Sensational-Adelaide.com

Pistol wrote:So much money is spent on freight infrastructure while THE critical path for freight is left to deteriorate and rot away.
Victoria Road from Port Adelaide to Outer Harbour would have to be the worst road in Adelaide.
More emphasis is put on getting traffic out of the area than in and the road is becoming akin to a 4WD track because of truck use.
And with more use by greater volumes of traffic heading to Techport in the not too distant future, this issue is going to get worse.

Agreed. Replace Victoria Road as the freight route with another road to the east of it closer to the water with a new tall bridge over the port river connecting directly to the PREXY over Gillman.

Great idea Libs, unfortunately you are a few years behind the times VIctoria with the help of federal government money are currently converting the Mildura rail line and upgrading Mildura airport for it to become the transport hub of Australia. In future all freight trains except those bound for Adelaide will use this route bypass the Adelaide hills as the new link will join the main line near broken hill . This is being done now !

bits,
'Tis much cheaper to build a freeway over flat grassland than through the Barossa Valley and over partly forested hills!

Pistol, what exactly is the priblem with Victoria Road?
If it's just the surface, surely that's just a short term problem that will be solved next time the road's resurfaced?


GoodSmackUp,
The existing link to the PREXY is a good one and its function does not need duplicating. If and when a new tall bridge is built, it should go to Saint Kilda and link directly with the NEXY.


Alan21
Are you confusing Mildura with Parkes?
There are no plans for a rail link between Mildura and Broken Hill, and Broken Hill's not really on the way to anywhere — it's too far west for east coast destinations but for Perth and Darwin it's shorter and quicker via Adelaide. Although if we don't make the Adelaide to Melbourne line suitable for double stacking, we could end up with trains going the long way round.

I'm sure this has been covered in another thread at some point, but for own clarity as I follow the discussion here, could anyone answer the following: How vital are double-stacked freight trains to the future of the service? What are the impediments and can they be overcome? How does the cost of upgrading the current route compare to the Lib's proposal? I remember they're being an obvious issue with low clearances but there's probably more to it.

I could be wrong but I think its really juat they can then carry probably 1.5x or double the cargo. Then if the line was dual track, that again would slightly increase the amount of cargo that can be carried through - single track line with passing loops already delivers close to the maximum benefit as a dual track - the issue is of there was a breakdown between passing loops.

SRW wrote:I'm sure this has been covered in another thread at some point, but for own clarity as I follow the discussion here, could anyone answer the following: How vital are double-stacked freight trains to the future of the service? What are the impediments and can they be overcome? How does the cost of upgrading the current route compare to the Lib's proposal? I remember they're being an obvious issue with low clearances but there's probably more to it.

I must declare my ignorance of the matter but talking about double stacking sea cargo containers seems at odds with loading freight onto aeroplanes. That's just in relation to the Lib's whole plan, double stacking is important for sea - rail - distribution point economies of scale.

SRW,

Double stacked containers are vital if the objective is to get a significant proportion of the Adelaide-Melbourne freight off the roads and onto the rails. Rail needs to be riliable, but that's not enough — it needs a big cost advantage if it'sto get a high market share. Double stacking is the best thing that can be done to keep costs down; avoiding steep gradients is the seconda best thing.

Upgrading the current route is a false economy like FTTN.


Mono,
Not at all. Whether the air containers are packed at the airport or packed somewhere else and transported to the airport in shipping containers, double stacking containers enables the freight to get to the airport more cheaply.

An airport won't be viable there for dacades at least, but we shoudn't underestimate the economies of scale on rail.

Aidan wrote:Mono,
Not at all. Whether the air containers are packed at the airport or packed somewhere else and transported to the airport in shipping containers, double stacking containers enables the freight to get to the airport more cheaply.

An airport won't be viable there for dacades at least, but we shoudn't underestimate the economies of scale on rail.

The economics of the route aside - I was referring to the double handling that would occur in the Lib's plans.

Manufacturer or grower load goods into a sea cargo container, container is transported to airport, goods are unloaded from sea cargo containers and loaded into air containers (unit load device) then lifted into the cargo planes.

Much more efficient would be for the manufacturer or grower to load directly into unit load devices, those to be stacked onto rail cars somehow and then they can be lifted directly into the planes. This saving in time might be especially important with perishables which are normally airfreighted in "Cooltainers". Which are self contained, refrigerated unit load devices.

Although I dare say there's a load of compatibility issues with different models of aircraft which would probably get in the way.

Aidan wrote:Upgrading the current route is a false economy like FTTN.

Why false economy? I'm assuming because the steep gradients you mention keep fuel costs uncompetitively high even if the line could double stack? Is that something that could be mitigated by charging road freight more or even by electrification?

monotonehell wrote: The economics of the route aside - I was referring to the double handling that would occur in the Lib's plans.

Manufacturer or grower load goods into a sea cargo container, container is transported to airport, goods are unloaded from sea cargo containers and loaded into air containers (unit load device) then lifted into the cargo planes.

Much more efficient would be for the manufacturer or grower to load directly into unit load devices, those to be stacked onto rail cars somehow and then they can be lifted directly into the planes.

As I said, the ULDs can be packed somewhere else and transported to the airport in shipping containers. That's more practical than transporting the ULDs loose on trains, which would make the trains much slower to load and unload. But security arrangements mean it may not be cheaper than loading them at the airport.

SRW wrote:

Aidan wrote:Upgrading the current route is a false economy like FTTN.

Why false economy?

Because, like FTTN, there are significant initial costs, high ongoing costs, and eventually we'll have to do it properly anyway.
And like FTTN, the government justified it with a report using an inappropriately high discount rate.

I'm assuming because the steep gradients you mention keep fuel costs uncompetitively high even if the line could double stack? Is that something that could be mitigated by charging road freight more or even by electrification?

It's not just the fuel cost. It's the fact that each locomotive can't haul as much on a hilly route. So there's the extra expense of needing to run more locomotives without any extra revenue.

Aidan wrote:

SRW wrote:

Aidan wrote:Upgrading the current route is a false economy like FTTN.

Why false economy?

Because, like FTTN, there are significant initial costs, high ongoing costs, and eventually we'll have to do it properly anyway.
And like FTTN, the government justified it with a report using an inappropriately high discount rate.

You can't just say that it's a false economy just because there is high costs to it starting and keeping it ongoing.

I'm assuming because the steep gradients you mention keep fuel costs uncompetitively high even if the line could double stack? Is that something that could be mitigated by charging road freight more or even by electrification?

It's not just the fuel cost. It's the fact that each locomotive can't haul as much on a hilly route. So there's the extra expense of needing to run more locomotives without any extra revenue.

It's not a hilly route though. It's an alternative route. There's a difference.

HiTouch wrote:

Aidan wrote:

SRW wrote: Why false economy?

Because, like FTTN, there are significant initial costs, high ongoing costs, and eventually we'll have to do it properly anyway.
And like FTTN, the government justified it with a report using an inappropriately high discount rate.

You can't just say that it's a false economy just because there is high costs to it starting and keeping it ongoing.

I didn't! I said it's a false economy because those costs will only postpone what needs to be done. Eventually the full cost of the new route (or indeed FTTP) will need to be paid anyway; meanwhile users are being denied the substantial benefit.

I'm assuming because the steep gradients you mention keep fuel costs uncompetitively high even if the line could double stack? Is that something that could be mitigated by charging road freight more or even by electrification?

It's not just the fuel cost. It's the fact that each locomotive can't haul as much on a hilly route. So there's the extra expense of needing to run more locomotives without any extra revenue.

It's not a hilly route though. It's an alternative route. There's a difference.

The current route across the Adelaide Hills most certainly is a hilly route. It isn't an alternative route, as there's no alternative yet.

Aidan wrote:

HiTouch wrote:

Aidan wrote:
Because, like FTTN, there are significant initial costs, high ongoing costs, and eventually we'll have to do it properly anyway.
And like FTTN, the government justified it with a report using an inappropriately high discount rate.

You can't just say that it's a false economy just because there is high costs to it starting and keeping it ongoing.

I didn't! I said it's a false economy because those costs will only postpone what needs to be done. Eventually the full cost of the new route (or indeed FTTP) will need to be paid anyway; meanwhile users are being denied the substantial benefit.

A toll would sort this issue out quite simply.

Aidan wrote:

Aidan wrote: It's not just the fuel cost. It's the fact that each locomotive can't haul as much on a hilly route. So there's the extra expense of needing to run more locomotives without any extra revenue.

It's not a hilly route though. It's an alternative route. There's a difference.

The current route across the Adelaide Hills most certainly is a hilly route. It isn't an alternative route, as there's no alternative yet. I recon freight going up Norton Summit Road is a fantastic alternative to both.

The Liberal Party are previewing it as an alternative route to Portrush Road though. I honestly can not possibly imagine Road-Trains going up Norton Summit road like you're suggesting. It's dangerous enough as it is!