Re: BLs vs NRS

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

In article <7cqi0g$jke@ob1.uws.EDU.AU> "Ben Staples" <98711576@student.hawkesbury.uws.edu.au> writes:
>From: "Ben Staples" <98711576@student.hawkesbury.uws.edu.au>
>Subject: Re: BLs vs NRS
>Date: Thu, 18 Mar 1999 20:42:21 +1100


>Maurie Daly wrote in message ...

>*SNIP*

>>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.


>It would seem you don't get much for your 1000 horses. Going by this two
>NR's can only handle 1900 tonnes up Cowan Bank. I've seen some long trains,
>though they must be light.

>Ben  Staples


You actually get very little  for the extra HP,in terms of ability to haul 
heavier loads,but you can haul the same loads a bit faster.
The basic problem with the NRs is that they are too light for a 4000 HP 
loco,132 tonnes , a limit set by the crummy Aust track.
You really need around 28 tonnes axle load or more to make use of the extra 
1000 HP.
Locos like the 81 / BL are around the optimum weight for their HP.
Cowan Bank is 1:40 so a NR is good for 1250 tonnes.
The closest US equivalent to the NR is the GE 4CW40 which weighs a mere 204 
tonnes.

MD