| 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 |
KRviator
Moderator
Joined: Apr 23, 2005
Last Visited: Nov 21, 2008
Location: Cab of a 90 Class
contact
|
post
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 09, 2008 2:49 pm
|
| M636C wrote: | | Does anyone know the gear ratio for the 92 class? I've checked some of the postings, but I haven't found it yet! |
From the draft operators manual I've got, it shows it as 87:16. I haven't seen a manual for the in-service loco's yet...
| SMR30 wrote: | Might be silly question but when these work over Ardglen will these loco still need the 80 class bankers on the back or not?
|
That all depends on what kind of train they want to run, ie, if they want to maintain the 72 long or go to something more apprppriate for these loco's. All other things being equal, I would say they will maintain the bankers, as that is basically only some decrepit 80 Class and 1x82 at this time, innit? Why tie up perfectly good 92's or additional 82's just for Ardglen, as they aren't needed closer to Port, when they can be put to better use on the front of other trains.
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 3:36 pm
|
The 5000 class have 87:16 gear ratio, but they have GEB13 motors and are intended to run at 80 km/h, while the 92 has GEB30 motors and was intended to run at 115km/h.
The number might be right, but I'd like a more convincing source than an interim operator's manual based on the 5000 class.
Above the frame, apart from the different radiators, the 92 is very similar to the 5000 (hence the usefulness of an existing manual).
Incidentally, the bogie weight for a 5000 is 28.5 tonnes, and that quoted for the 92 is 20.3 tonnes, so fitting 5000 class bogies would increase a 92 with full fuel tanks to 155.4 tonnes. That might be enough for it to apply the higher tractive effort that comes with the GEB13 motors. The bogies might not fit on a 92, since the bogie wheelbase is longer on the 5000 class.
M636C
|
|
|
KRviator
Moderator
Joined: Apr 23, 2005
Last Visited: Nov 21, 2008
Location: Cab of a 90 Class
contact
|
post
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 09, 2008 4:08 pm
|
| M636C wrote: | | I'd like a more convincing source than an interim operator's manual based on the 5000 class. |
Well, since you insist...Best I could do is 85:16...That's from the current training package put out by PN.
Incidentally, the same package still specifies a maximum service speed of 115kph so either ARTC hasn't told PN, or someone in PN is somewhat optimistic. 
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 4:44 pm
|
| KRviator wrote: | | M636C wrote: | | I'd like a more convincing source than an interim operator's manual based on the 5000 class. |
Well, since you insist...Best I could do is 85:16...That's from the current training package put out by PN.
Incidentally, the same package still specifies a maximum service speed of 115kph so either ARTC hasn't told PN, or someone in PN is somewhat optimistic. |
Actually, 85:16 sounds good!
In a given series of gears, such as those for EMD D77 motors, you will get a sequence like 61:16, 59:18, 58:19, 57:20 and so on.
85:16 and 87:16 clearly can't belong to the same "family", which you might expect to see with two different types of motors, the GEB 30 and the larger GEB 13.
Thanks for your efforts. I'll believe 85:16 until someone can prove otherwise.
It is only the weight that restricts the 92 from running at 115 km/h, the gear ratio was designed for it. I think that locomotives like the 5000 in the USA (say an AC4400) can run at 70 mph with an 87:16 ratio. I wouldn't recommend trying that in the Hunter Valley on the lighter rail.
M636C
|
|
|
4705-44201NB
Chief Commissioner
Joined: Jun 18, 2004
Last Visited: Nov 22, 2008
Location: Newcastle
contact
|
post
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 11, 2008 12:26 pm
|
9202/9203/90xx were sighted on a Up coal working through East Maitland this morning at 11.45
9201, 9202/9203 were all stabled on the Pt Waratah Departure rd's in thier usual location at 10.30pm last night.
9205, 9207 were sighted in the yards at UGR painted up yesterday about 6am. 9207 was painted but hadn't had its declas applied yet.
9204, 9206 were in the shed at UGR yesterday aboyt 6am also
|
|
|
M636C
Chief Commissioner
Joined: Aug 18, 2005
Last Visited: Nov 20, 2008
contact
|
post
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 13, 2008 10:37 am
|
To answer the earlier question about the air brake controller, it shows up in my photos as having a badge of a "K" in a circle with "wings" either side which suggest the maker is Knorr Bremse of Germany. They might be associated with New York Air Brake.
I haven't found my high res photos of 5000 class yet, but the actual controller looks very similar.
M636C
|
|
|
chase42211
Chief Commissioner
Joined: Jul 07, 2004
Last Visited: Nov 21, 2008
Location: A well paid kettle boiler.
contact
|
post
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 13, 2008 10:55 am
|
| M636C wrote: | To answer the earlier question about the air brake controller, it shows up in my photos as having a badge of a "K" in a circle with "wings" either side which suggest the maker is Knorr Bremse of Germany. They might be associated with New York Air Brake.
I haven't found my high res photos of 5000 class yet, but the actual controller looks very similar.
M636C |
In my 92 manual its a Knorr NYAB and the model is a CCBll/EAB.
|
|
|
EMBaldwin
Chief Commissioner
Joined: Feb 26, 2003
Last Visited: Nov 20, 2008
Location: QR Newlands Corridor
contact
|
post
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 13, 2008 12:20 pm
|
Knorr-Bremse acquired New York Air Brake's rail braking business from General Signal in 1991 according to Wikipedia
Steve
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
You want Cane Trains?
You need canetrains.net |
|
|
Kafoopsy
Chief Commissioner
Joined: Oct 28, 2004
Last Visited: Nov 21, 2008
Location: Perth, WA
contact
|
post
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 13, 2008 12:57 pm
|
|
Has anyone photographed the 92s on coal trains yet? It will be a bit of a shame if they don't go on intermodal services as we will never see them over here in WA!
|
|
|
M636C
Chief Commissioner
Joined: Aug 18, 2005
Last Visited: Nov 20, 2008
contact
|
post
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 13, 2008 3:44 pm
|
| Kafoopsy wrote: | | Has anyone photographed the 92s on coal trains yet? It will be a bit of a shame if they don't go on intermodal services as we will never see them over here in WA! |
I think there is no chance of seeing 9201-9215 in WA.
9201 started off as being a Cv43aci with dual controls and in-line fuelling equipment, but the "v" part went away, only 9201/2 were fitted for in-line fuelling and 9201 has the long end control space blanked off.
It seems that PN Intermodal lost interest pretty early in the process, possibly when ARTC decided to limit the 92 class to 80 km/h which may have been before 9201 ran trials.
It is all very confusing to an outside observer.
But the ARG locomotives (V class?) will be very similar and are expected to go into the Koolyanobbing ore traffic (unless I've missed someting there). They might not be restricted in speed since they won't regularly work on ARTC track.
Apart from the actual numbers and the radiator, you have to look at a 92 to tell it from an NR in the current colours.
UG might be able to modify the design to allow for 115km/h running on ARTC track for future orders.
M636C
|
|
|
KEVIN ROEHR
Locomotive Driver
Joined: Feb 26, 2006
Last Visited: Nov 15, 2008
Location: Sydney
contact
|
post
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 13, 2008 6:12 pm
|
|
How many 92 class are being built?
|
|
|
4705-44201NB
Chief Commissioner
Joined: Jun 18, 2004
Last Visited: Nov 22, 2008
Location: Newcastle
contact
|
post
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 13, 2008 6:14 pm
|
|
15
|
|
|
BDA
Chief Commissioner
Joined: Oct 17, 2003
Last Visited: Nov 20, 2008
Location: Sydney
contact
|
post
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 13, 2008 7:54 pm
|
Does anyone happen to know what the Evolution V12 weighs in comparison to a 7FDL V16 ?
It would also be interesting to know if the height and width of the later power assembly is anything like the current FDL .
If they are in the envelope then they would be the way of the future and ordering any more locomotives with obsolete components is bad economics . Best possible fuel consumption and performance is what makes a good locomotive/prime mover good .
From where we sit Intermodal is not exactly flash for funding so I don't think they're racing out to buy new locomotives .
We did hear that we may inherit coal road cast offs (a bit like the old rent a wrecks in the NRC days) but I'm not so sure coal can release them .
In any case 3000 hp diesels don't really cut it in intermodal service simply because they don't have the guts in the medium speed ranges on the grades . Too slow too thirsty so not the best way to go about running these trains .
Some may question why adequate power to climb the longest steepest grades isn't enough for the superfreighters , the best comparison I can think of is that many small wheeled steam engines don't really equal a smaller number of tall wheeled steam engines .
I think UP in the past ordered SD40/-2's ? with taller gearing for intermodal trains and they were known as "fast 40's" and may have run with the DD40AX's . Obviously a taller geared locomotive will run at higher traction motor amps in the medium speed ranges than a std one and will pull harder in those circumstances .
If you want fast running times between Australias capitals low powered short geared locomotives are not the way to go about it .
|
|
|
BDA
Chief Commissioner
Joined: Oct 17, 2003
Last Visited: Nov 20, 2008
Location: Sydney
contact
|
post
|
|
|
|
M636C
Chief Commissioner
Joined: Aug 18, 2005
Last Visited: Nov 20, 2008
contact
|
post
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 14, 2008 10:11 am
|
| BDA wrote: | Does anyone happen to know what the Evolution V12 weighs in comparison to a 7FDL V16 ?
It would also be interesting to know if the height and width of the later power assembly is anything like the current FDL .
If they are in the envelope then they would be the way of the future and ordering any more locomotives with obsolete components is bad economics . Best possible fuel consumption and performance is what makes a good locomotive/prime mover good .
|
If you look on the GE website, the GEVO engine is included as a marine engine with the model number 12V250 and the marine equivalent of the FDL (The FDM, L=locomotive, M=marine) now the 16V228 are listed.
In this form the 12V250 is two tonnes lighter than the 16V228.
The main difference is that the marine engines both have water cooled intercoolers.
The V250 is narrower than the V228 because it lacks the outboard inlet ducts of older engine, which had a crossflow head (air in one side, exhaust out the other).
The marine engines have deeper sumps to cope with pitch and roll at sea but the height from the engine mounts to the top of the engine is 89 inches on the V228 (FDL) and 90 inches on the V250 (GEVO).
So the GEVO should in theory be exacty the right amount lighter and effectively the same height , less width and less length.
So why don't they use it?
The 16V250s in the BHPB AC6000s have water cooled intercoolers, so that can't be the problem.
It is likely that the huge air to air intercoolers on the ES44 wouldn't fit in the standard Australian loading gauge, but the water option is available.
I don't know why they haven't tried it yet unless it actually costs more than an FDL-16, which is a real possibility.
M636C
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
