bogie_engineer SD70Dude The axle load restrictions in Australia have been previously mentioned, but I still must say that from a North American perspective 138 tons seems very, very light for a 4300 HP freight locomotive. Agree they're light but it's not quite that bad - 138 tonnes is 152 tons compared to the 216 tons Balt mentions, so about 3/4 the weight of NA locos.
SD70Dude The axle load restrictions in Australia have been previously mentioned, but I still must say that from a North American perspective 138 tons seems very, very light for a 4300 HP freight locomotive.
The axle load restrictions in Australia have been previously mentioned, but I still must say that from a North American perspective 138 tons seems very, very light for a 4300 HP freight locomotive.
Agree they're light but it's not quite that bad - 138 tonnes is 152 tons compared to the 216 tons Balt mentions, so about 3/4 the weight of NA locos.
So just under the weight of an SD7 which I believe were ballasted to 308-310K.
I don't think the axle load is relevant in this case. The problem is the continuous tractive effort of the traction motor concerned. The trains have successfully been hauled by three GT42CU-AC locomotives with the same EMD motors but with only 200kN (20 tonnes) on each axle. The problem is not wheelslip but the available tractive effort. the three GT42CU-AC units have 18 motors altogether but the two GT46CU-ACe units have only twelve of the same motors.
Before the line between Collinsville and Briaba was realigned and regraded, I recall driving beside a train with two GT42CU-AC units. The lead axle was clearly rotating slightly faster than the others on the two units. Clearly it couldn't run much faster since the speed was governed by the inverter frequency. I have no idea how much tractive effort would be lost with this occurring.
Peter
No I don't think you're right there M , I believe axle load is very important in the adhesion stakes .
Yes the traction motors have to generate adequate torque but if thats enough to overpower the wheels contact patch then you can't put the full power to the rail .
It's sounding like these narrow gauge engines were short changed traction motor wise . What the US builders tended to do was fit larger diameter wheels so that larger diameter traction motors didn't drag in the ballast ...
If you had a 90MAC to look at you'd notice it . Obviously the reason these had HTCR2 trucks was to increase the wheelbase for larger diameter wheels and motors .
The major problem we have in Australia (outside the Pilbara where everything is built to heavy haul US Standards) is that the rail infrastructure systems are buillt light by American standards .
Ask them what they'd think of running 47/53/60 Kg to the meter rails . They are running I think mostly 68Kg/meter rails on heavier concrete sleepers and sub base . This is why a heavy coal hopper in the NSW Hunter Valley weighs 120 metric tonnes where a heavy ore car in the Pilbara weighs 168 metric tonnes .
That coal setup in QLD had the opportunity to build it's own standard gauge railway , but they cheaped out by wanting to connect to the existing QLD narrow gauge light load rail infrastructure .
You would think that had they gone with standard guage it would be built to US domestic standards - like the Pilbara railways . No brainer , could have had modern 190 odd metric tonne USD locomotives hauling considerably larger loads .
I'd be very interested to hear how much a GT46ACe Gen 111 cost compared to a Tier 3 SD70ACe or ES44AC .
It's a great pity . The powers that be in eastern Australia really needed to see how well US spec perway and locos + rollingstock work . Cheaper and far more productive in the long run .
The biggest stumbling block with almost all of Australias railways is the light rail infrastructure . This alone enforces lightweight locomotives that can't pull anything like what our US counterparts can . It also means that most wagon loads will be far lighter which chops productivity and proffitability . Here our express freighters can do 115 km/h with the right rollingstock up to an axle load of 19 metric tones . A handfull more 100 km/h , two handfulls 80 km/h . In the Pilbara it's 80 km/h at 42 metric tonne axle load .
The Americans know how to spend money to make money , we are the very poor emaciated cousins .
BDA If you had a 90MAC to look at you'd notice it . Obviously the reason these had HTCR2 trucks was to increase the wheelbase for larger diameter wheels and motors.
If you had a 90MAC to look at you'd notice it . Obviously the reason these had HTCR2 trucks was to increase the wheelbase for larger diameter wheels and motors.
Minor correction - the wheelbase on the HTCR and HTCR-II trucks is the same overall at 164 inches, the spacing between axles on the HTCR is 1-2 80" and 2-3 84"; on the HTCR-II it's equal at each 82". The larger 45" wheels on the HTCR-II force the bottom plate to be higher at 51" compared to 49.38" for the HTCR with 42" wheels.
Point taken , what I had to compare is HTCR2 vs HTSC2 .
SD90MAC vs SD70ACe . I believe the MAC has larger traction motors than the ACe though I'd have to look at specs to see if a 70ACe pulls much if any more than a 9043 MAC .
The 70MAC has 1TB2630 motors and the 90MAC 1TB2830. The 26 and 28 numbers are representative of diameter but not exactly in inches, both are Siemens designs. The 70ACe uses an EMD design to go with the Mitsubishi inverters that is between those two in diameter and designated the A3432. EMD also currently uses the A29XX motors of varying core length in many or most export locos which is the same diameter as the 1TB2630.
bogie_engineer The 70MAC has 1TB2630 motors and the 90MAC 1TB2830. The 26 and 28 numbers are representative of diameter but not exactly in inches, both are Siemens designs. The 70ACe uses an EMD design to go with the Mitsubishi inverters that is between those two in diameter and designated the A3432. EMD also currently uses the A29XX motors of varying core length in many or most export locos which is the same diameter as the 1TB2630.
The standard gauge GT46C ACe units built in Australia had the 1TB2630, and I think the units being built in the USA now also have this motor. The extra 14.5 inches (or more, since the motors are built to fit one metre gauge) of armature length compared to the narrow gauge motor mean that the standard gauge locomotives aren't limited by the continuous tractive effort like the narrow gauge units. I have a Siemens brochure somewhere that illustrates the 1TB2630 and 1TB2830 motors. The 1TB2830 had double helical pinion and gears in the illustration, suggesting that Siemens were taking the extra torque very seriously.
I think I was told that the A3432 was too big in diameter to fit the export truck designs even on standard gauge, and that there was a Mitsubishi design that was considered before the 1TB2630 was selected.
By double helical I gather you mean herringbone gears .
Would help with end thrust .
BDABy double helical I gather you mean herringbone gears .
While they eliminate end-thrust they still have some progressive tooth-engagement issues, which are addressed with helical teeth. Pairing opposite-handed helical gears in herringbone fashion gives you the double-helical form...
Overmod BDA By double helical I gather you mean herringbone gears . Not quite. A herringbone gear acts like two skew-angled spur gears together -- the Citroen company emblem was derived from that piece of history. While they eliminate end-thrust they still have some progressive tooth-engagement issues, which are addressed with helical teeth. Pairing opposite-handed helical gears in herringbone fashion gives you the double-helical form...
BDA By double helical I gather you mean herringbone gears .
Not quite. A herringbone gear acts like two skew-angled spur gears together -- the Citroen company emblem was derived from that piece of history.
Is this picture accurate?
http://www.sze.hu/~szenasy/VILLVONT/Diesel-Electric_Loco_SD90MAC_EN.pdf
rdamon Overmod BDA By double helical I gather you mean herringbone gears . Not quite. A herringbone gear acts like two skew-angled spur gears together -- the Citroen company emblem was derived from that piece of history. While they eliminate end-thrust they still have some progressive tooth-engagement issues, which are addressed with helical teeth. Pairing opposite-handed helical gears in herringbone fashion gives you the double-helical form... Is this picture accurate? http://www.sze.hu/~szenasy/VILLVONT/Diesel-Electric_Loco_SD90MAC_EN.pdf
That picture looks as I remember it. I believe the reason for the double helicals is to avoid having to put a high axial load capable bearing on the armature, instead there are cylindrical bearings to allow the armature to adjust it's position as the gears dictate. Note the plug pinion that allows for a smaller pinion diameter and more desirable (higher numerical) gear ratio than would be required if it had tapered bore.
The first prototype AC locomotive built at EMD in partnership with Siemens using an SDP40F carcass had motors with a double end armature and separated helical pinions and bull gears and two gearcases. I believe this was done to eliminate concerns of axle windup and torsional resonance in the long side of the axle - axle torsionals were a big deal on the AEM-7. This made for an expensive combo that was abandoned before the 60MAC's were designed. The prototype locomotive was given road number 268, which was the last 3 digits of the engineering project number as was EMD practice, and it only ever moved about 10 feet under it's own power. It used current source inverters which Siemens pushed (I don't pretend to understand how they are different from voltage source inverters used on the 60MAC's and everything since.)
Thanks rdamon for the link and B.E. for the comments.
Current source would imply that that a change in the inverters load would result a change in the the output voltage and not the output current (i.e. has a high output impedance). Voltage source implies that output voltage will be roughly constant regardless of load.
Taking a bit of a guess, the current source inverter likely has a large inductor(s) somewhere between the main power source (i.e. rectified output of the traction alternator). The downside is that the inductors would be big and heavy.
3400 rpm and four poles means that the maximum frequency would close to 120Hz, which is why the Siemens inverters switched from PWM at the higher speeds.
bogie_engineer The first prototype AC locomotive built at EMD in partnership with Siemens using an SDP40F carcass had motors with a double end armature and separated helical pinions and bull gears and two gearcases. I believe this was done to eliminate concerns of axle windup and torsional resonance in the long side of the axle - axle torsionals were a big deal on the AEM-7. This made for an expensive combo that was abandoned before the 60MAC's were designed. The prototype locomotive was given road number 268, which was the last 3 digits of the engineering project number as was EMD practice, and it only ever moved about 10 feet under it's own power. It used current source inverters which Siemens pushed (I don't pretend to understand how they are different from voltage source inverters used on the 60MAC's and everything since.)
I found a photo
Thanks for that, it must have just come from the paint shop. The inverters occupy the space that previously housed the steam generators at the rear. The louvers were added for drawing in cooling air. Clicking on the photo shows it was taken during an open house in 1989. If you enlarge it, you can make out the dogbone nose links on the inboard traction motors and a 2" stretch of the end transom.
For what they want to achieve it sounds like buying more GT42CU ACEs may have been a better idea .
https://images-wixmp-ed30a86b8c4ca887773594c2.wixmp.com/f/ebd4ca0c-24c9-4dfd-8568-f638820e1b71/d74zlzc-7f119d32-ebbf-4806-94c2-0ec2afd4d450.jpg/v1/fill/w_386,h_250,q_70,strp/emd_268_oh_9_17_89_by_eyepilot13_d74zlzc-250t.jpg
BDA For what they want to achieve it sounds like buying more GT42CU ACEs may have been a better idea .
I think so too. Fuel economy & engine longevity with 4 x 42's vs 3 x 46's is vastly superior, especially if they are limited to the smaller Traction Package of the 42's.
Interestingly, Progress Rail have 640nm Starting/540nm Continuous TE on their website for the GT46CU-ACe GEN III, so ¿? but it is a Caterpillar company.
According to Siemens, the smaller Traction Package fitted to the GT42CU-AC is 460nm Starting & Continuous TE & 450nm in their 5364HP Electric.
I also learned that:
• Siemens big GTO Traction Package is the same on GT46MAC, SD80MAC & SD90MAC.
• Siemens big IGBT Traction Package uses the same Motors as is visible on our GT46C-ACe Gen 1 & 1st SD70ACe. Having the same everything suggests that they would cost the same, roughly.
• GT46C-ACe Gen 2 use Six Mitsubishi Inverters, Three of which can be seen replacing the front single Inverter on Aurizon's GWB.
• GT46CU-ACe Gen 3 use Six Mitsubishi Inverters, visibly stacked up at the front.
I like the SD70ACe tail end, but that's longer than allowed down South.
The inside of the Gen 2 driving layout looks better than Gen 1, BUT, Progress Rail's website shows pictures of Gen 1's as an exterior picture.
The Heringbone style 'Double Helical' pinion seen on Siemens Traction Motors, would run in oil & is very quite. The old fashioned straight cut gears running in Crater is what makes the Cv40-9i make the horrible moaning/whining noise, depending on speed. I dunno what the Goninan-GE GEB13 & GEB30 Traction Motors use?
There are TT1 Class Locos running from Brisbane to Melbourne, did they get removable ballast like the TT Class?
Cheers,
Tubby.
NRs use oil filled gear cases .
Intermodal only has a small number of TT class , the others are LDPs pretty much same animal .
The word on the street is that Intermodal bought these LDPs to prevent the competition getting them .
"Fun" fact , LDPs are at Intermodal because they don't have ECP like most/all northern coal units do .
Why there is a small number of TTs here (with ECP) I don't know because we'd gladly swap them for same number of ECP equipt 93s (C44ACi) that are currently at Northern Coal .
Back to these GT46ACe Gen 3 . You'd think someone in the US would have worked out on paper what sort of loads these could pull - and realised that the extra horsepower wasn't going to achieve much . A GT42 based unit with the same dimensions and axle load would have been cheaper and simpler I reckon . I'm no electrician so I'm not sure if you can improve AC traction motor performance by making them larger in diameter . Obviously with narrow gauge wheelsets and bogies you are limited to how long a traction motor can be .
There are a couple of misconceptions in the previous two posts. Firstly:
I am assured by Progress Rail that the GT46C-ACe Gen II has two Mitsubishi inverters, one per truck. However these inverters consist each of three separate devices, each device producing a single phase of the three phase inverter supply. I first observed this on an Aurizon 4100 (GT42CU-ACe) under construction at EDI Maryborough, where when the cover plate was removed on the forward Mitsubishi inverter, the three separate devices could be clearly seen.
The ballast in the PN TT class is lead, fitted in steel boxes bolted under the the draft gears at each end of the locomotive. PN were quite happy with the 92 class (UGL C44ACi) units in coal traffic. The earliest 92 class weighed around 141 tonnnes with full fuel (13500 litres) so asked EDI to ballast the GT46c ACe units up to 139 tonnes to compare the performance. I can confirm that TT 01 was ballasted to 139 tonnes, because I photographed the ballast boxes at Kooragang Island soon after it entered service. I am told that by the time they built TT07 and TT08, the ballast had been reduced to give an all up weight of 136 tonnes, more or less the same as a 92 class with 10 000 litres of fuel. The later GT46C ACe units were built to the standard design, weighing 134 tonnes with 10000 litres of fuel. However, when the final batch of TTs were purchased, the official weights were shown as 139 tonnes, despite these being numbered TT128 to TT132.
These have remained in Hunter Valley coal traffic as far as I know, and the units numbered TT101 to TT127 appear to weigh 134 tonnes with full fuel. When I've seen mixed groups of TTs working Hunter Coal Traffic, units numbered TT01 to TT08 usually lead the consist. I have seen TT131 and TT132 leading consists, of course.
None of the DC units, 90 class GT46CWM, are fitted for ECP. The 92 class (C44ACi) were built without ECP cables, and ran for a while with ECP bypass cables to operate as trailing units. However, the 92 class were retrofitted with full ECP capability, since their brake controllers were suitable for ECP operation. It seems likely that the LDPs could be retrofitted with ECP brake capability just as the 92 class were.
Why there is a small number of TTs here (with ECP) I don't know because we'd gladly swap them for same number of ECP equipped 93s (C44ACi) that are currently at Northern Coal .
The problem with the 93 class is the same as that for all C44ACi units. They can only carry 7400 litres of fuel at an all up weight of 134 tonnes. The GT46C ACes weigh only 134 tonnes with 10 000 litres of fuel, so TTs and LDPs are more useful for the longer runs required by PN intermodal. The latest C44ACi units with "Flexicurve" trucks are said to be two tonnes lighter, so might be able to carry 9500 lires of fuel within the 134 tonne limit.
When the C44ESACi units finally arrive, if they can carry around 10 000 litres of fuel within the 134t limit, the TTs and LDPs might indeed go to coal traffic, if the predicted decline in coal traffic does not occur first.
You keep missing the point .
GT46ACes , of any variety don't meet out cab standards .
And , 10,000 litres of diesel is just as useless to us as 7400 . Therefore TT/LDP cannot make it from Melbourne to Brisbane , or Sydney to Adelaide via Melbourne or Broken Hill . Same deal with 93s .
The stats I've seen for the Evo version mentions I think 7800L for 134 tonnes . Not sure what the tanks capacity is . And I think it mentioned a 6% in theory fuel consumption improvement over the C44ACis 7FDL V16 . Obviously better though manufacturers claims are often best case rather than real world .
Anyway without in line fueling these still won't have the operating range of an NR so may end up doing Parks shuttles or shorter runs north and south of Sydney .
I think they get ECP standard so possibly coal road use .
BDA You keep missing the point . GT46ACes , of any variety don't meet out cab standards . And , 10,000 litres of diesel is just as useless to us as 7400 . Therefore TT/LDP cannot make it from Melbourne to Brisbane , or Sydney to Adelaide via Melbourne or Broken Hill . Same deal with 93s . The stats I've seen for the Evo version mentions I think 7800L for 134 tonnes . Not sure what the tanks capacity is . And I think it mentioned a 6% in theory fuel consumption improvement over the C44ACis 7FDL V16 . Obviously better though manufacturers claims are often best case rather than real world . Anyway without in line fueling these still won't have the operating range of an NR so may end up doing Parks shuttles or shorter runs north and south of Sydney . I think they get ECP standard so possibly coal road use .
Given that your colleagues have avoided driving C44ACi units just as much as the GT46C ACe units, why should the coal traffic be deprived of units that can be fuelled to to 10 000 litres in coal traffic due to the lower speeds and generally heavier track.
I was setting up an older digital camera yesterday and found some photos from late 2013 and mid 2014. While these were of course already filed away in date order, i was surprised to find photos of 93 class leading steel trains at South Dynon and of the then 6PW4 train approaching Goulburn and dividing in Goulburn, with the empty vehicles proceeeding to Port Kembla as train 2920. 6PW4 had three 93 class, one of which worked 2920.
However, more recently, even when Pacific National were still running Bluescope steel trains, I never saw a C44ACi leading, even if two of the three units were the 93 class AC units.
I've seen LDP class GT46C ACe units on trains running between Perth and Sydney and Newcastle and Whyalla in the last couple of weeks. These may be added and removed at Parkes, since additional power is mainly required on the Main South section. Since PS trains have double stacking removed in Parkes, there is plenty of time to refuel locomotives there, even if the LDPs run through rather than being added or removed in Parkes.
Aurizon and QUBE have both purchased new GT46C ACe units for intermodal traffic and SCT continue to use their GT46C ACe units on Brisbane Melbourne traffic using in line fuelling on every train.
I understood that the C44ESACi units were intended to replace the Cv40-9i units on intermodal operation, hence the order for 50 units. If they are limited to 7800 litres at 134 tonnes, I expect that they will need in line fuelling. Many of the 93 class were fitted for in-line fuelling, as I recall.
You have answered your own question . Northern coal can have 10,000L of diesel in a 93 or TT . This is why it doesn't make sense to have some TTs at intermodal and some 93s at northern coal . TT is a better heavy haul unit and there is no significant fuel penalty with mixed consist coal trains . If the units involved have ECP then there's no disadvantage having all TTs at northern coal .
Also it's pointless quoting what other operators do because their crews don't get a choice . Ours is easy because NRs are set up for long distance working and have the the best cab amenities and operating range to suit .
Intermodal doesn't have in line fueling at least in the east . Everything we do relies on internal fuel .
And yes NRs where possible will lead ACs like 93s and TT/LDP . Part of this is to fall in line with TFNSW regs that state DCs to lead ACs . I believe the reasoning is that if a DC was trailing the crew may not notice it slipping/spinning and damaging rails in the electrified areas . It can be done but TFNSW forces operators to reduce engine loads to where they think DCs trailing ACs won't damage their rails .
I've read that the new Evo 94 class will be at Intermodal initially , but it won't take long to work out that 7800 litres of diesel won't go as far as 12,500 in NRs will . 93s were all supposed to be Intermodal power and it didn't work out that way . Any shorter range unit is better suited to general working than long distance trains . In line fueling isn't with us yet , without it any of these 92/93/94/TT/LDP will be a liability .
Back to the GT46ACe Gen III .
Yesterday there were some cab pics of this on FB and no one seemed to be a fan of it . The seat is front and centre with the desk top brake controllers off to the right . Throttle and reverser to the left . Both sets of controllers look to be on square platforms raised an inch or so out of the desk top .
It would be interesting to know how much input Progress had into this design and what if any say the new owners and operators had .
An operator I worked for many years ago specified a certain cab design and really good amenities and ergonomics . The basis of that cab design is still around today 26 years later . The builders tried to change some aspects and got told NO . Other operators have bought the same updated versions of these locos with minor cab changes .
Interestingly the standard gauge EDI cab whilst functional has poor ergonomics control layout and screen positioning . The bar fridge is tiny and inadequate . It seems very obvious that certain operators or divisions of them buy whatever a manufacturer trots out at the friendliest price .
It is probably worth pointing out that most locomotives in Australia are driven from the left side (like automobiles in the USA) but in Queensland, and in the Pilbara, locomotives are driven from the right side as in the USA.
This led to some costly modifications to early narrow gauge locomotives transferred from Queensland to Western Australia until someone decided that it didn't matter and most locomotives moved from Queensland to WA kept their right hand control stations.
BDA's favoured locomotives are driven from the left side, with the throttle controls on the right and the brakes on the left. These are on separate stands with no desktop in front of the operator.
EMD or Progress Rail locomotives in Australia for the last thirty years or so have had standard desktop controls generally like those on USA domestic units except in mirror image where the locomotive is driven from the left side.
Well I can't think of any Australian built domestic market (national) standard gauge locomotive that is right hand drive . In fact the only right hand drive units I've had in eastern Australia were MZs . And they are literally a "Grey Import" .
With the USD locos types I ran in WA I prefered the SD90MAC and CW44-9 desk tops to the SD70ACes AAR control stand . I still can't understand how you can be hemmed in by the AAR in a cab that big . You only ever spun the drivers seat to the right side once . The left arm rest is placed just right to hook the brake controllers into full and handle out . Not fun on a 1 3/4 mile long train .
NRs are good in that the brake controllers are in a seperate control unit just in front of the side windows arm rest . Being left hand drive these are on the drivers left side . And yes there is an island control stand on the drivers right hand side . The horizontal part of this has the single power/dynamic brake controller and the reverser and air horns . The vertical section has several rows of switches for all the common use stuff like - ditch lights head lights step lights genny field wipers washers cab light reading light . Most of us are right handed and it's all very easy - ergonomic you might say . About the only usual thing you have to stand up to get at is marker and number lights .
The GT46ACe set up is a abomination . Nothing is layed out logically nor grouped together . Seriously what mug puts the genny field switch up above the windscreen . Simple things lost on a group of switches . Throttle quadrant up high in the middle of what looks like a cut off car middle console . In an NR the power/DB controller is angled away to suit a humans normal arm movement . Not GT46ACe , nothing feels good with driver inputs . And the screens . Because they are low and not angled up towards your face they are a mongrel to read and reflect evey stray light in your face . Truly would you buy a car or truck for yourself that had the dash angled away from your face ? Very obviously not .
Operationally it would be an act of stupidity to place short range units on long distance trains that rely on internal fuel .
We have always had the guide line that the superior cab unit WILL lead . And since the shorter range units have inferior cabs they go in the shafts where they belong . Obviously operators with fleets of economy cabs units have to put up with Poverty Pac cabs because that's all they bought and paid for .
It's rare for Intermodals trains not to have an NR or a 93 leading , by choice and operational requirements . Turbo Turtles and Low Down Plumbs can stag it .
The first two 423 class, the two painted in Northern Rivers colours, had right hand side driving postions. The remaining four had left hand driving postions. I always wanted to get a photo of the two types side by side, but I think the best I did was a pair back to back. You could walk down one side of the pair when changing cabs.
It is interesting that you count the C44ACi with only 7400 litres as a "long range" locomotive but the GT46C ACe with 10 000 litres as "short range".
Most of the recent orders for GT46C ACe have been for long range intermodal trafiic, at least partly because of the larger fuel capacity.
As I indicated earlier, I think the Pacific National C44ACi units in the 93 class were equipped for in line fuelling. The Aurizon units were as well, I think.
I don't remember saying that .
What I said was any 92/93/94 LDP/TT will be a liability .
And we have no in line fueling aside from whats on board locomotives . I do wonder at times why ILF locos don't have electric transfer pumps so you can manually top up any that are close to running out .
As I've told you in the past . I've been there with an NR/LDP/93 consist - on a BM4 service from Sydney . For reasons unknown all were run on line Brisbane to Taree . I think the 93 was isolated from Taree to around Gosford . Back online for the climb up Hawksbury River bank and to Chullora . At this stage the LDP had a bit over 4000L and the 93 around 2900 . So 93 isolated but had to go back on line at Goulburn for the 1:40 grades further south . Questions were asked and train control was reluctant to run this train past Cootamundra . The answer was to block the north end crossing there and refuel at Coota . Short answer is that 93s and GT46ACes won't reliably make Melbourne from Brisbane if run on line all the way . If you have to run three engines with a 93 or GT46ACe on these services better to have only one - and only have it online between Taree and Junee .
When Aurizon was running MB/BM trains with GT46ACEs they were refuelling in Sydney because they know like everybody else does that they won't make it .
The sooner they electrify the Newlands System (and the Carmichael), the better.
They weren't far off the loadings required on this line when they did the last Cost Benefit Analysis.
The unfortunate aspect might be that Adani invested in it's own locos - doesn't help when the State Government was putting so many roadblocks in their way.
It could easily have been a win/win situation, and possibly have been run on a hook and tow basis...
I'm surprised the experts here haven't chimed in on the numerous issues that BRC is having with the locos. From having to now run 3 locomotives per trains instead of 2 due to traction motor overheating and running trains with in excess of 20 wagons on the back not loaded. Lots of issues with this class and the outlook from an engineering perspective isn't good. Let alone the die hard EMD railfan point of view.
The win would have been a standard gauge railway from Carmichael to port built to US domestic standards . Naturally this would have US domestic type locomotives and the associated loading gauge . It's amusing to think of an SD70ACe standing next to say a 2300 . I have pics somewhere of a CW44-9 coupled to a CF44 (Aus built C44ACi) dwarfing it . The 2300 is so much smaller again .
Eastern Australia badly needed to see what a REAL freight railway looks like , and especially Queensland where the loading gauge is tiny by comparison .
If what I read is true many lines in QLD struggle to take locos of even less than 90 tonnes gross . Some parts of Australia are really badly done by ...
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.