[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Melbourne 82 class
- To: "Aus loco discussion mailing list" <Ausloco@listbot.com>
- Subject: Re: Melbourne 82 class
- From: "alan holding" <charters@river.net.au>
- Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 10:01:03 +1100
- Delivered-To: mailing list Ausloco@listbot.com
- Mailing-List: ListBot mailing list contact Ausloco-help@listbot.com
- Reply-To: "Aus loco discussion mailing list" <Ausloco@listbot.com>
Aus loco discussion mailing list
G'day all,
I'm not an engineer, however, it seems to me that an 81 class has a higher
`dead weight' than either an 82 or a G class owing to its considerably
smaller fuel capacity.
In other words, for all three to weigh approx.. 132 tonnes `in steam', the
82 and G classes must carry approx..10,000 to 10,250 litres of diesel fuel.
The 81 class is only carrying 6000 litres!
On any gradient where an 81 and 82 (or G class) were doubleheading a train
and both carrying half a tank of fuel, the 81 class would have a higher
tractive weight than either the 82 or G class.
No doubt the subscribing engineers on this list can raise many more
technical reasons for performance differences in the loco types.
See Ya AH
-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen Molloy <c501@diesel.net.au>
To: Aus loco discussion mailing list <Ausloco@listbot.com>
Date: Wednesday, March 15, 2000 6:07 PM
Subject: Re: Melbourne 82 class
>Aus loco discussion mailing list
>
>"an 81 class is rated at 3300hp where as an 82 is only rated at 3000hp"
>
>Is this correct ?? An 81 class has 2461kw (3300hp), of which 2237kw
>(2999hp) is available for traction ( the other 300hp being used to run
>auxiliary equip). An 81 is fitted with a 16-645E3B. A DL (which is older
>than an 82) is fitted with a 12-710G3 , which i think is the same engine
>fitted to 82's. A DL is reated at 2424kw (3250hp), or 2259kw (3029 hp)
>available for traction. Unless the 82 has been down rated (which i doubt)
>then this puts the 82 at 30 hp more for traction above the 81. I have
>always been lead to believe that 81's were better pullers than 82's (and
>better than V/Line G's for that matter).
>
>I think the above statement refers to the 81's gross power output, where as
>the 82 figure reflectd the tractive figure.
>Maybe somebody else can help with exact figures for the 82..l can't seem to
>find them
>
>Stephen Molloy
>
>
>______________________________________________________________________
>To unsubscribe, write to Ausloco-unsubscribe@listbot.com
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>Advertisement:
>redtag.com offers UNBELIEVABLE prices on a wide variety of brand
>names. Get a boys or girls MURRAY 20" bike for only $29.99! Compare
>as high as $99. To receive 10% off any purchase TODAY go to
>http://www.listbot.com/links/redtag2
>
______________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe, write to Ausloco-unsubscribe@listbot.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Advertisement:
redtag.com offers UNBELIEVABLE prices on a wide variety of brand
names. Get a boys or girls MURRAY 20" bike for only $29.99! Compare
as high as $99. To receive 10% off any purchase TODAY go to
http://www.listbot.com/links/redtag2