Re: XPT thoughts

[terry@cclru.unsw.edu.au (Terry Flynn)]

wrote:

>Looking at the Grafton XPT docking and loading yesterday, a thought struck
>me. The train is the wrong way around! First class passengers have to walk
>the entire length of the train to get to their cars. The first class cars
>should be closest to the buffer stop at Sydney Terminal. 

>There is also a way trains can be lengthened. A longer version of the
>Xplorer EB car built to work in multiple with XPs could be placed in the
>middle of the consist. A powered trailer (which I'll call the XNF assuming
>economy class seats) with 500hp at the rail and weighing about 55t would
>not be technically difficult. A 2+9 consist for intercapital runs could be
>XP-XAM-XL-XB-XBR-XNF-XF-XF-XF-XFH-XP. This would give about 3900hp to move
>the set. 

Why subject passengers in the powered car to extra noise. Better in my
opinion to just make the front couplers on the XPT power cars easy to
use and run say 2 existing sets together, or put 2 power cars at one
end and  a single power car at the rear to get something in between.
You still need to spend big money if you wish to increase overall
passenger seating. 

>There was also a proposal for a driving trailer, which I will call the XDF. 
>A 1+4 consist for short runs (e.g. Canberra) could be XDF-XNF-XBR-XFH-XP.
>This would have 2300 hp at the rail. I don't think a single XP In a
>XDF-XF-XBR-XFH-XP consist would be able to hold a tight schedule.
>
>Cheers
>David

More than enough power for current track conditions. One way to
improve power is to provide a pantograph on the  proposed XDF. Air
conditioning and lights for the train could be run from overhead, thus
making the climb over the blue mountains a little more fuel efficent.

Terry Flynn.