Diesel differences?

 
  Showtime Chief Train Controller

I consider myself a self appointed expert of NSW steam locos but not so smart when it comes to some of the older diesels.
I have been re-reading some of my older magazines and thought I would ask a question or 2 for the diesel experts.
The design and shape of the 42200, 44200, 80 and 81 classes all look the same.
I am aware that some were GM and some were Alco powered.
What were the major differences and why were the 42200 used primarily in the south and 44200 in the north.
I also read that the power units from the 80's were being used to re-power some of the 44 class.
I thought that this was strange as the 80 would have been a younger loco than the 44 and it would have made more sense to re-power the more modern loco with excess 44 power units.
Another quick question, in just about all the multiple loco lash-ups there seems to be a 48 or 2 in there?
How can the power be used equally when you have eg 2 81's and 2 48's working together. Would not the smaller 6 cylinder units be struggling and getting a flogging?

Sponsored advertisement

  gordon_s1942 Chief Commissioner

Location: Central Tablelands of NSW
Apart form the actual Diesel engine, from what I gather, the gearing on the Traction motors determined what lines they ran on.
For instance you never saw 44 Class working the Mountains or even further out west because apparently they were 'geared' for less heavy gradients.
I know the Mountains were Electrified so Diesels were rarely used as the 46 class ran rings around any Diesel.
Those '80' class electrics were a bloody pain in the nether regions where you had unwired sidings and there was no way unless the last signalbox passed the Engine number on to you, of telling which was which.
From this Forum, I believe those Electric 80 class did have a light fitted later so you could tell them apart at night.
During daylight of course, in most cases you could see the pantagraph but not at night.

A story circulated that when the  new Loco shed was built at Bathurst with grand plans to bring most Diesels there for maintenance was finished, a 44 class or similar did a 'Trial Run' out the West and when they tried to put it into the brand new purpose built facility, the door way was too narrow to allow the side handrails on the Loco to pass through...............
  KRviator Moderator

Location: Up the front
There is a caveat in the TOC Manual regarding inter-operability of various locomotives. If the combination you plan is not listed, you have to subtract 10% from the full sectional loads for each loco to cover the differences in gearing, adhesion, TM thermal limts etc...

The diesel engine of a billycart doesn't know if it is in the shafts with an 81 on point, or with 3 of its mates on a wheatie, it will put out the full 900HP all day long, until it runs out of fuel. Where you may encounter problems is with an unapproved combination and attempting to run the full sectional loads, or above. Depending on the gearing, one locomotive will be operating below its optimum speed, in turn putting more amps through the traction motors. More amps = more heat.
  fzr560 Chief Train Controller

I consider myself a self appointed expert of NSW steam locos but not so smart when it comes to some of the older diesels.
I have been re-reading some of my older magazines and thought I would ask a question or 2 for the diesel experts.
The design and shape of the 42200, 44200, 80 and 81 classes all look the same.
I am aware that some were GM and some were Alco powered.
What were the major differences and why were the 42200 used primarily in the south and 44200 in the north.
I also read that the power units from the 80's were being used to re-power some of the 44 class.
I thought that this was strange as the 80 would have been a younger loco than the 44 and it would have made more sense to re-power the more modern loco with excess 44 power units.
Another quick question, in just about all the multiple loco lash-ups there seems to be a 48 or 2 in there?
How can the power be used equally when you have eg 2 81's and 2 48's working together. Would not the smaller 6 cylinder units be struggling and getting a flogging?
Showtime
Similarities in loco shape were probably down to the requirements of the buyer. 42s, 421s and 422s are all GMs and were a minority from the 60s onwards. Not unreasonably, NSWGR decided to concentrate GM spares and expertise amongst a minimum of depots. Electrification to the North and West would have made the decision easy.

       Although the 251 prime  mover from an 80 would probably line-up inside a 44, I'd be really surprised if any bits from an 80 went into a 44, in govt service. No doubt there are people at LVRF/IRA/QUBE that have a sense of humour so anything is possible. Read this on faecesbook did you?

     Power characteristics of different locos mean that until your train drops below around 20kmh, the 48s are just along for the ride. Unless you decide to run at 115kmh the 48s are very happy. Alternately if you are slogging up a hill at 10kmh, the 48s are doing their best work, while the 81s traction motors are getting warmer than they would like.
  Showtime Chief Train Controller

I read about the power transplant in an old Railway Digest from the 90's which I assumed to be an accurate publication as they appear to have a lot of inside info on the NSW Railways at the time.
It pricked my ears up when I read it as I thought the 80 would be a better loco to keep powered up rather than the older 44.
I will confess though that the 44 was always my favourite loco to spot.
  gordon_s1942 Chief Commissioner

Location: Central Tablelands of NSW
It never ceased to amaze me when they introduced anything new that it was incompatible in some way to existing stock and most times this wasnt known until either they tried to multiple units or one broke down.
One such story was regarding new Sydney Suburban stock failing in the Underground and when they did the 'usual' which was to use the following train to push it out, it was found the electrical systems didnt match so the Brakes couldnt be released.
Another was the couplings on the early Interurbans had to have a special 'adapter' made so it could be deadhauled by a 46 class.
Needing a special adapter is understandable but not knowing it was needed until it was isnt.
I also have the idea they also had to remove the Diaphram buffer as well to allow the coupling to take place.
  theanimal Chief Commissioner

It never ceased to amaze me when they introduced anything new that it was incompatible in some way to existing stock and most times this wasnt known until either they tried to multiple units or one broke down.
One such story was regarding new Sydney Suburban stock failing in the Underground and when they did the 'usual' which was to use the following train to push it out, it was found the electrical systems didnt match so the Brakes couldnt be released.
Another was the couplings on the early Interurbans had to have a special 'adapter' made so it could be deadhauled by a 46 class.
Needing a special adapter is understandable but not knowing it was needed until it was isnt.
I also have the idea they also had to remove the Diaphram buffer as well to allow the coupling to take place.
gordon_s1942
the transition coupling is still part of the XPT equipment I believe?
  M636C Minister for Railways

I read about the power transplant in an old Railway Digest from the 90's which I assumed to be an accurate publication as they appear to have a lot of inside info on the NSW Railways at the time.
It pricked my ears up when I read it as I thought the 80 would be a better loco to keep powered up rather than the older 44.
I will confess though that the 44 was always my favourite loco to spot.
Showtime
The biggest problem with the 80 class was a weakness in the underframe. I think two or three were damaged beyond repair in collisions. It is possible that an engine from any of these written off units might have been fitted to a 44 class which needed an overhauled engine. The generator would bolt up in place of the Mitsubishi alternator.

Two of the 421 class had 645E engines in place of the 567C when withdrawn, and these engines were removed and returned to stock as spare before the locomotives were scrapped. So there is a precedent for a newer engine being fitted.

The main difference between the 12-251 engines in the 44 and the 80 was the turbocharger. A larger turbo was used on the 80 in the hope of reducing smoke production on power increase by providing an excess of air during throttling up.

What did happen was that the last six 442 class were stripped of  electrical equipment to provide extra spare motors and alternators for 80 class.


M636C
  M636C Minister for Railways

Another was the couplings on the early Interurbans had to have a special 'adapter' made so it could be deadhauled by a 46 class.
Needing a special adapter is understandable but not knowing it was needed until it was isnt.
I also have the idea they also had to remove the Diaphram buffer as well to allow the coupling to take place.
gordon_s1942

I don't think there was any need for an adaptor for the couplers themselves.

I've ridden in a single deck interurban to Wallerawang behind a 36 class and to Waterfall (before electrification) behind 3830 so I can't see why a 46 would be different since they could couple to the same couplers as 36 class and 38 class.

In both those cases the U set diaphragms had to be removed. For a 46 class with buffers, the diaphragm would also have to be removed.

It is possible that an adaptor consisting of a double knuckle could be used to increase the distance between the vehicles to avoid removing the U set diaphragm, but it only took a couple of minutes to remove the diaphragm at Lithgow so I can't see that being the problem.

Is it possible that some form of adaptor was needed to couple the air pipes between a U set and a 46?

M636C
  Showtime Chief Train Controller

I have found the Railway Digest issue regarding the powerplant change from an 80 to a 44.
It is issue March 1992.
It states the power unit from an unknown 80 class was fitted into 4483 and a number of 80 class with frame and electrical problems will be used to repower Series Two 44's.
It also goes on to say that "the 80 class are now over 12 years old and are becoming increasingly failure-prone with the units shutting down for various reasons, usually when they are most needed"
12 years old seems rather young for a modern locomotive to be considered scrapable.
They must have had some inherent defects in their design to be considered this way.
  nswtrains Chief Commissioner

I have found the Railway Digest issue regarding the powerplant change from an 80 to a 44.
It is issue March 1992.
It states the power unit from an unknown 80 class was fitted into 4483 and a number of 80 class with frame and electrical problems will be used to repower Series Two 44's.
It also goes on to say that "the 80 class are now over 12 years old and are becoming increasingly failure-prone with the units shutting down for various reasons, usually when they are most needed"
12 years old seems rather young for a modern locomotive to be considered scrapable.
They must have had some inherent defects in their design to be considered this way.
Showtime
The then NSWGR purchased the 80 class because they were cheap and nasty. I thought they were based on a design used by Spanish Railways were the trailing loads were much lighter.
  fzr560 Chief Train Controller

Thanks for the references guys. I was aware that 422 parts found their way into 421s but not the 44-80 swaps. I'd guess that the 80 class frames were at least as strong as the 44s but were asked to haul considerably more. It would be interesting to know if any locomotive frames are designed to be crashed.

Sponsored advertisement

Subscribers: fzr560, KRviator, theanimal

Display from:   

Quick Reply

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