Re: NR at Spencer St

David Bromage (dbromage@metz.une.edu.au)
2 Oct 1997 07:06:37 GMT

Craig Haber (albatross@harnessnet.com.au) wrote:
>David Bromage wrote:
>> I still maintain the EL class are the best suited to passenger workings.
>> Weighing in at only 114t, the Ghan was allowed 125km/h when hauled by an
>> EL. Then AN decides to convert the old and heavy CL class.
>
>Agreed. The CLP's are going to have restrictions on them as per the
>C's, which is going to permanently slow trains like the Overland. Do
>the EL's have HEP though?

No, but neither did the CL before conversion to CLP. An "ELP" would still
be under 120t, consierably lighter than a CLP.

>A couple of spare powervans (to cover HEP failures) is a lot cheaper
>than a couple of spare locomotives!
>Yes, you've gotta lug around the extra weight of a van, but still you've
>lightened the loco (an important point, which will result in less
>restrictions), and the large luggage space in the van can be very

Agreed. WCR was very clever with the PCP vans, a similar concept to the
PHS. The PH vans were a good idea but a near miss. There is a lot of
wasted space and weight. The type of HEP unit used in an N or P put into a
CP van seems more logical.

There are still a few CP vans in storage around the state which could be
overhauled and converted. How much does a PCP weigh and how does this
compare with a PH? I know a PCO/PCJ is something like 62t, and a PHN or
HGM probably about the same.

Cheers
David