Re: EL's for QR

[sthyer@anatomy.unimelb.edu.au (Stuart Thyer)]

In article <mauried.288.3702F9D8@commslab.gov.au>, mauried@commslab.gov.au
(Maurie Daly) wrote:


> 
> There seems to be this belief that modern diesel locos are going to fail 
> frequently and that we must have some contingency plan to cover this.
> Whilst locos which are poorly maintained will fail from time to time ,this is 
> no reason to paint the lot of them as unreliable.
> 
I don't think there is a belief in loco failures Maurie, it's the way of
the modern world where you have contracted motive power and separate
operators.  The NRC/Goninan contract is quite complex whereby Goninan is
expected to provide a set number of locos to be available to NRC at any
one time or face penalties.  They have to allow for various contingencies
or face penalty payments.  OTOH if NRC crash a loco, it's still counted as
available as per the contract and that is why you don't see Goninan rush
madly to repair these engines as they get paid for them anyway.
For other operators, if their locos fail, they can't be simply pushed out
of the way by the next train because it may be a competitors train, and
the failed loco starts costing them money to be pushed, penalties for
delaying another operator in their run etc.
If the EL's were running into NSW, who rescues them if they fail,
freightcorp, countrylink, RSA, NRC or QR.  You are required to have
contingency backup plans as part of your operating agreements with the
track authorities nowdays, even Steamrail has in Vic.

-- 
Stuart Thyer
Photographer-Department of Anatomy
University of Melbourne
One time winner of the 'Imaginary chocolate frog of discretion'