[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Super Series 42220

Subject: Re: Super Series 42220
From: tmid@ozemail.com.au (TM)
Date: Sat, 29 May 1999 12:30:05 GMT
Distribution: world
Newsgroups: aus.rail
Organization: OzEmail Ltd, Australia
References: <3746CDE5.5B7967CD@wr.com.au> <3748012F.1F139C80@ozemail.com.au> <3748B2AF.F8DDBC08@zipworld.com.au> <keithm.34.3748FEEC@commslab.gov.au> <7ib2j8$8jq$1@lios.apana.org.au> <mauried.231.37491B3B@commslab.gov.au> <mauried.154.374E5854@commslab.gov.au>

On Fri, 28 May 1999 08:48:20 GMT, mauried@commslab.gov.au (Maurie
Daly) wrote:

>.
>
>>Isn't the full load for an NR less than that of an 81/BL/G?
>
>>Dave Malcolm
>
>
>No, NR is generally around 100 - 150 tonnes better.
>Differance is essentially based on the axle load differance of 23 tonnes 
>against 21 tonnes, not the HP differance.
>
>MD

Whats a full load??

"Full sectional loads" for 80/81/82 and other locos in coal train
working are higher than those for general freight working.

TM

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Super Series 42220
  - From: David Johnson <trainman@ozemail.com.au>

References:
- Super Series 42220
  - From: kestrel <kestrel@wr.com.au>
- Re: Super Series 42220
  - From: David Johnson <trainman@ozemail.com.au>
- Re: Super Series 42220
  - From: mauried@commslab.gov.au (Maurie Daly)
- Re: Super Series 42220
  - From: mauried@commslab.gov.au (Maurie Daly)

Prev by Date: Re: CityRail Problems 28/5/99
Next by Date: Re: S317 Ownership
Prev by thread: Re: Super Series 42220
Next by thread: Re: Super Series 42220
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread