Search Forum
Blog Entry# 3839104
Posted: Sep 25 2018 (12:08)
14 Responses
Last Response: Sep 26 2018 (19:41)
14 Responses
Last Response: Sep 26 2018 (19:41)
Is their any proposals
10 Posts
** After LGD got P7's then they asked for P5's. LGD rejected because of few technical issues and also with gradients P5 won't do much which P7 do. On flat terrain P5 do well, but not on gradients.
** Anyways, P5 won't be given to Southern Zone, atleast not for SCR.
** Anyways, P5 won't be given to Southern Zone, atleast not for SCR.
"LGD was getting WAG9's anyway, so getting WAP7's was the best option for them (Both locos are practically identical, so no additional infrastructure required for handling P7 when G9 is already present, WAP5 requires a completely different infrastructure). "
** P5 won't require much additional infrastructure. Sheds which handle P7 can easily handle P5 but maintenance cost would be more.
** P5 won't require much additional infrastructure. Sheds which handle P7 can easily handle P5 but maintenance cost would be more.
Yes bro you are correct P5 can do well in flat terrains with 16 or 17 coach train.
Where as P7 has heavy hauling capacity which can pull (accelerate) 23 or 24 coach's train easily comes from G9 and P7 also have improved gear ratio then
Where as P7 has heavy hauling capacity which can pull (accelerate) 23 or 24 coach's train easily comes from G9 and P7 also have improved gear ratio then
The electrical components are similar, but the bogies, suspension, gear assembly, brake rigging (disc brakes) are all very different for a P5. Particularly the gear assembly is a bit complicated and has troubled CLW for a long time. Maintenance cost would actually be lower, as the light weight and the bogie design result in less wear and tear.