Re: Some NRC info .

[BEE EFF <mcreely@pnc.com.au>]

Maurie Daly wrote:

>

Maurie,

Just an alternate perspective to your post.

>
> At the risk of soiunding highly controversial, I wouldnt be selling
> any of the ANs or DLs or the stored Cs.
> I would get as many of these locos back into main line service ,
> including the 81s that NRC use as shunters,and I would sell as many
> NRs as I could.

Highly controversial, why get rid of the newest, most reliable and fuel efficient
Locos and replace them with locos between 10 and 20 years old that have a poor
reliability track record.

>
> NRC are currently $34 million in the red for last financial year.
> There is no way that selling the ANs,DLs and Cs will raise $34 million
> whereas selling around 12 NRs in the US ,with the low australian
> dollar would easily raise $34 million .

they wouldn't really be suitable for the US(too light for real heavy haulage).

>
> The pulling power load wise of an NR is only very slightly better than
> an AN or DL or 81 for that matter ,so not much is lost in train
> hauling ability.

An NR will haul about the same as a AN, but it is quite different to a DL/81.

>
> Also given now that railways dont have to pay fuel excise the fuel
> efficiency of NRS over the 2 stroke GMs is much less relevant.
> Lets face it , both FA and ASR are very effectively competeing with
> NRC across the TAR using GM locos.

As far as not paying the excise goes, NR still has to keep costs down, and one way
to do this is with fuel efficiency. ASR are only competetive because they have cut
drivers conditons and wages too make them competetive.

>
>
> There is of course no way in the world that this will happen , as for
> it to do so , would effectively mean NRC admitting that it has bought
> too many new locos.
>

NR actually require all the NR's they have to run the various services they have(new
contracts etc.)

>
> MD