European Railroad Discussion > Sweden/Norway: Malmbana to use 32,5 ton axle weight

LKAB in Swedish Kiruna announced recently that it will study the use of 32.5 ton axle weight (71'650 lbs) on northern section of Malmbana. Currently the double IORE electric locomotive pulled trains are loaded for 30 metric ton weight (66'140 lbs). While this does not seem like a big increase it will add each car's weight by 10 tons which will push the total train weight from 8550 tons to huge 9200 tons. Initially just one train per day each way will roll between Kiruna and Narvik with this load and studies on the infrastructure are made during the period of one year. For IOREs and Kiruna Wagon built ore cars this added weight might not be much, but what about couplers? Can the SA3 couplers tolerate this kind of stress crossing the mountains with steep, sometimes 3,5%, gradients? Will the braking power in case of emergency (read: rock slides) still be enough to stop the train in time?

I'm well aware that ES44C4 axle weight when it raises an axle to add adhesion is 48,75 metric tons, but this increase on Malmbana again makes new records for heaviest railroading in Europe.

---

---

---

Great photos, thanks for the update.

You're welcome, this time the sun was shining, though there was a snow storm brewing in the Atlantic, due 6 hours later!

ajax247 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Great photos, thanks for the update.

I think the whole world is learning from the Australian iron ore roads just how far to push the limits of axle loads and train weight/size.

Both U.S. and Australian railroading are quite a phenomenon! I read somewhere that Australians are actually automating some of their operations. Well..happens here too: 4 of the IORE locomotives (for starters) have automated energy savers installed, meaning some kind of autopilot to minimize the energy consumption. And to help to recover as much of the energy as possible when going downhill between Björnfjell (in the pictures) and Narvik.

railstiesballast Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think the whole world is learning from the
> Australian iron ore roads just how far to push the
> limits of axle loads and train weight/size.

---

---

For those not familiar with Malmbana (Iron ore railroad) here is a crash course to subject: http://www.4rail.net/visions_sweden_malmbana1.php

Picture of the previous loco and ore carrier generation by Nick.

---

Some corrections and points to think about:

1) GE doesn't entirely "lift" the center unpowered axles on ES44C4's off the rails, the weight adjustment system partially unloads the middle axle on each truck. In other words, the middle axles are still bearing weight, some weight being transferred to the adjacent powered axles. Assuming a 428,000 pound ES44C4 (which would only exist when the fuel tank, sand boxes, etc, are completely full), the "normal" axle load is 428,000 pounds divided by 6 or 71,333 pounds per axle (32.42 metric tonnes, since one metric tonne is equal to 2,200 pounds). The design basis for the axle-end roller bearings is 72,333 pounds. I have never read any statement saying how much weight is transferred.

2) The heaviest freight cars across most of North America have gross weights of 286,000 pounds (32.5 metric tons per axle). The western Australian iron ore railroads operate at up to 352,000 pounds on 4-axles (40 metric tonnes). So LKAB's trial operation "matches" the North American maximum. Over a decade ago some US railroads tried 315,000 pound cars (35.8 metric tons per axle) and the result was "bad" especially in terms of rail wear. The advantage of the Pilbara iron ore trade is that those roads operate dedicated single-purpose railroads, and control everything including track and rail maintenance, plus rail car maintenance (each road operates ONLY its own ore cars), all of which means the ability to maintain and control wheel and rail profiles within precise limits. Very few common carrier railroads on North America can do that, the likely exceptions being the iron ore roads in Quebec and Labrador (technically, ArcelorMittal's former-Quebec Cartier is a private industrial railroad, whereas Rio Tinto/Iron Ore Company of Canada's Quebec North Shore & Labrador is a common carrier but the majority of its traffic is dedicated iron ore). Of course, axles also have to be stronger for the heavier loads.

The biggest problem LKAB will likely encounter as it steps up axle loads is rail damage from rolling contact fatigue, caused by repetitive passage of loaded wheels on the rails.

As for couplers, LKAB uses the Willison or Soviet-style SA3 coupler (instead of the "AAR" coupler) primarily because of good performance under heavy Nordic snow and ice conditions (not strength issues but ability to open and close/lock with heavy snow and ice accumulation). The SA3's are rated for about 300,000 pounds of steady pull. Even an 8,550 metric tonne train on a 3.5% grade would exceed that rating during a "dead pull" from standstill, that is where train dispatching and especially train handling come into play.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/23/14 08:27 by Labiche.

Supplementing Labiche's excellent comments, the only question he did not address was whether the emergency braking would be "of sufficient power". In this context, it should be remembered that each car is normally capable of braking its own weight; therefore, the only difference in performance for a longer train is the additional time required to transmit the brake application down the length of the train. The Malmbana vehicles have UIC-standard distributors (control valves, in North American/Australian terms) which do not have a separate, vastly accelerated Emergency function, so the transmission rate of an emergency application will not be as fast as on an American/Australian Pilbara region ore train. This may cause problems (during emergency applications) with severe in-train shocks (we call it "slack action", but I'm not sure whether the SA-3 couplers have anywhere near as much slack as AAR Janney-type couplers). Since the SA-3's do not include a "sacrificial link" (the knuckle on a Janney coupler), the part most likely to break is the shank -- and the repair of a broken coupler shank will cause very severe delays to a train. Probably the best solution to this problem is the use of distributed power on long trains, since the brake application is then initiated simultaneously from two or three points in the train; but I don't remember seeing anything about the Malmbana studying the use of distributed power, although the SNCF (French National RRs) did quite a bit of testing of this nature in the 1960's. As I recall, the tests were quite successful, but the project was discontinued because there was not enough heavy mineral traffic to justify the running of longer trains.

Roger Lewis (airbrakegeezer)

Roger ... The French have "discovered" distributed power. Several test trains have been operated on SNCF tracks diring 2014 using two B-B electric locomotives each trailing about 750 meters of train, making for a "huge" (by European measure) 1500 meter-long freight train. In other words, what we here in the US would describe as being a "1x1x0" DP train. Of course, most "passing loops" (sidings) in Europe are long enough for only 750 meter trains, and European screw-and-link couplers cannot support heavier trains.

What is rail weight on the Malmbana?

US main line rail is generally 133 or 136 lbs/yard, which doesn't seem to have serious problems handling 268,000 pound loads.

The photos would indicate that the Malmbana's plant would be OK with the heavier loads. If coupler strength is an issue, helpers would likely solve the problem. Manned helpers could be used as a test, and if successful, then Distributed Power Units.

Do the Bombardier LKAB units have the ability to use
or do they use brake reduction for the trains when
descending the grades?

Its probably a bit late to think about
Stadler rack drive electric locomotives
like the Brazilians are using to bring
loads down grade from the mines to the
Port of Sao Paulo?

leonz Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Do the Bombardier LKAB units have the ability to
> use
> or do they use brake reduction for the trains when
>
> descending the grades?
>
> Its probably a bit late to think about
> Stadler rack drive electric locomotives
> like the Brazilians are using to bring
> loads down grade from the mines to the
> Port of Sao Paulo?


From what I remember the tonnages hauled down
hill with two manned units are the same or greater
on that line to the port.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/26/14 08:39 by leonz.

---

Amazing photos. Thank you!

Thank you for this post. Its interesting and definately has implications for heavy-haul operations elsewhere. In regards to the GE weight adjustment (quoted below) could someone point to a source from GE or elsewhere that would have more information. It sounds intriguing, but potentially problematic too.


> 1) GE doesn't entirely "lift" the center unpowered
> axles on ES44C4's off the rails, the weight
> adjustment system partially unloads the middle
> axle on each truck. In other words, the middle
> axles are still bearing weight, some weight being
> transferred to the adjacent powered axles.
> Assuming a 428,000 pound ES44C4 (which would only
> exist when the fuel tank, sand boxes, etc, are
> completely full), the "normal" axle load is
> 428,000 pounds divided by 6 or 71,333 pounds per
> axle (32.42 metric tonnes, since one metric tonne
> is equal to 2,200 pounds). The design basis for
> the axle-end roller bearings is 72,333 pounds. I
> have never read any statement saying how much
> weight is transferred.
>