European Railroad Discussion > Norway: Locomotives doing switching work in Narvik

There seem to be 3 main types of locos doing switching work in Narvik.

1) The Motala switcher identified on the Trainorders discussion: http://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?17,2480740

2) Since it's rare, I included also a picture of the other end of the loco.

3) When the IORE bring in the ore load, they couple off, roll to the other end of the train and to my surprise manage to empty the load in the building on the track at fast walking speed! In turn are IORE 101 (the prototype unit called Polcirkeln (the polar circle)) with a number 106 (named:Kiruna). The IORE units seem now to be semipermanently coupled together with random other units.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/02/11 11:56 by McKey.

---

---

---

4) I took a picture of the ore handling facilities, thinking that the loco in the background is the Motala-11. The closer study showed that it is actually T44, which MTAS owns too. The road number can't be identifies, since the movement of the atmosphere disguises it.

5) A close up of the loco "in Indian war paint". Anyone know what the white stuff in the ore cars is? I noticed this color in another mining location too.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/02/11 11:57 by McKey.

---

---

Interesting North American style trucks on that hopper. Is Euorpe moving towards this style, along with what looks like "half and half" couplers.....knuckle coupler with buffers?

Yes, I think it is American style / Russian style trucks. Both use them with great success. The coupler is the "Russian" Sa3, a kind of standard here for heavy railroading. I've been told it twice as strong as the knuckle coupler, can hold up to 8000 metric ton trains, well, should know about the kilonewtons to compare I guess.

McKey Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
I've been told it
> twice as strong as the knuckle coupler, can hold
> up to 8000 metric ton trains

This is the part that doesn't make sense to me. The stronger US coupler knuckles are rated for 500,000 lbs. of pull. The problem with going stronger than that is that instead of the knuckle breaking, you start to tear the cars apart. 8000 metric tonnes of train isn't a lot. It is not uncommon for BNSF to run Iron Ore trains of 20,000 US tons with only power on the head-end. Coal trains of 17,000 tons with 3 locomotives on the head-end were the norm before the railroads discovered that you could run the same train with only two locomotives if one was a DPU on the rear.

McKey Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes, I think it is American style / Russian style
> trucks. Both use them with great success. The
> coupler is the "Russian" Sa3, a kind of standard
> here for heavy railroading. I've been told it
> twice as strong as the knuckle coupler, can hold
> up to 8000 metric ton trains, well, should know
> about the kilonewtons to compare I guess.

The US style three piece truck is not popular in Europe as it is harder on the track. EW&S bought a fleet of coal hoppers with the truck. As a result of dynamic testing they were hit with a premium charge per loaded train mile. The added cost more than offset the maintenance savings from using the less complex truck design.

Here is a photo of a EW&S HTA coal hopper with a US style truck built by Thrall;

http://www.garethbayer.co.uk/wotw/displayimage.php?album=47&pos=3

And here is a Freightliner HXA with a premium low track force truck built by Gunderson's European subsidiary;

http://www.garethbayer.co.uk/wotw/displayimage.php?album=291&pos=0

SOO6617 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> McKey Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> I've been told it
> > twice as strong as the knuckle coupler, can
> hold
> > up to 8000 metric ton trains
>
> This is the part that doesn't make sense to me.
> The stronger US coupler knuckles are rated for
> 500,000 lbs. of pull. The problem with going
> stronger than that is that instead of the knuckle
> breaking, you start to tear the cars apart. 8000
> metric tonnes of train isn't a lot. It is not
> uncommon for BNSF to run Iron Ore trains of 20,000
> US tons with only power on the head-end. Coal
> trains of 17,000 tons with 3 locomotives on the
> head-end were the norm before the railroads
> discovered that you could run the same train with
> only two locomotives if one was a DPU on the rear.

The major differences between the Janney/AAR coupler and the Willison/SA-3 are: the AAR coupler's knuckle is designed to act as a "safety valve", by being the first part of the coupler to break; and the SA-3's shank is of a much smaller section than the AAR coupler's. This suggests to me that the "breakaway element" in the SA-3 is the shank, since there is no knuckle (the latch on the SA-3 is *inside* the jaw, so that even if it breaks the couplers will not pull apart). It is not correct to say that either coupler design is "stronger" than the other one; there are lighter and heavier versions of both, and both can be "beefed up" to the point that they are stronger than the cars themselves, which, as you say, is counterproductive. Both designs have their advantages and disadvantages; I remember that, about 50 years ago, the Argentine railroads studied both types of coupler when they were planning to convert from British-style hook-and-chain to semi-automatic center couplers, and they found that the AAR coupler's major wearing element was the knuckle, so when it was worn, it was a simple (and cheap) matter to replace the knuckle. On the other hand, the SA-3 wears over all the surfaces inside the jaw, and the latch itself, so that when the wear becomes too great for proper operation, the entire coupler must be replaced -- much more costly than just a knuckle. There were other advantages/disadvanteges to both coupler designs, but these were the major ones.

As concerns the trucks, there is a difference between the typical North American three-piece truck, as used on the British hoppers, and the premium trucks used by the Malmbanan. These, John says, are an ABC-NACO design, featuring a certain amount of self-steering, which makes it a lot easier on the track than the ordinary three-piece truck.

Roger Lewis (airbrakegeezer)