Re: The first high-power diesel in Europe hits the rails
Mike Roebuck
<Usenet...@Zierke.com> wrote:
>
>http://img177.imageshack.us/img177/5593/1aaaaaaaaaaaaaaep2.png
>http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/4918/1aapr0.png
>http://img168.imageshack.us/img168/7538/1aaaaaub2.png
>http://img166.imageshack.us/img166/1548/1aaaaaaaaad4.png
>
>Voith Maxima. 3620 kW medium speed by Anglo-Belgian, transmission by
>Voith.
I got some shots of it on display at Innotrans the other week.
Where were these taken?
--
Regards
Mike
mikedotroebuckatgmxdotnet
Nick Fotis
discreetly) a bit 'unsightly'? :-)
The other high horsepower candidate (EURO 4000) looks like a warmed up EMD
(a higher power version of Class 66), not that impressive technologically.
But, at least, it's not a pain for my eyes, if I can judge from the
published plans.
Anyway, both of these aren't suitable for the new OSE loco contracts (OSE
wants at least 180 km/h speed, which neither of these locos can provide -
maybe a 4-axle version?)
Regards,
N.F.
Mike Roebuck
<Usenet...@Zierke.com> wrote:
>
>Mike Roebuck schrieb:
>
>
>> I got some shots of it on display at Innotrans the other week.
>>
>> Where were these taken?
>
>
>In Kiel, within a yard.
>
>It does not have an operating permission yet, it goes into the tests now
>and is supposed to be fully operational in summer 2007.
>
Thanks, HaJo
--
Regards
Mike
mikedotroebuckatgmxdotnet
ziemon
> Anyway, both of these aren't suitable for the new OSE loco contracts (OSE
> wants at least 180 km/h speed, which neither of these locos can provide -
> maybe a 4-axle version?)
both Euro4000 and Maxima are modular and easy to adjust to different
requirements. In fact a 200kph 4/axled version of the Euro4000 already
exists: the RENFE 334 series (Euro3000).
D7666
Nick Fotis wrote:
> Well, I guess I am not the first one to say this is (ahem, how to tell that
> discreetly) a bit 'unsightly'? :-)
I prefer the term ugly.
My posting on uk.railway met with disagreement - people there seemed to
like it.
I think it is awful.
--
Nick
tobias b köhler
> Anyway, both of these aren't suitable for the new OSE loco contracts (OSE
> wants at least 180 km/h speed, which neither of these locos can provide -
> maybe a 4-axle version?)
Looks like a job for the Renfe 334 or the Traxx DE (both presented at
Innotrans 2006).
--
tobias benjamin köhler ____________________________________ t...@uncia.de
._______..__________.._______.._________. <>_<> <>_<>
| |_| || |_| |_| || |_| || |_| |_| | .---|'"`|---. .---|'"`|---.
"-o---o-""-oo----oo-""-o---o-""-oo---oo-""o"O-OO-OO-O"o""o"O-OO-OO-O"o"_
D7666
tobias b köhler wrote:
> > Anyway, both of these aren't suitable for the new OSE loco contracts
> the Traxx DE (both presented at
> Innotrans 2006).
I'd have thought Traxx DE would be a leading contender using the same
maker as their A470 type (ADtranz DE2000). OK the DE2000 is different
(twin engine, etc) but the maker has an advantage even if EU tendering
rules means they have to ask everyone.
--
Nick
Nick Fotis
Forgot a "small" detail:
The OSE has specified the maximum axle weight at 20 metric tonnes... (there
are still some segments and bridges of the mainline that force this
limitation). The "Hellasprinter H-561" version of the Siemens Eurosprinter
has also 20 tonnes/axle.
I suspect nearly every modern European 4-axle diesel locomotive has 22.5
metric tonnes axle weight.
And OSE has specified diesel-electric for the coming locomotives, so the
Maxima is out of the race (it seems OSE never really liked diesel-hydraylic
mainline locomotives - probably the previous cases like the A-251 nee
Hungarian M41 and A-411 nee V.221 were considered failures).
Regarding speed, the A-471 class is regularly running at 160+ km/h day-in,
day-out in the Athens-Thessaloniki mainline. Trouble is, they cannot go up
to this speed reliably (and quickly) with more than 5 heavy air-conditioned
200 km/h wagons (which points to inadequate horsepower, for me - 2800 PS
for traction and air-conditioning/heating)
I haven't seen the Traxx DE, what are the official specifications?
Cheers,
N.Fotis
Nick Fotis
> Nick Fotis schrieb:
>
>> Well, I guess I am not the first one to say this is (ahem, how to tell
>> that discreetly) a bit 'unsightly'? :-)
>
> Obviously, the manufacturer wanted flat metal panels only, for cost
> reduction. If this is the precondition, it looks marvelous! ;-)
I suspect this form doesn't work very well aerodynamically, though.
Of course, like someone commented on the F-4 Phantom jet fighter "this is
the triumph of horsepower over aerodynamics" :-)
>> The other high horsepower candidate (EURO 4000) looks like a warmed up
>> EMD (a higher power version of Class 66), not that impressive
>> technologically.
>
> At least I hope, that they use AC technology now, or?
For low-speed drag service, AC/AC traction has an advantage (and lower
maintenance costs, I guess). Of course, you'll have to pay some hundred
thousand Euros more per traction motor... negating the lower maintenance
costs.
>> Anyway, both of these aren't suitable for the new OSE loco contracts (OSE
>> wants at least 180 km/h speed,
>
> Why do they need 180 km/h for yard track storage?
At the moment, the A-471 (or 220 xxx, if you prefer) class is worked to
death, racking more than 1000 km/day on average, at speeds of 160+ km/h,
which is their practical limit. Until the contracts get signed and the
delivery is completed, these locomotives will need replacement (these came
in 1998, and I wouldn't expect delivery before 2010). Most of the new track
laid in the previous decade has 200 km/h alignment (as far as I know).
Of course, the solution would be to finish at last with the mainline
Athens-Thessaloniki electrification, which is languishing for many years,
after having eaten some billions of Euros. Then, the 30 Hellasprinters,
which sit unused in Thessaloniki yard since Athens Olympics, would start
earning their keep.
But OSE seems resigned to the delays (and the east-west routes in Northern
Greece aren't going to get electrified, anyway).
Regards from cloudy Athens,
N.Fotis
D7666
Nick Fotis wrote:
>
> Forgot a "small" detail:
> The OSE has specified the maximum axle weight at 20 metric tonnes
Are OSE after 20 tonne axle in four axles, or are six axles OK ?
> I suspect nearly every modern European 4-axle diesel locomotive has 22.5
> metric tonnes axle weight.
Base models yes, but at least the Siemens ER series can beuilt built as
a CoCo option.
The Lithuania order are especially ballasted to 138 tonne, but I'd
suggest an unballasted one would be under 20 tonne axle load.
> Regarding speed, the A-471 class is regularly running at 160+ km/h day-in,
> day-out in the Athens-Thessaloniki mainline. Trouble is, they cannot go up
> to this speed reliably (and quickly) with more than 5 heavy air-conditioned
> 200 km/h wagons (which points to inadequate horsepower, for me - 2800 PS
> for traction and air-conditioning/heating)
DE2000 were specified for conversion to straight electric locomotives -
IIRC when DE2000 were first ordered the route was planned to have been
electrified by now.
What I found odd about those is the last batch, as why they still had
old MTU 396 engines and not uprated to newer 4000s. I'm sure OSE would
state standardisation, but I think the 396 fell way outside EU engines
emissions rules by the time those last ones were built - and the rules
apply to *all* *new* traction.
>
> I haven't seen the Traxx DE, what are the official specifications?
>
I have yet to see a detailed spec.
There is one alternative non European design that might fit although so
far it only exists in freight versions and on 1067 mm gauge lines.
That is the Kawaski/Toshiba ''Red Bear'' which is Japanese Freight
class DH200.
The best enthusiast type web site I know for them is
http://www.d3.dion.ne.jp/~df200/
in Japanese only so you might have to fiddle with some browser
settings.
Essentially it is a BoBoBo (which might be better for curvature on the
OSE main line) and similar to DE2000 in that the first versions were
twin MTU 396 although the more recent ones are twin Komatsu.
I have wondered why Japanese industry have not offered this model in
Europe or even built a demonstrator.
--
Nick
Nick Fotis
>
> Nick Fotis schrieb:
>
>> The other high horsepower candidate (EURO 4000) looks like a warmed up
>> EMD (a higher power version of Class 66), not that impressive
>> technologically.
>
> At least I hope, that they use AC technology now, or?
AC/DC traction, as far as I can see.
Not that exciting for a railfan in 2006, I guess... :-)
N.F.
Nick Fotis
> When were the first Di-4 delivered to Norway? 1980? 1981?
http://www.jernbane.net/norge/di/di4/index.asp says these 5 locomotives were
built by Henschel at 1980 (another reference points to entering service a
year later). I haven't found any reference that these were using AC/AC
transmission, so I'll have to take your word for it.
> So AC/AC isn't especially new technology.
According to Today's Railways special diesel power issue (October 2006,
130), the Di.6 was delivered to Norway at 1992, and the relevant technology
was 'still evolving'.
In USA rail applications, the SD60MAC prototype was produced in 1992
(according to http://www.trainweb.org/emdloco/906127.htm ), which was the
precursor to SD70MAC (with first deliveries to Burlington Northern at the
end of 1993).
> If they use AC/DC, there's not much doubt, that the Voith Loco will not
> only provide more power, but also more starting tractive effort under
> real-world conditions of slippery rails.
>
> Vossloh's G-2000 is known to achieve really good results in this
> discipline, and the gearbox of the Maxima adds additional
> controllability.
Well, when do we see one in demonstration runs in Greece? :-) :-)
Oh, I forgot - these are (a bit) overweight... 135 tonnes doesn't sit well
with 20 tonnes/axle limit.
Regards,
N.Fotis
Nick Fotis
> Nick Fotis wrote:
>
>> Forgot a "small" detail:
>> The OSE has specified the maximum axle weight at 20 metric tonnes
>
> Are OSE after 20 tonne axle in four axles, or are six axles OK ?
I haven't seen anything in the specification that precludes a BoBoBo layout.
Or even a CoCo model, like (say) a diesel edition of German class BR 103?
Maybe with self-steering axles, we could see a fast and powerful CoCo
locomotive (dream on)?
Looking at the specs, you would need the V20 edition of the MTU 4000 series
diesel in order to surpass appreciably the performance of the existing dual
V8.
Or you could put two V12 engines inside - I wonder if they can fit in the
existing A-471 chassis (which I think uses dual V8s), and the weight would
be kept under control?. Never mind bigger generator, etc. That would be
quite a capable machine, in my opinion, at 3+ MW traction power.
>> I suspect nearly every modern European 4-axle diesel locomotive has 22.5
>> metric tonnes axle weight.
>
> Base models yes, but at least the Siemens ER series can beuilt built as
> a CoCo option.
>
> The Lithuania order are especially ballasted to 138 tonne, but I'd
> suggest an unballasted one would be under 20 tonne axle load.
At 120 km/h, this isn't exactly what is needed for OSE specs, which suggest
a fast 4-axle diesel locomotive at more than 3000 HP (plus extra power for
air-conditioning 6-7 wagons, so we are at least going for 3300 HP ).
> DE2000 were specified for conversion to straight electric locomotives -
> IIRC when DE2000 were first ordered the route was planned to have been
> electrified by now.
Plans rarely translate to reality in Greece, as you undoubtedly have found
already... :-)
> What I found odd about those is the last batch, as why they still had
> old MTU 396 engines and not uprated to newer 4000s. I'm sure OSE would
> state standardisation, but I think the 396 fell way outside EU engines
> emissions rules by the time those last ones were built - and the rules
> apply to *all* *new* traction.
Maybe they got a waiver?
Or they declared this was an 'option' in the first order, so it wasn't new
stock?
Supposedly the second batch of 10 DE2000 was to come as a metre gauge CoCo
model, which would replace the aged ALCos in Peloponnesos network, but the
metre gauge order was cancelled which the first trucks were already built,
then there was a conversion to standard gauge DE2000.
> There is one alternative non European design that might fit although so
> far it only exists in freight versions and on 1067 mm gauge lines.
>
> That is the Kawaski/Toshiba ''Red Bear'' which is Japanese Freight
> class DH200.
Maybe you mean DF200?
http://www.khi.co.jp/sharyo/pro_final/pro_df200_e.html says each traction
motor has 350 KW power.
http://www3.toshiba.co.jp/sic/english/railway/products/vehicle/locomotive3_popup.htm
says the locomotive uses 'two 1250 KW diesels', which points to V12 MTUs.
But the speed is too low, at 110 km/h it's a strictly freight machine.
Can they (and want to make) a 200 km/h standard gauge version out of it?
That could be quite a sight (especially if they manage to fit two V20
engines inside it, and keep the axle weight at 20 tonnes :-) :-) )
> I have wondered why Japanese industry have not offered this model in
> Europe or even built a demonstrator.
Probably they are content with their local market? And the small quantities
ordered by European operators do not lend themselves to mass-market
prices... OSE is planning for 40 standard gauge locomotives in total, and
that is considered a huge order for Greek standards.
There is no market in Japan for a fast diesel electric standard gauge
locomotive, so Kawasaki would be forced to seel it strictly as an export
locomotive.
Do not forget that when you get EU money, you are effectively pushed to
'shop Europe' (as with the old 'shop American' mandate in the USA).
And the high price of Yen, plus import taxes, are enough to make locomotive
builders construct a factory inside Europe in order to penetrate the
market.. wait, EMD already did it!
Fortunately, the European market has 'good enough' products for the
customers to select (if the price was lower, it would be even better).
Cheers,
N.Fotis
Nick Fotis
http://www3.toshiba.co.jp/sic/english/railway/products/vehicle/locomotive3_popup.htm
>> says the locomotive uses 'two 1250 KW diesels', which points to V12 MTUs.
>
> It points to 2 x Komatsu SDA 12V 170.
OK, let me rephrase it to:
'points to the equivalent of V12 MTUs'.
Better? :-)
> Try faster freight with 700 m distance from approach signal to main
> signal.
> Passenger trains on Japan's 1067 network operate at 130 km/h max.
This limit holds for their tilting trains as well?
>> Can they (and want to make) a 200 km/h standard gauge version out of it?
>
> Can? Sure. Kawasaki also builds trains for the Shinkansen.
>
> Want? With an order of 200 locos, why not?
Market realities as usual.
I suspect there are (not so visible) trade barriers as well. In another
post, you mentioned that the devaluation of USD compared to Euro will
probably help them exporting more locomotives to Europe. The reverse
situation holds with the Yen, which makes harder to export such products to
Europe.
Add to this the rather different operations between Europe and Japan, VAT
levied on imported goods, etc., and the prospects of a Japanese export
machine are rather low.
Nevertheless, a standard gauge 'Red Bear' which can run up to 180-200 km/h
and use dual 12V4000 MTUs, should be quite a beast ;-)
>> That could be quite a sight (especially if they manage to fit two V20
>> engines inside it, and keep the axle weight at 20 tonnes :-) :-) )
>
> The weight of the three bogies will add up to 45t, for a 180 km/h
> loco. Find out the current bogie weight, and you have the available
> margin.
Hm, subtracting 45 from 120 metric tonnes, we get 75 tonnes available.
According to TR 130, the V16 MTU weights around 7.7 tonnes, so a pair of
V12s with their peripherals shouldn't weight more than 15 tonnes.
This leaves us around 60 tonnes for the chassis,
generators/inverters/compressors and two cabs (should we add a toilet as
well? :-) ).
I think it's feasible technically. After all, the english Class 67 was
reaching 200 km/h with 4 axles and 90 tonnes.
We can use the various tricks learned from the A-471 and similar engines for
lower fuel usage, which incidentally helps with lower emissions (operate
only one engine when idling, start the second one when full power is
needed, automagically switch roles between engines in order to share the
wear, shut down half the cylinders of the single engine when idling for
more than 5-6 minutes, etc.).
All these tricks mean much in territories like Greece.
An MLW A-451 class was eating (according to discussions with OSE personnel)
nearly 1.5 tonnes of diesel while pulling the express train 500 between
Athens and Thessaloniki, while an A-471 pulls the same train with nearly
half a ton, and at higher speeds (two hours less) as well.
> Look out for >160 km/h diesel routes in Europe, and estimate the market
> size. HST replacement in Britain, 2 routes in France perhaps, Greece for
> one generation (until the electrification has finally happened), what
> else? Nothing.
> Therefore: Smart business decision?
Still, the market isn't that small (and it can be extended beyond Europe, I
suppose). We speak about a market which can be counted in the hundreds, at
least. Probably HST2 (or whatever will be called) will be so different as
to be a separate category (loading gauge, etc. being major differences).
>> Do not forget that when you get EU money, you are effectively pushed to
>> 'shop Europe' (as with the old 'shop American' mandate in the USA).
>
> EU money for rolling stock? Sigh, Greece is privileged.
According to statistics, the majority of Greeks has much less income per
capita than the rest of the EU. The various cohesion funds etc. try to help
the least rich member countries to approach the EU medium - if that means
buying modern European locomotives, that's not bad for me (sure it's better
than importing more Volkswagen and Audis). I am ready to agree that Greece
hasn't used the influx of capital well (if I can use an understatement),
but the lessons learned probably will help with the new member states in
East Europe.
If nothing else, the EU money returns right back to Siemens and the other
companies in Europe, so effectively EU subsidizes internal factories
(similar idea like the Marshall plan, etc.). This keeps everybody happy -
the smaller countries get modern locomotives, the European companies get
more jobs, etc. After all, how many locomotives can DB and Railion buy
before being forced to park these in yards? :-)
I know, politics sometimes leads to strange decisions.
Regards,
N.Fotis
D7666
Nick Fotis wrote:
> According to TR 130,
I am pleased it is read that far away !!!
You are aware that it was myself (Nick Lawford) that wrote that article
?
--
Nick
Nick Fotis
> I think it's feasible technically. After all, the english Class 67 was
> reaching 200 km/h with 4 axles and 90 tonnes.
Of course, personally I would like to see this achieved with 4 axles and 80
tonnes. This plays havoc with maximum tractive force, I know, but compared
to a BoBoBo diesel electric it should have a lower risk of failure.
I guess that it isn't possible to design a CoCo locomotive for 180-200 km/h
today? The class 103 electrics had 3-axle trucks and were pretty
successful, as far as I know, and that was before using radial trucks
(which should reduce the side forces on track considerably).
One thing I suspect is, diesel hydraulics aren't all that well suited to
mountainous territories (judging from the apparent failures of V.221 and
M.41 equivalents during their OSE tenure). I *think* there was a similar
experience with the 4000hp Krauss-Maffei diesel hydraulics while used in
Southern Pacific and Rio Grande in the USA hydraulic.
Some of this could be attributed to unfamiliarity of engineers with
hydraulics, but I doubt it, since there are lots of MAN-powered DMUs with
hydraulic transmission (class 620 and class 621), which are considered
pretty good reliability-wise (of course, it helps when you have 4 diesels
in 2 cars ;-) ).
Regards,
N.Fotis
Nick Fotis
> Nick Fotis wrote:
>
>> According to TR 130,
>
> I am pleased it is read that far away !!!
I am also one of the contributors in this magazine, but I hope this doesn't
cloud my judgment by much :-)
> You are aware that it was myself (Nick Lawford) that wrote that article
> ?
Didn't guess it. Congratulations for a very good job!
Cheers,
N.F.
D7666
Nick Fotis wrote:
> Didn't guess it. Congratulations for a very good job!
Thanks - it was not an easy subject to attempt.
I recognised yourself from the list of country contributors.
In an early draft version of TR130 article I had included OSE DE2000 as
it was intended to explore other options - such as electro-diesels, and
possible conversions. DE2000 (along with DSB ME) were built new with an
intention of future conversion from diesel to electric but I assume by
noe OSE will not do this, and DSB/Railion certainly won't. DE2000 was
also interesting - as you mention - the metre gauge order that was
converted. But, this, and several other examples, had to be cut for
reasons of space.
Back to the ''Red Bear'' ...
... I probably did not explain it well. I was not suggesting that the
version that JF operate as DF200 would be appropriate for OSE or indeed
for Europe. AIUI ''Red Bear'' is a model range name - rather like Traxx
or Prima etc - that can be adapted. I meant that a suitable makers
version of the ''Red Bear'' might be possible - not using a DF200
derivative.
--
Nick
Ray McDermott
> On Mon, 9 Oct 2006 10:38:47 +0000 (UTC), Hans-Joachim Zierke
> <Usenet...@Zierke.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Mike Roebuck schrieb:
>>
>>
>>
>>>I got some shots of it on display at Innotrans the other week.
>>>
>>>Where were these taken?
>>
>>
>>In Kiel, within a yard.
>>
>>It does not have an operating permission yet, it goes into the tests now
>>and is supposed to be fully operational in summer 2007.
>>
>
> Thanks, HaJo
>
of this high-powered locomotive? Freight? In three months of travelling
around Europe the longest freight train I saw had no more than 25
wagons; not much load for 3620 kW.
Ray
D7666
Ray McDermott wrote:
> An interesting discussion; pardon my ignorance but what is the function
> of this high-powered locomotive? Freight? In three months of travelling
> around Europe the longest freight train I saw had no more than 25
> wagons; not much load for 3620 kW.
Freight trains should be judged by weight not by length.
--
Nick
Patrick Bonacker
on Mon, 23 Oct 2006 22:32:19 +0000 (UTC), Hans-Joachim Zierke
<Usenet...@Zierke.com> wrote:
>BTW2: The heaviest European freights, this side of the Russian border,
>are ore trains of 6000 - 6500 tons. Some routes have 4 slots per day
>for these.
And BTW, "Russia" and "Diesel":
According to
http://drehscheibe-online.ist-im-web.de/forum/read.php?30,3115839,3115839#msg-3115839
Kolomna announced a new 4200 kW (5700 HP) diesel engine suitable for
locos.
On the other hand, there's nothing about it on www.kolomnadiesel.com
(nor anywhere else on the web?).
Patrick
D7666
Patrick Bonacker wrote:
(quoted)
> Kolomna announced a new 4200 kW (5700 HP) diesel engine suitable for
> locos.
> On the other hand, there's nothing about it on www.kolomnadiesel.com
> (nor anywhere else on the web?).
The Kolomna diesel site seems not to have been updated for a long time.
Kolomna are part of the Transmash group and their web site is (mostly)
more up to date and at least has a news press release section.
But even if you drill down in English
http://eng.tmholding.ru/work/catalog/1779/1781
you get to a point where this is no data on diesel engines beyond model
numbers.
Trying it Russian does get to here
http://www.tmholding.ru/main/catalog/products/3334/3336/5262
which shoes the 16Ch26/26 (i.e. it is of the D49 series) at maximum
3700 kW or 2597 kW gas.
some time back they had a 20 cylinder D49 in the range but that seems
to have been dropped.
--
Nick
D7666
Hans-Joachim Zierke wrote:
> There is no doubt, that Kolomna is able to build good motors,
I think Cottbus works and Railion might dis-agree with that.
The 232 to 233 re-engining program has not been as sucessful as was
expected - while the V12 D49 put in 233s might be newer and more fuel
efficient than the older V16 in 232s, they still guzzle far too much
lubrciating oil which gets burnt and sent out as bad emissions. I allso
understnad there are engine reliability issues arising from poor
manufacture.
All this meant railion only converted the first batch of 233s and did
not take up the option on the second batch.
However, I do agree with the near icon status that some fans put on
Kolomna engines. One will never get a neutral view from Drehscheibe on
matters like this !!!
--
Nick
Patrick Bonacker
on 24 Oct 2006 15:38:53 -0700, "D7666" <d7...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>Patrick Bonacker wrote:
>
>(quoted)
>
>> Kolomna announced a new 4200 kW (5700 HP) diesel engine suitable for
>> locos.
>
>
>> On the other hand, there's nothing about it on www.kolomnadiesel.com
>> (nor anywhere else on the web?).
>
>The Kolomna diesel site seems not to have been updated for a long time.
http://www.kolomnadiesel.com/news/?id=66
"11-10-2006: New Kolomna Works site launched... www.kolomnadiesel.com
..."
;-)
Patrick
Ray McDermott
Ray
Ray McDermott
> BTW2: The heaviest European freights, this side of the Russian border,
> are ore trains of 6000 - 6500 tons. Some routes have 4 slots per day
> for these.
>
>
> Hans-Joachim
Where do these trains run? Ore trains to Narvik Norway?
Ray
BH Williams
"Hans-Joachim Zierke" <Usenet...@Zierke.com> wrote in message
news:slrnejtml5.88c...@odysseus.Zierke.com...
>
> Ray McDermott schrieb:
>
>
>> Where do these trains run? Ore trains to Narvik Norway?
>
> but politics got into the way.
>
> Weight of the trains was supposed to rise from 5400t to 8600t. New
> locos, new cars, new infrastructure with higher axleload. In a
> compensation deal, South Africa bought Swedish fighter planes, and
> Sweden bought railcars from South Africa.
>
> Requirements for the cars are extremely demanding. No other ore
> transport line is as highly automated as Kiruna - Narvik (no wonder, if
> you consider Norwegian and Swedish wages), the cars travel through
> arctic climate with sometimes -50 C, and are supposed to fully unload
> without human intervention.
>
> After some testing and improvement and testing and testing, MTAB
> declared the South African cars to be unusable for the task. At quite
> a loss, they now have ordered new cars from a Swedish manufacturer.
> I don't know the delivery status. As soon as the new cars are fully
> operational, these will be the heaviest trains in Western Europe indeed.
>
>
> Ore trains of about 6000t are operated from Maasvlakte (near Rotterdam)
> to Dillingen (near Saarbrücken), and from Hamburg Hansaport to
> Salzgitter-Beddingen (near Hannover). The most troublesome part of the
> operation is Stelle - Celle, which is a doubletrack with > 400 trains
> per day, and 200 km/h linespeed. Mixing 200 km/h IC and ICE with
> 80 km/h ore trains on such a congested line is a non-trivial task.
>
>
> With the West-European flower-wire couplers, the limit is about 4500t.
> http://img72.imageshack.us/img72/7789/15207411520279beimoorburgxe4.jpg
> http://hometown.aol.de/Kollmex/Kollmex+487.jpg
>
> The heavy trains have to use real couplers instead,
> http://img56.imageshack.us/img56/9185/15110391511625unterelbekb7.jpg
> http://img166.imageshack.us/img166/150/db151122dterzmoorbg3108ld1.jpg
> http://img243.imageshack.us/img243/5210/db151059116erzmoorbg30vr5.jpg
> http://img528.imageshack.us/img528/8414/db151163151erzgagunterelbe060805ow7.jpg
>
> though only the cars and the second loco have to use it. It is possible
> to use a loco with flower wire coupler as the front loco:
> http://hometown.aol.de/Kollmex/Kollmex+483.jpg
>
>
> Hans-Joachim
>
>
>
> --
> Due to the lack of abuse handling, postings from the spammer-domain
> google.com aren't routed by the local newsserver, and won't arrive
> here.
Not quite as heavy are the Jumbo' stone trains from Westbury to Acton,
which come in at about 4200 tonnes- this is actually three separate trains
coupled together for the trunk journey with one loco. Whilst the individual
trains have AAR couplings, the end vehicles and the locomotives have normal
UIC couplings. A former colleague drove one of these a while back whilst
being certificated as a driver- he 'phoned me immediately after and said
that, being used to EP brakes, even the 45mph/80 kph top speed seemed too
fast. It's a tricky train to path, as once it gets on the Reading -London
section, there's only one loop long enough to stand it in. Hence, it's often
held near Crofton if running out of path.
Brian
Ray McDermott
>
> With the West-European flower-wire couplers, the limit is about 4500t.
> http://img72.imageshack.us/img72/7789/15207411520279beimoorburgxe4.jpg
> http://hometown.aol.de/Kollmex/Kollmex+487.jpg
I am surprised that the European hook couplers can tolerate 4500 t.
These couplers look quite flimsy to my eye.
I presume the track is fairly level (no 2-3% grades)
> The heavy trains have to use real couplers instead,
> http://img56.imageshack.us/img56/9185/15110391511625unterelbekb7.jpg
> http://img166.imageshack.us/img166/150/db151122dterzmoorbg3108ld1.jpg
> http://img243.imageshack.us/img243/5210/db151059116erzmoorbg30vr5.jpg
> http://img528.imageshack.us/img528/8414/db151163151erzgagunterelbe060805ow7.jpg
>
The coupler looks strange; why do European railways not adopt the AAR
coupler as used by most large railways in the rest of the world (except
Russia)?
For some really big trains (3 km long) check www.railways.pilbara.net.au
Ray
Ray McDermott
>
> Not quite as heavy are the Jumbo' stone trains from Westbury to Acton,
> which come in at about 4200 tonnes- this is actually three separate trains
> coupled together for the trunk journey with one loco. Whilst the individual
> trains have AAR couplings, the end vehicles and the locomotives have normal
> UIC couplings.
.
> Brian
>
>
I observed these trains whilst in the UK a couple of weeks ago. I do not
understand why AAR couplings are not fitted to the locomotives even
though passenger cars and (recently) some freight wagons use them.
Ray
BH Williams
"Ray McDermott" <ray...@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:453f...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
stuck with UIC couplings because the earlier stock had them- they did do a
test run just after the 59s were introduced with just short of 10 000t, but
the coupling eventually gave out. Problem in the UK, and most of Europe, is
that yards and loops are based on 750m max length. Italy is even worse, with
a 450m maximum due to space restrictions in most of the country south of the
northern plain.
My wife did some project work for a bid for Pilbarra, ISTR, as they're
looking at doubling a lot of their track- she quite fancied a visit until
she found out about the ambient temperatures!
Brian
D7666
Patrick Bonacker wrote:
> "11-10-2006: New Kolomna Works site launched... www.kolomnadiesel.com
Thats directing me to Transmash.
DNS error somewhere?
--
Nick
Ulf Kutzner
>>"11-10-2006: New Kolomna Works site launched... www.kolomnadiesel.com
>
>
>
> Thats directing me to Transmash.
>
> DNS error somewhere?
They seem to work together.
Maybe they bough each other.
Regards, ULF
Ulf Kutzner
>> "11-10-2006: New Kolomna Works site launched... www.kolomnadiesel.com
>
>
>
>
> Thats directing me to Transmash.
>
> DNS error somewhere?
Ulf Kutzner
> An interesting discussion; pardon my ignorance but what is the function
> of this high-powered locomotive? Freight? In three months of travelling
> around Europe the longest freight train I saw had no more than 25
> wagons; not much load for 3620 kW.
The normal limit in Germany is about 250 axles but most of these trains
use electric locos.
Regards, ULF
Ray McDermott
>
> There are some 1%, perhaps 1.5% gradients on that route. I presume they
> stuck with UIC couplings because the earlier stock had them- they did do a
> test run just after the 59s were introduced with just short of 10 000t, but
> the coupling eventually gave out. Problem in the UK, and most of Europe, is
> that yards and loops are based on 750m max length. Italy is even worse, with
> a 450m maximum due to space restrictions in most of the country south of the
> northern plain.
I presume that 750m was limit for mechanically operated switches. Same
problem here until recent years. Over the last 10 years loops have been
lengthened and double track sections fitted with bi-directional signals
to accommodate 1500 metre trains (longer on Trans-Australia line).
> My wife did some project work for a bid for Pilbarra, ISTR, as they're
> looking at doubling a lot of their track- she quite fancied a visit until
> she found out about the ambient temperatures!
> Brian
>
Depends on the time of year. I drove the Mt Newman line access road few
years ago in September, the temperature was pleasant and the scenery
(and trains) spectacular.
Ray
D7666
Ulf Kutzner wrote:
> They seem to work together.
Transmash holding is the parent of Kolomna, Bryansk, Penza,
Novocherkask, Metrowagonmash, Tver, and now , more recently, and I
think the Ukraine govt. approved it - Lugansktepolovoz.
What I am getting though is that URL
is directing me to
no matter how I try it - clearling cache, shift re-loading, alternative
browser.
Something must be screwed somewhere between me and there, or is
kolomnadiesel really re-directing and no-one else noticed yet ?
--
Nick
Ulf Kutzner
> Transmash holding is the parent of Kolomna, Bryansk, Penza,
> Novocherkask, Metrowagonmash, Tver, and now , more recently, and I
> think the Ukraine govt. approved it - Lugansktepolovoz.
>
>
> What I am getting though is that URL
>
> http://www.kolomnadiesel.com
>
> is directing me to
Hmm, it works here but includes a link to
> http://www.tmholding.ru/
>
> no matter how I try it - clearling cache, shift re-loading, alternative
> browser.
>
> Something must be screwed somewhere between me and there, or is
> kolomnadiesel really re-directing and no-one else noticed yet ?
Hmmm.
Regards, ULF
Ulf Kutzner
>>I presume the track is fairly level (no 2-3% grades)
>
>
> As soon as real grades are involved, trains with the flower wire
> coupler get super short.
Or midtrain helpers.
http://www.lok-report.de/galleries/gallery_3/gallery.html
Regards, ULF
Klaus von der Heyde
> If an automated coupler is really adopted, it will of course be
> compatible with the SA-3.
What type of coupler is used in Iraq and Iran? On photos it looked
like there were side buffers and automatic couplers, but the details
were lacking.
Klaus
Ray McDermott
>
> If an automated coupler is really adopted, it will of course be
> compatible with the SA-3. Look at a map for the logic of it: Our
> railroad connections to America and Australia leave something to be
> desired.
I did not recognize the Russian SA-3 coupler from your photograph. Of
course it makes sense to adopt this version rather than the AAR.
However, it seems that new European rolling stock (locomotives and
wagons) still make no provision for later refitting with automatic
couplers. In Australia about 80 years ago, new vehicles were provided
with pockets suitable for automatic couplers but were first fitted with
transition hooks which fitted the auto coupler pocket. Changeover
required no modifications to the loco/wagon (except removal of buffers).
This site contains an interesting discussion section on couplers:
www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coupling_(railway)
Ray
Ray McDermott
>
> What type of coupler is used in Iraq and Iran? On photos it looked
> like there were side buffers and automatic couplers, but the details
> were lacking.
They may be using a similar conversion procedure as in India and
Australia. During the transition phase, the automatic coupler castings
included a lug to retain a chain which could engage a hook. The chain
and buffers were eventually removed.
Ray
Ulf Kutzner
>>These couplers look quite flimsy to my eye.
>
>
> They are.
>
>
>
>>I presume the track is fairly level (no 2-3% grades)
>
>
> As soon as real grades are involved, trains with the flower wire
> coupler get super short.
2650 - 2699 t with top-and-tail class 232 with coal to Küchwald...
Don't know the exact grade.
Regards, ULF
Johannes Picht
Hans-Joachim Zierke wrote:
> Ray McDermott schrieb:
>
> [automatic coupler on heavy DB-iron ore trains]
>> I did not recognize the Russian SA-3 coupler from your photograph.
>
> It is the AK, a standardized automated UIC coupler, which exists since
> a long time, but didn't make it into mass production. AFAIK, it is
> possible to couple it to an SA-3.
>
>
You might want to add that DB has started to couple pairs of cars with a
drawbar (fixed connection), because right now there seems to be no
foundry to economically produce new couplers.
>> Of
>> course it makes sense to adopt this version rather than the AAR.
>> However, it seems that new European rolling stock (locomotives and
>> wagons) still make no provision for later refitting with automatic
>> couplers.
>
> Buying locos and cars prepared for the automated coupler started in
> 1962.
>
Johannes.
D7666
Ulf Kutzner wrote:
> D7666 schrieb:
> > Something must be screwed somewhere between me and there, or is
> > kolomnadiesel really re-directing and no-one else noticed yet ?
> Hmmm.
Hey presto !
Now it works.
Seems like very similar pages but more information as you drill down
throuhg the site.
--
Nick
Ulf Kutzner
>>An interesting discussion; pardon my ignorance but what is the function
>>of this high-powered locomotive? Freight? In three months of travelling
>>around Europe the longest freight train I saw had no more than 25
>>wagons; not much load for 3620 kW.
>
>
>
>
> For lightly traveled lines, you are right:
> http://hobby-eisenbahnfotografie.de/php/bilderanzeige.php?id=0662&was=fg&si=114
>
> 30 cars with 2000 kW motor and 1600 kW at the wheels.
Don't have the train mass of
http://www.lok-report.de/news/news_woche_samstag.html (temporary)
I guess they wouldn't have added a second 232 for a light train.
Regards, ULF