Work Starts To Get VLocity Trains For The North East Line

 
Topic moved from News by bevans on 06 Aug 2018 10:40
  justarider Chief Train Controller

Location: Stuck on VR and hoping for better.
YM

And here I thought that I was cynical.

cheers
John

Sponsored advertisement

  The Vinelander Minister for Railways

Location: Ballan, Victoria on the Ballarat RFR Line
The thing about certifying a SG version of Vlo is why only for the NE line?

Once vline has a decent SG passenger rolling stock, what about the other lines.
Include planning for return of services to
Ararat/Maryborough
Ararat/Geelong (not just the Tuesday only Overland)
Ararat/Horsham (ditto Overland)
Ararat/Portland
Ballarat/Mildura

Maybe not straight away, but need plan to include, not exclude.

cheers
John
justarider

Ignore the misspelt nonsense from Dangersdan above.

The NE Line has to be the first line with V'Locity's, therefore it's the line that the SG trains will be certified for. Some of the lines you mention will be unlikely to ever need to have a dedicated passenger train due to the minimal populations or lack of a need to travel there. EG Ararat - Maryborough nor the population sparse, Geelong - Ararat line.

Mike.
  XAM2175 Assistant Commissioner

Location: Glasgow
I don't know the ancestry of the Vlocity design but have to wonder if there are not some filthy rotten SG genes in there somewhere.
How the Vlocity bogies were designed as BG only reflects sheer BG arrogance, shortsightedness or just plain stupidity.
YM-Mundrabilla

I may be mistaken but I have a very very strong recollection of reading that the V/Locity bogies were designed and are built to be gauge-convertible.

Heck, I don't know what the current arrangement is but the first order of bogies was built at Derby Litchurch Lane so that's got to count as some filthy rotten SG lineage, right? :p

I suspect that the pertinent line from that article is actually "Since the previous VLocity trains were not equipped with the standard gauge bogies, the new vehicles are now required to obtain safety accreditation after installing them."

That is, they have always been designed to run on SG but - for reasonably obvious reasons, in my mind - that aspect of operations was not included in the original certification programme.
  woodford Chief Commissioner

The thing about certifying a SG version of Vlo is why only for the NE line?

Once vline has a decent SG passenger rolling stock, what about the other lines.
Include planning for return of services to
Ararat/Maryborough
Ararat/Geelong (not just the Tuesday only Overland)
Ararat/Horsham (ditto Overland)
Ararat/Portland
Ballarat/Mildura

Maybe not straight away, but need plan to include, not exclude.

cheers
John
Simple. Victoria ONLY thinks BG. Is there any other?
Back in the 1920s the X and N classes were designed as theoretically convertible to SG versions of the C and K classes. Since then the R and J classes were at least partially designed with possible conversion in mind. Here we are the best part of 100 years later having reverted to designing BG equipment only.
I don't know the ancestry of the Vlocity design but have to wonder if there are not some filthy rotten SG genes in there somewhere.
How the Vlocity bogies were designed as BG only reflects sheer BG arrogance, shortsightedness or just plain stupidity.
YM-Mundrabilla
Currently the NE line is the ONLY line VLine has definite plans to run SG VLocity's on, the article though DOES NOT specificly state the certification is ONLY for the NE line.

The original announcement for the VLocity's stated that the bogies were gauge convertable BUT BUT BUT. the SG version of the Bogies for the VLocity's has as yet NOT been certified for use in Victoria, such certification process is at least half of the items design effort, this is what Bombardier will be doing with this current contract as any design change means the whole bogie needs to be re certified.

woodford
  woodford Chief Commissioner

I will restate something very important.........

All items built for use on railways go through a 2 stage certification process. In the first stage the design itself  and all materials and process's used must be certified that these meet all the required standards. If the design is changed any changes have to be certified as well. in the second stage each item built has to be tested and certifed that it meets all standards, eg for signalling this includes the colour of the signals lights meet VERY tight specs.

Anybody interested in this aspect of railways, I strongly suggest one obtains the Haynes Workshop Manual for the A1 trusts "Tornado" locomotive.The book covers this aspect of rolling stock design quite well.

woodford
  skitz Chief Commissioner

I will restate something very important.........

All items built for use on railways go through a 2 stage certification process. In the first stage the design itself  and all materials and process's used must be certified that these meet all the required standards. If the design is changed any changes have to be certified as well. in the second stage each item built has to be tested and certifed that it meets all standards, eg for signalling this includes the colour of the signals lights meet VERY tight specs.

woodford
woodford
Lets put that in English, the bogie design for SG is straight forward (yes it is), the change management process for someone to take responsibility for the change is what the issue is.

Its made difficult by the inability to make and be competently accountable for decisions.  Such is the rail industry in Victoria.......
  potatoinmymouth Chief Commissioner

Lets put that in English, the bogie design for SG is straight forward (yes it is), the change management process for someone to take responsibility for the change is what the issue is.
skitz

True, but let’s go back to 1999 just before the contracts were signed and try to understand why SG bogie designs were the last thing on anyone’s mind.

The Freight Victoria sale has been finalised, and a sense of impending doom is firmly rooted in the PTC offices - or what remains of them. Rails and wagons are not all that has fallen to Kennett’s gas axe - so has the lingering perception of rail as a community service, a social good. What the people of Victoria have been told is “our railway” for 120 years has been strategically dismantled: not digital amputation to save the arm, but murder with a hacksaw to get at the kidneys for the black market.

(Indeed, just this week, Kennett admitted to the Sunraysia Daily that cutting the Vinelander was never about balancing the budget, it was about making sure country Victoria knew it couldn’t rely on the city any longer.)

So as the bidders line up for the VLP and metropolitan franchises, even the most optimistic manager at Transport House knows the whole thing is being sold for parts.

National Express is announced as preferred bidder. They have no experience with long, thin, highly subsidised public service routes - what they do best is intercity commuter rail, making it profitable, and thus very appealing to a government looking to divest itself of pesky coat-tail-holders. With the Hoys and WCR services desperately trying to preserve a sense of community entitlement - and profit - NX is reasonably thinking about how quickly they can convince the government to go the whole hog and cut back country rail to Geelong, Ballarat, Bendigo, Seymour and Traralgon. Remember, in 1999, this seems likely, not just possible.

So they agree to purchase a couple of dozen new rail cars to suit the government’s political purposes. But no one on either end of the contract seriously believes V/Line will be anything but a commuter service in the not too distant future.

Say the words “long-haul VLocity” at this moment and you probably get the police called for being a threat to yourself and others. Hell, say “passenger services will continue to Albury after the West Line is converted to SG” and you’ll cause a freak out.

The point is it’s hard to lay blame for what happened 20 years ago. The work needs to be done now because it was barely conceivable then.
  skitz Chief Commissioner

Lets put that in English, the bogie design for SG is straight forward (yes it is), the change management process for someone to take responsibility for the change is what the issue is.

True, but let’s go back to 1999 just before the contracts were signed and try to understand why SG bogie designs were the last thing on anyone’s mind.

The Freight Victoria sale has been finalised, and a sense of impending doom is firmly rooted in the PTC offices - or what remains of them. Rails and wagons are not all that has fallen to Kennett’s gas axe - so has the lingering perception of rail as a community service, a social good. What the people of Victoria have been told is “our railway” for 120 years has been strategically dismantled: not digital amputation to save the arm, but murder with a hacksaw to get at the kidneys for the black market.

(Indeed, just this week, Kennett admitted to the Sunraysia Daily that cutting the Vinelander was never about balancing the budget, it was about making sure country Victoria knew it couldn’t rely on the city any longer.)

So as the bidders line up for the VLP and metropolitan franchises, even the most optimistic manager at Transport House knows the whole thing is being sold for parts.

National Express is announced as preferred bidder. They have no experience with long, thin, highly subsidised public service routes - what they do best is intercity commuter rail, making it profitable, and thus very appealing to a government looking to divest itself of pesky coat-tail-holders. With the Hoys and WCR services desperately trying to preserve a sense of community entitlement - and profit - NX is reasonably thinking about how quickly they can convince the government to go the whole hog and cut back country rail to Geelong, Ballarat, Bendigo, Seymour and Traralgon. Remember, in 1999, this seems likely, not just possible.

So they agree to purchase a couple of dozen new rail cars to suit the government’s political purposes. But no one on either end of the contract seriously believes V/Line will be anything but a commuter service in the not too distant future.

Say the words “long-haul VLocity” at this moment and you probably get the police called for being a threat to yourself and others. Hell, say “passenger services will continue to Albury after the West Line is converted to SG” and you’ll cause a freak out.

The point is it’s hard to lay blame for what happened 20 years ago. The work needs to be done now because it was barely conceivable then.
potatoinmymouth
That's a lot of text to try and justify what any reasonable person would have considered to be strategically obvious. Yet again there are other bleeding examples of strategic incompetence in recent history - Caulfield Skyrail coming to mind.

Not withstanding its highly likely there is a SG design already and what we are seeing is just political spin (to try and explain away the time needed) and type approval.   This is Victoria, nothing to see here.
  hbedriver Chief Train Controller

Not quite my recollection of the history. Sprinters were introduced in 1991, V'l in 2005 (ref VicSig). Sprinters would equate with the events of "20 years ago", including "agree to purchase of couple of dozen new railcars", apart from the dates. NX didn't buy any rolling stock for VLP, simply took the money and ran...literally, although to be fair I suspect they only wanted to suburban lines. Mind you, the Government didn't buy any new stuff either.

The V'l were introduced as part of RFR, which came after the Kennett Government was dumped (with lots of rural seats changing to ALP or Independents, partly because they wanted more passenger trains). Never really designed for longer trips, although to be fair they could not be sure that the whole RFR and V'Locity thing would even work. And the people showed they wanted them, and more!

The bogie design of the V'l has the disc brake equipment mounted close between the gearbox and the wheels. I am not a rolling stock engineer, these can only be personal observations. While there seems to be space to bring the wheels in, I suspect they will need to bring in the disc brake equipment as well for clearances. Not impossible, but may explain why they seem to be making a lot of work out of this.

The design of the V'l allows for easy changeovers of major components. Think of it as a strong box (the body), with extras then bolted on, these include the two engines (main and aux), compressor, fuel tank, air cons, seats, etc. Once a SG design is built, the carriage is simply lifted and SG bogies substituted. Easy to do a 3-car train in a shift. If they ever do SG trains west/north of Ballarat, they would do this work simply at Ballarat East, no harder than a regular bogie changeover (although that's another topic).

I remain suspicious about the ability of V'l trains to withstand the track condition on the Albury line. ARTC seems to have the uncanny ability to insert mud holes in a drought, even on skeleton deck bridges. The track has deteriorated badly in the last few months, with long speed restrictions imposed and many more needed. Currently seems the SG trains sustain many more defects than the rest of the fleet. How the more fragile V'l trains cope will be interesting to view; maybe ARTC will give assurances to VLP? Would Bombardier want to risk their reputation with running their trains on such terrible track?
  woodford Chief Commissioner

I will restate something very important.........

All items built for use on railways go through a 2 stage certification process. In the first stage the design itself  and all materials and process's used must be certified that these meet all the required standards. If the design is changed any changes have to be certified as well. in the second stage each item built has to be tested and certifed that it meets all standards, eg for signalling this includes the colour of the signals lights meet VERY tight specs.

woodford
Lets put that in English, the bogie design for SG is straight forward (yes it is), the change management process for someone to take responsibility for the change is what the issue is.

Its made difficult by the inability to make and be competently accountable for decisions.  Such is the rail industry in Victoria.......
skitz
I understand that the VLine management has some serious limitations after all I do live in NE Vic and have to put up with a quite a poor train service, but.........

It does not matter how simple a change is it STILL has to be certified and this is both a legal and an engineering process.

One will assume that the VLocity bogies are a one off design for Victoria as they were required to handle both BG and SG. This would mean they are NOT an "off the shelf" design, so cannot rely on any certification process's for the European bogies. So certifying it for SG may not be as simple as one would think. It being almost certain that the Victorian VLocity bogie design has never run on SG.

Note: Modifying ANY engineering item is NEVER as simple as one would think UNLESS the item has been completely designed from the beginning to handle the mod, which in the current situation does not appear to be the case.

woodford
  BrentonGolding Chief Commissioner

Location: Maldon Junction
I understand that the VLine management has some serious limitations after all I do live in NE Vic and have to put up with a quite a poor train service, but.........

It does not matter how simple a change is it STILL has to be certified and this is both a legal and an engineering process.

woodford
woodford
And in the grand scheme of things will it actually cause a delay to the project?

VicGov have said they will not run the new trains on the line until it is brought up to Class 2 standard, how long will that take again?

And where is the budget to build the new Long Distance VLocity? Is it in the current budget or have they simply budgeted for this initial work ATM with the major component (the actual train build) being pushed out one or two years, perhaps to coincide with the completion of the current order of new sets for V/Line.

Seems to me that the year delay might just suit the government's narrative nicely.

BG
  potatoinmymouth Chief Commissioner

That's a lot of text to try and justify what any reasonable person would have considered to be strategically obvious.
skitz

I'll be the first to admit I have a serious problem with verbosity. But my point was that it simply wasn't obvious. Hindsight is 20/20 but I'll repeat - long-haul DMUs were the last thing on anyone's mind in 1999.

Never really designed for longer trips, although to be fair they could not be sure that the whole RFR and V'Locity thing would even work.
hbedriver

A point I've made before, and agree with wholeheartedly - to use a mathematical expression the proof is easy but the result is not trivial.

Not quite my recollection of the history. Sprinters were introduced in 1991, V'l in 2005 (ref VicSig). Sprinters would equate with the events of "20 years ago", including "agree to purchase of couple of dozen new railcars", apart from the dates. NX didn't buy any rolling stock for VLP, simply took the money and ran...literally, although to be fair I suspect they only wanted to suburban lines. Mind you, the Government didn't buy any new stuff either.
hbedriver

This is pretty murky business but this is the best reading I can muster of the available evidence. As always happy to be corrected.

The NX contracts were signed on 29 August 1999. This makes it one of the last acts by the Kennett government before the election caretaker period. In July after being announced as the winning bidder they had written:
The business plan for V/Line Passenger includes:

The introduction of 29 new dual-car trains to be introduced progressively from 2003. These will greatly improve passenger comfort and accessibility

...
National Express


So I am fairly confident the original plan for the VLos was well and truly underway by this point. Yes, at a later stage, Bracks insisted that the spec be upgraded to 160km/h instead of 130km/h, but he wasn't on the scene in July 1999 (and remember, the Kennett loss was totally unexpected.)

Unfortunately I can't find the original agreement between the Department and National Express. If anyone can point it out to me that would make life a lot easier!
  The Vinelander Minister for Railways

Location: Ballan, Victoria on the Ballarat RFR Line
I understand that the VLine management has some serious limitations after all I do live in NE Vic and have to put up with a quite a poor train service, but.........

It does not matter how simple a change is it STILL has to be certified and this is both a legal and an engineering process.

woodford
And in the grand scheme of things will it actually cause a delay to the project?

VicGov have said they will not run the new trains on the line until it is brought up to Class 2 standard, how long will that take again?

And where is the budget to build the new Long Distance VLocity? Is it in the current budget or have they simply budgeted for this initial work ATM with the major component (the actual train build) being pushed out one or two years, perhaps to coincide with the completion of the current order of new sets for V/Line.

Seems to me that the year delay might just suit the government's narrative nicely.

BG
BrentonGolding

Notwithstanding the certification process to enable the conversion of V'Locity's from BG to SG, the government does NOT want to operate V'Locity's to Albury until at least a real overhaul of the tracks has been undertaken to enable their implementation.

Also the Inland Rail...remember writing about that everyone Question
I believe it's still in the pipeline and it will be the poster child for the federal government of whatever persuasion when it's finally completed.

The SG from/to Albury MUST be sorted out before Inland Rail and that will be hopefully after mega$ has been spent to coincide with the introduction of V'Locity's.

The track condition as it currently is with the mudholes and shocking undulations will be the DEATH of a V'Locity today as they are NOT built to deal with such treacherous track conditions. Fortunately the XPT's were obviously over-engineered and they have coped very well over the years.

As a side note, the Sprinters were ordered in the dying days of the Kirner Labor government and Jeff Kennett (JK), upon his election in 1992 could NOT get out of the contract. On reflection it's lucky for Victoria, he wasn't able to.

Below is a link to the abridged Sunraysia Daily article from JK.

http://www.sunraysiadaily.com.au/story/5579477/end-of-the-line-jeff-kennett-not-surprised-passenger-rail-hasnt-returned-to-mildura/

Mike.
  skitz Chief Commissioner

I will restate something very important.........

All items built for use on railways go through a 2 stage certification process. In the first stage the design itself  and all materials and process's used must be certified that these meet all the required standards. If the design is changed any changes have to be certified as well. in the second stage each item built has to be tested and certifed that it meets all standards, eg for signalling this includes the colour of the signals lights meet VERY tight specs.

woodford
Lets put that in English, the bogie design for SG is straight forward (yes it is), the change management process for someone to take responsibility for the change is what the issue is.

Its made difficult by the inability to make and be competently accountable for decisions.  Such is the rail industry in Victoria.......
I understand that the VLine management has some serious limitations after all I do live in NE Vic and have to put up with a quite a poor train service, but.........

It does not matter how simple a change is it STILL has to be certified and this is both a legal and an engineering process.

One will assume that the VLocity bogies are a one off design for Victoria as they were required to handle both BG and SG. This would mean they are NOT an "off the shelf" design, so cannot rely on any certification process's for the European bogies. So certifying it for SG may not be as simple as one would think. It being almost certain that the Victorian VLocity bogie design has never run on SG.

Note: Modifying ANY engineering item is NEVER as simple as one would think UNLESS the item has been completely designed from the beginning to handle the mod, which in the current situation does not appear to be the case.

woodford
woodford
If anything the BG bogie appears to be a stretched version of a SG bogie.  Has anyone got a photo to show?  It would clear so much up.  They are far from the most horrible proposition and one can see how they are developed/manufactured.

There were photos on FB not long ago showing how they are constructed.  One can see the fabrication of the H truck and where its been stretched.  Also shows the generous clearances between the wheel and disk brakes.

The SG version, in the most simple of descriptions, would mean dedicated SG axles and the H frame fabricated to suit.  Same brake arrangement, same gearboxes, gearbox torque restraints, same wheel guards/irons (I don't know the correct term for them).  On the face of the bogie design indicates it would not be gauge transferable.  That said, there are two ways to skin this cat, the other being axles capable of moving the wheels on the seats and surviving the new bending regime (real care required going this way)

We will see!
  YM-Mundrabilla Minister for Railways

Location: Mundrabilla but I'd rather be in Narvik
There have been 50 ton freight bogie frames around for donkeys years which are fitted with dual seat axles to allow the wheels to be pushed in to SG. The only difference in SG operation of these bogies is that there is an extra gap between the outside of the wheel and the bogie frame.

I am at a loss to understand all the time, effort and cost of producing a Vlocity bogie frame/wheelset to run on SG.
  justarider Chief Train Controller

Location: Stuck on VR and hoping for better.

The thing about certifying a SG version of Vlo is why only for the NE line?
Once vline has a decent SG passenger rolling stock, what about the other lines.

Include planning for return of services to

Ararat/Maryborough

Ararat/Geelong (not just the Tuesday only Overland)

Ararat/Horsham (ditto Overland)

Ararat/Portland

Ballarat/Mildura

Maybe not straight away, but need plan to include, not exclude.

cheers

John
justarider
Ignore the misspelt nonsense from Dangersdan above.
The NE Line has to be the first line with V'Locity's, therefore it's the line that the SG trains will be certified for. Some of the lines you mention will be unlikely to ever need to have a dedicated passenger train due to the minimal populations or lack of a need to travel there. EG Ararat - Maryborough nor the population sparse, Geelong - Ararat line.
Mike.  the Vinelander


I  hear what you say about population Mike, and yet we keep hearing noise, and no hard evidence.
The circle of Hamilton , Horsham, Ararat, Maryborough is a sizable chunk of the wealth of the state, and some of the loudest "Melbourne doesn't understand us..."


The pollys tend to pander to them in public, yet do nothing in reality.


A truly brave Minister would say, "OK you get a good service - on a use it or lose basis".
Converted vLo to SG is the time to have a go. 2 up , 2 down train each day, with guaranteed connecting services.


The Horsham and Geelong lines are already equiped for pax, Maryborough is the loudest, Hamilton completes the circle. Ararat being the hub and connection to rest of the state.
2 outcomes
1/2 of trains 1/2 full would be an outstanding success. Can justify extending
OR
Nobody (relative) uses it. After 12 months trial, good publicity, and publishing the full pax statistics - shut down again.


Either way would have real evidence, at a moderate cost. Would shut up the nay sayers for decades and let V/line move forward with some confidence of support.


cheers
John
  Inland_Sailor Junior Train Controller

"Also the Inland Rail.....remember writing about that everyone https://www.railpage.com.au/images/smiles/icon_question.gif
I believe it's still in the pipeline and it will be the poster child for the federal government of whatever persuasion when it's finally completed." -

I think this is the real reason for the long and drawn out process.

Whilst the certification of the SG Vlos has to occur as required, the works required to get the track modified for the Inland Rail are most likely to occur before the SG Vlos get on the track.

The Inland Rail works are not set to start until 2020 and those works are not insignificant, especially through Wangaratta.

So there's plenty of time that needs to be soaked up between now and 2020 with so called "valid" reasons, even more so in an election year.
  woodford Chief Commissioner

There have been 50 ton freight bogie frames around for donkeys years which are fitted with dual seat axles to allow the wheels to be pushed in to SG. The only difference in SG operation of these bogies is that there is an extra gap between the outside of the wheel and the bogie frame.

I am at a loss to understand all the time, effort and cost of producing a Vlocity bogie frame/wheelset to run on SG.
YM-Mundrabilla
A major problem here we get little information about how these things are built so its VERY difficult to make any judgement. I know from my own engineering experience that modifiying any manufactured item can easily end up in a right rats nest, even minor changes can have catastrophic effects. So with anything involved with transporting people be it human powered vehicle , car, train or aircraft, one HAS to be EXTREMELY cautious.

The previous post by skitz sums up the problem nicely, Another thing I will put in is bogies for passenger vehicles are made is low weight as possible, this complicates the axle design as the flexibilty of item varies with the 4th power of the length increase ie one increases the length of an axle from 2.45 to 2.6 metres increases its flexibilty, ie the amount it deflects under load, by almost 30%, so to maintain the same stiffness the axle must be made much heavier. The heavier  axle will make the bogie ride poorer, so to maintain the ride one must change the suspension. Changing the suspension then etc etc etc.

Nothing is as simple as it seems.

woodford
  kitchgp Chief Commissioner

True, but let’s go back to 1999 just before the contracts were signed and try to understand why SG bogie designs were the last thing on anyone’s mind.
………………….
potatoinmymouth


Previously posted:

…………………………………………………..

Bombardier will build the trains at Dandenong, Victoria, while Bombardier's facility in Derby, Britain, will provide the bogies, which are convertible from broad to standard gauge. Bombardier's site at Vasteras, Sweden, will supply the train control system. Local construction includes the bodyshell, fabricated metal parts, air-conditioning, interior (wall panels, fittings), seating, and wheelsets.

………………………………………………..
One of Wikipedia’s references: International Railway Journal, May, 2003

If the bogies aren’t SG capable then one would think there is a case for a compensation claim against the supplier. There appears to be more to it than just converting the existing bogies to SG.
  XAM2175 Assistant Commissioner

Location: Glasgow
I don't speak with any authority on the top, mind, but I don't think it's all that hard to separate the issue with the VL bogies into two fields - what they're designed and build to do, and what they're certified to do.

It's fairly clear that they were always intended to be convertible (considering as well they're pretty likely to have been derived from an SG-only design to begin with), and whatever provisions for convertibility that were built into them would have been tested and certified at various points in the production process and also as they were being accepted for service.

However, as the conversion to SG and operation therewith hasn't been tested, the existing certification won't allow it.

Noting now that the VLs have been in service for over ten years and there hasn't as yet been any great need for them to operate on SG, I also don't have much trouble imagining that seeking full SG certification as part of the upfront introduction would have been seen as an unnecessary expense.
  kitchgp Chief Commissioner

That doesn’t explain the design aspect mentioned in the article.

Also it seems strange that SG capability was in the original contract yet that wasn’t tested. The bogies were manufactured in the UK.
…………………………………….

Detailed design of the new standard gauge bogie has recently commenced and will take up to 12 months until they reach the production, accreditation and track testing stage……………………………………………..
Linked Article
  BrentonGolding Chief Commissioner

Location: Maldon Junction
That doesn’t explain the design aspect mentioned in the article.

Also it seems strange that SG capability was in the original contract yet that wasn’t tested. The bogies were manufactured in the UK.
…………………………………….

Detailed design of the new standard gauge bogie has recently commenced and will take up to 12 months until they reach the production, accreditation and track testing stage……………………………………………..
kitchgp
Is is possible that they are going for a new design / redesign due to either changes in bogie design or technology since the late 90s or needing a different design to cover the different types of track that they will be asked to deal with? ie different suspension etc etc?

BG
  skitz Chief Commissioner

That doesn’t explain the design aspect mentioned in the article.

Also it seems strange that SG capability was in the original contract yet that wasn’t tested. The bogies were manufactured in the UK.
…………………………………….

Detailed design of the new standard gauge bogie has recently commenced and will take up to 12 months until they reach the production, accreditation and track testing stage……………………………………………..
Is is possible that they are going for a new design / redesign due to either changes in bogie design or technology since the late 90s or needing a different design to cover the different types of track that they will be asked to deal with? ie different suspension etc etc?

BG
BrentonGolding
One would imagine this to be unlikely.  Keeping components common would be a strong driver from both a design and maintainability perspective.  There would want to be a strong compelling argument, such as a type failure issue or proven savings in the alternative design, to go away from what is proven.
  The Vinelander Minister for Railways

Location: Ballan, Victoria on the Ballarat RFR Line
It's political.

An announcement had to be made about V'Locity's on the NE, hence the stalling tactics regards the SG bogies, however the track MUST be substantially improved before the V'Locity's can be introduced.

Mike.
  kitchgp Chief Commissioner

Or the RFR bogie is not suited for non-RFR - SG or BG

Sponsored advertisement

Display from: