Long Haul VLocities

 
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE

Removal of Shunting and in train redundancy to prevent total failures in distant parts of the network is what will win out at the end of the day, even if it has a penalty in fuel which going forward will be cheap enough.
Fuel might be cheap in the UAE where it is grown but it is most definitely not so in Australia. In fact in the news tonight it was noted that we might not have enough fuel if the US and N Korea go to war.
simstrain
Diesel and Petrol are linked to the world oil price, there is no subsidy and no tax (supposedly) and adjusted each month based on the last months average oil price. So diesel today is $A0.70/L.

The Vic road diesel price is $A1.25/L (roughly) of which a significant proportion is the Fed govt fuel excise tax (40c/L) which I think is not applied to off road users. I'm not sure but would V/line also pay GST on the fuel as they charge GST on the tickets?

So I think basically the price per litre will not be too far different.  

If the NK and USA go to war there will minimal effect on fuel supplies to Australia as its not sourced or refined there or travel via NK or even the Pacific. Any war is likely to be short lived, but catastrophic for the Korean peninsula.

Sponsored advertisement

  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE

Removal of Shunting and in train redundancy to prevent total failures in distant parts of the network is what will win out at the end of the day, even if it has a penalty in fuel which going forward will be cheap enough.
Fuel might be cheap in the UAE where it is grown but it is most definitely not so in Australia. In fact in the news tonight it was noted that we might not have enough fuel if the US and N Korea go to war.
simstrain
Diesel and Petrol are linked to the world oil price, there is no subsidy and no tax (supposedly) and adjusted each month based on the last months average oil price. So diesel today is $A0.70/L.

The Vic road diesel price is $A1.25/L (roughly) of which a significant proportion is the Fed govt fuel excise tax (40c/L) which I think is not applied to off road users. I'm not sure but would V/line also pay GST on the fuel as they charge GST on the tickets?

So I think basically the price per litre will not be too far different.  

If the NK and USA go to war there will minimal effect on fuel supplies to Australia as its not sourced or refined there or travel via NK or even the Pacific. Any war is likely to be short lived, but catastrophic for the Korean peninsula.
  kitchgp Chief Commissioner

It's more about hitting trucks, but it probably wouldn't have derailed had it been in pull-mode. Also the passengers would have been further back in a loco-pulled train. In push-mode you have the same lightweight driver's carriage as a VLocity, without the diesel engine and hydraulic transmission. The heavier loco in the rear with its greater momentum doesn't stop as easily as the carriages its pushing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Oxnard_train_derailment

http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/2/25/50-hurt-California-train-slams-truck-at-crossing1.html

The solution in Victoria is to apply an 80 kph limit rather than vacate the passengers from the front car of a VLocity.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
Push-Pull trains are fine, but impractical when the train is barely 4 or 5 cars long. Even single loco hauled really doesn't make sense.

The EU and Yanks running Push-Pull or Push one way, pull the other are doing so on real length trains, not a few coaches strung together.  

And for another twist, the Austrian train I caught was loco in middle, cab in end pax car at each end doing 200km/h and they have controlled LX.
  Bogong Chief Commissioner

Location: Essendon Aerodrome circa 1980
... Of course, the concept of an open level crossing, even protected with flashing lights and half boom barriers is unheard of in the UK. ...
duttonbay
Bollocks! Protected level crossings are fairly common in Britain, I've seen them on high speed passenger lines. One of the prominent YouTubers (probably Geoff Marshall or possibly Tom Scott) even did a video on a level crossing in the home counties that had hand cranked barriers that you had to get out of your car to raise.
  duttonbay Minister for Railways

... Of course, the concept of an open level crossing, even protected with flashing lights and half boom barriers is unheard of in the UK. ...
Bollocks! Protected level crossings are fairly common in Britain, I've seen them on high speed passenger lines. One of the prominent YouTubers (probably Geoff Marshall or possibly Tom Scott) even did a video on a level crossing in the home counties that had hand cranked barriers that you had to get out of your car to raise.
Bogong
I've never seen a half-arm barrier in the UK. Can't comment on the hand-cranked crossings, as I never known of them either. But it was the automatic, half-arm barriers I was referring to, allowing motorists to simply drive around them and across the LC.
  speedemon08 Mary

Location: I think by now you should have figured it out


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRQt_PMhBXY
  Bogong Chief Commissioner

Location: Essendon Aerodrome circa 1980
Thanks Speedemon, I was too lazy to search for that 1.36 minute video myself.

I especially liked Tom Scott's line 'I'm aware quite how dodgy this movement looks'. Laughing
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME
  YM-Mundrabilla Minister for Railways

Location: Mundrabilla but I'd rather be in Narvik
For those interested in UK LX smeg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_crossings_in_the_United_Kingdom

There are around 6,550 [color=#0b0080][size=2][font=sans-serif]level crossings[/font][/size][/color] in the United Kingdom, of which about 1,500 are public highway crossings.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/list_of_all_level_crossings_in_t

http://orr.gov.uk/rail/health-and-safety/infrastructure-safety/level-crossings/types-of-level-crossings
RTT_Rules
And they seem to get into no end of trouble with them for a variety of reasons.
  hbedriver Chief Train Controller

Responding to several matters raised since my last essay;

A). The mass of the locomotive is what protects the passengers in trailing vehicles.

B). In the Victorian context, there is not deemed any particular need to protect passengers against train - train collisions. Carriages have crash-worthiness standards, which as they showed at Kerang (3rd car) and Holmesglen (two sparks at fair speed) seem to work fairly well. let's face it, if two trains are going head to head at 160km/h each, you really cannot do much to protect the occupants apart from eliminating Pintsch's gas for lights and using steel instead of timber for the bodies.

C). A crew-cab vehicle leading a set of carriages with loco pushing behind has no greater issue at level crossings than any other train, providing those level crossings are closed or at least have active protection. If either of those two conditions are met, there is no reason not to use the driving trailers.

D). That UK idea of hand cranked level crossings seems ideal for the UK. Let's keep it there. Actually, if interlocked with signalling (so that signals are at stop when gates start to raise), then that would be OK as well, but the costs of such an installation in the Victorian context, where actually getting the power on site before you can think of boom barriers, signals, etc is huge. Think of the B. McCann crossing near Lake Charm; after a truck got in the way of a train a couple of years back, they have since installed boom barriers into what is effectively a private property which gets used for only a few months each year. They had to run electricity for over a km, using several poles, the line terminating at the railway. I doubt the power company would have done this as a charitable exercise.

E). Then there is the legal "system", where the truck drivers are not being successfully prosecuted for the collisions with trains. All sorts of defences are used, but if the same truck went through a stop sign at a road and collided with a school bus, how would the courts treat that? At Larpent, around 15 months ago, a truck derailed 475, and several passengers and staff injured. The truck driver got fined for not wearing a seat belt. The legal "system" is clearly not going to do anything to protect train users, so clearly the railways have to think that they are on their own.

F). Getting back to topic; the prospect of long distance V'Locity trains. They simply may not need the same power and acceleration of a current type, as they will typically do less stops per 100km, the tracks tend to be relatively flat, certainly for most of their distances. Conventional loco type trains may yet be an alternative in this situation.
  x31 Chief Commissioner

Location: gallifrey
Push-Pull trains are fine, but impractical when the train is barely 4 or 5 cars long. Even single loco hauled really doesn't make sense.

The EU and Yanks running Push-Pull or Push one way, pull the other are doing so on real length trains, not a few coaches strung together.  

And for another twist, the Austrian train I caught was loco in middle, cab in end pax car at each end doing 200km/h and they have controlled LX.
RTT_Rules

This is what I am trying to say in a round about way.

The Vlocity platform is NOT available for larger consists where more seats and amenities are required.  It simply is not the platform for longer journeys.  Where else in Australia is this configuration used for longer distance services?

Queensland?  No

NSW? No

WA?  Not sure
  MetroFemme Assistant Commissioner

Long distance trains need to be of a configuration which competes with vehicle or other mode even if time taken compared is longer. Onboard facilities are vital in the equation.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
Push-Pull trains are fine, but impractical when the train is barely 4 or 5 cars long. Even single loco hauled really doesn't make sense.

The EU and Yanks running Push-Pull or Push one way, pull the other are doing so on real length trains, not a few coaches strung together.  

And for another twist, the Austrian train I caught was loco in middle, cab in end pax car at each end doing 200km/h and they have controlled LX.

This is what I am trying to say in a round about way.

The Vlocity platform is NOT available for larger consists where more seats and amenities are required.  It simply is not the platform for longer journeys.  Where else in Australia is this configuration used for longer distance services?

Queensland?  No

NSW? No

WA?  Not sure
x31
How long we talking?

Qld does not operate DMU's although it has been looked at to replace the loco hauled in past. However closure of the loco hauled services seems more likely. The RTT does the 660km run to Rocky under wires using the wires.  The CTT is a longer Push-pull. To be more to the point, it wasn't avoided, just didn't happen.

WA, run 3 and 4 car DMU's similar and longer distances than Vic.

NSW run up 3 car DMU's 900km to Broken Hill and a 5/6 car set to NW (which splits 150km from terminus) which is more closely similar to Vic.

However the replacement for the XPL and XPT is strongly believed to be a DMU of sorts.

The Brits run the Virgin train ???? on very similar distances and terrain to Vic and this is a predicted front running for NSW.


What I am trying to say is

The Vlocity platform is NOT available for larger consists where more seats and amenities are required.

Why?

How long a train we talking? Vic loco hauled is 3-6 passenger car sets. The V/locity already runs in this configuration on the Geelong line.

More seats are as easy as adding more cars.
Amenities are as simple as listing what you need and then asking the train supplier or other to install, toilets, buffet, bar, lounge, luggage racks, bigger seats, wifi, TV...... Hell you could make one car a Motorrail is really keen, then is no physical limitation that says you cannot.

What it gets down to is if multiple traction engines are more expensive to operate than 1. Now if that 1 needs 100t of supporting hardware, a 2nd driver, loop facilities etc etc all for a train of similar mass or only slightly more, then I'm sure its very marginal.
  skitz Chief Commissioner

A five car velocity, DM-T-MT-T-DM would work quite ok for the purpose of Bairnsdale, Warnambool, Swan Hill, Albury.  Possibly a car too big.  It will not need the outright HP as it will not be doing the stopping and fit in with the other traffic and/or track conditions where it would be expected to go.

I would suggest commonality would be a significant draw card, even if the saloon is very different.   Engines, auxiliaries, doors, windows, cowlings etc.  

I would suggest a long distance version should consider a consolidated alternator sets.  The Vlocity alternators are annoyingly noisy and especially once the vibration dampening of the set get some age on it.   One only has to experience the bliss of travelling on a Vlocity with a dead (out of fuel) unit is like to understand the difference.  The non-powered trailers could be made in to first class for example.  Perhaps one intermediate trailer car could have a baggage area and consolidated alternators (noise and vibration) that power the set from a single point in the trains.

A minor point, I chose the five car consist as it allows the set to be built up to eight, the maximum number of cars (subject to confirmation) possible to operate as a single train.
  woodford Chief Commissioner

Responding to several matters raised since my last essay;

A). The mass of the locomotive is what protects the passengers in trailing vehicles.

B). In the Victorian context, there is not deemed any particular need to protect passengers against train - train collisions. Carriages have crash-worthiness standards, which as they showed at Kerang (3rd car) and Holmesglen (two sparks at fair speed) seem to work fairly well. let's face it, if two trains are going head to head at 160km/h each, you really cannot do much to protect the occupants apart from eliminating Pintsch's gas for lights and using steel instead of timber for the bodies.

C). A crew-cab vehicle leading a set of carriages with loco pushing behind has no greater issue at level crossings than any other train, providing those level crossings are closed or at least have active protection. If either of those two conditions are met, there is no reason not to use the driving trailers.

D). That UK idea of hand cranked level crossings seems ideal for the UK. Let's keep it there. Actually, if interlocked with signalling (so that signals are at stop when gates start to raise), then that would be OK as well, but the costs of such an installation in the Victorian context, where actually getting the power on site before you can think of boom barriers, signals, etc is huge. Think of the B. McCann crossing near Lake Charm; after a truck got in the way of a train a couple of years back, they have since installed boom barriers into what is effectively a private property which gets used for only a few months each year. They had to run electricity for over a km, using several poles, the line terminating at the railway. I doubt the power company would have done this as a charitable exercise.

E). Then there is the legal "system", where the truck drivers are not being successfully prosecuted for the collisions with trains. All sorts of defences are used, but if the same truck went through a stop sign at a road and collided with a school bus, how would the courts treat that? At Larpent, around 15 months ago, a truck derailed 475, and several passengers and staff injured. The truck driver got fined for not wearing a seat belt. The legal "system" is clearly not going to do anything to protect train users, so clearly the railways have to think that they are on their own.

F). Getting back to topic; the prospect of long distance V'Locity trains. They simply may not need the same power and acceleration of a current type, as they will typically do less stops per 100km, the tracks tend to be relatively flat, certainly for most of their distances. Conventional loco type trains may yet be an alternative in this situation.
hbedriver
On point D). The cost of running 2 wire power line 1 to 1.5 kilometres is in the region of 250,000 to 300,000 dollars. ONe can provide a first class solar power system for around 25,000 including the small building.

Point E). The current N class loco hauled N set has apower to weight ratio of 5 to 5.5bhp per ton.
A VLocity  style DMU all cars powered will be around 11bhp per ton, such a consist with atop speed of 130kph will save over 20 minutes off the timetable between Seymour and Albury.
Something like a UK class 68 hauling a 6 car train with a drivers cab at the other end will have a power to weight ratio of around 9bhp/ton. I have not as yet simulated this consist, but there will still be a substantial saving in time.

woodford

Sponsored advertisement

Display from:   

Quick Reply

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