From Newsgroup: aus.rail

On Sunday, 29 April 2018 03:32:59 UTC+1, Sylvia Else wrote:

On 29/04/2018 12:10 PM, Petzl wrote:

On Tue, 24 Apr 2018 13:53:58 +1000, Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:

On 12/04/2018 1:41 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:

I was reading the report into the 2001 derailment of an XPT (as one
does, of an afternoon). It was caused by a combination of a thin wheel >>> flange, and gauge widening.

Discussion of the thin wheel flange revealed that the XPTs had been
suffering excessive wheel flange wear. The flange thickness is
reinstated by machining the wheel, reducing its diameter. Since the
diameter cannot be reduced by more than 15mm, this limits the number of >>> times this can be done, and hence the life of the wheel.

To allow longer wheel life, State Rail proposed to reduce the minimum
permitted flange thickness, and where the thickness was below the
original minimum, to limit the speed to 130km/h.

It doesn't say so, but presumably in practice this meant limiting all
XPTs to 130km/h, since otherwise timetabling would be all over the place. >>>
The reason for the excessive wear was later determined to be grinding of >>> curves that changed the profile of the rail head. This was done to limit >>> fatigue damage to the rail head by heave freight trains, but had the
side effect of preventing the rails from properly guiding higher speed >>> trains round the curve, so that the flanges would touch.

That was 16 years ago, but I wouldn't be surprised if nothing's changed. >>>
Sylvia.

I tried asking NSWTrains. The answer I got was:

"Thanks for contacting NSW TrainLink about XPT trains.

I have followed this up with our fleet maintenance area. The information >> you are requesting is not publicly available."

Not publicly available? Are they keeping this secret?

I tried contacting the MP for Wagga Wagga, who I thought might be
vaguely interested in having train services for his constituency that
were as fast as possible, but he's just sent me some blurb about the
replacement of the XPTs, and failed to address the question of whether
the replacements will be able to run at 160km/h. If they go for 130km/h
trains based on the current running speeds, then that will be locked in
for the next few decades.

He's a Liberal MP, so I suppose he's not motivated to make a fuss that
might embarrass the government.

Sylvia

problems are not the Trains, but the tracks they run on
First the tracks need upgrading for safe higher speeds.

The track is no doubt an issue, but if XPTs are in any case restricted
to running at 130km/h, it's easy for the government to justify not
upgrading the track.

Sylvia.

What came first, the slow track or the slow trains?
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: aus.rail

On Thursday, 12 April 2018 04:41:21 UTC+1, Sylvia Else wrote:

I was reading the report into the 2001 derailment of an XPT (as one
does, of an afternoon). It was caused by a combination of a thin wheel flange, and gauge widening.

Discussion of the thin wheel flange revealed that the XPTs had been suffering excessive wheel flange wear. The flange thickness is
reinstated by machining the wheel, reducing its diameter. Since the
diameter cannot be reduced by more than 15mm, this limits the number of times this can be done, and hence the life of the wheel.

To allow longer wheel life, State Rail proposed to reduce the minimum permitted flange thickness, and where the thickness was below the
original minimum, to limit the speed to 130km/h.

It doesn't say so, but presumably in practice this meant limiting all
XPTs to 130km/h, since otherwise timetabling would be all over the place.

The reason for the excessive wear was later determined to be grinding of curves that changed the profile of the rail head. This was done to limit fatigue damage to the rail head by heave freight trains, but had the
side effect of preventing the rails from properly guiding higher speed trains round the curve, so that the flanges would touch.

That was 16 years ago, but I wouldn't be surprised if nothing's changed.

Sylvia.

Why not just timetable fast trains and slow trains like they do here in the UK? --- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: aus.rail

On Fri, 25 Oct 2019 08:25:11 -0700, Marcus Potter wrote:

On Sunday, 29 April 2018 03:32:59 UTC+1, Sylvia Else wrote:

On 29/04/2018 12:10 PM, Petzl wrote:

On Tue, 24 Apr 2018 13:53:58 +1000, Sylvia Else
<sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:

On 12/04/2018 1:41 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:

I was reading the report into the 2001 derailment of an XPT (as one
does, of an afternoon). It was caused by a combination of a thin
wheel flange, and gauge widening.

Discussion of the thin wheel flange revealed that the XPTs had been
suffering excessive wheel flange wear. The flange thickness is
reinstated by machining the wheel, reducing its diameter. Since the
diameter cannot be reduced by more than 15mm, this limits the
number of times this can be done, and hence the life of the wheel.

To allow longer wheel life, State Rail proposed to reduce the
minimum permitted flange thickness, and where the thickness was
below the original minimum, to limit the speed to 130km/h.

It doesn't say so, but presumably in practice this meant limiting
all XPTs to 130km/h, since otherwise timetabling would be all over
the place.

The reason for the excessive wear was later determined to be
grinding of curves that changed the profile of the rail head. This
was done to limit fatigue damage to the rail head by heave freight
trains, but had the side effect of preventing the rails from
properly guiding higher speed trains round the curve, so that the
flanges would touch.

That was 16 years ago, but I wouldn't be surprised if nothing's
changed.

Sylvia.

I tried asking NSWTrains. The answer I got was:

"Thanks for contacting NSW TrainLink about XPT trains.

I have followed this up with our fleet maintenance area. The
information you are requesting is not publicly available."

Not publicly available? Are they keeping this secret?

I tried contacting the MP for Wagga Wagga, who I thought might be
vaguely interested in having train services for his constituency
that were as fast as possible, but he's just sent me some blurb
about the replacement of the XPTs, and failed to address the
question of whether the replacements will be able to run at 160km/h.
If they go for 130km/h trains based on the current running speeds,
then that will be locked in for the next few decades.

He's a Liberal MP, so I suppose he's not motivated to make a fuss
that might embarrass the government.

Sylvia

problems are not the Trains, but the tracks they run on First the
tracks need upgrading for safe higher speeds.

The track is no doubt an issue, but if XPTs are in any case restricted
to running at 130km/h, it's easy for the government to justify not
upgrading the track.

Sylvia.

What came first, the slow track or the slow trains?

The slow trains. most rail traffic was freight and the passenger service
just fitted in, if it wasn't just a carriage on the end. Finally, the
idea of passenger expresses took hold, but the NSW government killed that
by privatising the rails without any track maintenance above ancient
speeds.

Of course it didn't hel hat track builders got paiid on the number of
curves they put in and pork barrelling decided the route.

--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: aus.rail

On Fri, 25 Oct 2019 08:25:39 -0700, Marcus Potter wrote:

On Thursday, 12 April 2018 04:41:21 UTC+1, Sylvia Else wrote:

I was reading the report into the 2001 derailment of an XPT (as one
does, of an afternoon). It was caused by a combination of a thin wheel
flange, and gauge widening.

Discussion of the thin wheel flange revealed that the XPTs had been
suffering excessive wheel flange wear. The flange thickness is
reinstated by machining the wheel, reducing its diameter. Since the
diameter cannot be reduced by more than 15mm, this limits the number of
times this can be done, and hence the life of the wheel.

To allow longer wheel life, State Rail proposed to reduce the minimum
permitted flange thickness, and where the thickness was below the
original minimum, to limit the speed to 130km/h.

It doesn't say so, but presumably in practice this meant limiting all
XPTs to 130km/h, since otherwise timetabling would be all over the
place.

The reason for the excessive wear was later determined to be grinding
of curves that changed the profile of the rail head. This was done to
limit fatigue damage to the rail head by heave freight trains, but had
the side effect of preventing the rails from properly guiding higher
speed trains round the curve, so that the flanges would touch.

That was 16 years ago, but I wouldn't be surprised if nothing's
changed.

Sylvia.

Why not just timetable fast trains and slow trains like they do here in
the UK?

Probably because their isn't enough passing track and they have
successfully driven passengers away from passenger trains, so there is
little need. Far cheaper to sell off the trains and just run buses.

--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: aus.rail

On Saturday, 26 October 2019 02:45:42 UTC+1, news18 wrote:

On Fri, 25 Oct 2019 08:25:39 -0700, Marcus Potter wrote:

On Thursday, 12 April 2018 04:41:21 UTC+1, Sylvia Else wrote:

I was reading the report into the 2001 derailment of an XPT (as one
does, of an afternoon). It was caused by a combination of a thin wheel
flange, and gauge widening.

Discussion of the thin wheel flange revealed that the XPTs had been
suffering excessive wheel flange wear. The flange thickness is
reinstated by machining the wheel, reducing its diameter. Since the
diameter cannot be reduced by more than 15mm, this limits the number of
times this can be done, and hence the life of the wheel.

To allow longer wheel life, State Rail proposed to reduce the minimum
permitted flange thickness, and where the thickness was below the
original minimum, to limit the speed to 130km/h.

It doesn't say so, but presumably in practice this meant limiting all
XPTs to 130km/h, since otherwise timetabling would be all over the
place.

The reason for the excessive wear was later determined to be grinding
of curves that changed the profile of the rail head. This was done to
limit fatigue damage to the rail head by heave freight trains, but had
the side effect of preventing the rails from properly guiding higher
speed trains round the curve, so that the flanges would touch.

That was 16 years ago, but I wouldn't be surprised if nothing's
changed.

Sylvia.

Why not just timetable fast trains and slow trains like they do here in
the UK?

Probably because their isn't enough passing track and they have
successfully driven passengers away from passenger trains, so there is little need. Far cheaper to sell off the trains and just run buses.

That's true, I reckon they will just do that in the long term!
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: aus.rail

The XPTs were slowed down significantly on the only fast track after a high profile level crossing incident.
However, that's not the real problem. The real problem is that the railway is maintained for 100km/hr freight trains. There are less than a handful of passenger trains a day, there are dozens of goods trains a day. The freight operators pay commercial rates for the paths. The passenger trains only pay 'direct costs'.
There is NO WAY it makes sense for the infrastructure operator to spend big $$$ on maintaining track for 160-200km/hr for a user who runs only 2 - 3 trains a day and only pays a discount rate access fee.
When your profitable users only require 100km/hr running, why spend money on infrastructure in excess of that?
In the UK and much of Europe, the train mix is the other way around. There are many passenger trains a day, often on clock face timetables. While the charging regimes differ wildly, politically passenger trains are at the top of the priority list. Goods traffic fits in, where it can, around the passenger trains.
Australia, outside of the large urbanised cities, it's freight first, passenger 'if we can be bothered'.
One of the Goulbourn passenger trains has been semi-permanently replaced by a bus service - rumour has it that the passenger train path was outbid by a freight operator, who most of the time, doesn't actually use the path anyway. But they pay for the path if they use it or not. Meanwhile, a DMU sits idle at Moss Vale and a 'road coach' does the diagram.
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: aus.rail

On Sat, 26 Oct 2019 05:42:20 -0700, Marcus Potter wrote:

On Saturday, 26 October 2019 02:45:42 UTC+1, news18 wrote:

On Fri, 25 Oct 2019 08:25:39 -0700, Marcus Potter wrote:

Why not just timetable fast trains and slow trains like they do here
in the UK?

Probably because their isn't enough passing track and they have
successfully driven passengers away from passenger trains, so there is
little need. Far cheaper to sell off the trains and just run buses.

That's true, I reckon they will just do that in the long term!

Err, the buses are here now. Have been for decades on the regional routes
in NSW. It would be closer to historicall describe those services as
serviced by steam, then rail motors then buses. The diesel loco pulled services seemed to exist for only a blink of an eye.

--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2