[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Re: Is it viable ?
- Subject: Re: Re: Is it viable ?
- From: David Johnson <trainman@ozemail.com.au>
- Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 23:14:42 +1000
- Distribution: world
- Newsgroups: aus.rail
- Organization: OzEmail Ltd, Australia
- References: <9f04e2$dhq$1@news4.jaring.my> <jeg7htsvl6frcc6ljs0k8q500527mtq3pn@4ax.com> <3B142532.BB122CE1@mail.usyd.edu.au> <3B1439E9.576EFA81@fang.omni.com.au>
- Xref: news1.unite.net.au aus.rail:38349
On Wed, 30 May 2001 10:08:09 +1000, David Bromage
<dbromage@fang.omni.com.au> wrote:
>Greg Rudd wrote:
>> That's what the XPT trailers are based on. with the exception that the XPT cars
>> are constructed from fluted stainless steel and the MKIII are constructed from
>> conventional steel.
>
>The XPT trailers are a local design. The frames, particularly the
>distribution of end loads, are based on Budd designs.
>
>The only similarity is the NHA bogies, which are based on the BT10. Even
>then they have increased vertical movement on the primary suspension and
>softer secondary suspension. The secondary suspension also has more
>lateral movement to cope with local track conditions.
It took a few years for State Rail to get the bogies working really
well. I believe some of the modifications we made were adopted in
England.
David Johnson
trainman@ozemail.com.au
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~trainman/
------------------------------------
These comments are made in a private
capacity and do not represent the
official view of State Rail.
C.O.W.S. Page 11.