New Car Set FN3 and other V/Line fleet changes

 
  speedemon08 Mary

Location: I think by now you should have figured it out
I doubt V/Line will ever buy new loco hauled carriages. A new class of 160kph DMU with upgraded long haul facilities is the only option that makes sense.

I imagine that V/Line could get some decent cash by selling off its A class, P class and a handful of Ns to freight operators. They would have quite a surplus of locos if the H sets disappeared and Zs were retired leading to an N set consolidation.

Realistically how long do the H sets and the Z cars have? They really are quite old now.
Mr. Lane

Maybe for replacing the H cars, but for the N cars that is a different kettle of fish.

Sponsored advertisement

  Mr. Lane Chief Commissioner

Maybe for replacing the H cars, but for the N cars that is a different kettle of fish.
speedemon08

Why?

I don't see any logical reason to buy new loco hauled cars. If you assume the N cars have 10-15 years left, maybe more...when it comes time for replacement the N class locos will be ~40+ years old. It would not make any sense to replace the N cars with another hauled car.

This is especially so as Victoria gradually moves towards more 130 and 160kph operation. DMUs could easily be ordered to replace the current function served by the N class/N set combination.
  speedemon08 Mary

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

I don't see any logical reason to buy new loco hauled cars. If you assume the N cars have 10-15 years left, maybe more...when it comes time for replacement the N class locos will be ~40+ years old. It would not make any sense to replace the N cars with another hauled car.

This is especially so as Victoria gradually moves towards more 130 and 160kph operation. DMUs could easily be ordered to replace the current function served by the N class/N set combination.
Mr. Lane

Clearly you don't know the operational constraints outside of RFR networks that work against the use of V/locities. Unprotected level crossings, clearances poor trackwork etc etc.

You'd need another project on the scale of RFR at least to make your idea viable. Hell, even V/line know that V/locities are not suited for intercity operation.
  xxxxlbear Token Booking Clerk

Location: Geelong
Clearly you don't know the operational constraints outside of RFR networks that work against the use of V/locities. Unprotected level crossings, clearances poor trackwork etc etc.

You'd need another project on the scale of RFR at least to make your idea viable. Hell, even V/line know that V/locities are not suited for intercity operation.
speedemon08

Perfect example of that was during the summer holiday timetable. I know V/Line were running N sets from Warrnambool to Geelong where pax had to change to V/Locities to continue their trip to Melbourne. Obviously there were issues with running N sets to Southern Cross, not sure what they were, but the point is, V/Line could have run V/locities all the way to Warrnambool and back....but they didn't. Obviously operational constraints as noted above.
  Mr. Lane Chief Commissioner

Clearly you don't know the operational constraints outside of RFR networks that work against the use of V/locities. Unprotected level crossings, clearances poor trackwork etc etc.

You'd need another project on the scale of RFR at least to make your idea viable. Hell, even V/line know that V/locities are not suited for intercity operation.
speedemon08


Clearly you didn't read what I had said.

When did I say V/locities? I said another class of DMU that was upgraded for Intercity (long haul) operation. Also I didn't say that they had to operate at 160kph outside of the RFR regions...and I suggested this could be 20 years away.

Why would poor track/infrastructure mandate the usage of loco hauled services? What is it about DMUs that are unsuitable for Intercity services?
  Mr. Lane Chief Commissioner

Perfect example of that was during the summer holiday timetable. I know V/Line were running N sets from Warrnambool to Geelong where pax had to change to V/Locities to continue their trip to Melbourne. Obviously there were issues with running N sets to Southern Cross, not sure what they were, but the point is, V/Line could have run V/locities all the way to Warrnambool and back....but they didn't. Obviously operational constraints as noted above.
xxxxlbear

So because of this fact today, V/Line cannot possibly replace the N class + N sets with DMUs in the future? Because it is being suggested that DMU operation outside of much of the RFR network is impossible without huge investment.

I very much doubt that V/Line will buy N set replacements to attach to old N class locos 10, 15, 20 years from now rather than find an appropriate DMU. Victoria actually has a long history of railmotor operation on very substandard lines. Just because the V/locities are unfit it does not follow that all DMUs would be.

Do any other states still operate pass services with locomotives other than the big iconic trains like The Gahn?
  xxxxlbear Token Booking Clerk

Location: Geelong
I am not really sure that this thread is appropriate for the current discussion on whether V/Locities are appropriate for intercity travel, but I am sure if V/Line wanted to replace its N sets with long distance rail motors, then they would have. They seem to have placed more importance on increasing their V/Locity numbers, than looking at N set replacements.
But they ultimately will, I think, as it's obvious that V/Line are looking to eventually eliminate all loco passenger services.
  Mr. Lane Chief Commissioner

Of course, the Ns are still relatively young. I was not saying they would want to replace them now, five years ago or x years into the future, merely suggesting that V/Line has probably long since ordered its last loco hauled cars and that the Ns eventual replacements would probably be DMUs.

I never mentioned V/locities! Anyway, that's enough Smile
  alstom_888m Chief Commissioner

Location:
It seems that there seems to be a view within V/Line and elsewhere that long-distance services must be serviced by a loco. There was a time in Britain where both DMU's and "push" loco-hauled stock were out of favour and I think they were even banned for awhile after a spate of accidents causing deaths to people in the front car. The heavy locomotive would buffet the hit.

I recall an accident on the Warrnambool line where a double-headed N with a VN set hit a fallen tree (or was it a cow, or maybe a similar accident happened in a small time period). Both N's ended up in the dirt and I recall one was on it's side, and I don't recall there being any serious injuries. I shudder to think what would have happened if that fateful service was ran by a DMU that night.

Having said that, I would advocate a "long-distance RFR" before ordering new locos or carriages, and given that the H and ex-Z cars will go long before the N cars, the replacements for these cars will not be long-distance trains, but likely more VLocity for the commuter belt. There should be more than enough "pure" N cars to run services to Swan Hill, Warrnambool, Albury, and Bairnsdale for the time being.
  Duncs Chief Commissioner

It seems that there seems to be a view within V/Line and elsewhere that long-distance services must be serviced by a loco. There was a time in Britain where both DMU's and "push" loco-hauled stock were out of favour and I think they were even banned for awhile after a spate of accidents causing deaths to people in the front car. The heavy locomotive would buffet the hit.

I recall an accident on the Warrnambool line where a double-headed N with a VN set hit a fallen tree (or was it a cow, or maybe a similar accident happened in a small time period). Both N's ended up in the dirt and I recall one was on it's side, and I don't recall there being any serious injuries. I shudder to think what would have happened if that fateful service was ran by a DMU that night.

Having said that, I would advocate a "long-distance RFR" before ordering new locos or carriages, and given that the H and ex-Z cars will go long before the N cars, the replacements for these cars will not be long-distance trains, but likely more VLocity for the commuter belt. There should be more than enough "pure" N cars to run services to Swan Hill, Warrnambool, Albury, and Bairnsdale for the time being.
alstom_888m

This sums up my thoughts perfectly. Locos are much “safer” in an accident.
  darcycammo Chief Train Controller

Location: cockatoo vic
This sums up my thoughts perfectly. Locos are much “safer” in an accident.
Duncs


An accident can happen anywhere at any time. Not just in area's that the Vlo's don't travel yet

You never know a big tree could come down at any minute say between Officer and Pakenham could be a  
[size=1][font=sans-serif]Comeng[/font][/size]
[size=1][font=sans-serif]Siemens[/font][/size]
[size=1][font=sans-serif]N Class[/font][/size] + pass
[size=1][font=sans-serif]Sprinter[/font][/size]
[size=1][font=sans-serif]VLocity[/font][/size]
Or the Maryvale Freight

What about the accident on Saturday 15th November 2003, the 15.49 down Ballarat train struck a car on the line between Ballan and Gordon. Over 60 people were injured as the lead sprinter (7003) rolled onto its side and the trailing 2 (7005 and 7004) derailed. Clean up took 3 days.
  Duncs Chief Commissioner

[quote=darcycammo]An accident can happen anywhere at any time. Not just in area's that the Vlo's don't travel yet

You never know a big tree could come down at any minute say between Officer and Pakenham could be a
[url=http://www.vicsig.net/suburban/train/Comeng][size=1][font=sans-serif]Comeng[/font][/size][/url]
[url=http://www.vicsig.net/suburban/train/Siemens][size=1][font=sans-serif]Siemens[/font][/size][/url]
[url=
  kuldalai Chief Commissioner

These are the facts and these are the realities .

-  Loco hauled pax trains knock the track around more than DMU, and DMU are usually allowed 15 kmh faster on each class of track than loco hauled. So DMU is way to go lower track maintenance costs.
- Beyond the Inter-urban area the issue is lx protection primarily for DMU operation .
- The N locos have a good  15 - 20 years left in them, the  N  / Z cars maintained adequately 15 - 20 years left in them.
- The P class and H cars are all quite old and rebuilds of stock over 50 years old, and  ripe for retirement now.

The next VLP  pax rollingstock requisitions ideally would be something like ,  in order  :

-  A new generation  V/Locity DMU based on the Adelaide  EMU body with wider/more doorways and  2/3 seating across the wider body. Such DMU's to be used primarily on Geelong , Bacchus Marsh, Kyneton services to provide extra capacity.  Existing V/Locity released ex those corridors used  to build up consists on other Inter urban corridors . H cars progressively retired.

- Electrification to Melton also allows earlier retirement of H cars .

-   A mini  RFR upgrade to Mangalore - Shepparton to provide upgraded lx protection to allow V/Locity to run that route at 115kmh. Releases loco hauled cars and reduces travel times in that corridor, and increased frequency of service .

- Loco hauled N/Z cars continue in medium term on Warrnambool, Swan Hill, Albury (sg), and Bairnsdale ideally to added Weekday frequencies.

- Ararat  (130kmh), Shepparton (115kmh), Echuca (100kmh) as V/Locity.

-  The other real opportunity with DMU purchases in future with train sizes getting longer is to purchase strict trailer cars for insertion within existing and future V/Locity sets.

- The current VLP practice of all powered cars is very inefficient and costly where trains are greater than 4 cars .  In fact the existing order for 40 extra V/Locity powered cars could have given more cars for the same $ if VLP had accepted the current requirement for some 4 car sets with a trailer in each set .  So no more loco hauled cars for VLP.
  Duncs Chief Commissioner

These are the facts and these are the realities .

- Loco hauled pax trains knock the track around more than DMU, and DMU are usually allowed 15 kmh faster on each class of track than loco hauled. So DMU is way to go lower track maintenance costs.
- Beyond the Inter-urban area the issue is lx protection primarily for DMU operation .
- The N locos have a good 15 - 20 years left in them, the N / Z cars maintained adequately 15 - 20 years left in them.
- The P class and H cars are all quite old and rebuilds of stock over 50 years old, and ripe for retirement now.

The next VLP pax rollingstock requisitions ideally would be something like , in order :

- A new generation V/Locity DMU based on the Adelaide EMU body with wider/more doorways and 2/3 seating across the wider body. Such DMU's to be used primarily on Geelong , Bacchus Marsh, Kyneton services to provide extra capacity. Existing V/Locity released ex those corridors used to build up consists on other Inter urban corridors . H cars progressively retired.

- Electrification to Melton also allows earlier retirement of H cars .

- A mini RFR upgrade to Mangalore - Shepparton to provide upgraded lx protection to allow V/Locity to run that route at 115kmh. Releases loco hauled cars and reduces travel times in that corridor, and increased frequency of service .

- Loco hauled N/Z cars continue in medium term on Warrnambool, Swan Hill, Albury (sg), and Bairnsdale ideally to added Weekday frequencies.

- Ararat (130kmh), Shepparton (115kmh), Echuca (100kmh) as V/Locity.

- The other real opportunity with DMU purchases in future with train sizes getting longer is to purchase strict trailer cars for insertion within existing and future V/Locity sets.

- The current VLP practice of all powered cars is very inefficient and costly where trains are greater than 4 cars . In fact the existing order for 40 extra V/Locity powered cars could have given more cars for the same $ if VLP had accepted the current requirement for some 4 car sets with a trailer in each set . So no more loco hauled cars for VLP.
kuldalai

Thanks Kuldalai


That sets it out perfectly and I totally agree with your ideas. In particular the use of a trailer car to build up the 3 car vlocites into 4 car sets. Which will have to happen anyway, and where various country platforms are already being lengthened to take an 8 car capacity. So in future 2X 4 car VL sets.

I understand the Bendigo - Echuca line may be going up to 115kph instead of 100, but perhaps you can confirm that.

A mini RFR to Shepparton makes good sense, but I think that if you are going to 115kph, you might as well spend a little more $$$ and take the track up to 130kph for DMU's, eg: low profile concrete sleepers etc and other upgrades etc. That way you get more services and a Melbourne to Shepparton trip of 2 hours in either direction.

Electrify Melton asap. That brings all the stations between Sunshine and Melton into play, so V Line trains wont have to stop there and this speeds up the trips to areas west of Melton.  

Duncs
  kuldalai Chief Commissioner

With She part on to achieve 115kmh for DMU requires upgrade of lx protection plus upgrade at substantial cost from Class 3 to Class 2 track. For a saving of 5 mins extra for 130kmh the cost would not be justified. So the more affordable She part on option of 115kmh for DMU is the way to go.

Echuca is realistically a Class 3 1/2 track at best. So 100kmh for DMU will be about it, if tardy old VLP ever get the lx protection upgrades completed.  Another of VLP. BLUE HILLS. sagas. Any slightly interested Minister having given LP the funds for completion by June last year, should be getting a rocket under VLP Infrastructure for non delivery.
  JimYarin Chief Commissioner

Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Echuca is realistically a Class 3 1/2 track at best. So 100kmh for DMU will be about it, if tardy old VLP ever get the lx protection upgrades completed. Another of VLP. BLUE HILLS. sagas. Any slightly interested Minister having given LP the funds for completion by June last year, should be getting a rocket under VLP Infrastructure for non delivery.
kuldalai

blue hills?  does vline always get the money it needs in the timeframe it requests it?
  Duncs Chief Commissioner

With She part on to achieve 115kmh for DMU requires upgrade of lx protection plus upgrade at substantial cost from Class 3 to Class 2 track. For a saving of 5 mins extra for 130kmh the cost would not be justified. So the more affordable She part on option of 115kmh for DMU is the way to go.

Echuca is realistically a Class 3 1/2 track at best. So 100kmh for DMU will be about it, if tardy old VLP ever get the lx protection upgrades completed. Another of VLP. BLUE HILLS. sagas. Any slightly interested Minister having given LP the funds for completion by June last year, should be getting a rocket under VLP Infrastructure for non delivery.


kuldalai

What is the difference in upgrades between class 3 and class 2 track for Shepparton? I agree the level crossings will ned to be upgraded regardless, but what has to happen to upgrade the track to 115kph versus upgrading to 130kph?


I agree with your analysis of the Echuca line, which has already had track upgrades done to it. No more needs to be done there, for now.
  alstom_888m Chief Commissioner

Location:
A heavier rail, quality of sleepers maybe, not sure where use of TPWS comes into play (might be class 1), boom gates on level crossings maybe?

Mostly the weight of the rail I think.
  Mr. Lane Chief Commissioner

I can't see much work being done on Shepparton because of the uncertain future of the NE mainline with regards to Guage standardization. If the NE becomes part of the Inland Railway (which I think is the plan rather than build a new line via Shepparton) then the ARTC will probably want to gauge convert one of the BG lines through to Tottenham and I think Victoria would be happy to offload the BG on the NE: I doubt they will keep the second BG track open.

In the current environment I doubt the funds will be available, but a second SG track from Tottenham through to Seymour will eventually happen. This would also have the benefit of removing VLP traffic from the NE from the Cragieburn metro tracks.
  kuldalai Chief Commissioner

To upgrade Mangalore - She part on to Class 2 track to achieve 130 km for dmu requires relay to 47kg CWR throughout' heavy is renewal, greater ballast depth and re surfacing plus lx upgrades to booms. would cost a lot more than the affordable option of relay with 47kg used rail ex RFR corridors MAngalore - Murchison East. CWR, tie renewal and surfacing plus lx upgrades should allow 115 km for DMU at much lesser costs.

If and wh in Inland Railway ever goes ahead. (another. BLUE HILLS. !!!). then between Seymour and Melbourne one of these two scenarios will happen -

1. The Up bg line gets standardized to create duplicated SG track, and down BG lines gets crossing loops for Seymour BG and GV BG trains.

2. As for Option 1 but Up BG one goes to SG but with sections of DG t allow BG trains to cross.

If InlAnd rail went via Shepp (not ARTC position)  then 1 or 2 again, but VLP Shell would be on SG.

No matter what happens VLP Seymour would stay on BG as if SG the overall rolling stock required would b much higher, at added cost.
  Duncs Chief Commissioner

To upgrade Mangalore - She part on to Class 2 track to achieve 130 km for dmu requires relay to 47kg CWR throughout' heavy is renewal, greater ballast depth and re surfacing plus lx upgrades to booms. would cost a lot more than the affordable option of relay with 47kg used rail ex RFR corridors MAngalore - Murchison East. CWR, tie renewal and surfacing plus lx upgrades should allow 115 km for DMU at much lesser costs.

If and wh in Inland Railway ever goes ahead. (another. BLUE HILLS. !!!). then between Seymour and Melbourne one of these two scenarios will happen -

1. The Up bg line gets standardized to create duplicated SG track, and down BG lines gets crossing loops for Seymour BG and GV BG trains.

2. As for Option 1 but Up BG one goes to SG but with sections of DG t allow BG trains to cross.

If InlAnd rail went via Shepp (not ARTC position) then 1 or 2 again, but VLP Shell would be on SG.

No matter what happens VLP Seymour would stay on BG as if SG the overall rolling stock required would b much higher, at added cost.
kuldalai


Overall I agree with all this.  But I noticed from the Vicsig website that class 3 track is already specified at 47kg rail. So no need to re rail it again, except to replace any worn out sections. Some sections may already be CSW, if not they can then be welded. A replacement of timber sleepers with concrete done progressively over time, and some ballast increases with this, should do the job nicely. Eventually low profile replacement concrete sleepers will replace the timber ones completely, as is happening on the metro lines.

There are many sections of class 2 track without boom gates, so warning bells and rumble strips on all the crossings should be sufficient. That should get you up to class 2, or close enough to safely allow for for 120 -130 kph running.
  VN18 Junior Train Controller

Location: Central Highlands
A70 has been running around at Dynon this morning, to this I'd say it will most likely be seen on the 1615 or 1645 Bacchus this arvo with PH452 and LH33
  VN18 Junior Train Controller

Location: Central Highlands
N458 is back in service, following a level crossing incident in September 2013.

N465 undergoing repaint.
  Gman_86 Chief Commissioner

Location: Melton, where the sparks dare not roam!
N458 is back in service, following a level crossing incident in September 2013.

N465 undergoing repaint.
VN18

With N465 getting repainted, thus ends the era of VLP's red and blue livery (on N class locos at least)
  frezno Junior Train Controller

A bit off track on this thread, but didn't want to start another...Does anyone know what the "Pinch Point" clip looking things are on Vlocities? They're up high next to each door, and I'm guessing are an add on? I don't remember seeing them before.

Sponsored advertisement

Display from:   

Quick Reply

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