| home |
|
| news |
|
| discussions |
|
| content |
|
| site |
|
|
| technical support | Need Help? Lodge a support ticket!
Note: This is for technical support only. General questions about railways should be posted to the Forums.donation 
Please Donate!photo comp Have YOU voted yet on Photo of the Month?
Click Here!
Voting Closes 31/1search |
| |
| Author |
Message |
Wilfy2007
Assistant Commissioner
Joined: Mar 19, 2007
Last Visited: Jan 7, 2009
Location: N.S.W.
contact
|
post
|
|
| Wilfy2007 |
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 13, 2008 8:30 am
|
Good morning,
Recently there has been many posts about the by-passing of the Adelaide Hills Freight line.
This has been thrown around by many groups wishing to get freight out of the Adelaide Hills as it is considered a bottleneck because of the indirect route.
I am wondering if other routes could be considered rather than having the proposed bypass from Monarto South to the north and coming in at Mallala.
Other routes that have been mentioned are,
1. The continuation of the Mildura line to Broken hill.
2. Refurbish the line from Tocumwal to Roto via Griffith and Narrandera.
3. Using current operational lines to Parkes.
4. Building a new line from Monarto South to Sedan and then going west at some point to meet up with Truro or Kapanda and use existing corridors to connect up to Mallala.
5. Or heaven forbid, uprgade the alignment of the current Adelaide Hills Route, but the dogleg also needs to be somehow if possible.
My question would be, How much work would need to be done to the Adelaide Hills route to make more viable if possible?
Regards,
|
|
 |
nm39
Chief Train Controller
Joined: Oct 07, 2005
Last Visited: Jan 7, 2009
Location: Rubber Tyred Vehicle track designing team
contact
|
post
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 13, 2008 10:32 am
|
|
For about $6 billion you could bore a tunnel from Callington to Mitcham, a distance of around 40km with an uphill grade from Callington of about 3m. That estimate is using figures from other jobs including the one in progress in the Swiss Alps (57km).
Silly old Gordon, got stuck inna DITCH......
|
|
|
bingley hall
Chief Commissioner
Joined: Nov 09, 2005
Last Visited: Jan 7, 2009
Location: gone fishin
contact
|
post
|
|
| bingley hall |
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 13, 2008 2:16 pm
|
| Wilfy2007 wrote: | Good morning,
Recently there has been many posts about the by-passing of the Adelaide Hills Freight line.
This has been thrown around by many groups wishing to get freight out of the Adelaide Hills as it is considered a bottleneck because of the indirect route. |
This needs a bit of clarification.
To say 'many' is not correct. 'Several' would be more accurate.
The only people seriously lobbying for it are quality of life groups and dreamers who have little or no knowledge of the actual needs of the transport and logistics industry.
Adelaide is not considered a bottlneck by freight operators and in fact is a useful staging post that fits in with the requirements of the transport and logistics industry, and of those of the shipping industry serving Port Adelaide.
In the greater scheme of things the indirect nature of the current route has only minmal impact on transit times that would not be improved upon by any proposed bypass.
Once again no one has addressed the issue of the closure of the SG Hills line and increased road traffic on the freeway and Portrush Road that would have to come with any re-routing. There is not enough traffic to justify the operation of two routes.
Bing
Life is just a bowl of All Bran...you wake up every morning and it's there
|
|
|
Wilfy2007
Assistant Commissioner
Joined: Mar 19, 2007
Last Visited: Jan 7, 2009
Location: N.S.W.
contact
|
post
|
|
| Wilfy2007 |
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 13, 2008 2:39 pm
|
| bingley hall wrote: | | Wilfy2007 wrote: | Good morning,
Recently there has been many posts about the by-passing of the Adelaide Hills Freight line.
This has been thrown around by many groups wishing to get freight out of the Adelaide Hills as it is considered a bottleneck because of the indirect route. |
This needs a bit of clarification.
To say 'many' is not correct. 'Several' would be more accurate.
The only people seriously lobbying for it are quality of life groups and dreamers who have little or no knowledge of the actual needs of the transport and logistics industry.
Adelaide is not considered a bottlneck by freight operators and in fact is a useful staging post that fits in with the requirements of the transport and logistics industry, and of those of the shipping industry serving Port Adelaide.
In the greater scheme of things the indirect nature of the current route has only minmal impact on transit times that would not be improved upon by any proposed bypass.
Once again no one has addressed the issue of the closure of the SG Hills line and increased road traffic on the freeway and Portrush Road that would have to come with any re-routing. There is not enough traffic to justify the operation of two routes.
Bing |
Bing,
Is the actual corridor wide enough to have two lines all the way to Callington?
If so could the laying of the second line have a better alignment or would it just follow the current line where it is single track still.
Regards,
|
|
|
Pressman
Chief Commissioner
Joined: May 23, 2006
Last Visited: Jan 7, 2009
Location: anywhere between Glenbawn and Pemberton
contact
|
post
|
|
| Pressman |
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 13, 2008 3:48 pm
|
| Wilfy2007 wrote: |
Is the actual corridor wide enough to have two lines all the way to Callington?
If so could the laying of the second line have a better alignment or would it just follow the current line where it is single track still.
Regards, |
Do you mean Adelaide to Callington?
If so the answer is No
And as Bing has said the line is not considered a bottleneck
Cheers,
Tony
Still drying out the falcoon after the now imfamous creek incident!http://tony33.fotopic.net
|
|
|
bingley hall
Chief Commissioner
Joined: Nov 09, 2005
Last Visited: Jan 7, 2009
Location: gone fishin
contact
|
post
|
|
| bingley hall |
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 13, 2008 7:06 pm
|
| Wilfy2007 wrote: | Bing,
Is the actual corridor wide enough to have two lines all the way to Callington?
If so could the laying of the second line have a better alignment or would it just follow the current line where it is single track still.
Regards, |
Not sure there is enough traffic to warrant double track, though it would be nice.
I think I have mentioned this before - about 10 years ago there was paper presented at an industry conference in Adelaide which was followed up a couple of articles in Railway Digest and Catchpoint. It propsoed some drastic realignments on the eastern slope of the Hills (between Murray Bridge and Yantaringa (from memory) including a couple of fairly spectacular viaducts.
The proponent had actually costed the savings from such alignments. These were run past a respected investment banker who started getting very excited until it was pointed out that the savings were amortised across a wide range of stakeholders - at which stage his eyes glazed over and he ordered another cocktail.
There is certainly no room on the western side of the Lofties for an additional track and deviations delivered only small returns on what is a relatively short, but sharp climb.
Bing
Life is just a bowl of All Bran...you wake up every morning and it's there
|
|
|
NathanCastle
Assistant Commissioner
Joined: Dec 11, 2007
Last Visited: Nov 24, 2008
Location: Gippsland
contact
|
post
|
|
| NathanCastle |
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 13, 2008 8:30 pm
|
I remember reading on the ARTC web site one (It might be still there, their site Is very large now)
That they had looked at a railway tunnel from Lynton to Verdun about 20 km's I think the coast was a bout 300 million (I'm sure that gone through the roof now).
But ARTC Isn't that Interested In doing much about the Adelaide hills because of the very high cost and you have to go all the way or nothing at all, no half done job.
ARTC sees a lot more cost effective projects on the Melbourne to Adelaide corridor like Improved train control, more loops, longer loops fixing the track aliment mess around Newport and North Geelong,etc
This proposed carbon trading scheme Is going to ruin the economy of Australia. "Dump It Now"
65 miles from Flinders Street Station Melbourne and 703 feet above sea level
|
|
|
kipioneer
Chief Commissioner
Joined: Oct 18, 2004
Last Visited: Jan 7, 2009
contact
|
post
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 13, 2008 10:46 pm
|
[quote="bingley hallThe proponent had actually costed the savings from such alignments. These were run past a respected investment banker who started getting very excited until it was pointed out that the savings were amortised across a wide range of stakeholders - at which stage his eyes glazed over and he ordered another cocktail.[/quote]
Is this not the real problem, Bing? We don't have a vertically integrated railway.
The track owner makes a huge expenditure, and the operators benefit.
Nobody in the rail industry is going to make improvements if there is no apparent return in it for them, unless government pays for it.
But it does for road because there are votes in roads.
On the other hand, how was the benefits of the huge expenditure of the Mt Barker Road upgrade determined?
The same merchant bankers must have had kittens, or else found the benefit of hareing up the road in their BMWs at great speed the clincher.
Neil - the KIPioneer
Hawthorn SA
|
|
|
fabricator
Deputy Commissioner
Joined: Jun 12, 2007
Last Visited: Jan 7, 2009
Location: Gawler
contact
|
post
|
|
| fabricator |
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 14, 2008 12:25 am
|
If a new route was found the be feasible, and
If funding could be found, and
If the old route were kept as a SG segment of a larger TA network,
Then it would be possible to still run the odd grain train on the old line.
Seriously, I don't think spending god knows how much on a bypass for a line that already does the job, instead of building something new (like rebuilding the line to Mt Gamber), is smart.
Downsides of the proposed bypass (eg via Barossa district)
1. Turns mainline into dead end dock, so have the detach locos and run air tests again, makes shunting trickier etc.
2. Faster speeds but longer track reduces the benefits.
3. The same amount of money spent in Victoria would achieve a shorter travel time (say by SG conversion of the original line).
|
|
|
pigeon
Station Master
Joined: Jan 14, 2007
Last Visited: Oct 10, 2008
Location: Looking for a decent photo location...
contact
|
post
|
|
| pigeon |
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 14, 2008 12:29 am
|
| bingley hall wrote: |
In the greater scheme of things the indirect nature of the current route has only minmal impact on transit times that would not be improved upon by any proposed bypass.
|
What about the cost of hauling a train over the current route versus a new flater route? When you see freight trains having to add a banker, and still struggling up the grade all the way to Mt Lofty you don't need to be a rocket scientist to figure out that kills the fuel economy.
I'd love to know roughly how much fuel is burnt in getting a train from Adelaide to Tailem Bend, compared to getting a similiar train to Port Augusta, perhaps some of the local drivers here could help out? Would give a good indication how much money (diesel) is burnt in taking a train via the current route.
| bingley hall wrote: |
Once again no one has addressed the issue of the closure of the SG Hills line and increased road traffic on the freeway and Portrush Road that would have to come with any re-routing. There is not enough traffic to justify the operation of two routes.
|
Who says the current line will be retained? Once the new route is constructed the current one would surely be closed because with perhaps the exception of the Overland, it would be more economical to go via the new route.
| fabricator wrote: | If a new route was found the be feasible, and
If funding could be found, and
If the old route were kept as a SG segment of a larger TA network,
Then it would be possible to still run the odd grain train on the old line.
Seriously, I don't think spending god knows how much on a bypass for a line that already does the job, instead of building something new (like rebuilding the line to Mt Gamber), is smart.
Downsides of the proposed bypass (eg via Barossa district)
1. Turns mainline into dead end dock, so have the detach locos and run air tests again, makes shunting trickier etc.
2. Faster speeds but longer track reduces the benefits.
3. The same amount of money spent in Victoria would achieve a shorter travel time (say by SG conversion of the original line). |
If the current line is retained, why would any operator want to run a freight train via it instead? Going via a new route would mean they'd only need two locomotives (versus 3 or 4) and would save a couple of thousand dollars in fuel, maybe more.
Also in regards to your listed downsides, understand a new route is not about saving time, its about saving fuel - which aint cheap if you haven't noticed. Also I don't understand what you mean about the dead end dock, the new route would branch off at Mallala and Monarto South and trains won't need to reverse directions.
|
|
|
Wilfy2007
Assistant Commissioner
Joined: Mar 19, 2007
Last Visited: Jan 7, 2009
Location: N.S.W.
contact
|
post
|
|
| Wilfy2007 |
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 14, 2008 6:22 am
|
| pigeon wrote: | | bingley hall wrote: |
In the greater scheme of things the indirect nature of the current route has only minmal impact on transit times that would not be improved upon by any proposed bypass.
|
What about the cost of hauling a train over the current route versus a new flater route? When you see freight trains having to add a banker, and still struggling up the grade all the way to Mt Lofty you don't need to be a rocket scientist to figure out that kills the fuel economy.
I'd love to know roughly how much fuel is burnt in getting a train from Adelaide to Tailem Bend, compared to getting a similiar train to Port Augusta, perhaps some of the local drivers here could help out? Would give a good indication how much money (diesel) is burnt in taking a train via the current route.
| bingley hall wrote: |
Once again no one has addressed the issue of the closure of the SG Hills line and increased road traffic on the freeway and Portrush Road that would have to come with any re-routing. There is not enough traffic to justify the operation of two routes.
|
Who says the current line will be retained? Once the new route is constructed the current one would surely be closed because with perhaps the exception of the Overland, it would be more economical to go via the new route.
| fabricator wrote: | If a new route was found the be feasible, and
If funding could be found, and
If the old route were kept as a SG segment of a larger TA network,
Then it would be possible to still run the odd grain train on the old line.
Seriously, I don't think spending god knows how much on a bypass for a line that already does the job, instead of building something new (like rebuilding the line to Mt Gamber), is smart.
Downsides of the proposed bypass (eg via Barossa district)
1. Turns mainline into dead end dock, so have the detach locos and run air tests again, makes shunting trickier etc.
2. Faster speeds but longer track reduces the benefits.
3. The same amount of money spent in Victoria would achieve a shorter travel time (say by SG conversion of the original line). |
If the current line is retained, why would any operator want to run a freight train via it instead? Going via a new route would mean they'd only need two locomotives (versus 3 or 4) and would save a couple of thousand dollars in fuel, maybe more.
Also in regards to your listed downsides, understand a new route is not about saving time, its about saving fuel - which aint cheap if you haven't noticed. Also I don't understand what you mean about the dead end dock, the new route would branch off at Mallala and Monarto South and trains won't need to reverse directions. |
Pigeon,Fabricator,Bingley Hall,Kipioneer, Pressman,
One of the reasons I started this thread was to get info about the pro's and con's of the consequences that would effect the Adelaide Hills line.
Yesterday I did some drawing on a Map of South Australia to see if I could improve on the route that the Mitcham Council are working on.
If a decision was made to build a bypass and the hills line was kept for emergencies/breakdowns and Port of Adelaide Freight, would it not be better to have the bypass go North West from Monteith to Tepko, then follow the old corridor to Sedan, then continue north to a Locality called Stonefield, with an opportunity for a Logistics hub for Riverland freight, west to Kapunda or perhaps Truro as a second option, then from Kapunda to the Templers area, where a half circle could be built to join up with the Burra line below Wasleys and have a new line put in from Wasleys to Mallala.
As pigeon has said using 2 Loco's instead of 3 or 4 would be a big saving in Running costs and Maintenance.
My concern would be the section from the Stonefield area to Kapunda as the range where Accommodation Hill is, is quite steep from the flats East of the range.
Part of my submission will be about this subject so if anybody has some input it would be much appreciated.
Regards,
|
|
|
David Peters
Minister for Railways
Joined: Nov 29, 2005
Last Visited: Jan 7, 2009
Location: In a black Trans Am!
contact
|
post
|
|
| David Peters |
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 14, 2008 10:43 am
|
The whole trouble with the idea is that you are spending Billions to save Thousands, the overall cost of the project would not come anywhere near the savings that you would get from less fuel, it might over 50 or more years, but it would be a big might! 
National Railway Museum member.
The opinions expressed by my me in these posts is not the opinion of the N.R.M. and should not be construed as such.
Ferroequinologist and Microferroequinologist.
Photosite http://davidpeters950.fotopic.net |
|
|
pigeon
Station Master
Joined: Jan 14, 2007
Last Visited: Oct 10, 2008
Location: Looking for a decent photo location...
contact
|
post
|
|
|
|
Pressman
Chief Commissioner
Joined: May 23, 2006
Last Visited: Jan 7, 2009
Location: anywhere between Glenbawn and Pemberton
contact
|
post
|
|
| Pressman |
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 14, 2008 11:00 am
|
Eastern side of the Mt. Lofty range, between the ranges and the River Murray is undulating land mostly. But the question is that you still have to cross the ranges somewhere, so without some massive earthworks you will still have grades to climb, curves to round.
From what I have seen all the proposed "by-pass" routes seem to be extremely sketchy when it comes to exactly where they will cross the hills.
I tend to get the impression some think that a reasonably flat route is hidden out there somewhere. The line will still have grades to climb.
Most of the eastern hills face has a a rise of over 200 metres in just one kilometre of you tackle it in an east/west direction.
Looking at google maps in terrain view, there is a valley heading north west from near Sanderton towards Eden Valley and Keyneton that could be followed. Then continue basically north thought Moculta then turning westerly crossing the Sturt Hwy between Truro and Stockwell.
There is hilly ground closer to Kapunda, maybe pass south of Kapunda across through Redbanks and joining the current line between Mallala and Two Wells.
The next area for an easy climb would be just south of Eudunda then across towards Bowmans area (a lot further north than would be prefered)
Cheers,
Tony
Still drying out the falcoon after the now imfamous creek incident!http://tony33.fotopic.net
|
|
|
pigeon
Station Master
Joined: Jan 14, 2007
Last Visited: Oct 10, 2008
Location: Looking for a decent photo location...
contact
|
post
|
|
| pigeon |
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 14, 2008 11:22 am
|
| Pressman wrote: | There is hilly ground closer to Kapunda, maybe pass south of Kapunda across through Redbanks and joining the current line between Mallala and Two Wells.
|
I've also been looking at Google Maps terrain view and get the feeling that the line would most probably run south of Kapunda, going from Mallala via Fords, St Johns, St Kitts and Frankton to Sedan.
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT + 10 Hours
|
You cannot post new threads in this forum
You cannot reply to threads in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB 2.0.6 © 2001 phpBB Group
Theme images and concept © 2004 by Michael Greenhill and Railpage, All Rights Reserved.
Version 2.0.6 of PHP-Nuke Port by Tom Nitzschner © 2002 www.toms-home.com
|
|
