| home |
|
| news |
|
| discussions |
|
| content |
|
| site |
|
|
| technical support | Need Help? Lodge a support ticket!
Note: This is for technical support only. General questions about railways should be posted to the Forums.donation 
Please Donate!photo comp Have YOU voted yet on Photo of the Month?
Click Here!
Voting Closes 30/11search |
| |
| Author |
Message |
squeekazoid
Chief Commissioner
Joined: Jul 12, 2006
Last Visited: Nov 22, 2008
Location: RADelaide!
contact
|
post
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 07, 2008 11:11 pm
|
The Inline Fueling Train At The Moment Is.
2SP5/5PS6.
Cheers ,
|
|
 |
chase42211
Chief Commissioner
Joined: Jul 07, 2004
Last Visited: Nov 21, 2008
Location: A well paid kettle boiler.
contact
|
post
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 08, 2008 12:14 am
|
| EMD16-645E3C wrote: | | What's the story with the in line fueling? |
The 92 are only going to be used on coal. Antiene will get 6.
All have the number 2 control stand but no controls, only 9201 and 9202 have the inline fuel, the rest wont see it. Also I heard the ARTC have put an 80kph speed restriction on them as well no matter how much fuel is in the tank.
|
|
|
EMD16-645E3C
Locomotive Fireman
Joined: Jul 27, 2008
Last Visited: Nov 20, 2008
contact
|
post
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 08, 2008 12:37 am
|
| chase42211 wrote: | | EMD16-645E3C wrote: | | What's the story with the in line fueling? |
The 92 are only going to be used on coal. Antiene will get 6.
All have the number 2 control stand but no controls, only 9201 and 9202 have the inline fuel, the rest wont see it. Also I heard the ARTC have put an 80kph speed restriction on them as well no matter how much fuel is in the tank. |
Thanks for that chase42211. It was abit strange to see a loco built for the coal trains to have in line fueling compared to others that are running these days i.e. 90, 82, 81, 5000 class
|
|
|
BDA
Chief Commissioner
Joined: Oct 17, 2003
Last Visited: Nov 20, 2008
Location: Sydney
contact
|
post
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 08, 2008 5:26 am
|
|
Silly not to have put the AC4400 trucks under them wasn't it
|
|
|
chase42211
Chief Commissioner
Joined: Jul 07, 2004
Last Visited: Nov 21, 2008
Location: A well paid kettle boiler.
contact
|
post
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 08, 2008 9:41 am
|
| BDA wrote: | | Silly not to have put the AC4400 trucks under them wasn't it |
Yep if they had that planed they should have built them the same standards as the 5000's.
|
|
|
M636C
Chief Commissioner
Joined: Aug 18, 2005
Last Visited: Nov 20, 2008
contact
|
post
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 08, 2008 10:54 am
|
| BDA wrote: | | Silly not to have put the AC4400 trucks under them wasn't it |
They can still run on tracks not available to the 5000 class, and can be used on Gunnedah traffic.
I think that the problem was that UGR expected that they would get the same concession that EDI appear to have received for the SCT, ie that with the lighter AC motors they would cause no more track damage than a conventional 132t DC locomotive and would be allowed to run at 115 km/h. This appears not to have happened. The EDI semi steering bogie might have swayed the ARTC decision makers in favour of a concession, although an EMD guy I spoke to said they hadn't carried out any real instrumented tests on the new bogie.
Still, the 92 can probably run anywhere an 82 can go and will haul at least as much as a 90 and there is plenty of work for them as they are.
The interesting question is "what will CFCLA do with theirs?". They could always lease them to PN coal, I guess.
M636C
|
|
|
Termite
Chief Commissioner
Joined: Feb 10, 2004
Last Visited: Nov 17, 2008
Location: In a dark alley!
contact
|
post
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 08, 2008 3:06 pm
|
| sashmo wrote: | yeah so i see but they did manage a run to Ulan on the Saturday after the handing over ceremony. shame i could not get out far enough to see em on that run. ah well maybe next time i come down.
cheers
sashmo |
That was for trialling purposes and promotional purposes I'm told.
Say what you want about me, I don't lose sleep at night worried what you're thinking....
|
|
|
BDA
Chief Commissioner
Joined: Oct 17, 2003
Last Visited: Nov 20, 2008
Location: Sydney
contact
|
post
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 08, 2008 8:27 pm
|
I guess it is early days and sometimes the goal posts move a little .
Can someone remind me of what a fully provisioned C class weighs - the official and the real world figures have always been rumored to be different and it makes me wonder if heavier than expected has been running around at up to 115 for ages .
Interesting to hear that only 9201/02 have in line refuelling fitted , if it's the case then the others will be practically useless except on the east coast .
|
|
|
nutbagg
Assistant Commissioner
Joined: Feb 11, 2007
Last Visited: Nov 18, 2008
Location: In Willy Wonka's Chocolate Lake
contact
|
post
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 09, 2008 2:36 am
|
| M636C wrote: | | BDA wrote: | | Silly not to have put the AC4400 trucks under them wasn't it |
They can still run on tracks not available to the 5000 class, and can be used on Gunnedah traffic.
I think that the problem was that UGR expected that they would get the same concession that EDI appear to have received for the SCT, ie that with the lighter AC motors they would cause no more track damage than a conventional 132t DC locomotive and would be allowed to run at 115 km/h. This appears not to have happened. The EDI semi steering bogie might have swayed the ARTC decision makers in favour of a concession, although an EMD guy I spoke to said they hadn't carried out any real instrumented tests on the new bogie.
Still, the 92 can probably run anywhere an 82 can go and will haul at least as much as a 90 and there is plenty of work for them as they are.
The interesting question is "what will CFCLA do with theirs?". They could always lease them to PN coal, I guess.
M636C |
The 80km/h ban may be temporary until ARTC are satisfied with testing results from UGR. But there is still plenty of work on heavy trains that only run at 80km/h. So whats to say the CFCLA units will work on ARTC track anyway? I still think they are being built for a specific customer and not general leasing.
Mate, if that loco pulls as hard as you do, it'd move anything.
I'd still rather have an ALCo.
|
|
|
M636C
Chief Commissioner
Joined: Aug 18, 2005
Last Visited: Nov 20, 2008
contact
|
post
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 09, 2008 10:56 am
|
Even if the the ARTC agree to the 92 running at 115km/h, 9201 to 9215 will not be used by PN Intermodal. The variable horsepower feature has not been fitted, but more significantly, these units are being completed with a single forward facing control stand rather than dual stands as required by intermodal. These units will probably stay in the Hunter for their whole lives.
It was originally intended that the all the locos would be the same and would all be suitable for intermodal duties although only the last six were intended to go to intermodal.
Of course, a future batch of 92 class could be built for PN intermodal.
The ARG units (probably V class) will probably not have to work on the ARTC network, and might not be restricted in speed by Westnet. They will probably go directly to the Koolyanobbing Iron Ore traffic, (which is short a couple of locos right now) and some Q class might be released for interstate duties.
M636C
|
|
|
rjaygee
Assistant Commissioner
Joined: Jul 26, 2003
Last Visited: Nov 19, 2008
contact
|
post
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 09, 2008 11:11 am
|
Have the 92 class been equiped with US style warning bells like the NR class etc have. Caught up last night with a late running Indian Pacific at Summer Hill and it caught up to my train at Strathfield. As it passed slowly through Strathfield the NR rang its warning bell. Took me back to my USA trips with the bell ringing and the very US looking Indian Pacific cars. By the way, can anyone tell what appears to be a modified ex SA passenger car Sir John Forrester is. Some of the side windows have been enlarged to create a sort of observation lounge with some lucky souls inside sipping drinks.
Cheers
Rod Gayford
|
|
|
biqua
Paper Tiger
Joined: May 10, 2005
Last Visited: Nov 21, 2008
Location: SRA Survey No. 14032
contact
|
post
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 09, 2008 11:26 am
|
Page 7 of this brochure on the GSR website will give you some details of the Sir John Forrest car.
The Comrails page will give you more detail of the history, and some photos.
|
|
|
KRviator
Moderator
Joined: Apr 23, 2005
Last Visited: Nov 21, 2008
Location: Cab of a 90 Class
contact
|
post
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 09, 2008 11:34 am
|
| rjaygee wrote: | | Have the 92 class been equiped with US style warning bells like the NR class |
Certainly have. Can see the button for it in the upper right of the island control stand...
Trainee Driver, Pacific National
Comments made are strictly the opinion of the author and do not reflect the opinions of the ADF, Pacific National, Freight Australia or the Boy Scouts of Antartica.
My fotopic gallery: http://KRviator.fotopic.net |
|
|
M636C
Chief Commissioner
Joined: Aug 18, 2005
Last Visited: Nov 20, 2008
contact
|
post
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 09, 2008 2:16 pm
|
Does anyone know the gear ratio for the 92 class?
I've checked some of the postings, but I haven't found it yet!
To answer BDA's question, the (Victorian) C class were about 134 tonnes, maybe more, and they were limited to 80 KM/h for many years although that restriction was forgotten when the G class arrived.
I think the CLP class were (and are) more than 134 tonnes all up and they have never been restricted.
The point is that the limit is 132 tonnes, and that is presumably based on somebody's view of what the track can take on a regular basis. There is rail on the up main in Gunning marked "AS 1928 100 LB AIS 5/1934". This was presumably installed to allow the 57 class to work south and has been in continuous use for 74 years. Does anyone here want to say that that rail is suitable for locomotives of over 132 tonnes to run over regularly, or more importantly that increased stresses will not cause internal flaws to initiate failure?
Are they sure that rail designed in 1928 and rolled in 1934 and used continuously since then is adequate for today's traffic?
The (5'6" gauge) Buenos Aires and Pacific Railway was laid with 100 LB rail in 1905 and most of that is still in use. But is that the standard we aspire to?
M636C
|
|
|
SMR30
Minister for Railways
Joined: Jul 20, 2004
Last Visited: Nov 20, 2008
Location: Not close enough to the Main Northern Line where i live :(
contact
|
post
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 09, 2008 2:32 pm
|
|
Might be silly question but when these work over Ardglen will these loco still need the 80 class bankers on the back or not?
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT + 10 Hours
|
You cannot post new threads in this forum
You cannot reply to threads in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB 2.0.6 © 2001 phpBB Group
Theme images and concept © 2004 by Michael Greenhill and Railpage, All Rights Reserved.
Version 2.0.6 of PHP-Nuke Port by Tom Nitzschner © 2002 www.toms-home.com
|
|
