Re: C class's and Belarine Peninsula Railways (two qns)

[krel4203@netconnect.com.au (Krel )]

On Tue, 7 Jul 1998 06:28:05 GMT, mauried@commslab.gov.au (Maurie Daly)
wrote:

>In article <35a18dbc.6823915@news.netconnect.com.au> krel4203@netconnect.com.au (Krel ) writes:
>>From: krel4203@netconnect.com.au (Krel )
>>Subject: Re: C class's and Belarine Peninsula Railways (two qns)
>>Date: Tue, 07 Jul 1998 02:59:39 GMT
>
>>On Mon, 6 Jul 1998 19:59:55 +1000, "Reuben Farrelly"
>><reubie@bigpond.com.AAA> wrote:
>
>>>
>
>What I cant fathom is why NR wanted the Cs in the first place , but didnt want 
>the ELs.
>Granted the lightweight axle load of an EL of 19 tonnes and its high motor 
>gearing means that they arnt brilliant for hauling heavy freight trains , they 
>would have been ideal for hauling the GSR pass trains .
>The Els are at most only 7 years old , have the 12 cylinder equivalent of the 
>NR FDL16 series engine , so would be just as fuel efficient and were the only 
>loco AN would allow 135km/h running across the TAR.
>Sure there were some lease problems with them , but no more than the ANs 
>which seem t o have been transferred without any probs.
>
Flexibility. EL's can run but they can't pull. They would have been
limited to pass trains and Trailerail. Even then, on 'the big truck'
they would need a banker from Tailem Bend.  What would EL's do when
there wasn't a pss train to pull? Stand idle?

>Now we seem to have a class of locos in limbo land that noone wants or cares 
>about.
>
If no one else wants them does it proves that they just weren't worth
bothering with.

Cheers

Krel
All's well that ends.