PN "93" class delveries

 
  BDA Chief Commissioner

Location: Sydney
Often what happens is we provision and prep locos for trains and take them anywhere in the yard . Attach to rakes and tie up and detach just as often . We work in with our TOs to make life easier for all .

Yep wasn't thinking about Clyde up or Coota down yards and its not that often NRs venture into them either .

Sponsored advertisement

  bevans Site Admin

Location: Melbourne, Australia
There was a 93 class on the MC2 today.  Is this the first time a 93 has been used on this train?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/Railpage/8018705508/

Regards
Brian

  BDA Chief Commissioner

Location: Sydney
No I think there has been one or more MCs with a 93 class and a couple of older GMs , I did hear talk of these trains growing to 1800m and some pretty big loads possibly more than 80s era EMDs could cope with .
In some ways this can be better use of a heavy haul engine than the MB/BM trains of late , 4400 Hp AC diesel is wasted when two of them are getting around with 16-2300 tonne loads . A 93s 7400L should easily get from Melbourne to Junee and back again without a drink or fuel tankers . Three of them should be able to get some very significant loads from Bomen to Melbourne .
  Shacks Ghanzel

Location: Sir Big Lens of the Distant Upper Hunter
They have been on them for more than a few weeks now. 9305 was the first.
  BDA Chief Commissioner

Location: Sydney
Update to an old thread . Three more 93s are due to leave Broadmeadow in the near future and most/all have pretty much the cab layout that Intermodal wanted in a C44ACi . They have the larger fridge and hot plate and the extra mirrors and vigo buttons . Software wise we have sand control in dynamic but there are more updates to come . The improved Ice radio consoles have not been released yet so the current one still pole dances inboard of the island control stand same as NRs .
Also they are getting the consist monitor stuff working to keep an eye on trailing NR/93 fuel levels .
Vine reckons there will eventually be more than 17 built and I guess it may depend on how many "NREs" Bulk Div is using once their NR hauled services are up and running .
  Typhon Assistant Commissioner

Location: I'm that freight train tearing through the sky in the clouds.
Vine reckons there will eventually be more than 17 built and I guess it may depend on how many "NREs" Bulk Div is using once their NR hauled services are up and running .
BDA


Have it on good authority that the Jan delivery will be the last of the 93s. 17 in total. I'd like to be proven wrong though!
  Junction box Chief Commissioner

Location: newy
You have to give UGL  a wrap, the C44 design has suited Australia's long distances perfectly with its big fuel capacity and power ratings not to mention being confortable for crews, economical, not claggy and well muffled, thanks General Electric.
  Typhon Assistant Commissioner

Location: I'm that freight train tearing through the sky in the clouds.
You have to give UGL a wrap, the C44 design has suited Australia's long distances perfectly with its big fuel capacity and power ratings not to mention being confortable for crews, economical, not claggy and well muffled, thanks General Electric.
Junction box


Well I dunno about that yet. Do you work for UG by any chance? Razz

Fuel capacity and consumption aside yeah, they're ok.
  Junction box Chief Commissioner

Location: newy
Well I dunno about that yet. Do you work for UG by any chance? Razz

Fuel capacity and consumption aside yeah, they're ok.
Typhon

I have spent some time in the 5000's and they had something like 8000 litre tanks and because they were 180t the V16s were expected to be a bit thirsty but you know they don't waste much because of the lack of black clag.
If the operators want bigger tanks they could ask for it.
  BDA Chief Commissioner

Location: Sydney
They do have a sizable fuel tank but someone has to convince Sydney/NSW Trains that another tonne per axle won't affect the skys currently suspended state . I'm sure that if someone footed the bux to fix any flaccidity in the under wires perway something could be done to allow greater than 22 1/3 tonne axle loads . Look at these numbers -

134.0 divide 6 = 22.333 - Low fuel level .
136.5 divide 6 = 22.750 - Med fuel level . Low + 417 Kg/axle . Plus 1.9 % ...
139.6 divide 6 = 23.266 - High fuel level . Low + 933 Kg/axle . Plus 4.2% ...

180.0 divide 6 = 30.000 - Low fuel level C44AC + 7666 Kg/axle. Plus 34.4% ..

By comparison 30 TAL is 34.4% greater than 22.33 , makes 1.9 and 4.2% look trivial .
Reducing the medium and high fuel level and axle loads to 100 and 80 km/h max speeds is the logical answer .

So there you have it , less than 1/2 tonne per axle separates low and med fuel levels in a C44ACi and less than one from low to high .
I suppose Gonads could consider fitting a transfer pump to the locomotive so fuel could be pumped too and from the larger fuel tanks for running in soft territory .

AFAIK the other access providers only stipulate lower speeds with higher axle loads and as we know speed restrictions cure just about every perway ill .
  Junction box Chief Commissioner

Location: newy
They let 3801 run around and there was plenty of that in past era's on wooden sleepers.
ARTC are allowing the 50 class up to Gunnedah these days.
  M636C Minister for Railways

They do have a sizable fuel tank but someone has to convince Sydney/NSW Trains that another tonne per axle won't affect the skys currently suspended state . I'm sure that if someone footed the bux to fix any flaccidity in the under wires perway something could be done to allow greater than 22 1/3 tonne axle loads . Look at these numbers -

134.0 divide 6 = 22.333 - Low fuel level .
136.5 divide 6 = 22.750 - Med fuel level . Low + 417 Kg/axle . Plus 1.9 % ...
139.6 divide 6 = 23.266 - High fuel level . Low + 933 Kg/axle . Plus 4.2% ...

180.0 divide 6 = 30.000 - Low fuel level C44AC + 7666 Kg/axle. Plus 34.4% ..

By comparison 30 TAL is 34.4% greater than 22.33 , makes 1.9 and 4.2% look trivial .
Reducing the medium and high fuel level and axle loads to 100 and 80 km/h max speeds is the logical answer .

So there you have it , less than 1/2 tonne per axle separates low and med fuel levels in a C44ACi and less than one from low to high .
I suppose Gonads could consider fitting a transfer pump to the locomotive so fuel could be pumped too and from the larger fuel tanks for running in soft territory .

AFAIK the other access providers only stipulate lower speeds with higher axle loads and as we know speed restrictions cure just about every perway ill .
BDA


Firstly,I am in general agreement with BDA here....
However,this shows a really strange feature of Australian railway operation.
Manyreaders here might not remember January 1973 very clearly, but I do.
In 1973,Australia adopted the SI system of units replacing the previous Imperial system.

Whileeverybody adopted the new system in most respects (speed in kilometres per hour, and so on) railway civil engineers didn't seem to notice and appear to have kept the Imperial system in use before 1973.
Onefeature of the SI system was that forces were measured in Newtons and masses in Tonnes while previously forces were measured in Tons Force and masses in Tons.

Sobasically, BDA's figures of axle load in tonnes force are technically incorrect. Each figure should be multiplied by 9.8 to get a number in kilonewtons. In fact ten kilonewtons is not very different to one ton force in the old system.
So BDA'sfigures show up as:

Low fuel= 218.8 kN
Mid fuel= 222.9 kN
High Fuel= 228 kN

Thus a134 tonne locomotive weighs 132 tons and has a 22 ton axle load...
A 139.6tonne locomotive weighs 138 tons and has a 23 ton axle load
You justhave to act as if 1973 didn't happen, and everything is clear.

Alternatively,define the axle loads as 220 kN or 230 kN rather than some odd number in tonnes which by definition can't be used for measuring forces....

As forcomparison with 38 class:
Therewere 30 38 class used on all main lines out of Sydney.
Therewere three axles loaded to around 22 tons over a wheelbase greater than that of an NR bogie.
Therewere more lightly loaded axles on a leading bogie to reduce forces in curves.

Two NRsare equivalent to four shorter 38 class without leading bogies, as far as track forces are concerned and there are four times as many NRs, as well as 6000s, 6020s, LDPs, 93s and so on...

I'm not alocomotive driver, but I am an engineer who has actually measured wheel and rail forces and tried to analyse them.

M636C
  nswtrains Chief Commissioner

Firstly,I am in general agreement with BDA here....
However,this shows a really strange feature of Australian railway operation.
Manyreaders here might not remember January 1973 very clearly, but I do.
In 1973,Australia adopted the SI system of units replacing the previous Imperial system.

Whileeverybody adopted the new system in most respects (speed in kilometres per hour, and so on) railway civil engineers didn't seem to notice and appear to have kept the Imperial system in use before 1973.
Onefeature of the SI system was that forces were measured in Newtons and masses in Tonnes while previously forces were measured in Tons Force and masses in Tons.

Sobasically, BDA's figures of axle load in tonnes force are technically incorrect. Each figure should be multiplied by 9.8 to get a number in kilonewtons. In fact ten kilonewtons is not very different to one ton force in the old system.
So BDA'sfigures show up as:

Low fuel= 218.8 kN
Mid fuel= 222.9 kN
High Fuel= 228 kN

Thus a134 tonne locomotive weighs 132 tons and has a 22 ton axle load...
A 139.6tonne locomotive weighs 138 tons and has a 23 ton axle load
You justhave to act as if 1973 didn't happen, and everything is clear.

Alternatively,define the axle loads as 220 kN or 230 kN rather than some odd number in tonnes which by definition can't be used for measuring forces....

As forcomparison with 38 class:
Therewere 30 38 class used on all main lines out of Sydney.
Therewere three axles loaded to around 22 tons over a wheelbase greater than that of an NR bogie.
Therewere more lightly loaded axles on a leading bogie to reduce forces in curves.

Two NRsare equivalent to four shorter 38 class without leading bogies, as far as track forces are concerned and there are four times as many NRs, as well as 6000s, 6020s, LDPs, 93s and so on...

I'm not alocomotive driver, but I am an engineer who has actually measured wheel and rail forces and tried to analyse them.

M636C

Are what you speaking about similar to comparing our tonnes with US short tons (ie US short ton = 2000 LBS whilst a tonne = 1000 Kilos = approx 2200 imperial LBS). Therefore our loco weights are almost 10% heavier than equivalent US weights. eg 139 tonne locos is actually 144 approx short tons. In axle load 23.3 tonnes cf with 24 tons. The heavier the loco the more dramatic the difference with a Hunter Valley loco coming in at approx 27 tonne axle load and short tons approx 30 tons which is close to the US standard.
M636C
  M636C Minister for Railways

nswtrains wrote

"Are what you speaking about similar to comparing our tonnes with US short tons (ie US short ton = 2000 LBS whilst a tonne = 1000 Kilos = approx 2200 imperial LBS). Therefore our loco weights are almost 10% heavier than equivalent US weights. eg 139 tonne locos is actually 144 approx short tons. In axle load 23.3 tonnes cf with 24 tons. The heavier the loco the more dramatic the difference with a Hunter Valley loco coming in at approx 27 tonne axle load and short tons approx 30 tons which is close to the US standard."

The point I was trying to make was that we are talking about round numbers, just in a system we don't use any more....

The successors to RailCorp (I believe Sydney Trains, but I'll take advice on that) will allow a pre-1973 22 ton axleload but not a pre-1973 23 ton axle load.

In current terms, these could also be expressed as 220 kN axle loads or 230 kN axle loads.

Using the current definitions, the possibility of a 225 kN axle load arises, a 22-1/2 ton axle load without the need to invoke fractions or decimals, which might confuse bureaucrats.

That would allow about 10 000 litres of fuel in BDA's now favoured 93 class.

Do we need to be stuck with round numbers that the country officially abandoned in 1973?

My concerns with raising axle loads mainly concerned wooden sleepers on the ARTC network, and most of the really scary sections (including those on the South that I actually knew) have gone. The concrete sleepers didn't fix all the problems but the chances of the track breaking up under a steel train, for example, became fairly remote.

Sydney Trains, on the other hand, spend money on track as if it was going out of fashion.

I looked at my currently local line closed for maintenance all of this year so far with a set of world's best track machines occupying the otherwise unused track, and tried to explain to others waiting for buses that we were looking at the best in the world. (The tamper was an 09-32 CSM and there was a DTS-62 but I've forgotten the type of ballast regulator..)

It probably wouldn't cost more to use one and two dollar coins for ballast but people would steal them overnight.

I don't think the track would notice an occasional locomotive  with 230 kN on each axle.

But we could at least use the current set of units for measuring the axle loads. If nothing else it shows that there are axle loads between the magic numbers of 22 and 23 that we seem to be stuck with.

M636C
  BDA Chief Commissioner

Location: Sydney
I don't really think I am incorrect but I edited my last post lots and I think one of the bits cut was axle load vs speed - as in train speed .
Yep 1973 , I was in primary school being exposed to metric and imperial weights and measures . Plus the dog had pups that year .

The original TOC Waiver stated C43/44 ACi speed limited because of the variable fuel levels and axle loads . Basically 115 100 and 80 km/h for low intermediate and high fuel level maximums .  Obviously as the mass increases the maximum speed reduces to in theory limit vertical accelerations of the axles etc .
Actually if the access providers were being technically honest they'd assess the unsprung mass of the complete wheel set and traction motor because they move up and down individually and more so than the sprung mass above them .
M it would be interesting to compare the difference in C44ACi and GT46C-ACe with the unsprung mass of a complete traction motor wheel set and axle boxes . The EDI unit has larger heavier SD70MAC motors and gears from memory and may not look so good here . Before you say it yes I know the traction motor is partly supported by the bogie frame but I reckon if you want to compare apples to apples do it properly .
This is also not to say that gross mass isn't important because of bridge structures etc . I think it's safe to say that if a bridge can support a 38 class it can support a 140t six axle locomotive but that's thinking more of the bridge structure itself than the sleepers and rails it supports . Both need to be taken into consideration .
  BDA Chief Commissioner

Location: Sydney
Forgot to add that recent software changes means their consist monitors work , can now off line trailing NRs from a leading 93 though it doesn't work amongst the 93s themselves . Surely it can't be that hard to makes the computers stop at one notch .
-9 smarter (more versatile) than current technology , who would have thought .
Also some smarty arranged things so that panic alarms go off if the AESS or auto engine start up shut down is disabled in software and you go to drive away . How good would it be if your smart engine , or a like slave unit , takes five and the road clears for a narrow time slot .

Doh !
  Tom66 Assistant Commissioner

While the current track alignment in Australia is plaugued on the east coast standard gauge network with tight curves and steady grades, would it be such a a bad idea to run shorter superfreighter's with one loco at the front that can keep pace with current track speeds as apposed to running 1+km long trains that slowly snake there way around tight curves and steep grades? I remember when i was young (early 90's-pre NRC days) sitting on the north east line at Avenal watching superfreighters run by at night every hour or sowith a single G/81/C. IF the track is to expensive to fix then why not utilize the modern/efficient horespower such as the 93 and run shorter trains, more frequently? If rail struggle to have a competitive advantage against road in terms of time than shorly it would make sence to send more frequent services out that can at least mach that of road transport alternatives?
  speedemon08 Mary

Location: I think by now you should have figured it out
While the current track alignment in Australia is plaugued on the east coast standard gauge network with tight curves and steady grades, would it be such a a bad idea to run shorter superfreighter's with one loco at the front that can keep pace with current track speeds as apposed to running 1+km long trains that slowly snake there way around tight curves and steep grades? I remember when i was young (early 90's-pre NRC days) sitting on the north east line at Avenal watching superfreighters run by at night every hour or sowith a single G/81/C. IF the track is to expensive to fix then why not utilize the modern/efficient horespower such as the 93 and run shorter trains, more frequently? If rail struggle to have a competitive advantage against road in terms of time than shorly it would make sence to send more frequent services out that can at least mach that of road transport alternatives?
Tom66

Because running one big train makes a profit, whereas multiple short trains don't. NRC made intermodal profitable.
  Pressman Spirit of the Vine

Location: Wherever the Tin Chook or Qantas takes me
“While the current track alignment in Australia is plaugued on the east coast standard gauge network with tight curves and steady grades, would it be such a a bad idea to run shorter superfreighter's with one loco at the front that can keep pace with current track speeds as apposed to running 1+km long trains that slowly snake there way around tight curves and steep grades? I remember when i was young (early 90's-pre NRC days) sitting on the north east line at Avenal watching superfreighters run by at night every hour or sowith a single G/81/C. IF the track is to expensive to fix then why not utilize the modern/efficient horespower such as the 93 and run shorter trains, more frequently? If rail struggle to have a competitive advantage against road in terms of time than shorly it would make sence to send more frequent services out that can at least mach that of road transport alternatives?
"tom66"

Because running one big train makes a profit, whereas multiple short trains don't. NRC made intermodal profitable.
"speedemon08"

As Speedemon08 aludes to, it all about cost nowdays
One full length train = one path to purchase, one crew (or set of crews) to pay
Two half length trains = Two paths to purchase, Two Crews to pay for the same amount of freight as one train. (Thats Income btw)
The old days of state run railways running at a loss are long gone.
  seb2351 Chief Commissioner

Location: Sydney
Picture of 9314 have been circulating around today, I assume this is the latest one off the production line?
  witsend Chief Commissioner

Location: Front RH Seat of a School Bus
I keep seeing references to Freight Miser through this thread. What is Freight Miser?
  seb2351 Chief Commissioner

Location: Sydney
Computer software that when you enter in the train details works out the best train handling for the route and shows a visual indication of what to do to optimise fuel use.

Basically a fancy GPS that says brake here, power here etc etc.

Has its flaws but.
  witsend Chief Commissioner

Location: Front RH Seat of a School Bus
Thank you, I appreciate that.
  seb2351 Chief Commissioner

Location: Sydney
Not a worry, trying to find some photos to post up for you but having troubles uploading, unless another driver could be so kind...

Sponsored advertisement

Display from:   

Quick Reply

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