HST versus XPT comments anyone?
Michael Ingram
>Could a kind soul out there enlighten me as to the differences between the
>British HST and the Australian XPT.
I think the main differences are internal car layout and external
cosmetics. Mechanically and electrically I'd presume they're very similar,
but since the XPT's appeared well after the HST's, there could well have
been significant design changes.
There don't appear to be any allowances made for difference in climate, or
in fixed infrastructure, or even for the vastly different operational
patterns.
Another difference is that the XPT's here now have purpose-built sleeping
cars incorporated into come consists. I don't think this has been done
with HST's in the UK to my knowledge.
--
Micheal Ingram (min...@ppt.apana.org.au). Sydney, Oz.
Armchair railway model engineer and active model rail enthusiast.
Possum Power Tank BBS - supporting all aspects of Australian railways.
Ph: (int. +612, loc. 02)-544-1060. 'in...@ppt.apana.org.au' for more info!
David Heap
>In <1995Aug2...@vms.ocom.okstate.edu> cho...@vms.ocom.okstate.edu writes:
>
>>Could a kind soul out there enlighten me as to the differences between the
>>British HST and the Australian XPT.
>
>I think the main differences are internal car layout and external
>cosmetics. Mechanically and electrically I'd presume they're very similar,
I noted that the British Rail insignia was embossed in the
material used for constructing the inter-car diaphragms on the first few
sets manufactured in NSW. However I guess local materials were eventually
substituted in later production runs.
--
Dave Heap e-mail: dh...@metz.une.edu.au
Psychology Department, phone: + 61 67 73-2587
University of New England, fax: + 61 67 72-9816
Armidale NSW 2351, Australia
John Abraham Cleverdon
: In <1995Aug2...@vms.ocom.okstate.edu> cho...@vms.ocom.okstate.edu writes:
: >Could a kind soul out there enlighten me as to the differences between the
: >British HST and the Australian XPT.
: I think the main differences are internal car layout and external
: cosmetics. Mechanically and electrically I'd presume they're very similar,
: but since the XPT's appeared well after the HST's, there could well have
: been significant design changes.
: There don't appear to be any allowances made for difference in climate, or
: in fixed infrastructure, or even for the vastly different operational
: patterns.
: Another difference is that the XPT's here now have purpose-built sleeping
: cars incorporated into come consists. I don't think this has been done
: with HST's in the UK to my knowledge.
: --
: Micheal Ingram (min...@ppt.apana.org.au). Sydney, Oz.
: Armchair railway model engineer and active model rail enthusiast.
: Possum Power Tank BBS - supporting all aspects of Australian railways.
: Ph: (int. +612, loc. 02)-544-1060. 'in...@ppt.apana.org.au' for more info!
I believe that the XPT engine is a down-rated version of the HST one,
and that the XPT is lighter than the HST. I also think that the XPT has
improved (?) air-conditioning. Have a look at Leon Oberg's "Locomotives
of Australia" - this gives more details AFAIK.
--
John Cleverdon Amateur astronomer/Railway enthusiast *
2nd year Land Information (Cartography) |=|==========|=| * *
RMIT University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia |-| 8184 |-| *
E-mail: s940...@yallara.cs.rmit.edu.au |/000------000\| *
Craig Dewick
>>I think the main differences are internal car layout and external
>>cosmetics. Mechanically and electrically I'd presume they're very similar,
> I noted that the British Rail insignia was embossed in the
>material used for constructing the inter-car diaphragms on the first few
>sets manufactured in NSW. However I guess local materials were eventually
>substituted in later production runs.
One thing I've always wondered about is that the XPT power cars would be
like now if CountryLink were able to legally re-engine them with something
other than Paxman blocks? Presumably the idea behind this was to
completely remanufacture the power cars with new mechanical and electrical
components to make them better suited to local (ie. eastern-Australian)
conditions).
However, if it's true that there's some legal binding agreement that
prevents anything other than Paxman blocks being used, I guess this will
never happen.
Regards,
Craig.
--
Craig Dewick - email to | Possum Power Tank BBS - Sydney, NSW, Australia.
cr...@ppt.apana.org.au | Phone (int. +612, local 02)-544-1060.
Passenger train driver, | Supporting all aspects of Australian Railways
rail transport advocator. | from both prototype and model perspectives.
David Bromage
>In <1995Aug2...@vms.ocom.okstate.edu> cho...@vms.ocom.okstate.edu writes:
>>Could a kind soul out there enlighten me as to the differences between the
>>British HST and the Australian XPT.
>I think the main differences are internal car layout and external
>cosmetics. Mechanically and electrically I'd presume they're very similar,
>but since the XPT's appeared well after the HST's, there could well have
>been significant design changes.
There were some minor modifications made to make them suitable for the
extreme heat of Australia. The Paxman engines were also downrated to (I
think) 1800hp.
Cheers
David
David Bromage
>One thing I've always wondered about is that the XPT power cars would be
>like now if CountryLink were able to legally re-engine them with something
>other than Paxman blocks? Presumably the idea behind this was to
>completely remanufacture the power cars with new mechanical and electrical
>components to make them better suited to local (ie. eastern-Australian)
>conditions).
When the four additional power cars were built by ABB in Melbourne, there
were rumours flying around that they were to have GM engines. I don't
know who started the rumour but it was passed around several ARE meetings.
BR were toying with an 2750hp Paxman engine in an HST a year or so ago. I
sure the driver of the Central West XPT wouldn't mind 5500hp to play with
when climbing the 1 in 33 between Valley Heights and Katoomba, not to
mention Tumulla Bank.
Cheers
David
Matthew Geier
>In a previous message, bro...@mdw078.cc.monash.edu.au (David Bromage) wrote:
>>There were some minor modifications made to make them suitable for the
>>extreme heat of Australia. The Paxman engines were also downrated to (I
>>think) 1800hp.
>
>Was the downrating due to the heat? i.e. less power available for traction,
>because some of it is required to operate air conditioning equipment?
I belive that most of the downrating was due purly to less effective
radiators, given the extreme conditionions the XPT's could have been
called to operate in, they just couldnt accommodate enough radiator
hardware !.
I assume the spec's were written so that a 7 car XPT set could run at
160Kph accross the arid plains to Broken Hill in the middle of summer.
( Not that that has ever happened ! ) With an outside temperature of 40
Degress Celsius plus, the engine cooling system could be stressed to the
limits. We also have to face the possiblity a 7 car formation will be
required to climb a 1 in 40 or worse grade in the 30+ temperatures that
Sydney sometimes see's. Im sure in summer there would be many days when
7 car XPT formations are climbing Cowan Bank in 30+ temperatures.
--
Matthew Geier, | Australian Public Access Network Association
mat...@sleeper.apana.org.au | (+61) 2 588 4615 (Data) 587 9773 (voice)
mat...@law.su.oz.au | An APANA Sydney hub. 018 977356 (mobile)
Colin R. Leech
>There were some minor modifications made to make them suitable for the
>extreme heat of Australia. The Paxman engines were also downrated to (I
>think) 1800hp.
Was the downrating due to the heat? i.e. less power available for traction,
because some of it is required to operate air conditioning equipment?
Colin R. Leech |-> Civil engineer by training, transportation
ag...@freenet.carleton.ca |-> planner by choice, trombonist by hobby.
Nepean, Ontario, Canada |-> "I'd like a penny." - Tom Downs, Amtrak.
My opinions are my own, not my employer's. You may consider them shareware.
David Bromage
>In a previous message, bro...@mdw078.cc.monash.edu.au (David Bromage) wrote:
>>There were some minor modifications made to make them suitable for the
>>extreme heat of Australia. The Paxman engines were also downrated to (I
>>think) 1800hp.
>
>Was the downrating due to the heat? i.e. less power available for traction,
>because some of it is required to operate air conditioning equipment?
Probably both. They were also geared for a maximum speed of 160km/h
(100mph), although in tests they have reached 190km/h (120mph). The reason
for the gearing is the ruling grades on most main lines are much steeper
than in the UK. The average main line in NSW would have a ruling grade of
about 1 in 60, and the Blue Mountains line has a long continuous 1 in 33.
The original batches were built by Comeng. Later XP power cars, plus the
XAM sleeping cars and luxury XL cars were built by ABB in Melbourne.
Cheers
David
David Bromage
> I assume the spec's were written so that a 7 car XPT set could run at
>160Kph accross the arid plains to Broken Hill in the middle of summer.
>( Not that that has ever happened ! ) With an outside temperature of 40
>Degress Celsius plus, the engine cooling system could be stressed to the
>limits. We also have to face the possiblity a 7 car formation will be
>required to climb a 1 in 40 or worse grade in the 30+ temperatures that
>Sydney sometimes see's. Im sure in summer there would be many days when
>7 car XPT formations are climbing Cowan Bank in 30+ temperatures.
The Central West XPT has only ever run as 2+5 cars whereas everything else
(except probably the Tamworth run) ran, eventually, as 2+7. I assume this
is partly because of patronage, but could a 2+7 set make it up the 1 in
33?
Cheers
David
James Ng
>Could a kind soul out there enlighten me as to the differences between the
>British HST and the Australian XPT.
>Thanks
>David Chorley
>out standing in his field
I know the Aussie versions are slightly less powered and has better
engine cooling designs. Aussie ones don't run as fast normally.
Glenn E Farrell
cho...@vms.ocom.okstate.edu wrote:
>
>Could a kind soul out there enlighten me as to the differences between the
>British HST and the Australian XPT.
>
>Thanks
>
>David Chorley
>out standing in his field
>
The passenger cars I believe are a different design - the British ones
were of their 'mark iii' style and I think ours followed the
Comeng-licensd Budd technology applied to various stock since the
'50s. Maybe the bogies were the same.
I could be wrong though....
*********************************************************************
Glenn E Farrell (far...@ibm.net)
Sydney NSW Australia
Hoppy
>sure the driver of the Central West XPT wouldn't mind 5500hp to play with
>when climbing the 1 in 33 between Valley Heights and Katoomba, not to
>mention Tumulla Bank.
BR Power Car 43170 has a new Paxman VP185 engine fitted to it at the moment,
and 43169 and 43167 are about to be similarly treated. While the engine is more
powerful, it is operated at the usual 2250hp, which gives better reliability,
along with improved fuel consumption over the original Paxman units.
Incidentally of all the experimental Mirlees units, 43168 was running recently
still with this engine. The Mirlees engines are more powerful than the Paxman
variants, and there was a ban on a pair of Mirlees engined power cars operating
together!! The ban is meaningless now with only 43168 running with a Mirlees
engine.
______________________________________________________________________________
Paul D. Lee Division Limited
"Hoppy" 19 Apex Court, Woodlands
Bristol BS12 4JT, UK
Tel: +44 1454 615554
Fax: +44 1454 615532
Email: ho...@division.co.uk
Eddie Oliver
>(except probably the Tamworth run) ran, eventually, as 2+7. I assume this
>is partly because of patronage, but could a 2+7 set make it up the 1 in
>33?
It could and it has, but there is a natural conservatism against stretching the
power units to full capacity because (inter alia) there are so few spare units
that failures can cause significant disruption to the complete system. The theory
is "don't invite failure conditions unnecessarily".
I think some of the previous discussion using words like "downrating" is a bit
misleading. As David has recently said, the prime differences between the British
and NSW versions are associated with the different operating conditions. There
are no places in Britain where an HST is required to run on sustained rising grades
like the Blue Mountains, and arguably not even like the 1 in 40's spread over much
of the NSW system; conversely, it was not a high priority to run in NSW at 125 mph rather
than 100. It is not that the NSW units are "down-rated"; they are just DIFFERENTLY
"rated" in respect of gearing and the like.
The XPT and Xplorer fleets are supposed to have the highest level of utilisation
(in terms of time spent actually in service rather than being maintained, sitting in terminals
etc.) of any rail passenger vehicle fleet in the world. In some ways this is wonderful as
high utilisation of capital investment; in other ways it is not so good, in that any
unscheduled need for servicing potentially threatens the ability to provide all
scheduled services. It is therefore entirely reasonable to try to match the equipment
as closely as possible to the service conditions, but I think the popular view is that
there were not enough modifications made to the British HST design for this matching
to be optimal.
Eddie Oliver
Craig Dewick
>BR Power Car 43170 has a new Paxman VP185 engine fitted to it at the moment,
>and 43169 and 43167 are about to be similarly treated. While the engine is more
>powerful, it is operated at the usual 2250hp, which gives better reliability,
>along with improved fuel consumption over the original Paxman units.
Do the British variants run the engine at the same RPM all the time? The
NSW units don't do that (noise pollution reasons apparently), and thus
it's the major cause of most of the failures with power cars.
>Incidentally of all the experimental Mirlees units, 43168 was running recently
>still with this engine. The Mirlees engines are more powerful than the Paxman
>variants, and there was a ban on a pair of Mirlees engined power cars operating
>together!! The ban is meaningless now with only 43168 running with a Mirlees
>engine.
Why was there a ban? Because they were 'too powerful' and thus would make
the Paxman-motored cars look second-rate?