I currently own about four of these wagons in un built kit form, and was having a bit of trouble trying to chase down some information/ photos of the prototype especially in the period I'm modelling, so any information would be very much appreciated.

One of the first things I noticed was the four letter code for these wagons is NZFF (as I'm modelling the 1980's era, this is the code I'm going to model my completed wagons with). The interesting thing about that is the milk tank wagons modelled by SDS not so long ago also have the four letter code NZFF. I'm very curious as to why two different wagons would have the same code?

Also, the photo set I'm studying at the moment on Kieran Ryans "Australian Railway Detail photos" CD shows an MLV which, from what I can figure out is very similar to an MLK, it shows the van fitted with auto couplers, yet the buffers are still attached. Were the buffers taken off these wagons when the conversion to auto couplers was done?

Another thing that's been on my mind is I've got, is a mate who models "O" scale has a few MLV's in his rollingstock register and he has modelled them with a few openings in the bottom, with the explanation that these MLV's were fitted with milk tanks and a few of the bottom panels are missing so hoses can pass though the van and it can be loaded and unloaded easier. Was this done to any MLK vans and does anyone have any photos showing the locations of these missing panels so I can model it on my ones?  

Last question is in the notes to the kit, it said that these wagons could be seen with 2CF boiges running underneath, would anyone have any idea which vans had this feature or have any photos of the vans with this type of bogie underneath?

Thank you in advance for your assistance

Steve

Please don't confuse me with someone who knows why this happened...

The MLK code applied to louvre vans which had used the generic class MLV.

There were a number of varieties of MLV, form the 35 feet vehicles which were old BLV bodies mounted on Tulloch built "fishbelly" underframes with 2AE bogies to 40 feet vehicles built on BE flat wagon chassis. Some of the 40 feet vehicles started life as boxcars for bulk grain loading, and some of these formed the "Better Farming Train" and the "Buy Australian Made" display trains of the period between the two world wars.

Those fitted with milk tanks retained the MLV code until at least the mid 1960s, by which time some were running without the wooden louvre van body, just the two tanks on the underframe and floor. The code MLK was applied to the remainder, with or without the body.

While the coding system prior to the national four letter codes could use any combination of letters, the four letter system had strict guidelines for the first, second and fourth letters.

These were a letter representing the state "N", later expanded for private operators, the second letter indicating the use or type of wagon, a third letter indicating a variation in wagon type, and the fourth indicating a speed classification, "F" meaning it was allowed to run at 100km/h.

The second letter had to have a standard meaning across the states, but no other users had any number of milk wagons, so we were left with "Z" for milk wagons which might have been a "miscellaneous" category. So I think the third letter "F" was used in conjunction with "Z" for milk wagons. Certainly, I think all the NSW milk wagons ended up as NZFF. So any MLK that still had the wooden louvre body would get code NZFF. I think some ballast ploughs have "Z" as the second letter.

This included one of my favourite wagons, the 47001 series NZFF which was a stock wagon (cattle or sheep) 32 feet(?)underframe complete with sloping floor frames (for washing out) fitted with twistlocks for a large single milk tank which had only a bottom frame. and couldn't be lifted by normal container equipment.

The really memorable feature of these was that the pressed steel number plates riveted to the frame had one less zero than the painted number on the wagon, 47001 having plate 4701 and so on.

I last saw some of these in Melbourne in use as water tanks, possibly for track maintenance trains.

Since milk tanks were run in both passenger and goods trains, in the 1950s and 1960s they would have had both knuckle couplers and buffers, since a lot of passenger stock never got knuckle couplers, particularly "American" end platform cars.

I think I rode on the up Picton milk train from Campbelltown back to Sydney in an LFX car in the mid 1950s and we shunted the milk siding at Campbelltown. picking up a wagon, after departing the station. (But I was quite young then).


Anyway, that's what I think happened...

Peter

'These were a letter representing the state "N", later expanded for private operators, the second letter indicating the use or type of wagon, a third letter indicating a variation in wagon type, and the fourth indicating a speed classification, "F" meaning it was allowed to run at 100km/h.'

N as a first letter was allocated to the NSWGR (or whatever it was called that day). It was therefore 'sold' to Pacific National as part of FreightCorp. I am not aware of it being used by a private operator(s) but nothing would surprise me in the shambles that is rolling stock classification these days.

The fourth letter 'F' was 80 km/h in my day with anything greater (100 km/h and above) being indicated by Y, P or W.

'These were a letter representing the state "N", later expanded for private operators, the second letter indicating the use or type of wagon, a third letter indicating a variation in wagon type, and the fourth indicating a speed classification, "F" meaning it was allowed to run at 100km/h.'

N as a first letter was allocated to the NSWGR (or whatever it was called that day). It was therefore 'sold' to Pacific National as part of FreightCorp. I am not aware of it being used by a private operator(s) but nothing would surprise me in the shambles that is rolling stock classification these days.

The fourth letter 'F' was 80 km/h in my day with anything greater (100 km/h and above) being indicated by Y, P or W.

I meant to say that the use of the generic first letter was expanded to different letters for private operators.

PN inherited R from National Rail, N from Freight Corp, and V from Freight Australia and still use all of them.

In NSW, vehicles with plain bearings had the last letter A and were limited to 80 km/h
I thought that vehicles with "F" were allowed 100km/h
Only vehicles with "Y" or "W" were allowed 115km/h
I don't think the last letter "P" was used in NSW.

Peter

Thanks for the info, Much appreciated.

Is there much of a difference between a BD and BE wagon? Mine look like they are modelled off the examples that rode on reclaimed BE flat wagons, however the closest thing I can find to that is a datasheet of a BD wagon. As I'm only interested in the chassis would this data sheet show the correct details on the underframe?

Steve

'These were a letter representing the state "N", later expanded for private operators, the second letter indicating the use or type of wagon, a third letter indicating a variation in wagon type, and the fourth indicating a speed classification, "F" meaning it was allowed to run at 100km/h.'

N as a first letter was allocated to the NSWGR (or whatever it was called that day). It was therefore 'sold' to Pacific National as part of FreightCorp. I am not aware of it being used by a private operator(s) but nothing would surprise me in the shambles that is rolling stock classification these days.

The fourth letter 'F' was 80 km/h in my day with anything greater (100 km/h and above) being indicated by Y, P or W.

I meant to say that the use of the generic first letter was expanded to different letters for private operators.

PN inherited R from National Rail, N from Freight Corp, and V from Freight Australia and still use all of them.

In NSW, vehicles with plain bearings had the last letter A and were limited to 80 km/h
I thought that vehicles with "F" were allowed 100km/h
Only vehicles with "Y" or "W" were allowed 115km/h
I don't think the last letter "P" was used in NSW.

Peter

I thought that fourth letter A vehicles were limited to 65 km/h but it has been a long time since that mattered in my field.
I agree that P as a fourth letter was not used universally and may well have died out by now.
Fourth letter X and F were 80 km/h with X indicating suitable for bogie exchange and F as not suitable for bogie exchange although some systems used F in an attempt to manage wagons suitable for bogie exchange with nothing more than paint.

Thanks for the info, Much appreciated.

Is there much of a difference between a BD and BE wagon? Mine look like they are modelled off the examples that rode on reclaimed BE flat wagons, however the closest thing I can find to that is a datasheet of a BD wagon. As I'm only interested in the chassis would this data sheet show the correct details on the underframe?

Steve

I can only suggest that you check AMRM.

I know little about pre-WWII NSW wagons.

There is an online search facility, which I used to get the entries below:

There are others.

NSWR BE/E 40ft flat wagon kit in HO scale by Rails North Models.  
AMRM #114
June 1982
46
Review

NSWR BD & BDS Open Wagon c1930 AMRM #206
October 1997
38 Plan
Young, Gregory D
Prototype Plan

NSWR MLV Louvre Van
AMRM #115
August 1982
24
Article
Rogers, Paul


Most of the references to BD refer to the 1960s 35 feet steel open wagon later NOAF.

I would expect that any BD or E built about the same time would have a similar frame.

Peter

All details of Vehicle Coding (post 1980) are shown on pages 5, 6 and 7 of "Railway Freight Wagons in New South Wales 1980", compiled by John Beckhaus and published by ARHS NSW Division.  If you have a copy of this extremely comprehensive, informative and useful publication, you can read it yourself and all will be revealed.

However, if you do not have this little gem of a publication, pm me and I can copy the appropriate pages and send them to you, if this does not infringe on John Beckhaus's copyright expressed inside the front pages of the publication.

Hope that this information is helpful,

Cheers,

Gary

Clearly I should have referred to my copy of John Beckhaus' book.
My copy even includes a letter from John thanking me for my help.

The biggest customer for that book was Freight Corp who found it quite useful.

John indicates that only tank wagons were recoded NZFF, although this included former MLK wagons with the body removed.
Any wagons retaining the wooden louvre body were recoded NZMA (or NZMF if they had roller bearing three piece bogies)

Although these NZMA wagons had plain bearings, most had 2AE or 2BJ bogies which were allowed to run at 115 km/h.

So a model of an MLK with four letter code should be NZMA if it has 2AE bogies

John illustrates NZFF 24415 which looks like an MLK with the body removed and it has 2CF bogies.
If it was an MLK, it might have had the 2CF bogies when the body was still fitted.

John indicates that "Z" referred to special wagons and was used only by NSW

The third letter "F" referred to foodstuff, in this case milk.

Wine wagons were coded NTFF, so tank wagons but carrying food. I last saw these in Narrandera about a year ago, out of use.

As to speeds and fourth letters:
"A" wagons (except those with 2AE or 2BJ bogies) were limited to 65km/h, not 80km/h as YM indicated.

Other system wagons with "Y" and all "F" and "X" wagons were allowed 100km/h

NSW wagons with "Y" or "W" suffixes were allowed 130km/h (but this was probably limited to 115km/h in practice)

Grain wagons then coded NGTY have subsequently been divided to two types based on builders,  and are now NGPF and NGKF suggesting that they are no longer permitted to run at 115km/h.

To return to the kit:

My recollection is that all the small rectangular panels below the louvres were removed on MLK wagons, even on the ends.

This gave an odd appearance but improved ventilation and access for hoses.

You should probably fit 2AE bogies, as these were most common and allowed running at 115km/h.

The vehicle should be coded NZMA, not NZFF.

Peter

Sorry, but I still disagree with the following:

'all "F" and "X" wagons were allowed 100km/h'

I still say that all F and X wagons were 80 km/h.

Sorry, but I still disagree with the following:

'all "F" and "X" wagons were allowed 100km/h'

I still say that all F and X wagons were 80 km/h.

Sorry, but I still disagree with the following:

'all "F" and "X" wagons were allowed 100km/h'

I still say that all F and X wagons were 80 km/h.

I am just quoting the book which I believe drew from the NSWSRA instructions of the period.

Perhaps the limits for bogie types were different in NSW and in other states.

But those were the limits I recalled.

The book makes no reference to vehicles limited to 80km/h.

I'm pretty sure that the fast intermodal trains with Flexi-vans were allowed 100km/h on "X" bogies in NSW.

Peter

Sorry, but I still disagree with the following:

'all "F" and "X" wagons were allowed 100km/h'

I still say that all F and X wagons were 80 km/h.

I am just quoting the book which I believe drew from the NSWSRA instructions of the period.

Perhaps the limits for bogie types were different in NSW and in other states.

But those were the limits I recalled.

The book makes no reference to vehicles limited to 80km/h.

I'm pretty sure that the fast intermodal trains with Flexi-vans were allowed 100km/h on "X" bogies in NSW.

Peter

Peter,
Almost everything in NSW was (still is ?) different from everywhere else but I don't think that X class vehicles were one of them. It seems that we will just have to agree to disagree disagree in this regard.
I don't remember the speeds for the Flexi vans so cannot comment on them specifically. About all I remember of these is that the vans went sideways on at least one occasion. (edit: I do agree that they had 3 piece bogies however.)
The other 'fast' intermodal trains (Superfreighters/Contrans) were made up with NSW wagons with 2 piece bogies or NSWGR/VR jumbo flats with low level 2 piece or low level 'aligned' bogies, respectively. IIRC.
Regards
YM

By pure coincidence I managed to find this photo, plus a whole heap more that were taken in 1979 showing MLK's in service. (this particular one is in the milk siding at Berry Station, so that's three mystery's solved re where to put the holes, running on 2CF bogies and lack of buffers.)

Thank you for all the information that has been contributed so far, it has been of great assistance.

Now the next question to come to mind is what kind of milk tank would have been fitted into this wagon? Would it have just been a standard tank like the ones on the SDS BMF/NZFF wagons? (Or just whatever milk tanks the railways had handy?) How would this have been secured inside the wagon?

Also if sm-at-eden could send me those few pages of information, that would be great. I noticed the ARHS bookshop at Redfern had a copy of the book listed on their second hand book section. If it's still available, and I'm able to extract the information I need from it from this sample by the time I'm able to get some cash together I might try and grab it.

Link for the photo is http://www.robx1.net/b551_575/b563_27.jpg

Sorry, but I still disagree with the following:

'all "F" and "X" wagons were allowed 100km/h'

I still say that all F and X wagons were 80 km/h.

Then you will still be wrong about vehicle codes that ended in 'X'. Codes ending in X denoted that the vehicles were suitable for bogie exchange, both in the original pre-1980 state-based codes (with a few minor exceptions that predated the 'through' standard gauge lines) and in the post-1980 RoA four letter codes. Bogie exchange vehicles had to be able to run at 'line speed', so they were all passed for 70mph/110km/h (at least they were in NSW).

Codes ending in 'F' were a post-1980 thing (out of my personal area of interest), and I would have to search references to say what the speed limit was there for sure, but I'm pretty sure that, in NSW at least, that meant they were fitted with high-speed bogies so they could run at line speed, but were not suitable for bogie exchanging, so were good for 110km/h.

Sorry, but I still disagree with the following:

'all "F" and "X" wagons were allowed 100km/h'

I still say that all F and X wagons were 80 km/h.

Then you will still be wrong about vehicle codes that ended in 'X'. Codes ending in X denoted that the vehicles were suitable for bogie exchange, both in the original pre-1980 state-based codes (with a few minor exceptions that predated the 'through' standard gauge lines) and in the post-1980 RoA four letter codes. Bogie exchange vehicles had to be able to run at 'line speed', so they were all passed for 70mph/110km/h (at least they were in NSW).

Codes ending in 'F' were a post-1980 thing (out of my personal area of interest), and I would have to search references to say what the speed limit was there for sure, but I'm pretty sure that, in NSW at least, that meant they were fitted with high-speed bogies so they could run at line speed, but were not suitable for bogie exchanging, so were good for 110km/h.

Are we talking of two distinctly different eras here or, perhaps, a few special workings peculiar to NSW? What do you see as the definition of line speed? Where did it exceed 80 km/h for normal freight services? Prior to the Melbourne - Sydney Superfreighters what general freight services were tabled to exceed 80 km/h?

I have been careful to specify that I am talking vehicles carrying the uniform RoA four letter classification. Prior to this I still believe that everything that I can think of in intersystem working with gap side bearers (X and F) such as FQX/VQCX, GOX/AOOX, ICX/NQIX etc etc were not to exceed 80 km/h.

All fourth letter X wagons (suitable for bogie exchange) had gap side bearers and were not allowed speeds greater than 80 km/h. Looking at an old NSW 'Local Appendix' the various wagon classes were allocated a speed limit which is shown as A (115 km/h), B (100 km/h), C (80 km/h) and so on. The A class vehicles at that time were largely NSW container flats NQAY NQOY etc plus NODY, NOCY. There were relatively few B class wagons but the great multitude of X class wagons were C and, as such 80 km/h.

To exceed 80 km/h wagons required either 2-piece bogies (much favoured in NSW - NQOY, NOCY, NODY etc) or aligned 3-piece bogies (VQDW/AQDW/AQMP) or 3-piece bogies with CCSBs* such as RQTY etc.

* Constant contact sidebearers. CCSBs were a more recent (1990s/NR) innovation as were 70 ton 3 piece bogies.

Using your theory, are you saying that an NKSX wide plate wagon or an NCWF coiled rod 'birdcage' are/were allowed 115 km/h?

Now the next question to come to mind is what kind of milk tank would have been fitted into this wagon? Would it have just been a standard tank like the ones on the SDS BMF/NZFF wagons? (Or just whatever milk tanks the railways had handy?) How would this have been secured inside the wagon?

As I indicated earlier, John Beckhaus' book illustrates NZZF 24415 on page 56.

24415 was a UME and hence was longer than an MLK. I think these tanks are larger than would fit in an MLK.

I do recall seeing an MLK without the body. I think the tanks were black (but it is a long time ago).

However the tanks illustrated are painted white, and have six evenly spaced support frames and a rectangular base which is presumably bolted to the floor. they have only a small number painted on the side.

These tanks would be similar to those in MLK wagons but I think the MLK tanks would be a little smaller.
Sadly the "Carrying Capacity of Wagons" book doesn't even give the capacity of the milk tanks (which were owned by the milk companies).

AMRM did an article on the former grain carrying boxcars, some of which became MLK wagons, and that might provide details of the tanks which should be the same as other MLK wagons.

Peter

In general use the X as the last letter denoted that it could run at full line speed and was bogie exchangable onto similar bogies. However NSW had wagons of its own that had bogies that might not be allowable on other railways. Thus two almost identical wagons could have different codes ending in X or F as both could be run at full line speed but the F wagon was not bogie exchangeable. Some railways would not allow certain bogies to be used under a wagon and SAR/CR/ANR/AN were one such organization. Not having some of the bogies that NSW had under freight wagons they simply would not allow them on to there system as if the bogie failed for instance half way across the Nullabor then you had no way of making speedy repairs to it from stock standard parts held by them so they simply said no it cannot be rum. Which makes a bit of sense.

But later on this was lifted as some wagons from all railways got restrictions on them and were they could run and at what speed and it began to be a huge mess, so it was relaxed a bit but even so some specialist type of bogies were still barred under cars though.

This was both the old 3 letter codes and the later 4 letter codes as well. NSW used different air brake set ups as well on some wagons as well bogies using 4 brake blocks per bogie each side were one such thing and these were not permitted to be run in Commonwealth Railways or SAR days on their tracks. It had something to do with brake power per wagon or something like that and they were banned from use here. So NSWGR at the time to get around it rebuilt the bogies with only 2 brake blocks per side and cut the remaining brake hanger of the ends of the bogies so they could not be refitted. There was a reason that both ComRail and SAR would not allow them to run as they were originally but I cannot recall the reason properly now! I think but am not sure that they were scared that the brakes on these wagons would come on more firmly that the others and might cause a derailment or something.

Each railway knew what would and would not work on their respective systems and a lot were not to keen to change it, so these differences remained and were put into force. Also NSW had a knack of using the letters in codes differently to other states as well so running a vehicle interstate shunters etc had to be on their toes, lest they break local railway rules. It probably has happened that a vehicle going to WA years back was one that should not have run there at all but if a large van or something fully loaded with something bulky then it would be a bit hard to either send it back or transfer the stuff inside to a more suitable wagon. Meanwhile someone in WA is jumping up and down over where his stuff is and what is the hold up. So in these cases the wagon would get there hopefully!

Extract from the current RISSB Standard

23.2.2.5.2 Fourth character allocation shall be as follows:



(a) 'A' vehicles not permitted to work at normal 'express freight' speeds; restricted to 70 km/hr or less



(b) 'F' vehicles permitted to work at normal 'express freight' speeds, but which are not for bogie exchange; maximum speed 80 km/hr



(c) 'L' vehicles suitable for limited bogie exchange operations, generally intrasystem, but not complying fully with all requirements for general exchange/intersystem working; maximum speed 80 km/hr



(d) 'X' vehicles fitted with standard three-piece exchange bogies with roller bearings and oscillation control, suitable for unrestricted bogie exchange operations; maximum speed 80 km/hr



(e) 'Y' vehicle and bogie combinations which are suitable for normal mainline speeds up to 110 km/hr  



(f) 'Z' vehicle and bogie combinations which are suitable for normal mainline speeds up to 130 km/hr



(g) 'S" vehicle and bogie combinations which are suitable for normal mainline speeds up to 145 km/hr



(h) 'T' vehicle and bogie combinations which are suitable for normal mainline speeds up to 160 km/hr

Thanks again for all this information, this is going to be of great assistance.

I've reserved my copy of John Beckhaus's book, and will get it as soon as funds become available, and look forward to reading it.

Extract from the current RISSB Standard

23.2.2.5.2 Fourth character allocation shall be as follows:



(a) 'A' vehicles not permitted to work at normal 'express freight' speeds; restricted to 70 km/hr or less



(b) 'F' vehicles permitted to work at normal 'express freight' speeds, but which are not for bogie exchange; maximum speed 80 km/hr



(c) 'L' vehicles suitable for limited bogie exchange operations, generally intrasystem, but not complying fully with all requirements for general exchange/intersystem working; maximum speed 80 km/hr



(d) 'X' vehicles fitted with standard three-piece exchange bogies with roller bearings and oscillation control, suitable for unrestricted bogie exchange operations; maximum speed 80 km/hr



(e) 'Y' vehicle and bogie combinations which are suitable for normal mainline speeds up to 110 km/hr  



(f) 'Z' vehicle and bogie combinations which are suitable for normal mainline speeds up to 130 km/hr



(g) 'S" vehicle and bogie combinations which are suitable for normal mainline speeds up to 145 km/hr



(h) 'T' vehicle and bogie combinations which are suitable for normal mainline speeds up to 160 km/hr

And I, of course, committed the prime sin of posting, then checking! I should have checked, then posted...

You are, of course, completely correct and I will take this as a lesson to not rely of 40 year old memories, but to first check my references before posting, so that I don't make myself look foolish! Thanks for posting this, it is very useful.

Extract from the current RISSB Standard

23.2.2.5.2 Fourth character allocation shall be as follows:



(a) 'A' vehicles not permitted to work at normal 'express freight' speeds; restricted to 70 km/hr or less



(b) 'F' vehicles permitted to work at normal 'express freight' speeds, but which are not for bogie exchange; maximum speed 80 km/hr



(c) 'L' vehicles suitable for limited bogie exchange operations, generally intrasystem, but not complying fully with all requirements for general exchange/intersystem working; maximum speed 80 km/hr



(d) 'X' vehicles fitted with standard three-piece exchange bogies with roller bearings and oscillation control, suitable for unrestricted bogie exchange operations; maximum speed 80 km/hr



(e) 'Y' vehicle and bogie combinations which are suitable for normal mainline speeds up to 110 km/hr  



(f) 'Z' vehicle and bogie combinations which are suitable for normal mainline speeds up to 130 km/hr



(g) 'S" vehicle and bogie combinations which are suitable for normal mainline speeds up to 145 km/hr



(h) 'T' vehicle and bogie combinations which are suitable for normal mainline speeds up to 160 km/hr

And I, of course, committed the prime sin of posting, then checking! I should have checked, then posted...

You are, of course, completely correct and I will take this as a lesson to not rely of 40 year old memories, but to first check my references before posting, so that I don't make myself look foolish! Thanks for posting this, it is very useful.

James (LF),
I do appreciate your post (above).

Rather than be right or wrong I think that it is more important to leave an accurate trail for many of the 'younger' members who have not had the experience that perhaps we have nor have they any way of gaining that (probably useless these days) experience.

Even today I would not word the RISSB Standard the way they have. I would remove the struck out words which are superfluous to my way of thinking. My version is set out below.

Looked up some of your model pics (to see who I was dealing with 'haha') They are nothing short of bloody magnificent !!!

Keep smiling.
Regards
YM

The Yardie's version:

Extract from the current RISSB Standard

23.2.2.5.2 Fourth character allocation shall be as follows:

(a) 'A' vehicles not permitted to work at normal 'express freight' speeds; restricted to 70 km/hr or less
(b) 'F' vehicles permitted to work at normal 'express freight' speeds, but which are not for bogie exchange; maximum speed 80 km/hr

(c) 'L' vehicles suitable for limited bogie exchange operations, generally intrasystem, but not complying fully with all requirements for general exchange/intersystem working; maximum speed 80 km/hr

(d) 'X' vehicles fitted with standard three-piece exchange bogies with roller bearings and oscillation control, suitable for unrestricted bogie exchange operations; maximum speed 80 km/hr

(e) 'Y' vehicle and bogie combinations which are suitable for normal mainline speeds up to 110 km/hr*  

(f) 'Z' vehicle and bogie combinations which are suitable for normal mainline speeds up to 130 km/hr

(g) 'S" vehicle and bogie combinations which are suitable for normal mainline speeds up to 145 km/hr

(h) 'T' vehicle and bogie combinations which are suitable for normal mainline speeds up to 160 km/hr


* 115 km/h in practice (in NSW at least) ????

Extract from the current RISSB Standard

23.2.2.5.2 Fourth character allocation shall be as follows:



(a) 'A' vehicles not permitted to work at normal 'express freight' speeds; restricted to 70 km/hr or less



(b) 'F' vehicles permitted to work at normal 'express freight' speeds, but which are not for bogie exchange; maximum speed 80 km/hr



(c) 'L' vehicles suitable for limited bogie exchange operations, generally intrasystem, but not complying fully with all requirements for general exchange/intersystem working; maximum speed 80 km/hr



(d) 'X' vehicles fitted with standard three-piece exchange bogies with roller bearings and oscillation control, suitable for unrestricted bogie exchange operations; maximum speed 80 km/hr



(e) 'Y' vehicle and bogie combinations which are suitable for normal mainline speeds up to 110 km/hr  



(f) 'Z' vehicle and bogie combinations which are suitable for normal mainline speeds up to 130 km/hr



(g) 'S" vehicle and bogie combinations which are suitable for normal mainline speeds up to 145 km/hr



(h) 'T' vehicle and bogie combinations which are suitable for normal mainline speeds up to 160 km/hr

And I, of course, committed the prime sin of posting, then checking! I should have checked, then posted...

You are, of course, completely correct and I will take this as a lesson to not rely of 40 year old memories, but to first check my references before posting, so that I don't make myself look foolish! Thanks for posting this, it is very useful.

James (LF),
I do appreciate your post (above).

Rather than be right or wrong I think that it is more important to leave an accurate trail for many of the 'younger' members who have not had the experience that perhaps we have nor have they any way of gaining that (probably useless these days) experience.

Even today I would not word the RISSB Standard the way they have. I would remove the struck out words which are superfluous to my way of thinking. My version is set out below.

Looked up some of your model pics (to see who I was dealing with 'haha') They are nothing short of bloody magnificent !!!

Keep smiling.
Regards
YM

The Yardie's version:

Extract from the current RISSB Standard

23.2.2.5.2 Fourth character allocation shall be as follows:

(a) 'A' vehicles not permitted to work at normal 'express freight' speeds; restricted to 70 km/hr or less
(b) 'F' vehicles permitted to work at normal 'express freight' speeds, but which are not for bogie exchange; maximum speed 80 km/hr

(c) 'L' vehicles suitable for limited bogie exchange operations, generally intrasystem, but not complying fully with all requirements for general exchange/intersystem working; maximum speed 80 km/hr

(d) 'X' vehicles fitted with standard three-piece exchange bogies with roller bearings and oscillation control, suitable for unrestricted bogie exchange operations; maximum speed 80 km/hr

(e) 'Y' vehicle and bogie combinations which are suitable for normal mainline speeds up to 110 km/hr*  

(f) 'Z' vehicle and bogie combinations which are suitable for normal mainline speeds up to 130 km/hr

(g) 'S" vehicle and bogie combinations which are suitable for normal mainline speeds up to 145 km/hr

(h) 'T' vehicle and bogie combinations which are suitable for normal mainline speeds up to 160 km/hr


* 115 km/h in practice (in NSW at least) ????

Having been involved in standards and involved in issuing "Authorities to Travel" I agree with your contention that the words you have struck out are superfluous.
Standards should be as concise and clear as possible, no need for extraneous wording.

As someone who has actually carried out bogie dynamics tests, I think I should point out that we are quoting a current standard against a reference dating back to 1981 when I think we can say much less was known about the riding of three piece bogies in particular, and there were few concerns about running them at high speed.

Today with modern digital electronics taking measurements of bogie movement may be relatively simple. In 1975 when I started, the analogue equipment was large, heavy and required very careful treatment and adjustment.

We had a black and white video recorder which was the size of a large suitcase not including power, for which we had a two cylinder diesel generator. The two multi track analogue data recorders filled a standard 19 inch electronics rack.

I believe that some vehicles with standard three piece bogies were allowed at least 100 km/h (or more correctly 60 miles an hour) in the 1960s, remembering that the metric system was introduced in January 1973.

It is definitely true that plain bearing vehicles with the "A" suffix were allowed to run at 115 km/h if they had 2AE type rigid frame bogies. Vehicles of type NLMA and the milk tank conversions coded NZMA were among these. It might be worth pointing out that 2AE bogies were used on the PHS power vans of "RUB" set air conditioned trains (although those I've seen had roller bearings, I think some originally had plain bearings, as did many of the passenger cars.)

The NLMAs were used as parcels vans on passenger trains, and some had electric train heating through cables and before that steam heating pipes.

The only trains I regularly see limited to 80km/h are steel trains, including empty steel trains. 7MW2 which starts out ahead of the Melbourne Sydney XPT often stays ahead of it until Yass Junction or Goulburn. It seems to be able to climb Cullerin Bank as fast as the XPT, since the line speed is limited by the curves.

On the other hand vehicles that started life as AOOX wagons and are now used for steel beams from Whyalla are often attached loaded to 4PS6 which definitely runs at 115km/h (you can watch it drawing away across the plains north of Bredalbane while you are driving at a real 110km/h.) These wagons often have USA 70 ton bogies (ie suitable for a wagon capacity of 70 tons). They may all be "Y" suffix but I doubt it.

But I believe the data provided by John Beckhaus was correct in 1981 when he transcribed it from the official descriptions.

Since RISSB didn't exist then, their instructions could not have applied.

Peter

'On the other hand vehicles that started life as AOOX wagons and are now used for steel beams from Whyalla are often attached loaded to 4PS6 which definitely runs at 115km/h (you can watch it drawing away across the plains north of Bredalbane while you are driving at a real 110km/h.) These wagons often have USA 70 ton bogies (ie suitable for a wagon capacity of 70 tons). They may all be "Y" suffix but I doubt it.'


What you say may be a perfectly accurate reflection of what is happening in actual practice but nevertheless nothing with an X fourth letter should run at greater than 80 km/h.

It matters not what a vehicle started life as. What does matter is its current setup with, say, 70 ton bogies and CCSBs etc. There is history with AOOXs with 70 ton bogies becoming RKWFs, RKWYs, reverting to RKWF and perhaps again RKWY.

Almost all corporate history and experience has been lost these days but one day someone will be hung for running an X vehicle at greater than 80 km/h. By all means legitimately upgrade an X to a Y with proper engineering but there is more to it than just changing the bogies or the bogie/wagon setup.