I would think that the As in storage could come out of storage and take over one or two N Class duties somewhere, freeing up that N class for conversion to operate the (speculated) 4th Albury service (assuming a move to 4x4 carriages instead of the 3x5 sets we have now) and possibly have a back up loco for Albury.  Lets not SG the As if we don't have to.

Are there any power vans left to pair with these A class?

Probably not, Vline appears to have 3 PCJ (491-493) power vans, they are listed as power vans only, but have a storage area usually used for bikes. These are the ones on SG., there construction is similiar to the N cars

There is also 4 PH (451-454) power vans, these look like standard bogie louver vans with a genset in them.


Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, No wonder VLine is dragging its feet with a 4th set, no more power  vans. This raises a question was it a real good idea to remove the old power systems from the N cars on SG and make them completely dependent on a power van. It may have been extra maintence for the cars genset but it did make the cars NOT as a standard.N car with different axles.

Power van info courtesy if Vic sig.

woodford

I believe the PH Vans were converted from existing rolling stock. Would there be another Van that could be converted into a PH Van, and would this be appropriate?

Nothing wrong with that, I would not think they would have to much of a problem digging up another van, it would though be an odd man out, but it would be by far the cheapest option. For the additional set they will need not only the power van but a BRN and an ACN, one assumes the three cars they will get from the existing sets will be BN's?

Note: Do not forget they REALLY need another two sets and two loco's so there will always be an operational spare.

woodford

I would think that the As in storage could come out of storage and take over one or two N Class duties somewhere, freeing up that N class for conversion to operate the (speculated) 4th Albury service (assuming a move to 4x4 carriages instead of the 3x5 sets we have now) and possibly have a back up loco for Albury.  Lets not SG the As if we don't have to.

Are there any power vans left to pair with these A class?

There's still the PH vans (451-454) and several D vans that they could wire up and fit generators to if needed, but there's still the problem of the A's being a two-man crew when the N's are driver-only. Plus the PH vans tend to be drafted onto another set if the backup generators on it are duds.

VLine actually does have a long term strategy, its to replace the SG cars and loco's with some kind of long distance DMU setup. it appears though the whole problem is they (VLine) do not believe they will ever get the funds to carry this off, which is probably why they are struck dumb whenever they are questioned.

woodford

From the 2016 Budget papers...

http://www.premier.vic.gov.au/getting-it-done-for-north-east-victoria/

The Budget provides $15 million towards refurbishing and converting the three train-sets of five carriages into four-train sets of four carriages on the Albury line. This will improve reliability and improve the carriages to make them more comfortable for passengers.

We’re also getting on with developing the next generation of trains on the Albury line to enable the classic fleet to be retired and replaced.

Underlined for emphasis...

I believe there is also a mention in the Budget papers of ripping out the Economy seating and replacement.

Mike.

A few weeks ago Tim Fisher (former deputy prime minister and strong rail supporter) suggested that Vline convert some V Locities to standard gauge for this line, upgrade the seating and put in a food trolley etc.. I think this would be a very reasonable step. At least until the next generation of long haul loco sets or DMU's come along.

I would use Kuldalai's suggestion of 4 car V Locities from his posts in other threads, and go further. Create a 5 car V Locity Set with two driver cabs at each end and 3 powered passenger cars in between. Then upgrade the remaining few unprotected level crossings, as mentioned before by Woodford, and then have enough V Locity sets to do the job properly. If that means building a few extra V Locities, so be it. While this would not be suitable on other lines due to level crossing protection issues, it can be done on the north east SG line without incurring a ridiculous cost.

A question for Woodford;

Assuming the V Locities can travel at 130kph (the top speed for the current signalling set up on this line ) and working from the current V Line timetable, what time savings can these new train realistically achieve? At present the N sets can do all the stops in 3hours 45-50 minutes, and the XPT in 3 hours 15-20 minutes.

Duncs

Perhaps the biggest issue here is the maintenance of the line and rollingstock? What is the point of doing all these upgrades if the maintenance is either not done properly/at all?

Perhaps the biggest issue here is the maintenance of the line and rollingstock? What is the point of doing all these upgrades if the maintenance is either not done properly/at all?

I totally agree with you!

Perhaps the biggest issue here is the maintenance of the line and rollingstock? What is the point of doing all these upgrades if the maintenance is either not done properly/at all?

Amen brother!!!!!!

Poor maintence  strategies of the rolling stock would be the major contributor to the Albury lines poor performance

woodford

In answer to Dunc's question below is the result of a mathematical simulation (Note 1) of a push pull 6 car train with two 3300bhp loco's, power to weight ratio 11BHP per tonne. A similiar result would apply to a VLocty style DMU.

The time saving to Albury is around 30 minutes, this is largely the result of far better acceleration, particularly on the hills.


               time                    stop time
               secs    minutes

SC                                                                   0710

Seymour                                  2                       0824
Avenel          554     9.3            1                       0834
Euroa           1063    17.75         1                       0853
VT               578     9.75           1                       0904
Benalla         718     12              2                       0918
Wang           1163    19.5           2                       0940
Spring          716     12              1                       0953
Chiltern        452     7.5             1                       1003
Wodonga      796     13.5            2                       1019
Albury          473     8                2                       1030
Culcairn        1446    24             1                       1055
Henty           522     9               1                       1105
The Rock        885     15            1                       1121
Wagga           876     15                                      1136

Note 1: The simulation was calculated in 250 metre steps for the whole distance from Seymour to Wagga. SC to Seymour was not done as train performance on this stage is dictated by hills and speed limits.

Excuse the poor formating the web sits is using proportional spaced fonts, the simulation output uses fixed spaced fonts.
woodford

Post Script, the above is purely based on machine performance, there is no allowence for opposing traffic or build out time.

Note: 160kph running would have little effect due to the very many short sections between stops.

woodford

Post Script, the above is purely based on machine performance, there is no allowence for opposing traffic or build out time.

Note: 160kph running would have little effect due to the very many short sections between stops.

woodford

Thanks Woodford

So we now have a time of 3hours 20 minutes SCS to Albury. At present it can be as much as 3 hours 45 - 50 minutes. So a 25 -30 minute time saving. Impressive!

I agree with your reasons on why the 160kph top speed would be problematic, and that you would have calculated based on a 130 kph top speed. Having said that, is their any possibility of squeezing an extra 10 kph in a few places, so the top speed becomes 140kph?

Duncs

In answer to Dunc's question below is the result of a mathematical simulation (Note 1) of a push pull 6 car train with two 3300bhp loco's, power to weight ratio 11BHP per tonne. A similiar result would apply to a VLocty style DMU.

Aurizon has a number of CLP/F's in storage that would fit the bill here. Just need to resolve any outsanding reliability issues with the rolling stock.

Post Script, the above is purely based on machine performance, there is no allowence for opposing traffic or build out time.

Note: 160kph running would have little effect due to the very many short sections between stops.

woodford

Thanks Woodford

So we now have a time of 3hours 20 minutes SCS to Albury. At present it can be as much as 3 hours 45 - 50 minutes. So a 25 -30 minute time saving. Impressive!

I agree with your reasons on why the 160kph top speed would be problematic, and that you would have calculated based on a 130 kph top speed. Having said that, is their any possibility of squeezing an extra 10 kph in a few places, so the top speed becomes 140kph?

Duncs

Good one Duncs and Woodford, you've covered my questions. Sounds similar to comments on the Gippsland line, perhaps some shorter gearing for sharper acceleration and a top speed of 145kph or similar.

I seem to remember quite a few years back, somebody, possibly Woodford, saying the North East alignment was set for something like 85mph, so Duncs' speed would be about spot on.

BigShunter.

Post Script, the above is purely based on machine performance, there is no allowence for opposing traffic or build out time.

Note: 160kph running would have little effect due to the very many short sections between stops.

woodford

Thanks Woodford

So we now have a time of 3hours 20 minutes SCS to Albury. At present it can be as much as 3 hours 45 - 50 minutes. So a 25 -30 minute time saving. Impressive!

I agree with your reasons on why the 160kph top speed would be problematic, and that you would have calculated based on a 130 kph top speed. Having said that, is their any possibility of squeezing an extra 10 kph in a few places, so the top speed becomes 140kph?

Duncs

Good one Duncs and Woodford, you've covered my questions. Sounds similar to comments on the Gippsland line, perhaps some shorter gearing for sharper acceleration and a top speed of 145kph or similar.

I seem to remember quite a few years back, somebody, possibly Woodford, saying the North East alignment was set for something like 85mph, so Duncs' speed would be about spot on.

BigShunter.

I had another look at the line map courtesy of VicSig. When you head north east of Avenal (after Seymour), there are some quite decent stretches of track between stations, until you get to Wangaratta. After which the distance between stations shortens and the topography is probably not as favourable. So 140kph running through here can probably achieved, assuming that you don't have to make too many drastic (read expensive) changes to the signalling set up.

Another possibility is improving the line from SCS to Seymour. I think 5 - 10 minutes can be saved there as well using a V Locity or similar unit. Plus a few well judged bits of track upgrade. So add that on to the 30 minutes suggested by Woodford, and you are looking at reducing the overall travel time by 35-40 minutes. Now you are competitive with driving the same distance.

In answer to Dunc's question below is the result of a mathematical simulation (Note 1) of a push pull 6 car train with two 3300bhp loco's, power to weight ratio 11BHP per tonne. A similiar result would apply to a VLocty style DMU.

Aurizon has a number of CLP/F's in storage that would fit the bill here. Just need to resolve any outsanding reliability issues with the rolling stock.

First of all you would only bother with the CLPs as the CLFs didn't have HEP, sort of a necessity for passenger trains.

That said though, and as much as I would like to see the CLPs in V/Line livery running up and down the North East line, I don't think acquiring 45 year old locomotives is the best we could realistically hope for.

Post Script, the above is purely based on machine performance, there is no allowence for opposing traffic or build out time.

Note: 160kph running would have little effect due to the very many short sections between stops.

woodford

Thanks Woodford

So we now have a time of 3hours 20 minutes SCS to Albury. At present it can be as much as 3 hours 45 - 50 minutes. So a 25 -30 minute time saving. Impressive!

I agree with your reasons on why the 160kph top speed would be problematic, and that you would have calculated based on a 130 kph top speed. Having said that, is their any possibility of squeezing an extra 10 kph in a few places, so the top speed becomes 140kph?

Duncs

Good one Duncs and Woodford, you've covered my questions. Sounds similar to comments on the Gippsland line, perhaps some shorter gearing for sharper acceleration and a top speed of 145kph or similar.

I seem to remember quite a few years back, somebody, possibly Woodford, saying the North East alignment was set for something like 85mph, so Duncs' speed would be about spot on.

BigShunter.

I had another look at the line map courtesy of VicSig. When you head north east of Avenal (after Seymour), there are some quite decent stretches of track between stations, until you get to Wangaratta. After which the distance between stations shortens and the topography is probably not as favourable. So 140kph running through here can probably achieved, assuming that you don't have to make too many drastic (read expensive) changes to the signalling set up.

Another possibility is improving the line from SCS to Seymour. I think 5 - 10 minutes can be saved there as well using a V Locity or similar unit. Plus a few well judged bits of track upgrade. So add that on to the 30 minutes suggested by Woodford, and you are looking at reducing the overall travel time by 35-40 minutes. Now you are competitive with driving the same distance.

The section between Melbourne and Seymour would probably need to be duplicated as well to cater for additional traffic once the Inland Rail project is complete.

Post Script, the above is purely based on machine performance, there is no allowence for opposing traffic or build out time.

Note: 160kph running would have little effect due to the very many short sections between stops.

woodford

Thanks Woodford

So we now have a time of 3hours 20 minutes SCS to Albury. At present it can be as much as 3 hours 45 - 50 minutes. So a 25 -30 minute time saving. Impressive!

I agree with your reasons on why the 160kph top speed would be problematic, and that you would have calculated based on a 130 kph top speed. Having said that, is their any possibility of squeezing an extra 10 kph in a few places, so the top speed becomes 140kph?

Duncs

Good one Duncs and Woodford, you've covered my questions. Sounds similar to comments on the Gippsland line, perhaps some shorter gearing for sharper acceleration and a top speed of 145kph or similar.

I seem to remember quite a few years back, somebody, possibly Woodford, saying the North East alignment was set for something like 85mph, so Duncs' speed would be about spot on.

BigShunter.

I had another look at the line map courtesy of VicSig. When you head north east of Avenal (after Seymour), there are some quite decent stretches of track between stations, until you get to Wangaratta. After which the distance between stations shortens and the topography is probably not as favourable. So 140kph running through here can probably achieved, assuming that you don't have to make too many drastic (read expensive) changes to the signalling set up.

Another possibility is improving the line from SCS to Seymour. I think 5 - 10 minutes can be saved there as well using a V Locity or similar unit. Plus a few well judged bits of track upgrade. So add that on to the 30 minutes suggested by Woodford, and you are looking at reducing the overall travel time by 35-40 minutes. Now you are competitive with driving the same distance.

The track north of Avenal is not as favorable as it looks for running faster than 130kph. The only really long section is from Avenal to Euroa but this is restricted by the hills between Crieghton and Euroa. Increasng the cruise speed to 140kph between Seymour and Albury one would be lucky to get 3-4 minute improvement, even IF you could talk ARTC into a higher line speed.

Its a sort of similiar story between Broadford and Seymour, the track between Wallan and Seymour is effectively 100kph for loco hauled pass's and 115kph for DMU's. While there are some steep sections these are quite short, the average grade being around 1 in 100. This allows the loco hauled pass's to run at the line speed. So the performance of the VLine Albury trains is excellent. The improvement I would expect from a DMU style Albury set on this section would only be in the order of 2 or 3 minutes. Straightening the line out would not be an option as it would cost billions and even then the time saving would not be that much (around 8 minutes). Such a straightening project would not alter the Seymour local pass's at all as these stop to frequently for any higher speeds to be effective.

woodford

Thanks Woodford

I understand what you mean when you mention the topography etc.. So the best opportunities to reduce the travel time are north of Seymour.

One item of interest for your simulation program. Can you suggest how long it would take a Vlocity style DMU to run express to Albury?  In this case using the same stops as per the XPT.

So: SCS - Broadmeadows - Seymour -  Benalla - Wangaratta - Albury.

To woodford and all,   Thanks at last for establishing a consolidated thread for this topic so it doesn't get buried in multiple other threads.   Whilst I don't propose to repeat all that I've said repeatedly on all other threads, I will where appropriate refer to some of that material to address woodford's point and help others get a bit of the picture.  Firstly there is money in the new budget as previously foreshadowed to start the developmental work for a replacement train fleet for the N sets for both broad and standard gauge, so for this exercise let's not get derailed on what that might be as the focus here is what can you do to give people on what was V/Line's premier InterCity route a decent, reliable and reasonably attractive service for the next 4 to 5 years.

Firstly, even though the current N sets had a very comprehensive upgrade of their air-conditioning, toilet systems, the removal of highly unreliable underfloor diesel alternator sets and replacement with dedicated power cars, and the completion of a light servicing facility, carriage washing plant etc at Dynon, together with an overhaul of the 3 dedicated N class locos, the performance, presentation and reliability of these trains has been appalling and all N sets even on Broad Gauge have been run down as well.   This is partially due to maintenance by Bombardier being sub contracted to EDI with EDI having lost a very substantial contract to Bombardier some years ago and their prime focus being on DMU maintenance.

So scrap that entire maintenance arrangement for the NE sets and give it to Gemco as a full on contract not as the type of contract that they have now where they are only used when V/Line/Bombardier get in a jam.   Giving them that contract as a complete operation gives them the opportunity to undertake proper comprehensive preventative maintenance program as well as the daily trip and other maintenance, which is not done now.    No more overnighting at SX the inbound up set that is so called cleaned.   Send it down to GEMCO each night for proper cleaning and servicing so any minor defects can be addressed as it was always planned to be.   This means the current 3rd set which acts as the standby set is sitting at GEMCO able to thoroughly serviced and replenished as a proper standby set should be.   There are numerous examples of the so called standby set sitting in the stabling area at Dynon with difects not attended to and the standby set US    Do not reduce the train consist size, you'll need the capacity to carry the passengers who'll return to the service once you've got it back up to the standard it should be.

Spare cars.   Make up a standby power van and at most another 2 sitting cars and be prepared to break up sets for changing out individual cars. This is also important to undertake the heavy servicing needed on the fleet to get it back into decent shape  A P class loco was gauge converted for this very purpose, and let GEMCO use that as well as using the train wash which has never been used effectively by V/Line and wash the sets each night as they should be.

Return all the current N class locos back to Broad Gauge to beef up the tight motive power situation there.   Hire 4 G class or equivalent on long term hire with V/Line radios transferred from the N's, so you get a better performance out of the 3,000 units which are simpler to maintain as well, and start using the power vans on the train sets as they were intended to be and the way that GSR does on the Overland, IP and Ghan!!!

Give them GEMCO the cleaning at Dynon and Albury as well so they have entire responsibity end to end.  They service The Overland and the XPT and they do a good job.

At Albury, set up a proper overnight stabling and light cleaning facility to the north of the station set up so that it can be future-proofed for the new N set replacement and able to undertake very small running repairs which cannot be done now, thereby ensuring that even the overnight set at Albury is properly serviced.  Gemco can then establish a small multi task team to support the overnight cleaning and servicing of the set at Albury as part of the enhanced maintenance/cleaning/and management function in Dynon.   The stabling facility will significantly reduce the risk of graffiti attack!!!

Now the money side.   V/Line will have and will continue to do so spending what must be millions of dollars on rail replacement services over the past 6 years for the NE standard gauge service because of the totally unacceptable way the NE service has been managed.   The long term hire of 4 G class equivalent units, the conversion of a power van, and a couple of sitting cars, the establishment of a proper stabling facility in Albury and a considerably beefed up maintenance and cleaning contract end to end with GEMCO is frankly a mere drop in the ocean for what has been spent and the loss of business and reputation that has taken place.   With new trains coming at the earliest I would suggest 4 even 5 years, the operation can't continue as it is and this type of regime MUST be place anyway to support any new replacement fleet.

This is not rocket science.   Whilst not ideal having to continue with the existing fleet, the fact that the trains would be fully maintained, ultra clean and reliable would be a substantially better offering than what takes place today.  Frankly I'd go further and get the services running marginally faster with the 3,000HP units and modified dampeners on the bogies of the N cars say 120/125 km/hr, I'd definitely dump Springhurst Station stop at less than 30 passengers per month and that combination could bring the schedule down just a little but at least evidence that some genuine attempt has been made to deliver something significantly better.   We know something like 15 minutes is in some timetables to allow for crossing of other trains that hasn’t been removed since Passing Lane 1

Only after I had done that and the service bedded down would I consider upping frequency.   In any case with Victoria spending almost $6million a year contribution to the XPT service and owning a full XPT set I’d be reinstating the code-share arrangement so V/Line ticketed passengers could access the XPT services.  That increases the number of trips to 6 each way each day enabling more options for residents in the NE and we’d be getting more value out of the millions we spend on supporting the XPT.

Well said Trainplanner, I totally agree with you.

The only point I should make is that the ARTC has a maximum speed for ALL locomotive hauled trains of 115kph. As per their track access manual. But having said that, reliability of service is the most important issue right now and you have covered this very well. All that remains is for the current ("new") CEO of V Line to tell his people to do this. I think either a G class, an 81 class, or a BL class will do the job nicely. Plenty of power but still less than 130 tons gross weight.

I like the idea of the code share for the XPT so at least I can go express to Albury in a reasonable time. Not to mention Benalla and Wangaratta.

If down the track you want a higher speed for all the stations, then a long haul DMU is the way to go, or else a push - pull set up of some kind. As discussed before. But  overall you are quite correct, V Line has to act...NOW!

@Trainplanner definitely agree with you. In addition to this there must also be proper infrastructure maintenance because if this is not carried out the improvements to fleet maintenance would be essentially useless.

Trainplanner, a question, Do you have any idea of what the chance is of the maintennce setup for VLInes SG fleet improving. One simply cannot say enough bad things about VLines almost complete lack of ANY KIND of action on the Albury service.

Does not anyone in VLine management have ANY pride AT ALL in running a decent train service?

woodford

Thanks Woodford

I understand what you mean when you mention the topography etc.. So the best opportunities to reduce the travel time are north of Seymour.

One item of interest for your simulation program. Can you suggest how long it would take a Vlocity style DMU to run express to Albury?  In this case using the same stops as per the XPT.

So: SCS - Broadmeadows - Seymour -  Benalla - Wangaratta - Albury.

A train loses around 3 minutes for every stop, the time is roughly evenly split between the time the train is stationary and the time it takes to get back up to speed. Braking is not an issue even an N class loco and N set can in railway terms "stop on a sixpence".

woodford

Post Script, the above is purely based on machine performance, there is no allowence for opposing traffic or build out time.

Note: 160kph running would have little effect due to the very many short sections between stops.

woodford

Thanks Woodford

So we now have a time of 3hours 20 minutes SCS to Albury. At present it can be as much as 3 hours 45 - 50 minutes. So a 25 -30 minute time saving. Impressive!

I agree with your reasons on why the 160kph top speed would be problematic, and that you would have calculated based on a 130 kph top speed. Having said that, is their any possibility of squeezing an extra 10 kph in a few places, so the top speed becomes 140kph?

Duncs

The original ARTC  track upgrade and standardization was supposed to achieve a track standard allowing loco hauled operation of the sg N sets at  130 kmh .  The carriage bogies were modified, and several N class locos regeared to allow 130 kmh running .

Post Script, the above is purely based on machine performance, there is no allowence for opposing traffic or build out time.

Note: 160kph running would have little effect due to the very many short sections between stops.

woodford

Thanks Woodford

So we now have a time of 3hours 20 minutes SCS to Albury. At present it can be as much as 3 hours 45 - 50 minutes. So a 25 -30 minute time saving. Impressive!

I agree with your reasons on why the 160kph top speed would be problematic, and that you would have calculated based on a 130 kph top speed. Having said that, is their any possibility of squeezing an extra 10 kph in a few places, so the top speed becomes 140kph?

Duncs

The original ARTC  track upgrade and standardization was supposed to achieve a track standard allowing loco hauled operation of the sg N sets at  130 kmh .  The carriage bogies were modified, and several N class locos regeared to allow 130 kmh running .

Yes, but then the ARTC changed their mind and imposed a blanket 115 kph limit on all locomotive hauled trains. Regardless of the size and weight of the locomotive. So the N sets are still stuck on 115 kph.

Lets hope that some commonsense eminates form PTV & V/Line - obviously as announced in the budget carriage sets are to be reconfigured into 4 x 4 car sets - instead of 3 x 5 car sets

To do this will require an additional ACN & BRN car placed on SG - and an additional BDN car
Converted from An existing SG BN car.  This leaves one orphaned BN car on SG.


To form 4 standard sets comprising PCJ - ACN -BRN - BDN - BN.

There already is a semi orphaned ACN & BRN cars ex FN 8. - which lost BN 22 to the original SG project.

The powervan may be a problem. - however several options exist ,  

The government also announced extra Warrnambool & Shepparton service , which will further stretch the BG N set fleet.  

There are still 9 Z type cars stored waiting bogies - these will need to be returned to service ASAP to release any carriages required as part of any SG upgrade.

Money was also allocated to upgrade the classic fleet - to last another 10-20 years - let's hope those responsible in the PTV & VLine make some wiser decisions in regards to the utilisation of available rolling stock than they have in the prevailing few years .......