Sensational-Adelaide.com

Aidan wrote:

bs wrote:The Bunbury Street tunnel in Melbourne would still restrict double stacking of containers. Retrofitting that for double stacking would be very expensive given the limited space in the area.

Yes it's a problem, but this isn't the only project that would make use of an enlarged Bunbury Street tunnel. There's also the inland freight route (Melbourne to Queensland via Shepparton).

I agree that double stacking on this line would be useful, however I don’t believe that it is a significant enough benefit to make the line feasible. The present line serves its purpose ok, and could be improved for a lot less money

I suggest,
1) Realignment between Murray Bridge and Nairne to 130 km/h standard. (About 30 km of new track)
2) Grade Separation or electric gates at pedestrian crossings in the hills, train speeds (including the Belair passenger trains) are currently restricted to 50km/h for reasons of pedestrian safety, increase limit to 90km/h.
3) Crossing loop extensions.
4) Ease curves where appropriate.

No, that's extremely unlikely because Adelaide's a significant destination in its own right. A lot of trains would bypass Adelaide, but that doesn't meant that Adelaide would lose out. And in the extremely unlikely event of a train company wanting to move the terminal to Mallala, the state government could and would prevent it.

If a lot of trains do bypass Adelaide, I believe that will make Melbourne - Adelaide freight less viable, I don’t believe this is in Adelaide's Interests.

bs wrote:

Aidan wrote:

bs wrote:The Bunbury Street tunnel in Melbourne would still restrict double stacking of containers. Retrofitting that for double stacking would be very expensive given the limited space in the area.

Yes it's a problem, but this isn't the only project that would make use of an enlarged Bunbury Street tunnel. There's also the inland freight route (Melbourne to Queensland via Shepparton).

I agree that double stacking on this line would be useful, however I don’t believe that it is a significant enough benefit to make the line feasible. The present line serves its purpose ok, and could be improved for a lot less money

In operational terms the present line is OK and the diversion not feasible. However, when noise and disruption are considered, the benefits of the diversion are likely to outweigh the costs.

I suggest,
1) Realignment between Murray Bridge and Nairne to 130 km/h standard. (About 30 km of new track)
2) Grade Separation or electric gates at pedestrian crossings in the hills, train speeds (including the Belair passenger trains) are currently restricted to 50km/h for reasons of pedestrian safety, increase limit to 90km/h.
3) Crossing loop extensions.
4) Ease curves where appropriate.

That might help a bit, but it wouldn't solve the problem.

No, that's extremely unlikely because Adelaide's a significant destination in its own right. A lot of trains would bypass Adelaide, but that doesn't meant that Adelaide would lose out. And in the extremely unlikely event of a train company wanting to move the terminal to Mallala, the state government could and would prevent it.

If a lot of trains do bypass Adelaide, I believe that will make Melbourne - Adelaide freight less viable, I don’t believe this is in Adelaide's Interests.

Why do you believe it would make Melbourne - Adelaide freight less viable? How much of it gets carried on trains from Perth anyway? Considering the Perth - Adelaide freight often travels on top of the Perth - Melbourne freight, I wouldn't expect much Adelaide - Melbourne freight to go on the same trains. And the diversion should reduce the railway company's costs - even without double stacking it should mean that some of the trains don't require so many locomotives. Lower costs mean they can charge lower prices, and so increase their market share.

Aidan wrote:
I agree that double stacking on this line would be useful, however I don’t believe that it is a significant enough benefit to make the line feasible. The present line serves its purpose ok, and could be improved for a lot less money

In operational terms the present line is OK and the diversion not feasible. However, when noise and disruption are considered, the benefits of the diversion are likely to outweigh the costs.

I suggest,
1) Realignment between Murray Bridge and Nairne to 130 km/h standard. (About 30 km of new track)
2) Grade Separation or electric gates at pedestrian crossings in the hills, train speeds (including the Belair passenger trains) are currently restricted to 50km/h for reasons of pedestrian safety, increase limit to 90km/h.
3) Crossing loop extensions.
4) Ease curves where appropriate.

That might help a bit, but it wouldn't solve the problem.

[/quote]
Aidan,

Are you aware there is a possibility of Melbourne Container freight going via Mildura and Broken Hill.
Apparently there is a group looking at this possibility.
On Railpage forum in the victorian section under " Mildura Passenger service status/Return' on page 20, Steamkiwi has indicated that this may go ahead.

Regards,

Wilfy 2007 wrote: Are you aware there is a possibility of Melbourne Container freight going via Mildura and Broken Hill.
Apparently there is a group looking at this possibility.
On Railpage forum in the victorian section under " Mildura Passenger service status/Return' on page 20, Steamkiwi has indicated that this may go ahead.
Regards,

Never heard of such a proposal,
But I suspect that building this line (About 210 km) would be a cheaper way to allow Melbourne to Perth double stacking (assuming that the Mildura line already has the appropriate loading gauge to allow double stacking) than building the hills diversion (150km route) and expanding the Bunbury Street tunnel. The bypass is 60km shorter but I suspect it would be more expensive per km due to the higher cost of land purchase and the larger number of level crossings required.

That said, I think the current arrangement where freight travels single stack Melbourne - Adelaide and then Adelaide - Perth freight is then loaded on top works quite well, thereby negating any need for such a line.

Wilfy 2007 wrote:Are you aware there is a possibility of Melbourne Container freight going via Mildura and Broken Hill.
Apparently there is a group looking at this possibility.
On Railpage forum in the victorian section under " Mildura Passenger service status/Return' on page 20, Steamkiwi has indicated that this may go ahead.

No I wasn't. But reading his posting on http://www.railpage.com.au/f-t11340247-0-asc-s285.htm two things immediately strike me:
Firstly, if there's an economic case for a detour via Broken Hill including a new line from there to Mildura, surely the economic case for Adelaide's Northern Diversion is stronger?
Secondly, a new freight terminal in the Laverton-Altona area means they won't have to worry about the Bunbury Street Tunnel.

BTW your previous posting needs editing, as you got the attributions wrong.

bs wrote: Never heard of such a proposal,
But I suspect that building this line (About 210 km) would be a cheaper way to allow Melbourne to Perth double stacking (assuming that the Mildura line already has the appropriate loading gauge to allow double stacking) than building the hills diversion (150km route) and expanding the Bunbury Street tunnel. The bypass is 60km shorter but I suspect it would be more expensive per km due to the higher cost of land purchase and the larger number of level crossings required.

That said, I think the current arrangement where freight travels single stack Melbourne - Adelaide and then Adelaide - Perth freight is then loaded on top works quite well, thereby negating any need for such a line.

Just had a look at the route of the Mildura line and it seems that it does not allow for double stacking, in that case there does not seem to be any good reason why a line from Mildura to Broken Hill should be built.

Can we have electric battery trains? I am Not an electrical engineer but wouldn't it be logical to simply tow rechargeable battery carriages that can be swapped for a charged ones when needed rather than building kilometers of overhead wiring. I addition the trains lend them selves to have a roof top solar panels.

Batteries are too heavy, too expensive and wouldn't have the range required.

Might be cheaper than building wires for just a couple of electric trains per day ala Nambour/Gympie North-Gladstone in QLD, but otherwise, no.

Re: the battery trains, Thanks guys, I was not sure about the battery thing like I said I'm no electrical engineer, just know that they are already diesel electric so I guess that already makes them hybrids?

Jim wrote:Re: the battery trains, Thanks guys, I was not sure about the battery thing like I said I'm no electrical engineer, just know that they are already diesel electric so I guess that already makes them hybrids?

The original design specifications laid out by the former STA to the manufacturers stated that the 3000/3100 classes were to be made available for easy conversion to electric operation from overhead wiring.

Will409 wrote:The original design specifications laid out by the former STA to the manufacturers stated that the 3000/3100 classes were to be made available for easy conversion to electric operation from overhead wiring.

Hence they are almost identical to Melbourne's Comengs. Made by the same mob as the 3000s.

If you think that the plans in Adelaide are big/bold have a look at what is being proposed for sydney at the moment.



The darker orange and lighter green lines are completely new. Total budget $30 billion or something like that...

AtD wrote:

Will409 wrote:The original design specifications laid out by the former STA to the manufacturers stated that the 3000/3100 classes were to be made available for easy conversion to electric operation from overhead wiring.

Hence they are almost identical to Melbourne's Comengs. Made by the same mob as the 3000s.

Not neccessarily. The last of the 300 or so Comengs were being built when the order for the 3000s was received. All Comeng did was reuse and slightly alter some of the jigs and presses that they had lying around. As an another not, the cab fronts on the Comengs are not part of the original design. M>Train and Connex (before Connex took everything over) had around half the fleet each and started to rebuild the cab fronts with a new fibreglass panels. They originally were built with probably THE MOST BORING front ends which was just a dead flat piece of stainless steel with two windows.

Wikipedia gives us a picture: