>Terry Flynn (terry@cclru.unsw.edu.au) wrote:
>>Craig Haber <albatross@harnessnet.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Terry Flynn wrote:
>>>
>>>> Increased axle loads means increased rail and flange wear. These
>>>> higher dynamic loads increase maintance costs, largely in this case
>>>> for the PTC.
>>>
>>>What increased axle loads? WCR have not increased the axle loads of its
>>>trains over that of V/Line trains. Indeed the S's and B's have lighter
>>>axle loads than the N's they replaced.
>>
>>Compared to axle loads of passenger trains used in NSW by a government
>>operation, privatisation has not produced the best possible operation.
>
>You'd have to blame VicRail for not adopting 19t (XPT) axle loads back in
>1982. WCR is hardly to blame for this.
If this style of privatisation is the answer then it would happen. The
PTC would have been more efficent if it was restructured, the best
option, though least likely under current political relality is
nationalisation of all government railways, as the Commonwealth has
the largest tax base to fund our rail network. In my opinion the XPT
is also over powered for the track it runs on. A cheaper service would
result, though slightly slower with less horsepower.
>>A NSW 48 class used to start a12 car passenger trains up 1 in 40
>>grades. At only 900hp that was walking pace. I would imagine the main
>>limiting factor is minium radius curves for speed. Overall times
>>difference would be minimal.
>
>So why didn't they use a single 48 on the Griffith train a few weeks ago?
>I seem to recall a pair of them worked the train two weekends running, and
>the second weekend an 81 took over at Goulburn on the up.
How many passenger carriages, more than the WCR I assume.
Bacially this is also the result of lack of investment resulting in
inefficent passenger services. All locomotives used in both services
are designed for goods service.
>Compare tractive effort curves of locomotives in use today and in the
>higher speed ranges there isn't really a lot of difference. With big long
>freight trains it's starting tractive effort and the slow speed ranges
>which are critical. With short light passenger trains it boils down to
>fuel economy. A diesel locomotive can start a much heavier train than it
>could ever pull at high speeds.
>And just going off topic for a second, a steam locomotive can pull a
>heavier train than it could ever start. Opposite to a diesel, a steam
>locomotive has more power at speed than when starting.
>
>>Shows how stupid the current privatisation is. The WCR is to small to
>>be able to make any real long term improvements to the service.
>
>As the current contract stands, you mean. In the mean time we shouldn't
>be critical of a group who beat many bus contractors to keep a line open.
>
>Cheers
>David
Which indicates the rail operation is cheaper than the buss
alternative to run, nothing to do with private owernership, but the
fundamental advantages rail has over road.
Terry Flynn.