Re: BLs vs NRS

[wsharris@ozemail.com.au (Bill)]

On Thu, 18 Mar 1999 11:41:07 GMT, mauried@commslab.gov.au (Maurie
Daly) wrote:

>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


IT has always been ststed by