80 classes biggest achilles heel in the form of its unreliable Mitsubshi electrical system and at times troublesome 12-251CE engine.

While I wholeheartedly agree with the then NSWPTC that the earlier pre–Super Series 3000 horsepower EMD designs such as the AL were not the locomotive for NSW, I feel the SRA would have been better served had ComEng designed to persevere with the 442. By shoehorning the Sigma air conditioning units along with retaining the existing AEI DC-DC electrical system the 80 could have been treated as an air-conditioned extension of the 442 class in all background aspects rather than a new locomotive with its own spare parts and servicing requirements.

That is not to say that my suggestion is the right either. By the late 1970s I don’t believe an extension of the 442 class or even an upgraded 442 with air conditioning and possibly the 12-251CE engine and associated cooling and main generator upgrades was a good buy. And, I think history has proven the 80 class to be a mistake. Short of waiting for the 81 class and the emergence 42220, the first order of 80 class should have been AR10 main alternator equipped 422 class. Furthermore, the second order of 80 class would have been better served as additional 81 class or funding allocated to further Super Series rebuilds of the 422 class.
lowtensionearth

All of the problems of the 80 class can be traced to the failure of the Healing Group, the owner of A.E. Goodwin. Goodwin itself was quite profitable and were very successful in building locomotives. The 442 was, at least to some extent, a Goodwin design and incorporated a number of new ideas, some, such as the bogies, from MLW but others from lessons learned from local construction.

One of the last orders built by Goodwin was the SAR 700 class, and to expedite delivery, the last six sets of power equipment for 44235 to 44240 were used for the SAR order. This was quite common, and I recall hearing discussions about 48 and 830 class a year or so earlier when visiting the Goodwin headquarters in the Sydney CBD. The customer who complained loudest and most often got the locomotives first.

However, the timing of the failure of Healing meant that Comeng inherited the last six 442s to complete. Because Goodwin's Auburn plant was literally across the road from Comeng at Granville, all work was moved to Comeng. However, a lot of people with locomotive experience either were not asked to or not willing to move to Comeng and a lot of experience was lost.

Comeng had a developing relationship with Mitsubishi for what became the S-set suburban cars, and after continuing problems with AEI regarding the double deck U sets, decided to go with Mitsubishi for the replacement electrical equipment. Of course, neither Comeng nor Mitsubishi had the experience of AEI or GE in locomotive equipment (although their suburban car equipment was very good).

The 80 class proved to have weaker frames than the 442 class (although they may have been cheaper to build) and the need for auxiliary damping to get a good ride from the MLW Dofasco bogies resulted in at least two designs of damping, of which the second was said to be worse than the first. The big problem was that the dampers themselves needed replacement more often than the operators were willing to allow.

Had Goodwin continued in business, there may well have been more 442 class with various modifications, but commercial forces dictated otherwise.

Peter

Sponsored advertisement

Subscribers: a6et, Big J, GeoffreyHansen

Display from:   

Quick Reply

We've disabled Quick Reply for this thread as it was last updated more than six months ago.