http://www.forkliftaction.com/news/newsdisplay.aspx?nwid=11388&nwtype=411&counter=yes&usid=79803&neid=562

Yep - this was on the TV the other day. On the cards for a while (pops up every so often in the SSFL thread).
During SSFL planning approvals provision for a connection was removed !

From SMH...
"TODAY the federal  government is to   announce the go-ahead for a $1.6  billion freight terminal in south-west Sydney that  is expected to take   thousands of trucks a day off  the city's  roads.

Freight will be transferred from trucks onto trains at the  terminal in   Moorebank, from where it will be taken  to  Port Botany, reducing the number of   truck trips by 3300 a day.

The Infrastructure Minister, Anthony Albanese, and the Finance Minister,  Penny Wong, will announce plans this morning to call for tenders for the  project."

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/freight-terminal-will-cut-thousands-of-truck-trips-20120422-1xf57.html#ixzz1tEL5lvxi

 

If they are finally going ahead with this then whats the point of the Enfield expansion?

If they ant to add more tracks with that fine but they are doing an intermodal terminal also

Does Sydney really need two more Intermodal facilities ?

If they are finally going ahead with this then whats the point of the Enfield expansion?

If they ant to add more tracks with that fine but they are doing an intermodal terminal also

Does Sydney really need two more Intermodal facilities ?

A city the size of Sydney - yes. Possibly another further south (double stacking?). And one in the West as well.

Remember that the nations freight is supposed to double by 2020. Imagine if its simply put on trucks.

Besides it's going to be a bit hard to do in 20 - 50 years time if the land goes over to housing - not that it's that easy to build these things now

Why exactly is the freight task going to double by 2020.
Is the countries population going to double by then or will the existing population
simply start buying twice as much stuff.
Most of the freight task doubling will be mineral exports which will increase
but thats already carried by rail.

Why exactly is the freight task going to double by 2020.
Is the countries population going to double by then or will the existing population
simply start buying twice as much stuff.
Most of the freight task doubling will be mineral exports which will increase
but thats already carried by rail.

"Twice as much sounds" about right

Look around your house,kitchen and work and see how many recent items you can find that are not imported.  All that stuff has to fit in a container somewhow which may or may not have come by train.

Apparently coating rice in choclate is too difficult for Sunrice and they either export rice by train to germany who dip it in choc and send it back to AUS or thats all too difficult in itself and the grain is coming from who knows where and it the product is being imported outright.
I mention this example as rice is rail or container traffic here.

Australian business is turning into value add where its a 'couple of blokes' in an office who just push paper and bring in goods from overseas. Thats not neccesilary bad if it has flow on to other industres which results in intermodal things like this thread.

Enfield itself was never going to become houses but it is surrounded by houses on every side except for some strips of light commercial on the edges.

I cannot think of any precdent where there is a signfiicant intermodal facility close to housing. All the famous facilities I can think of locally and inernationally are in industrial zones or no-mans land simply due to the space needed which obviously is not avalible in built up urban areas.

Yes I realise Enfield is currently a shadow of its former self but it didnt exactly have trucks lining up at the door 50yrs ago.  I live in the area for some time and until recently I did not even know cars were unloaded in Enfield yard until people mentioned it/photos.

Moorebank has always been an heavy commercial/industrial area and has slightly better road links in capacity than the suburbs, it will be interesting to see how they manage the rail connection and how many trains end up servicing the facililty.

Where exactly is this new terminal going to be? As far as I can tell Moorebank is on the opposite side of the Georges River from the Main South and the SSFL. Are they really going to install another expensive bridge over the river just for a railway yard? Arent there any other places that would not need such expensive infrastructure?

Why exactly is the freight task going to double by 2020.
Is the countries population going to double by then or will the existing population
simply start buying twice as much stuff.
Most of the freight task doubling will be mineral exports which will increase
but thats already carried by rail.

Oops my mistake

2030

http://www.infrastructureaustralia.gov.au/freight/

Where exactly is this new terminal going to be? As far as I can tell Moorebank is on the opposite side of the Georges River from the Main South and the SSFL. Are they really going to install another expensive bridge over the river just for a railway yard? Arent there any other places that would not need such expensive infrastructure?

Lets see if I can Google this...

OK bit more looking around...

Yep...

Well I guess you can start here - has maps too...

http://www.minister.infrastructure.gov.au/aa/releases/2012/April/aa068_2012.aspx

Where exactly is this new terminal going to be? As far as I can tell Moorebank is on the opposite side of the Georges River from the Main South and the SSFL. Are they really going to install another expensive bridge over the river just for a railway yard? Arent there any other places that would not need such expensive infrastructure?

The Moorebank site is long in the North South direction and short in the East West direction.

Just as the Bow Bowing Creek was deviated near Macquarie Fields to eliminate two separate bridges, the same creek could be deviated around the Morebank site, eliminating the two aforesaid bridges.

You then choose which is cheaper, the creek deviation or the bridge(s).

There are not a lot of alternative sites to Morebank that are
* large
* long and capable of handling 1800m trains.
* levelish
* reasonably away from houses
* near a freight only line such as SSFL
* reasonbly close to Botany and Enfield
* already in government ownership
* bridge(s) across creeks are the least of our worries. See flyovers at Glenfield.

Impressive and massive facililty, bet its opened by official car and not official train though.

Curious they did not connect it with the east hills line, the tracks literatly touch it, or make a complete loop out of the facililty same reason. Or did they literatly not want anything to do with any back ways/short cuts since they have the SSFL now ?

Grade of the junction looks interesting

The PDF is a bit clearer but not so much, can't tell which roads or not have been claimed for the project, was looking for Greenhills avenue and there abouts in the blurry maps.

Where exactly is this new terminal going to be? As far as I can tell Moorebank is on the opposite side of the Georges River from the Main South and the SSFL. Are they really going to install another expensive bridge over the river just for a railway yard? Arent there any other places that would not need such expensive infrastructure?

The Moorebank site is long in the North South direction and short in the East West direction.

Just as the Bow Bowing Creek was deviated near Macquarie Fields to eliminate two separate bridges, the same creek could be deviated around the Morebank site, eliminating the two aforesaid bridges.

You then choose which is cheaper, the creek deviation or the bridge(s).

There are not a lot of alternative sites to Morebank that are
* large
* long and capable of handling 1800m trains.
* levelish
* reasonably away from houses
* near a freight only line such as SSFL
* reasonbly close to Botany and Enfield
* already in government ownership
* bridge(s) across creeks are the least of our worries. See flyovers at Glenfield.

Where are these sites?

From what I see of the location I doubt if there is going to be that many really affected by it. Certainly those on the western side of the SSFL may be worse affected but surelly the installation of barriers would block much of the noise.

Given that those home were/are built within reasonable proximity to the main southern line there were/are always going to get rail noise anyway. Those on the Wattle Grove side should not be all that adversly affected either, as that land should be readily able to have a natural noise barrier built.

That whole area used to be used for night time operations by the army including munitions firing as well as the large mechanical excavations schools worked in there. Used to laugh with the old army adage of dig a hole & then transport land fill to it & fill it up, then move a hundred yards & dig another hole & move that overburden to the previously dug hole.

The big thing with it is to get the trucks & congestion off the SWMotorway, but in time it will be back.  In the end I agree with others who say that there will be a need for another terminal in Sydney besides Moorebank & Enfield. 

Problem is where to locate it.  Given that most of the main Industrial areas are on the SW/Western edges of Sydney, its going to get harder to find suitable sites for one especially without a new rail access to it, & recreating the heavy truck on metro roads scenario that this terminal is trying to cover.

Looks like the site incorporates the School Of Military Engineering, Golf Course & a heap of older Military Areas. None of these areas were used as bomb practice ranges to my knowledge although I have a few fond memories of the area.
Regards,
Pradnapper.   

Looks like the site incorporates the School Of Military Engineering, Golf Course & a heap of older Military Areas. None of these areas were used as bomb practice ranges to my knowledge although I have a few fond memories of the area.
Regards,
Pradnapper.   

The munitions that were used were not bomb practice sites.  When at school that area was used by cadet camps, along with some other deeper bush areas, especially for the first bivuacs for new intakes.  Likewise during the Vietnam era, it was not unusual to be going past the area, & hear weapony & see the gun flashes.

The Engineering sections tended to be on a flat area on the eastern side of the creek roughly where the main line came off the main straight & into the Casula S curve.

Impressive and massive facililty, bet its opened by official car and not official train though.

Curious they did not connect it with the east hills line, the tracks literatly touch it, or make a complete loop out of the facililty same reason. Or did they literatly not want anything to do with any back ways/short cuts since they have the SSFL now ?

Grade of the junction looks interesting

The PDF is a bit clearer but not so much, can't tell which roads or not have been claimed for the project, was looking for Greenhills avenue and there abouts in the blurry maps.

East hills line is not a freight line. it is a line for passenger rail.

this site near moorebank is not really near housing. between wattle grove and this facility is already an industrial complex and army facilities.

Also for someone suggesting that the creek could be diverted. How about we try calling that creek by it's proper name which is the Georges River. That whole area is a flood zone so putting a freight terminal in there instead of housing makes sense.

This could assist in freeing up the m5 east from it's nightmares during peak hour.

Impressive and massive facililty, bet its opened by official car and not official train though.

Curious they did not connect it with the east hills line, the tracks literatly touch it, or make a complete loop out of the facililty same reason. Or did they literatly not want anything to do with any back ways/short cuts since they have the SSFL now ?

Grade of the junction looks interesting

The PDF is a bit clearer but not so much, can't tell which roads or not have been claimed for the project, was looking for Greenhills avenue and there abouts in the blurry maps.

East hills line is not a freight line. it is a line for passenger rail.

this site near moorebank is not really near housing. between wattle grove and this facility is already an industrial complex and army facilities.

Also for someone suggesting that the creek could be diverted. How about we try calling that creek by it's proper name which is the Georges River. That whole area is a flood zone so putting a freight terminal in there instead of housing makes sense.

This could assist in freeing up the m5 east from it's nightmares during peak hour.

The M5 East was built to alleviate truck movements along Stony Creek Rd, from Beverly Hills to Bexley. I was selected as the Paymaster for the M5 East Project by the project managers but I rejected their offer at the time.

It will be interesting when they build the Intermodal Terminal as Cambridge Rd Causeway floods during heavy rain and the M5 will be the only entrance/exit to the site. I hope they put in a good traffic management plan in the EIS but knowing this Federal Labor Government, they will stuff it up.

It will be interesting when they build the Intermodal Terminal as Cambridge Rd Causeway floods during heavy rain and the M5 will be the only entrance/exit to the site. I hope they put in a good traffic management plan in the EIS but knowing this Federal Labor Government, they will stuff it up.

What has planning work for the M5 got to do with Federal Labor? 

It will be interesting when they build the Intermodal Terminal as Cambridge Rd Causeway floods during heavy rain and the M5 will be the only entrance/exit to the site. I hope they put in a good traffic management plan in the EIS but knowing this Federal Labor Government, they will stuff it up.

What has planning work for the M5 got to do with Federal Labor? 

I would somehow think that the road works associated with the terminal would also be part of the Federal infrastructure funding for it. Although there would be likely more of a shared arrangement with input from the State for RTA planning for the associated works. Which is a potential bottle neck between state coalition & federal Labor.  Just have to hope not.

The question would be as far as the flood plane is concerned would be "how much is this an obstacle to the terminal?" 

well there has been talk of a new bridge at cambridge road over the georges river for some time. Also there has also been talk of a road called the george river parkway. on my street directory it shows it being started on the western side of the causeway. But it would be better started at the end of moorebank avenue I believe.

Where exactly is this new terminal going to be? As far as I can tell Moorebank is on the opposite side of the Georges River from the Main South and the SSFL. Are they really going to install another expensive bridge over the river just for a railway yard? Arent there any other places that would not need such expensive infrastructure?

The Moorebank site is long in the North South direction and short in the East West direction.

Just as the Bow Bowing Creek was deviated near Macquarie Fields to eliminate two separate bridges, the same creek could be deviated around the Morebank site, eliminating the two aforesaid bridges.

You then choose which is cheaper, the creek deviation or the bridge(s).

There are not a lot of alternative sites to Morebank that are
* large
* long and capable of handling 1800m trains.
* levelish
* reasonably away from houses
* near a freight only line such as SSFL
* reasonbly close to Botany and Enfield
* already in government ownership
* bridge(s) across creeks are the least of our worries. See flyovers at Glenfield.

One might add:

* Access to major roads such as M5 and M7.

The diagrams show::

* triangular connection to SSFL probably of 200m radius
* the triangle appears to be partly over the river
* 2 or 3 long (1800m ? ) sidings
* 6 or 7 short (750m ? ) sidings
* the artist impression is unclear, but these sidings seems to be deadends.
* this means that an 1500m/1800m Melbourne-Brisbane train pausing at Moorebank would have to be pulled in or pulled out in a Top & Tailed fashion

Since the SSFL is  segregated and presumably reliable, the need to divert freighters via the East Hills line would be small.

Here is hopefully a clearer diagram:
http://www.finance.gov.au/property/property/moorebank-intermodal-freight-terminal/images/concept-plan-drawing-fullsize.gif
click the image...

Looking at the diagram from Arctic, from what I can see the whole setup should work ok, & while it appears to be a reliance on dead end roads, I would think that the programing of trains would be based on a push - pull setup, which would mean it should work quite ok. 

I do wonder though about having the areas as seperate as they are which would mean a fair bit of internal cross movements of handling rigs & competing with semi's

It will be interesting when they build the Intermodal Terminal as Cambridge Rd Causeway floods during heavy rain and the M5 will be the only entrance/exit to the site. I hope they put in a good traffic management plan in the EIS but knowing this Federal Labor Government, they will stuff it up.

What has planning work for the M5 got to do with Federal Labor? 

More ammo for the terrorgraph.

I didn't know MPs were also civil engineers  

The diagrams show::

* triangular connection to SSFL probably of 200m radius
* the triangle appears to be partly over the river
* 2 or 3 long (1800m ? ) sidings
* 6 or 7 short (750m ? ) sidings
* the artist impression is unclear, but these sidings seems to be deadends.
* this means that an 1500m/1800m Melbourne-Brisbane train pausing at Moorebank would have to be pulled in or pulled out in a Top & Tailed fashion

Since the SSFL is  segregated and presumably reliable, the need to divert freighters via the East Hills line would be small.

There appear to be some very short sidings on the river side of the tracks leading to the 1800m sidings that may be for wagon repair, etc.

The 1800m sidings seem to have headshunts for running around.

One wonders what the speed of the trains in and out. 200m radius curves can be up to 40--60km/h, signalling permitting.

Sharp curves do of course make for more symphonetical wheel squeel.
Think of :
* 200m curves at Wollstonecraft.
* 200m curve on triangle at Homebush-North Strathfield
* 160m curve at Botton Points Zig Zag
* 220m & 240m curves on Cowan Bank


Can long trains be divided to  go into the short sidings  (and visa versa) withot blocking the SSFL or the triangle?

I wonder  how many Train Movements will happen on a daily basis in and out of the Terminal?