| 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 31/12search |
| |
| Author |
Message |
TE2815
Minister for Railways
Joined: Mar 19, 2004
Last Visited: Dec 2, 2008
Location: Under the newsdesk !
contact
|
post
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 29, 2006 10:07 am
|
| BDA wrote: | | Bit late now but was suggested that a better idea may have been to put the coal roads over the main lines instead as they have to slow down anyway going onto the branch. |
The tonnage may have been a determining factor there. To haul a coalie up and over may have required an additional engine for just that short section whilst mainline traffic may have sufficient power for further in their journey to accommodate for the flyover.
I was actually wondering why it was designed as pylons and not a half pipe or corrugated iron type tunnel structure and back filled etc....., would be cost I supposed.
|
|
 |
Oldfart
Chief Commissioner
Joined: Jan 01, 2006
Last Visited: Dec 2, 2008
Location: 21 miles from Griffiths Bros Teas
contact
|
post
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 29, 2006 10:22 pm
|
| TheLoadedDog™ wrote: | | Is this yet another ALP re-announcement or have I missed a memo? It's just that for the last couple of years I'd assumed the Southern Freight Line was simply happening. This is as surprising to me as saying the clearways project has been approved. |
I think it is important here to distinguish between an 'announcement', a 're-announcement', an 'approval' (and for that matter, a 'policy' and a 'plan') and the relationship of all of them to something actually happening.
If something is desirable and popular enough to get you voted in, it is a 'policy'. A policy may be announced as policy, but more commonly will be announced in a manner that appears to make it sound as if it will actually happen.
If a party is voted in as the government, the public service might be directed to make a plan that reflects that policy. This plan may then be announced, but it is not a re-announcement, because the previous announcement only concerned the policy and not the plan. Note that any announcement about the policy or the plan does not imply anything is actually happening.
If a party is not voted in as the government it may make an announcement decrying the different policy of the government on the matter. This announcement is not a re-announcement as it concerns the decrying of the government's policy, not the party's own policy. However, if their policy is put up again at the next election it does constitute a re-announcement albeit only in the context of a different time frame and changed political environment.
If the plan to implement the policy might include aspects that may be unpopular to some, it is also made the subject of a separate, more detailed, announcement to facilitate 'community consultation'. This is to announce to people that the plan will not be approved until their views have been taken into account. If the period of 'consultation' is so long that another election takes place, announcements referring to it as policy and as a plan will constitute re-announcements, unless such significant changes have occurred to the policy or plan as a result of consultation or other factors as to make it effectively an announcement of the changes to that policy or plan as opposed to a re-announcement about the original policy or plan itself.
Once the extent of the unpopular aspects of the plan to implement the policy have been sufficiently announced by those who oppose it, the plan will be approved to actually happen, or be shelved. In the first case an announcement will be made that the approval has been given. If an election is looming, this may involve both an announcement of the approval of the plan and an approval to make a re-announcment of the policy. In the second case it enables the government to make an announcement that the plan is to be shelved or an announcement of their intention to alter the plan "in the interests of the community", or a re-announcement of the policy or the plan at any suitable time.
If there is some clearly identified opposition to the plan, but it is something that really should actually happen, its approval will be announced in a manner designed to minimise its adverse impact. For example, the announcement of the approval may be made by someone or some body not expected to make announcements about the issue, and may be made at a time when everyone is absorbed in other things such as just before a holiday period or when some other issues are the 'hot' news.
The announcement that approval has been given means that the plan to implement the policy will actually happen unless another announcement says that it will not. Such an announcement, of course, is not a re-announcement of the original policy or plan, but an announcement that that plan or policy will not take place, unless controverted by a further announcement concerning the issue.
Is that clear to you now , Minister?
A man of great genius makes no mistakes; his errors are volitional and become the portals of discovery (James Joyce).
|
|
|
BDA
Chief Commissioner
Joined: Oct 17, 2003
Last Visited: Dec 2, 2008
Location: Sydney
contact
|
post
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 30, 2006 9:51 am
|
|
I'd say if they can get up and over Thornton a flyover would be a piece of cake , nope we reckon they botched it .
|
|
|
cootanee
Train Controller
Joined: Apr 28, 2006
Last Visited: Dec 1, 2008
contact
|
post
|
|
|
|
Oldfart
Chief Commissioner
Joined: Jan 01, 2006
Last Visited: Dec 2, 2008
Location: 21 miles from Griffiths Bros Teas
contact
|
post
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 30, 2006 9:47 pm
|
Speaking of the SSFL: Before I start annoying Railcorp, does anyone know if they intend to add to the proposed pedestrian overbridge at Warwick Farm to be built over the SSFL by ARTC?
Background: At present, passengers disembarking on 'down' services walk straight out on the eastern side of the station. If their car is in the western car park (by far the largest) or if they live (I use the term loosely!) in Warwick Farm itself, they then walk up the adjacent stairs onto the pathway on the south side of the Hume Highway overbridge to cross the Railcorp tracks.
But the SSFL will be on the eastern side, so ARTC is putting in a pedestrian overbridge (somewhat further down the platform than the existing exit) and easy access lifts to take people from the down platform over the SSFL. But this overbridge will apparently not also extend (in the opposite direction) over the Railcorp tracks. This means passengers will need to go up and over the SSFL, then walk back some distance to the existing Hume Highway overbridge to get back up and over both the SSFL and the Railcorp tracks! It means a bit of a longer walk and crossing the SSFL twice. To the average punter it's going to look like a distinct lack of planning.
ARTC figure (probably quite rightly) that they've discharged their responsibility by providing access over 'their' SSFL, and it's Railcorp's business whether they choose to extend the new overbridge and lifts to also go over the Railcorp tracks. The last I saw, the design allowed the option of Railcorp to extend the overbridge to the western side of station, but with no indication that would actually occur in the near future or at all.
A man of great genius makes no mistakes; his errors are volitional and become the portals of discovery (James Joyce).
|
|
|
cootanee
Train Controller
Joined: Apr 28, 2006
Last Visited: Dec 1, 2008
contact
|
post
|
|
|
|
awsgc24
Minister for Railways
Joined: Feb 18, 2003
Last Visited: Dec 2, 2008
Location: Sydney, NSW
contact
|
post
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jan 11, 2007 12:47 pm
|
| Oldfart wrote: |
But the SSFL will be on the eastern side, so ARTC is putting in a pedestrian overbridge (somewhat further down the platform than the existing exit) and easy access lifts to take people from the down platform over the SSFL. But this overbridge will apparently not also extend (in the opposite direction) over the Railcorp tracks. This means passengers will need to go up and over the SSFL, then walk back some distance to the existing Hume Highway overbridge to get back up and over both the SSFL and the Railcorp tracks! It means a bit of a longer walk and crossing the SSFL twice. To the average punter it's going to look like a distinct lack of planning.
ARTC figure (probably quite rightly) that they've discharged their responsibility by providing access over 'their' SSFL, and it's Railcorp's business whether they choose to extend the new overbridge and lifts to also go over the Railcorp tracks. The last I saw, the design allowed the option of Railcorp to extend the overbridge to the western side of station, but with no indication that would actually occur in the near future or at all. |
If RailCorp gets a raw deal at Warwick Farm, then ARTC gets a raw deal elsewhere, so it balances out. At Liverpool and Campelltown, ARTC costs would be minimised if they can assume that RailCorp tracks remain as is. However, RailCorp wants a 4th platform and "Arrival Road" at Liverpool which forces ARTC into the river, while at Campbelltown RC wants the stabling yard to be expanded, streamlined and double ended, which forces ARTC into the creek and into land acquistion.
|
|
|
Oldfart
Chief Commissioner
Joined: Jan 01, 2006
Last Visited: Dec 2, 2008
Location: 21 miles from Griffiths Bros Teas
contact
|
post
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jan 11, 2007 11:13 pm
|
| cootanee wrote: | Feds/ARTC - they did a bad bad thing forcing it on poor NSW Gov
http://www.fairfieldadvance.com.au/article/2007/01/09/1540_news.html |
It's interesting how people portray things. The Council advocated all lines through Cabra going below ground level (not at their expense of course), but at least for the SSFL to do so. But to put the SSFL underground it needs to go under the east side of the adjacent roadway (to keep the path clear for the proposed underground third Railcorp platform fed from a grade separated via Granville down line) and be built using 'cut and cover' techniques. That means all of the shops on that side would effectively have to be shut down for the duration of construction (12 months +), but you didn't hear the Council tell that to the shopkeepers!
The preferred ARTC option is a surface line along the east side of Cabramatta station. They are required to excavate and make provision for the proposed underground platform (which would ultimately be underneath it). I wonder if ARTC have considered the option of excavating for the proposed platform and running the SSFL in a deep cutting at that level until Railcorp are ready to build the platform, then suggest the latter (and relocating the SSFL above it) should logically be at Railcorp expense. Meanwhile they could claim they had not disrupted the 'visual amenity' of Cabramatta with a surface line, and all without the need for disruptive tunnelling or complex ventilation systems. Might even be possible to re-instate some parking spots over the top of it.
A man of great genius makes no mistakes; his errors are volitional and become the portals of discovery (James Joyce).
|
|
|
Oldfart
Chief Commissioner
Joined: Jan 01, 2006
Last Visited: Dec 2, 2008
Location: 21 miles from Griffiths Bros Teas
contact
|
post
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jan 11, 2007 11:28 pm
|
| awsgc24 wrote: |
If RailCorp gets a raw deal at Warwick Farm, then ARTC gets a raw deal elsewhere, so it balances out. At Liverpool and Campelltown, ARTC costs would be minimised if they can assume that RailCorp tracks remain as is. However, RailCorp wants a 4th platform and "Arrival Road" at Liverpool which forces ARTC into the river, while at Campbelltown RC wants the stabling yard to be expanded, streamlined and double ended, which forces ARTC into the creek and into land acquistion. |
I see what you mean, but the Warwick Farm 'only-half-an-overbridge' thing will be really obvious to, and almost certainly really irritate, lots of passengers. So they (probably Railcorp more than ARTC) will wear the political flak. If it was a quiet place it might be different, but it (and Holsworthy) are essentially Liverpool's major Park-n-Ride stations. Most will probably ask why they just didn't run some stairs up to the existing overbridge. If told it was to provide easy access lifts, their reply will be that with no third lift (or stairs) on the western side of the tracks, disabled people parked on that side still won't be able to get back to their vehicle from the down platform.
A man of great genius makes no mistakes; his errors are volitional and become the portals of discovery (James Joyce).
|
|
|
cootanee
Train Controller
Joined: Apr 28, 2006
Last Visited: Dec 1, 2008
contact
|
post
|
|
|
|
awsgc24
Minister for Railways
Joined: Feb 18, 2003
Last Visited: Dec 2, 2008
Location: Sydney, NSW
contact
|
post
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 7:43 pm
|
| Oldfart wrote: |
... but the Warwick Farm 'only-half-an-overbridge' thing will be really obvious to, and almost certainly really irritate, lots of passengers.
|
The good people at Gordon must be blind, for the easy access upgrade does NOT provide wheelchair access on the eastern side. The two ramps on the east are connected to the concourse by a dozen steps.
So maybe the good people of WF will not notice either!?
|
|
|
Oldfart
Chief Commissioner
Joined: Jan 01, 2006
Last Visited: Dec 2, 2008
Location: 21 miles from Griffiths Bros Teas
contact
|
post
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 15, 2007 8:34 am
|
An interesting and unusually positive/neutral article about the SSFL on page 10 of the Wed 11 April 2007 edition of the Liverpool City Champion. Nona Marchetta, in an article entitled "No more clickety-clack track" suggests that Liverpool residents would notice a reduction in noise as a result of the construction of the line.
The article goes on to describe a public meeting held by ARTC and distinguishes their responsibilities from those of Railcorp. It mentions the construction of noise barriers and notes that the SSFL will enable freight to move during peak times. It comments on the alterations to several railway stations along the route and states that the new track will be constructed of "endless rail, with no breaks in the line which bring out that clickety-clack sound". It finishes by saying that, "Liverpool MP Paul Lynch , who has in the past expressed concerns regarding the project, said he hoped all would be as optimistic and positive as the Commission (sic) made it out to be".
|
|
|
awsgc24
Minister for Railways
Joined: Feb 18, 2003
Last Visited: Dec 2, 2008
Location: Sydney, NSW
contact
|
post
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 12, 2008 11:59 am
|
| SundayTelegraph wrote: |
New Rail on Track for Fight.
"slice through"
"divide communities"
"lower property values"
"noise and vibration"
"cut through four council areas"
"move freight round the clock"
"90 trains per day"
"free up passenger lines for commuter trains"
"4m high barriers will divide communities"
"noise walls cheap and ugly"
"new line should be put underground (like harbour tunnel)"
"by election issue"
|
|
|
|
cootanee
Train Controller
Joined: Apr 28, 2006
Last Visited: Dec 1, 2008
contact
|
post
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
(NSW providing a licence for ARTC to build SSFL subject to necessary approvals)
Should have just sold this as improvement to the existing rail line which would facilitate running freight trains during peak-time…