Re: 5711 (was 3526 anyone?)

["Chris Stratton" <stratton.chris.cp@nospam.bhp.com.au>]

According to the recent article in the ARHS Bulletin there were some
problems with the coupling rods on the 57 class. This was fixed on the 58 by
the use of a tandem rod system. IIRC the 58s also had roller bearings.
--
Regards,
Chris Stratton
Wollongong, NSW, Australia
Remove NOSPAM if replying.
"Matthew Geier" <matthew@mail.usyd.edu.au> wrote in message
87afm0$dp4$1@metro.ucc.usyd.edu.au">news:87afm0$dp4$1@metro.ucc.usyd.edu.au...
> In article <C8Rl4.51$i33.547964@news0.optus.net.au>,
> David Bromage <dbromage@fang.omni.com.au> wrote:
> >Rod Gayford (rjaygee@smartchat.net.au) won a Nobel Prize for literature
by writing:
> >> The 57's at one stage were trialled on the Sydney to Albury passenger
trains
> >> and were easily able to maintain the tabled speed.
> >
> >They were easily capable of maintaining the overall schedule of a 38,
with
> >some sectional differences. What they lost on the flat they made up for
in
> >the hills. The 57 reportedly took the Riverina Express "frighteningly
> >fast" up Bethungra.
>
>  What the RTM is worried about isn't its speed, as much is how much wear
> of the running gear will occur.
>  The 57's only did one or 2 runs on the express trains, they didn't do it
> long enough to show up any maintence implications of running at those
> speeds. There is no long term data.
>
>  What scares the RTM board, is that after spending millions to get it
> running, including getting corperate sponsers, they will find that
sustained
> high speed running is causing undue wear and tear on the motion and that
they
> will have to mothball it to prevent further damange, long before they have
even
> started to get any payback for the money spent. Sponsers could even start
> demanding their money back as they didn't get what they paied for!.
>
>  Really the only option would be to restore it with modern lubricated
roller
> bearings through out, and get computer similations done to balance the
motion
> accurately. Then you get into a whole new argument over changing the
locomotive
> from what it was in railway service. (ie the still ongoing argument over
> modifications to the VR R class steamers!)
>
>  The 57s were only ever a goods engine except for their brief blaze of
glory
> on the crack express trains. Since there is only operational maintence
data
> for their goods hauling roles, its only for those slow speeds there is any
> guarentee of operational reliablity.
>