M636 can probably give us much more details but the start of the Australia Inland rail project for 8B Australian dollars.
Will be connection Melborne <> Brisbane bypassing Sydney.
https://www.railpage.com.au/news/s/golden-age-of-rail-construction-about-to-get-underway?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=top-stories-this-week-on-railpage
MAP
https://infrastructure.gov.au/rail/inland/files/inland-rail-alignment.pdf
Notice that the articles mention getting clearances for double stack. As the US has both international and domestic containers of different heights is the same also in Australia ?. That is are containers of just international height or other heights ?
Here are the official links:
https://inlandrail.artc.com.au/
A detailed map is at:
https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/ehq-production-australia/181253c153e27276b0e3baa60532cc37ba1bad38/documents/attachments/000/023/954/original/INLAND_RAIL_Engineering_Map_base_ARTC_IR_BSM_V23.pdf?1494560324
As can be seen from the map, the line basically connects a number of existing lines with some new construction. The intention is to avoid the congestion and oprational restrictions involved in running through Sydney.
There are varying heights of container in Australia. I'm not sure what the international limit is, but I've seen containers listed as 9'6", 9'10" and 3 Metres in height. Australian domestic containers are 2.5 metres wide while I think international containers are 8 Feet. They can all be handled by standard equipment. The 2.5 metres resulted from a pre-existing standard for pallets, which were (just) too wide forISO standard containers.
It is common to see a container with lettering indicating "2.5m wide, 9'10" high", possibly since the width is a road restriction while the height is a shipping restriction and listed in different units. 3 metre high containers sometimes have the height indicated in reverse on the end so that it will appear the right way round in the driver's rear vision mirror.
Containers are usually 20', 40' and 48' long. There are few 53' boxes but far fewer than in the USA. There are a batch of 30' x 8' x 8' containers used for plastic moulding pellets. I guess those are the maximum loaded weight for road haulage.
There is a good photo on the main page (above) of double stacking showing variation in stacked height. There are also a number of low height containers intended to be stacked above standard containers on conventional flat cars.
I'll try to answer any other questions...
Peter
blue streak 1 ... MAP https://infrastructure.gov.au/rail/inland/files/inland-rail-alignment.pdf
...
Map shows that where it follows the existing Melbourne-Sydney mainline, it will need clearance work for double-stack. Seeing that the mainline between the two largest cities is not cleared for double stack, I wonder how much of AU is cleared for such.
This new route must be standard gauge 4'8-1/2". Are any of the current lines Cape Gauge 42" or one of the broad gauge lines.
usmc1401 This new route must be standard gauge 4'8-1/2". Are any of the current lines Cape Gauge 42" or one of the broad gauge lines.
The new line is standard gauge.
However, all the new track in the state of Queensland will be built as dual standard and 42" gauge. Although standard gauge reached the capital of Brisbane in 1932 from Sydney and it has been extended to the port, all intrastate traffic is on the narrow gauge.
In Victoria, the existing line at 63" gauge was duplicated between Melbourne and the New South Wales border by standard gauge in 1962. The line broad gauge line north of Seymour was converted to standard gauge a few years ago, giving conventional double track with bi directional signalling to standard gauge. South of Seymour, the two gauges run side by side. Most passenger trains in Victoria are broad gauge, although there are four standard gauge passenger trains each way each day to Albury. About a third of track in Victoria is now standard gauge and this will be increased soon to around half. Relatively little freight is carried on the broad gauge, apart from grain and two important services for paper and steel products.
Where the present Melbourne Sydney line is to be used, track will be lowered under twenty bridges to increase clearance, but maybe as many locations will need new bridges. There are no tunnels on the sections to be converted (athough in Queensland a new tunnel will be built to double stack clearances.
At present, double stacking is only permitted west of Adelaide in South Australia and West of Parkes in New South Wales. The new line wil run north south through Parkes, and allow double stacking to Brisbane and Melbourne from the west and Adelaide (but on a longer route to Melbourne). The only major city not connected by double stacking would be Sydney.
Is Sydney campaigning for double-stack access?
MidlandMike Is Sydney campaigning for double-stack access?
Double stack to Sydney is not on the agenda.
The main line is being converted for double stack clearances as far as Illabo (basically a grain elevator, a hotel an a school) where the line diverges towards Stockinbingal, to avoid a spiral at Bethungra. Bethungra is more or less a mirror image of the Tehachapi loop but is blasted through solid rock and they don't want to enlarge the tunnels there. But Illabo is about half way to Sydney from Melbourne.
I asked at a recent rail conference if they had any plans to extend double stacking to Sydney, since they were half way there. The answer was no.
Some history of the "Inland Railway" is in order here.
It is a political railway rather than a commercial one.
The Australian Federal Government is controlled by a conservative coalition between the Liberal Party and the National (formerly Country) Party. The Nationals are a small tail wagging the dog and the Inland line passes through most of their electorates. The words "Pork Barrel" and "Boondoggle" come to mind.
Basically there is political support for building the Inland line despite marginal traffic forecasts but completing the clearance improvements on the Melbourne Sydney line at a much smaller cost for several times the traffic has no support, not even from a minority partner in the Government.
I've calculated that there around 33 bridges that will need modification (raising the bridge or lowering the track) on the section from Illabo to the southern Sydney suburbs. A couple of tunnels could be avoided by relaying track abandoned in 1917, and a large container terminal is accessible by a dedicated track in the southern suburbs of Sydney.
Peter (M636C): Your comments about this "Inland Railway" being a 'political entity', and 'pork barrel'. Seems to portend a poor future for the rail line. What is the general feeling for the obvious financial and political expenses of this undertaking?
How do the rail operators feel about this?
I understand, they( Australian Railroads) are also controled, or are entities(?) of State and or National government agencies(?).
Does this seem to indicate, that in the future, this project might be unused, and then abandoned, as the economics of the Country change? Is there some real utility to its construction?
Are the multiple track gauges simply a way for the political governments to control the economies of their jurisdictions?
It wiould seem to be better to get all the gauges, into one National system of the same gauge; thereby, make the commerce much more mobile between States ?
Thanks.
Not from Australia, but my thoughts:
The challenge with bringing double stacks to Sydney is the electrification around the Sydney area. I can't find specifications for the current low height, but this link
http://www.asa.transport.nsw.gov.au/sites/default/files/asa/railcorp-legacy/disciplines/electrical/ep-08-00-00-01-sp.pdf
gives standards for new electrification, with a minimum of 4.65 meters permitted under low bridges, which works out to about 15.25 feet, or about the height of a modern North American diesel and far below the 20'2'' required.
I'm less pessimistic about the traffic potential of the route; while there may not be traffic to justify it now, with growth I suspect there will be and it will be worth it to avoid tangling with Sydney Trains every time they need to run something between Brisbane and Melbourne. I don't have a good gauge for how long NIMBY and EIS things tend to delay these projects, but I'm guessing that a decade to be completed isn't unrealistic.
Control of Australian railroads is a bit complicated as privitisation varied between states, but a national track owner, the ARTC, controls much of the interstate standard gauge network while the states own other trackage. Railroads are private companies outside of the state passenger operators.
M636C ... and a large container terminal is accessible by a dedicated track in the southern suburbs of Sydney. Peter
... and a large container terminal is accessible by a dedicated track in the southern suburbs of Sydney.
Are the trains that service that facility single-stack, or is there a double-stack line going somewhere else?
samfp1943 Peter (M636C): Your comments about this "Inland Railway" being a 'political entity', and 'pork barrel'. Seems to portend a poor future for the rail line. What is the general feeling for the obvious financial and political expenses of this undertaking? How do the rail operators feel about this? I understand, they( Australian Railroads) are also controled, or are entities(?) of State and or National government agencies(?). Does this seem to indicate, that in the future, this project might be unused, and then abandoned, as the economics of the Country change? Is there some real utility to its construction? Are the multiple track gauges simply a way for the political governments to control the economies of their jurisdictions? It wiould seem to be better to get all the gauges, into one National system of the same gauge; thereby, make the commerce much more mobile between States ? Thanks.
The economics are not that bad, with benefits to cost ratio of around 1.25 from studies so far.
However, the politicians, elected largely by farmers are talking up the benefits to the area the line runs through which are much less obvious, once the actual contruction work is complete. On the route diagram, there are notes regarding the final alignment of new construction not being settled, since they don't want upset any farmers who might be needed to vote for them at the next election.
But once built, the line will be used and new traffic, as opposed to simply Melbourne Brisbane traffic may emerge.
The Federal Government is, however, completely rebuilding the highway between Sydney and Brisbane approximately to USA Interstate Highway standards which is expected to be complete in about three years, well before the Inland Railway could be complete. In addition, a bypass road around Sydney will complete about the same time. So conditions for road freight are improving significantly, before the rail line can demonstrate the advantages of faster transit times. The road from Melbourne to Sydney has already been upgraded to those standards.
In general, Australian railways are owned by the state goverments which built them, but the main interstate routes and the Hunter Valley export coal lines are leased to the Australian Rail Track Corporation, which is owned by the Federal Government. In Tasmania, which is narrow gauge and isolated, the state government took back the previously privatised system and operates the freight trains.
On the mainland, freight trains are operated by private operators, but passenger services are operated by the state governments.
In Victoria, there are quite extensive passenger services, both suburban and regional, basically all on broad (63") gauge and this has been a barrier to conversion to standard gauge. The two gauges are so close that dual gauge can be a problem, since a brake block could fall between the two close rails and cause a derailment. Thus there is resistance to providing dual gauge where broad gauge passenger trains will run.
Equally, conversion of the passenger trains and track to standard gauge is seen as an expense that provides no advantage to passengers or the passenger operator although it would benefit the private freight operator.
When the lines north of Seymour were converted to standard gauge, a set of passenger trains was converted to standard gauge. However, with only three sets and one spare locomotive, the service reliability fell and became a political problem.
The situation in Queensland is not affected by the similarity of the gauge, and much of the new line will be dual gauge. There were a number of opportunities for conversion to standard gauge in Queensland, particularly with the expansion of export coal traffic from the 1970s. The coal lines operate pretty much independently, and could easily have been built to standard gauge. Even the other main lines have been rebuilt and realigned to such an extent that conversion to standard gauge would have cost little more.
Both in Queensland and in Victoria, maintenance of the status quo seems to have been important, so that wherever possible the existing gauge was retained.
In Victoria, there is relatively little freight on broad gauge. In the present grain season, grain trains are being hauled by actual museum pieces, locomotives preserved by enthusiast groups because nobody wants to put locomotives on broad gauge (not all locomotives are suitable for conversion, since truck frames and axles need to be suitable for the 6.5 inch wider gauge).
Interesting project. While I have always wanted to visit your country, at age 82, I doubt that I ever will. My son has (for business and has enjoyed his time there. My question is about ROW acquisition. In the USA, the difficulty of obtaining real estate is a major deterent (read about the Keystone pipeline). Am I correct that the government has eminent domain to take property?
Government bodies do have the power of eminent domain to allow the obtaining of property for public uses. However, it is a legal process and it can take some time to determine a fair market price for the property in question.
Electroliner 1935 Interesting project. While I have always wanted to visit your country, at age 82, I doubt that I ever will. My son has (for business and has enjoyed his time there. My question is about ROW acquisition. In the USA, the difficulty of obtaining real estate is a major deterent (read about the Keystone pipeline). Am I correct that the government has eminent domain to take property?
The phrase "eminent domain" is unfamiliar in Australia.
Most rural property is leasehold from the state government and this can be "resumed" for rail and road corridors with payment of compensation to the lessee, often determined by the government concerned.
One particular problem in Queensland is that the line will pass through a floodplain where during recent flooding, some deaths were attributed to the effect on the floodwaters of an out of use railway line. As a result particular attention has been paid to the alignment of the line through this area and the provision for flooding.
Because the National Party is claiming the line as their initiative, particular attention is being paid to minimise the effect of new construction track on the landholders in the party's electoral districts.
I should also address an earlier comment about catenary height and double stacking to Sydney. The ARTC has constructed a separate third track parallel to the electrified main lines from Macarthur at the southern edge of of the Sydney electrified system to the main container depot at Chullora, the Southern Sydney Freight Line. I'm not certain that all the clearances on this line are suitable already for double stacking but it does not pass under catenary at any point.
I am curious: what was the effect of the floodwaters on the old railway line that caused people to die?
Thank you,
Johnny
DeggestyI am curious: what was the effect of the floodwaters on the old railway line that caused people to die?
Weren't you just commenting on grammar and such in that BNSF/Tehachapi thread?
He said, plain as a pikestaff, it was the effect of the railway line, probably more properly embankments or earthworks under it, on the floodwaters that was the problem. Either by holding them back for greater depth, or accelerating and shaping flow in some way. Either would be plausible to me.
RME Deggesty I am curious: what was the effect of the floodwaters on the old railway line that caused people to die? Weren't you just commenting on grammar and such in that BNSF/Tehachapi thread? He said, plain as a pikestaff, it was the effect of the railway line, probably more properly embankments or earthworks under it, on the floodwaters that was the problem. Either by holding them back for greater depth, or accelerating and shaping flow in some way. Either would be plausible to me.
Deggesty I am curious: what was the effect of the floodwaters on the old railway line that caused people to die?
Sorry for not clarifying the point.
As RME implied, The flood was restrained by a long embankment and by a trestle which had become blocked by floodborne debris. I think the trestle eventually collapsed under the weight of water.
This contributed to a flash flood in a nearby town where people who had been driving in a main street were drowned as their cars were swept away. This was caught by TV News cameras and thus became better known in the area than might have otherwise been the case.
Thus even the state government was interested in ensuring that the new line would not have a similar effect.
DeggestyThank you, for telling us what you believe he meant when he wrote :"One particular problem in Queensland is that the line will pass through a floodplain where during recent flooding, some deaths were attributed to the effect on the floodwaters of an out of use railway line.
I detect some inherent attempt at sarcasm here, so let's look at the English construction Peter used. Do you think that 'the floodwaters of an out of use railway line' is a phrase? What sense could it possibly make as a phrase? "The effect of an out of use railway line on the floodwaters", which you get by natural inversion, is not particularly difficult to determine, nor, I think, is it hard to see what he believed he meant.
I might not have been so sarcastic myself except that I require a higher standard of English grammatical comprehension from those who demand it in other contexts.
I suddenly feel unworthy to participate on this forum.
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
Paul of CovingtonIsuddenly feel unworthy to participate on this forum.
Relax; we're not being serious. This is just a little Jersey-style chop-busting, not like the situation over on the Amtrak conductor thread.
Johnny and I both despise Fascism too much to embrace it with respect to things like Forum grammaticism.
Ground breaking has occurred and route is expected to be complete in 2024 ?
https://www.railwaygazette.com/news/infrastructure/single-view/view/sod-turning-launches-construction-of-1-700-km-inland-rail-corridor.html
blue streak 1 Ground breaking has occurred and route is expected to be complete in 2024 ? https://www.railwaygazette.com/news/infrastructure/single-view/view/sod-turning-launches-construction-of-1-700-km-inland-rail-corridor.html
Question for Peter(M636C): Your earlier mention on this Thread that the ARTC project was more or less a politically sited project. Seems to beg the question that If Canberra is the [National?] Political Capital of Australia, why is it not included on the route of these new rail improvements?
It zlso appears, according to the included map links to be only, on a line from the North, connecting to Sydney ( old Coast Line?). From information on the Internet; Canberra is a city approximating some 400 thousand +- population, and it is something like 280 km South of Sydney(?). Does eveyone who lives in Canberra work there, and there is no level of commuting Sout towards Melbourne?
It would seem the political capital of a country would require of its political class access to the rest of the country, within the scope of a 'new' rail project in that area of the country ?
M636CSorry for not clarifying the point. As RME implied, The flood was restrained by a long embankment and by a trestle which had become blocked by floodborne debris. I think the trestle eventually collapsed under the weight of water. This contributed to a flash flood in a nearby town where people who had been driving in a main street were drowned as their cars were swept away. This was caught by TV News cameras and thus became better known in the area than might have otherwise been the case. Thus even the state government was interested in ensuring that the new line would not have a similar effect. Peter
Wherever you have flowing water and man made structures you will have unintended consequences. Man, despite his belief to the contrary, cannot truly forsee how water will overcome his best efforts to control it. Moms Nature always wins. Just because a structure has stood against water for a hundred year does not mean that water can't defeat it tomorrow.
From observation, most water issues are created by man and man's discounting of upstream drainage issues when severe storm conditions affect an area. Ellicott City, MD has had two catastrophic floods within the past two years. The development of Ellicott City included taming the Tiber River, a tributary to the Patapsco River (which the B&O's Old Main Line follows to Mt. Airy, MD). Howard County has highly developed the geographical area at elevations above Ellicott City and nearly all this development has directed its storm ware run off to the Tiber River watershed. Surprise, heavy localized T'storms and Ellicott City floods; and the politicos want to blame Ellicott City, not the developments that have overloaded the Tiber River watershed.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
samfp1943 blue streak 1 Ground breaking has occurred and route is expected to be complete in 2024 ? https://www.railwaygazette.com/news/infrastructure/single-view/view/sod-turning-launches-construction-of-1-700-km-inland-rail-corridor.html Question for Peter(M636C): Your earlier mention on this Thread that the ARTC project was more or less a politically sited project. Seems to beg the question that If Canberra is the [National?] Political Capital of Australia, why is it not included on the route of these new rail improvements? It zlso appears, according to the included map links to be only, on a line from the North, connecting to Sydney ( old Coast Line?). From information on the Internet; Canberra is a city approximating some 400 thousand +- population, and it is something like 280 km South of Sydney(?). Does eveyone who lives in Canberra work there, and there is no level of commuting Sout towards Melbourne? It would seem the political capital of a country would require of its political class access to the rest of the country, within the scope of a 'new' rail project in that area of the country ?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.