Your suggestion for TAS Project - Building Oz Fund

Hendo · Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 9:45 pm

I'm of the build it now and they will come point of view. It is no doubt silly to talk of 1500m long trains in Tas. But, one would think that "reviving" Tassie rail infrastructure would have other flow on benefits to the community and attractiveness to "immigrants". And buying the rail and making it open access gives others the opportunity to bid for services PN doesn't want. I do realise the problems of loco's and rolling stock, but hey there are two other narrow gauge companies out there, in GWA and QR/ARG/QRN who are no friends of PN.

cheers,
Hendo

12CSVT · Posted: Tue May 20, 2008 1:03 am

12CSVT · Posted: Tue May 20, 2008 1:23 am

RTT_Rules · Posted: Tue May 20, 2008 6:12 am

Hi steve,
Interesting. What would be the average speed for Hobart to L'ton? and L'ton to D'port? If teh Hobart-L'ton could be reduced to 4hr for normal trains a tilt train could probably do it in 3hr with a service linking the ferry as well. But Taswegians have previously shown their hand on rail pax transport. So I won't go further on this. Also while L'ton is not on the direct NW main, its makes it hard to service both well.

I doubt there is a case to spark the network, but certainly it needs to be upgraded to take more modern HP, such as QR 2800 or 4000/PN class. Personally I feel that the loops only need to cater for about 1000m. Any longer and this forces slower running times for loading and curves etc. Also most of the yards would be diffficult to cater for much more than 1000m if this. A 1000m container train would probably need 2 x PN's to maintain track speeds.

2800 type locos would probably be my main choice of loco as it solves the problem of No.2 end leading and turning locos on a small network.

Someone mentioned open wagons for west coast Zn/Pb/Cu concentrate. The short answer is no no no ##@ way. The product is produced to a specific mositure content and the last thing you want is more water to pay shipping on and potential dust issues on the few days a year it doesn't rain.

The current ore wagons are probably fine, I don't think they are filled to the top and are limited by the track capacity. However the huge potential for freight that no one has successfully done is hauling by rail the Zn conc from roseberry to Hobart. This would be a nice revenue earning for an existing rail hauled load that goes from 100km/t to 500km/t.

Smithon has to be a must like Scottsdale with common user container loading yards and potentially a log yard as well. All lines must be able to haul 10' containers.

I'd also like to see a move made on the milk runs. Surely there is something that will work.

Overall govt must talk to industry and say what will it take for you to switch and its not always about price, it costs industry to have product in transit for excessive times and even 1-2 days can be millions of $ at the wrong time of month. Qld is now a classic of the "we don't need a port in every town to thrive", which is oppoiste from what Tassie as suffered for decades. As freight is now hauled over 1000km along the coast to go to a "centralised" container port, rather than use local infrequent and more costly shipping. El Zorro is now hauling grain from Moree to Geelong and SA for export. Only a few years back they were trying to get Brisbane to save charges. The nth coast of Tassie must loose at least one port potentially Devonport except for pax ships and Hobart needs to be mostly closed. Antartic vessels maybe the exception.

Regards
Shane

Hendo · Posted: Tue May 20, 2008 12:01 pm

Very interesting, but do you go far enough 12CSVT for commercial improvement of the line or just for the heritage trains you are involved with? I think there is more emphasis on heritage steam in your proposed submission than there should be, ash pits and water tanks everywhere, and insufficient improvement of the line to to make the lines seriously commercially viable against road.

Shouldn't the first priority be the improvement of the line such that commercial carriers can compete honestly against road? As 409 has suggested with his comments on alignment, rail and earthwork improvement. Of course. As RTT_Rules suggests there also needs to be something done for the milk runs and north coast towns and it should be faster than 30-40 kms hr, really if you are looking at under 80kph point to point you are uncompetitive and irrelevant; I say this because you need to factor in transhipment at either end to beat the truck going point to point.

Can I say you also appear to be doing a shoe string submission, why all steel sleepers except on bridges? What happens in twenty years time? Another shoe string upgrade? At some point you have to be visionary, how would Sydney be without Bradfield, no harbour bridge and no underground network.

The whole mainline alignment should be redone to improve ballast and drainage, with concrete sleepers and heavier rail for the future. You can't say the terrrain is the issue there are plenty of examples of harsher terrains operating at even higher speeds, the issue is having the vision, the proven benefits and prosletysing it to government, industry and the community; not just to a future track owner. You are never going to get a better opportunity than the Building Australia Fund.

Once you have commercail improvement of the line sorted out the small things like heritage tours come easily, plenty of operators use water tankers or gins and ash pits aren't hard to make. I am sure if you regraded the north coast line there would be much improved patronage for freight and potentially passengers.

Never having been there I would imagine it could be potentially a reasonable tourist attraction as the cruise ship market increases, meeting ships at the wharf in Launceston or Devenport for a day or dinner trip, the same for Hobart. But heritage and tourism should not be the first priority, but the third, after freight, reintroduction of passenger/commuter service and then tourist/heritage. If you do that, you may well find electrifying the mainline network does indeed become viable and attractive to the government's and Senator Brown. I am sure if you then got the line work actually done, Tasmania would become a serious railfan heaven for steam tours, dinner and lunch trains etcetra.

cheers,
Hendo

12CSVT · Posted: Tue May 20, 2008 6:28 pm

Z1NorthernProgress2110 · Posted: Tue May 20, 2008 7:07 pm

Perhaps SZ, best thing for the locomotives are re engine them it something more tech advance, say the already EE powered locos have the latest Ruston-Paxman 12 cylinder motor or GE V12 motor, with the latest alternator and perhaps some type of computer control package?
The GM powered machines upgraded to the latest motor/alternator(someone say 3000hp DQ or 4000hp D loco?) and lastest computer control package?

Or scrap the locos and get brand new ones?.

However, this is depended on if the rails in Tasmania still kept!

Cheers Damien Smith
http://z1-2110gallery.fotopic.net
Updated 28th September, includes various Y2151 shunting and Upper Burnie lookout pics

409 · Posted: Tue May 20, 2008 7:14 pm

There are a couple of issues with steel sleepers. One is that they are very ballast hungry because they are hollow. The other is that steel sleepers need to be carefully packed otherwise they can fracture very easily.

Concrete has the advantage of not only lasting for 50 years or so but can also be packed like a normal timber sleeper so you have more ballast under the sleeper rather then in the sleeper.

2008 BOGIE AWARD WINNER - Best Contribution to Model Railways

LINK TO YOUTUBE PROFILE

"I'd use an 830 for my respirator!"

RTT_Rules · Posted: Tue May 20, 2008 10:20 pm

I think Concrete has proven itself in QR at least with 100% use from Brisbane to T'ville and the coal network. IF they are cracking in US, then its likely they were not made for the duty or poorly laid.

I too would say concrete should be the first choice, even if its the lighter models used by QR away from 26t axle loads. Steel however maybe a practical choice for most of the network. Concrete is good for curves.

Don't agree with Greens canning dam, but it saved Tassie's bacon in the long run. The state would still be paying the interest for another 50 years due to the timing of the project. Tassie doesn't have a power problem not to be able to run sparks. Hell Bell Bay smelter cannot use enough of the stuff from the supplier which is happy to sell. So what if it comes from Vic, only issue is that its jobs in Vic to make it.

Regards
Shane

Hendo · Posted: Wed May 21, 2008 10:26 am

12CSVT · Posted: Thu May 22, 2008 12:50 am

Whilst I admire grand visions, sadly under the cold gaze of short sighted bureaucrats, they get ridiculed and promptly filed in "File 13" (Garbage Bin). To make any real headway, more moderate concepts that are backed by a sound business case are the only thing that will 'cut through' and potentially get more than a cursory and contemptuous glance.

Its a matter of crawling before you can walk and walking before you can run. One can hope that a modest system wide upgrade including curve easing and track strengthening (with steel and/or concrete sleepers as deemed appropriate) with an initial target average speed increase to 80kph., may get the ball rolling, then as services improve and the economics against road become more obvious, then additional steps, such as deviating Brighton - Parattah, more concrete sleepering and speed improvements to 100 - 115kph can then be considered, without being laughed at.

When considering the more extreme proposals, I think fine. Tas. electrification? High speed passenger services? When the majority of the mainland DIRN is electrified, the opening of the Inland Rail Expressway is old news, a duplicate Northern transcontinental is being put in place from Townsville via Katherine, the Kimberleys & the Pilbara to Perth, and the VFT is in place from Brisbane to Melbourne, not to mention the Adelaide Hills bypassed, broad gauge eliminated, major interurban services in Vic, SA & NSW all electrified, etc. etc. Then maybe. Standardise Tas? Maybe, after QLD. and WA have been entirely standardised and Tas. is the only narrow gauge left.

Cheers,

SZ

P.S. As for windfarms, I can't say I am a fan of those eyesores and spinning butchers knives that leave the broken battered corpses of endangered birds like Wedge Tailed eagles lying dead underneath them. Give me a healthy fish filled Hydro dam or clean, efficient coal fired power station, surrounded by coal trains with the wedgies flying free gliding in the thermal updraughts from the cooling towers! Very Happy

benscaro · Posted: Fri May 23, 2008 11:19 pm

12CSVT · Posted: Fri May 23, 2008 11:37 pm

Hendo · Posted: Sat May 24, 2008 6:37 pm

OK,

I have accepted the view on gauge since it was pointed out about closed system. I also accept that fixing the curves, grades and modernising the line (sleepers, heavier rail, welding etc) is the main issue, everything else is secondary, though I would have though that electrification of the mainline would be desirable in the near-term.

I have also had experience in federal government, including acquisition, and in project development and purchasing. I have just been trying to promote the idea of vision, if you look at this government and its "Building Australia Fund" it is about infrastructure projects outside of the normal-cycle which could only proceed with federal funding, but that have long-term economic, social and other benefits.

One would think that in trying to capture it's "share" of the fund a modernisation of the rail system in Tasmania would have many economic, social, commercial and environmental benefits and would have to rate highly in potential Tasmanian projects. But that isn't going to happen if you don't have people to prosletyse it and it isn't going to happen whilst the sytem is captive to PN.

For those that Rolling Eyes

though the more recent governments howl, I remember Qld before coal became the lifeblood of the state in the 80's, when the government of the day, QR and the Public Service (before the PS became political yes boys) took the view that they would use the future income to fund the electrification of the system South of Rockhampton. They went into hock for it, but it had real long term benefits for the state. The respective public service controlled departments also used to build road bridges over two lane roads that were proposed freeways at 8 lanes wide. Some of those roads didn't get widened to 8 lanes for twenty years, one I know of still hasn't been. Then we had the rationalists in the public service (ministerial staffers masquearading as public servants) and politics who became that afraid of government debt they only build the infrastructure needed today and next week, not for five and ten years from now, look at the Gold Coast line and M1.

Anyway I will leave the discussion with the comment, if you only do what you "think" is commercially and fiscally "responsible" you end up with ....................... Your current rail situation perhaps?

cheers,
Hendo

DQ2004 · Posted: Mon May 26, 2008 1:24 am

You don't check a forum for a week or two and look what happens?
Interesting stuff suddenly turns up! Smile

I agree with a lot of the comments above regarding cautious and relatively limited improvements to the Tas rail network.

It would be nice to have electrification but you need traffic to justify it.
Political will doesn't exist to take trucks off the road, despite the fact that one gets in the way of a car (usually the car's fault) pretty much every few days on our highways, tragically.
If things like B-doubles were banned and there was actually a decent rail line to run on then maybe some companies might be willing to get into rail transport. Until then, electrification is a pipedream.

But I have to point out SZ that if the Gordon below Franklin had been dammed, then we'd just have another empty dam, and it would have cost the state tens of millions in debt for the privilege.
What's more, Strahan would probably be another mostly dead west coast town and the Mt Lyell Abt railway would not have been rebuilt! So if you want to get in your pointless digs at the Greens, PM me and we can have another debate without bothering everyone else this time.
Incidentally, I'm wondering how you figure coal power could be clean with technology that doesn't currently exist?

However, climate change is obviously failing to galvanise governments to take real action. Peak oil, however, looks like it will. Soon truck companies will begin to really struggle with these oil price increases, individual drivers (who drive their own trucks) will go first, and suddenly governments will have no choice but to invest in rail infrastructure.
Once peak oil really starts to hit, electrification may well become more attractive across the country.

[For those that haven't heard of peak oil, it's the point at which demand for oil worldwide exceeds supply. Whilst there seems to be comparitively little real media attention being drawn to this, it's quite clear the planet has gone past this point.]

Regards all,
Toby

http://www.railpage.com.au/f-p1097560.htm#1097560 -THE RACE updated 11-8-08
http://toby629.fotopic.net/ -photos of the new Austrains C35 class model added 4-8-08