Re: Indian Pacific hits freight train - Who's the Responsible

[petan@NOSPAMion.com.au (PETer and susAN)]

On Sat, 28 Aug 1999 01:21:58 GMT, mauried@commslab.gov.au (Maurie Daly) wrote:

>In article <37C67888.979F2935@ancc.com.au> David Langley <del@ancc.com.au> writes:
>>From: David Langley <del@ancc.com.au>
>>Subject: Re: Indian Pacific hits freight train - Who's the Responsible 
>>Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 21:37:44 +1000
>
>>Maurie Daly wrote:
>
>>> >Having an insulator between the wheel and the rail is usually fatal for any
>>> >form of track circuit.
>>>
>>> If however , the Rail Authority has done none of these, then they are
>>> expecting us to beleive that sanding from a steam loco can make the track ccts
>>> fail in a dangerous mode , but not sand from diesels or electrics.
>>> Hardly beleivable one would think.
>>> Prior to the 3801 incident had the SRA , or indeed any other Railway in this
>>> country issued warnings about sanding in track circuited terrain?
>
>>The problems of Cowan Bank are surely unique and warrant their own rules, the
>>rules re sanding would be quite OK anywhere else. The poms of course have their
>>annual problem in autumn - leaf fall season and have gone to great lengths and
>>huge expenditure to overcome the problem of trains unable to brake to a stand at
>>stations or red signals, or to lift the load once stopped. The problems of rail
>>insulation are not new, just caused by different situations.
>
>>A question now for the NSW people, what happened in the days of the plodding
>>standard goods loco climbing Cowan Bank and dropping all their sand etc. Electric
>>signals with track circuits existed then so did they have any problems way back
>>then.
>
>>David.
>
>I cant see why Cowan Bank is unique.
>Any severe grade in NSW where heavy freight trains are hauled by diesel or 
>electric locos would also apply.
>If we contend that the problem is sand and AC track ccts , ie we are in 
>electrified territory, then also the climb up the blue mtns (1:33) worse than 
>Cowan, or Como bank on the Illawarra would also be candidates.
>If there is no exclusion , ie DC or AC track ccts cause the problem then there 
>are dozens of track cct 1:40 grades where sanding would not be uncommon.
> In relation to the claim that all NSW locos are fitted with de-sanding 
>brushes does this also apply to NRs or DLs or indeed any non NSW locos that 
>have to operate over these sections of track?
>
>MD
> 

Can anyone please supply the sand capacity of the mainline steam locos as well as the diesels. Could
these figures either be in cubic feet or cubic inches or the metric equivalent or the time in
minutes that sand would last for if applied in a continuous manner.

The AD 60 was allowed 34 minutes Hawkesbury River to Cowan so the sand supply would have had to be
large as sand was also used on earlier grades on the trip south from Broadmeadow. On the Cowan bank
the assistant steamer usually went against the guard's van and not in front of the AD60 so the
assistant loco could not sand for the AD60.

What is the sand capacity of the NR class? Would it be greater or less than the earlier diesels such
as the 44 or 42 class?

Thanks
Peter Cokley