Re: 82's Leading Patricks West- Question on 82 cl gear ratios & what

["Grahame Ferguson" <grahamef@users.mcmedia.com.au>]

Maurie Daly wrote in message ...
>In article <37bac373@nap-ns1> "Grahame Ferguson"
<grahamef@users.mcmedia.com.au> writes:
>>From: "Grahame Ferguson" <grahamef@users.mcmedia.com.au>
>>Subject: Re: 82's Leading Patricks West- Question on 82 cl gear ratios &
what
>>Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 23:50:28 +1000
>
>
>>Maurie Daly wrote in message ...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>I think that the NRC should have tried the Westrail 'Q' class- 4000hp,
>>>>radial bogies, D87BTR traction motors, a much better package.
>>>
>>>The Qs didnt exist at the time the NRs were ordered and fuel costs were
of
>>>paramount importance to NRC as they had then to pay the fuel excise.
>>>Four stroke locos still win hands down in fuel efficiency over 2 strokes
>>and
>>>would have been a big deciding factor .
>>>As a rough example the EMD 16-710G3 series engine as used in the Qs and
the
>>>SRA 90s pulls approx 1200 litres / hour in 8th notch compared with the
>>>GE7FDL-16 engine in the NR which uses only 860 litres / hour in 8th
notch.
>>>Things are better now with the removal of the fuel excise.
>>>
>>>MD
>>>
>>>
>
>>Dear Maurie,
>>                        The figures you quote seem extremely weighted
>>towards the NRs, and if it were true no railway would go near an EMD
engine.
>
>> BUT, from what I could get off the US internet, the fuel consumption
rates
>>are as such:
>>(NB: these are in US gallons)(SD70 nearly the same as a 90 class, and a
>>Dash9-40 nearly the same as an NR)
>
>>SD70  = 3.0 gallons/hour at idle,  191 gallons/hour at full load.
>
>>Dash 9-40C = 3.6 gallons/hour at idle, 2.5 at low idle and 190
gallons/hour
>>at full load.
>
>>Dash9-44CW = 3.6 gallons/hour at idle, 2.5 at low idle, and 210
gallons/hour
>>at full load.
>
>>The source given to me was Norfolk Southern form1014"Condensed List and
>>Description of Locomotives", page 131.
>
>>So it would appear that the fuel consumption rates are nearly the same.
>
>>So maybe the NRC should have looked to Clyde for a better locomotive.
>
>
>
>Well Graham , the fuel figures I quoted are from the SRA themselves,and I
cant
>prove they are correct,and would welcome any more accurate or up to date
>numbers.
>This is for the SRA 90.
>
>Notch Gal/Hr Engine HP Traction Hp
>
>     0  18  197    0
>     1  44  502 305
>     2  75 900 703
>     3  113 1407 1210
>     4  146 1915 1718
>     5  177 2422 2225
>     6  204 2930 2733
>     7  227 3437 3240
>     8  274 3945 3748
>
>I am also not a NR advocate or fan ,and beleive that they were the wrong
loco
>for NRC to buy in that they bought too many and didnt need 4000 HP locos.
>Fuel consumption isnt everything when buying a new loco,there are many
other
>considerations,like price , cost of spare parts,maintenance costs,similar
>other locos in the fleet etc.
>NR claimed at the time of purchase that the NRs were the most fuel
efficient
>loco offered,and presumably went to some effort to find out.
>The Qs didnt exist when NRC was created and when the NRs were ordered so
>maybe in hindsight they would have been a better loco,we will never know.
>What was available at the time was the AN class which one would have
thought
>would be a good candidate ,having the big D87BTR motors and the 710G series
>engine,but obviously not.
>
>MD
>
Thank you Maurie for your information. My point why certain locomotive
companies win tenders not always relates to what is best.  Factors like cost
and quickness of delivery do figure prominently.  Other factors like
political pressure, or the Rail Authority trying to keep two rivals in
competition so that the price will always remain low do play a part.

In the case of the NRs it could have been price and a speedy delivery that
set Goninan apart.  GE in the US, does this very well, and it seems that
Goninans have done the same here.

NSW always bought Alco because they were cheaper and they had to supply
locomotives for the biggest railway in the country, and the Alcos did the
work for which they were built.  They did not have the luxury like the CR
being able to pick and choose.
NSW only bought Clyde locomotives in the 60s to support local industry.  It
was the new features of the 81 class, and at the time rival firms could not
produce an engine of 3000hp that would not exceed the specified axle load
limit, that put Clyde back in the game in NSW.

As an aside from what I read in Railway Digest, the 90s were closer to a
SD60 than an SD70. The 90s 710G3A engine is 35hp higher than a SD60.  An
SD60's fuel consumption is 186 US gal/hr.

regards, GF.