Re: Would an NR be faster than an XPT???

["David Proctor" <daproc@bigfoot.com>]

Maurie Daly <mauried@commslab.gov.au> wrote in article
<01bd1bb0$1a0d1160$16fc83c0@maurie.commslab.gov.au>...
> >  No.  I chased it the other day, and it lost nearly half an hour
between
> > Penrith and Lithgow.  This was due to the fact that they chose to run a
> > single NR (4,000 HP) on the consist, as opposed to two CLPs (6,000 HP).

> A
> > 16 car Indian Pacific on 1 in 30 would have to be getting close to the
> full
> > goods load of an NR wouldn't it?
> > 
> > --
> > David Johnson
> 
> Pretty close , about 950 tonnes for an NR on 1:33 would be the limit.
> A 16 car IP would be around the 800 tonne mark .
> I can understand though NRs reluctance to run 2 X NRs on this train
simply
> to get the train from Sydney to Lithgow.

As NR are contracted to run the schedule as set by GSR, shouldn't they have
to provide the necessary HP's to do it? Of course, I'm not a lawyer, but
I'd LOVE to have a look at the contract . . . . .

Why not just contract with FreightCorp to stick an 81 on the front to
Lithgow? That would be a cheap way around the problem of 2 locos from
Sydney to Broken Hill!


> As they dont have any crews along the way , realistically the 2nd loco
> would have to run to Broken Hill at least.
> Then the question is what to do with it .
> Id be curious to see whether subsequent IPs have only one loco.
> It would make more sense to reschedule the IP to reflect a slower running
> time up the hills,and possibly allow for some 
> slightly faster running in the flat bits, of which there are lots.
> 
> cheers
> MD
> 
>
-- 
Regards

David Proctor
daproc@bigfoot.com