Locomotive News

Also DL class as a transmission type and two different classes; one for the Forsayth line 1067 mm track [DL #1-4] and Innisfail sugar line 610mm track [DL #12 -20]

I understand that there performance is much as originally claimed. However there are many who will express their opinion that the same thing should be done to all of them as happened to 70012. How much this is pure predjudice I would not like to say.

I believe you are right about being too heavy, I cannot see the weight being brought down below 120 tons, but you never know they may have offered it to Tasrail its just that the development has now been made public.

Still I await to see which way Tasrail will go, something cheap like the Kiwirail DL, something proven from EMD or GE or something exotic from a European design. From the sound of it a choice has been made.

Food for thought

Progress Rails GT38AC

http://www.progressrail.com/docs/gt-38-ac-web.pdf

In the new TasRail newsletter, there was a small section on the old loco refurbishment program - referred to 11 locos to be redone.

Do we know which are the remaining locos to be refurbed?

Cheers,
DPJ

The more you look at this you have to wonder why this wasnt just taken off the shelf all but.

The 8-710G3A-T2 is actually rated often at 2150 hp so is all but the same as this mythical creature aka PR22L...a nd you have the bonus of an even more tried and tested engine combined with the added advantage of AC traction yielding better tractive effort.

And heres a loco that has history..i.e they know where the bugs were.

So you have Tasrail professig to want to buy an established technology type loco...then go buy something, that whilst utilises many 'known' components,  hasnt been used altogether in a particualr config yet....and all the while this beast sits on a shelf..

As one P.Hanson would put it...please explain.

Makes little sense to this observer

TasRail has made there decision, we will just leave it that.

Being negative won't get answers either.

Yes they have.

This is a forum..the very nature of a forum is to discuss  and often of things where  a view is offered or anopther queried.

Tas Rail are spending public money...we can ask surely if what they chose was either the best available of best suit...

You mightnt..I would.

My guess is this; AC equipped locomotives are more expensive than DC equipped units, therefore fewer units could be purchased for the same money. The haulage capacity of the fewer AC units was less than the greater number of DC units, despite unit capacity being higher.

Maintenance cost difference was not nearly great enough to tip the balance in favour of the fewer AC traction units.

AC traction has a mass penalty which reduced or eliminated the flexibility for variable mass. The cost-benefit of variable mass greatly outweighed that of upgrading the Melba line.

All a guess.

How does this GT38AC have a mass pnenalty..its still a 108 ton loco

If they still needed a lighter loco for some lines then take the DC option.

Either way its an off the shelf loco...no need to go 'design'  one, other than maybe some mods to the cab design but thats hardly rocket science andthe localarm ( downer )could  just about plonk a ready made design onthe front end without too much trouble.

Im still intrigued why theyre happy with 2200hp but  who knows  obviously theres some  rationale.  Like to hear it though.

From what I can deduce nearly allof emd-pr current 2000-2200  efforts have the 710 at heart.  All this Cat 3512 in a new design though  as pointedout elsewhere  Motive Power have effectively this loco in a sense though severely downrated in power, though thi smabe as result of having utilised the oldler B versions of the engines and now we have the HD's.

I hope Tasrail dont become the test bed bunnies for Progress's ideas !!

The Caterpillar 3500 series has been progressively uprated over the last couple of decades, which is rather a common thing with most other engines over their lifetimes. Twenty years ago when Motive Power fitted them, that was their rating.

The 3500 series, and particularly the 3512, have been fitted to several thousand locomotives, both new and repowered. With their marine and industrial applications, they probably outnumber EMD engines by orders of magnitude. At least they have support and expertise in Tasmania.

The GT38AC is 108t, but probably cannot be any less. Maybe with the lighter Cat 3512 fitted.... It probably simply wasn't cost effective in any case. And why buy two different types, with different component sets, to do a very limited job?? How many loco's are needed on Melba line ore? Three plus one? Not worth bothering with.

As has been shown before, there is nothing new what so ever in the design of the PR22L. All tried and true.

Puffernut sensibilities really don't come into an accountants, or engineers, calculations as rule. Having said that, I personally would have liked to see something much more state-of-the-art, but that costs money. Money that may not get a return.

Sounded like a 2- Stroke on the load tank at East Tamar Junction today.

Popped by the Launnie Tramway Museum and then via ETJ on way home this Sunday past.

Saw 2 off the 2150D QR type stabled outside at rear of workshops (office end). The QR logo and numbers had been removed. New cowcatchers were in evidence. No indication of their road numbers for Tasrail. Also noticed some old kit with road numbers like 2062 and 2057, 2155, etc. Off to check sources to identify these.

Regards DW in Don

2050 class these new ring ins. 2062 and 2056 are old 1460's stored with a lot of parts missing. Used as slugs. 2155, which would be 2115 is old ZA2, stored with parts missing as well.

Is it official that the QR 2150Ds will be the 2050 class, or the general opinion of "informed sources?"

Also, weren't 2056 and 2062 included in the invitation to tender for sale and removal later last year?

DW in Don

Should also add in this thread that DV1 was at ETJ on Sunday clean and resplendant with new paint (Tasrail of course). Hope the radio works as nicely as the paint job looks!!!

DW in Don

Its official, its in TasRail's newsletter via there website.

And i don't know about the later.

Well I managed to get something almost right: I'd proposed 2150->2050 through 2154->2054 allowing the concept of a "2050" class; whereas the actual renumbering will be to a range 2051-2054.

And I suggest those enthusiasts who wish to use an alpha designation identify them as "DT" class - as they are "D" class type locos which have come direct to Tassie, not via NZ. 

DW in Don

Instead of inventing bulls%$t Mickey Mouse designations that have no meaning or relevance, if gunzels refuse to accept Tasrails numeric numbering, why not adopt the standard U.S. practice of referring to them by their manufacturer's model designation, such as GL26C with regard to the 2050 class?

I agree Steve, why assign them some meaningless alpha class which they never carried?

Is the ultimate plan to get rid of everything (EE and GM), including these "new" ex-QR locos, or is it just the EE's that will dissappear when the 17 new locomotives are delivered?

The new locomotives are in addition to most of the current operational fleet. I'd guess the non-AAR compatible EE's will go but I think Tasrail will still need the rebuilt EE's (2100 and 2101 and the MKA's), even if they are kept as a reserve. Tasrail have new EE engines coming (arrived?) from the UK so there must be a future for them, at least medium term. 

I heard that one of the MKA's has a fresh "proper rebuilt" engine fitted now...?

Gadzooks, Gentlemen


I did say for "those enthusiasts who wish to use an alpha designation identify them as "DT" class ... "

As you and Steve have voted yourselves outside the group to whom the remark was directed, of course it will be meaningless to you.  

Identification is only useful for those who have an interest, and who use a shared system.

Personally, I am happy with 2050-class; but get a bit confused with the 21xx multi-family. But, by the same token, AIUI, Damien White spoke of "locos like the D-class" in reference to future interim purchases - which have now eventuated in the 2050s.

Cheers chaps

DW in Don

So, basically you are suggesting that  "enthusiasts", if they have an inclination to do so, just invent imaginary class designations for locos? Well fine - actually I have done that in my head for years, postulating scenarios along the lines of "....wouldn't it have been more logical if they did this......" - but I have never (and don't expect anyone else) to share them in conversation or on the record in a serious attempt to attribute an "identity" that has no basis in fact. However, if anyone wants to suggest / discuss possible alternative i.d.s for locos, I am happy to contibute my ideas (e.g "ZM" instead of "MKA" or "DR" (i.e. D-R(ebuilt) instead or "D" to differentiate from the unmodified original WAGR "D") - but of course, the exercise is purely academic and meaningless in the 'real world' and should be avoided in record keeping to avoid contaminating the historical record with rubbish.

Not only just me. It should be meaningless to everyone because it is meaningless, unless part of an imaginary scenario discussion as I noted above, which I do not have a problem with, as long as it is acknowledged as just a "what if" discussion.

Yes, but the usefulness quickly fades if random furphys get thrown in that have no official acceptance and the system is no longer shared.

Well I get (or got) confused with the NSWGR 4XXX (esp. the 42X or 44X) family, the QR 21XX and 24XX family (esp. with oddities like the 1550's  - now of course put back into the 2XXX series since rebuilding to 23XXs) and the VR "T"s (three totally different classes with the same classification - WTF?). So what? Get used to it and get over it!  

The back reference of old redundant i.d.'s will never be banished from conversation or the record, but that isn't an issue when used in context and with acknowledgement that the letter classes are redundant. For instance, there is no such thing as DQ2001. It is 2001 - but it WAS DQ6007 and reference to DQ on its own or as DQ6007 is correct.

Totally agree.
Its a bit like the additon of non-existant hyphens or slashes into train numbers.
32 runs six days a week - when it runs on a Friday it is 632. It is not 6-32 or 6/32 or .......