Re: BLs vs NRS

[mauried@commslab.gov.au (Maurie Daly)]

In article <Pine.OSF.4.05.9903161406500.30954-100000@ties.itu.ch> arthur marsh <marsh@ties.itu.int> writes:
>From: arthur marsh <marsh@ties.itu.int>
>Subject: Re: BLs vs NRS
>Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 14:08:08 +0100

>What's the maximum gradient on the Adelaide to Alice Springs section?

>On Tue, 16 Mar 1999, David Bromage wrote:

>> Maurie Daly (mauried@commslab.gov.au) wrote:
>> > Interesting article in Februarys RNV relating to the apparent saving of $200
>K 
>> > per annum , by running the Overland with BLs instead of NRs.
>> > Anyone know whether this is true or not. (the saving that is)
>> > If it is true , then one would have to ask the obvious question how long 
>> > before we see the Ghan & IP hauled by BLs .
>> 
>> The IP and Ghan are considerably longer than the overland, so the 4000hp
>> would be needed.
>> 
>> Cheers
>> David
>> 
>> 

Yes , its worth remembering that the IP and the Ghan were originally worked by 
CLPs with the only section needing two being Parkes - Lithgow- Sydney.
I dont know how many NRs are used over this section , but a BL can manage 
1100 tonnes up a 1:40 and 900 tonnes up a 1:33 against an NRs 1250 tonnes up a 
1:40 and 950 tonnes up 1:33 so the extra 1000 HP doesnt count for much.

MD