Tasmanian rail in the media

 

Sponsored advertisement

  jbom Station Master

http://www.theadvocate.com.au/story/380169/rail-way-of-future-for-state/?cs=87

probably just something to fill the paper with, but one can dream
  Amraks Junior Train Controller

http://www.theadvocate.com.au/story/380169/rail-way-of-future-for-state/?cs=87probably just something to fill the paper with, but one can dream
"jbom"



West of Burnie has so many possibilities.

fork off of existing track at the wynyard station to west of the wynyard airport for the new industrial sub divisions, its quite possible to do it now if they by up some land then sell the excess.

Also they could have rail shooting off the west to the silica plant and other industrial along Stennings road.

One could only dream though.
  jbom Station Master


http://www.infomine.com/index/pr/PB284550.PDF

Not sure if this is seperate to what has been spoken of on this forum or just an update

  tasrailfan Locomotive Fireman


I see into todays Examiner 16/3/13 there's a notice that the Bellbay line will be recomencing train operations as of Tuesday 19/3/13.

Very Happy
  derwentparkjunc Chief Train Controller


Is this for log traffic from the south of the state?

Cheers,

DPJ

  DQ2004 Chief Commissioner

Location: Hobart -where the rain has lumps in it

http://www.themercury.com.au/article/2013/03/17/374782_opinion.html



Regards,

Toby

  12CSVT Chief Commissioner

Location: Drowning in accreditation red tape!



http://www.themercury.com.au/article/2013/03/17/374782_opinion.html

Regards,

Toby

"DQ2004"


Great article Toby. Glad you got an invite from the 'Mercury' to put a counter argument to Bob Cotgrove's discredited 1950's fixated anti-rail ideological rant published in last weeks 'Sunday Tasmanian'.

It never fails to aggravate me that Cotgove's retarded opinions get published over and over again (I don't even know why UTAS even employ such an acedemic pygmy!). Finally, someone with a bit of common sense got a chance to put an alternative opinion!

Thanks for your contribution. I hope the 'Mercury' call on you again to contribute some SENSIBLE comment on the economic value of rail!

P.S. My only point of contention is the push by FTT for re-instating passenger services Hbt-Lton-Bnie. I believe that would only be practicable if the Main South Line was deviated via the Jordan River valley between Brighton and Antill Ponds. I think if FTT agitated for that on the basis of speeding up freight (the real cash cow), a viable statewide passenger proposal would inevitably follow.



  DQ2004 Chief Commissioner

Location: Hobart -where the rain has lumps in it



Great article Toby. Glad you got an invite from the 'Mercury' to put a counter argument to Bob Cotgrove's discredited 1950's fixated anti-rail ideological rant published in last weeks 'Sunday Tasmanian'.

It never fails to aggravate me that Cotgove's retarded opinions get published over and over again (I don't even know why UTAS even employ such an acedemic pygmy!). Finally, someone with a bit of common sense got a chance to put an alternative opinion!

Thanks for your contribution. I hope the 'Mercury' call on you again to contribute some SENSIBLE comment on the economic value of rail!

P.S. My only point of contention is the push by FTT for re-instating passenger services Hbt-Lton-Bnie. I believe that would only be practicable if the Main South Line was deviated via the Jordan River valley between Brighton and Antill Ponds. I think if FTT agitated for that on the basis of speeding up freight (the real cash cow), a viable statewide passenger proposal would inevitably follow.

"12CSVT"



Thanks 12CSVT.  Actually they didn't invite us to respond, in fact I asked them if we could! Very glad that they said yes.  Its always tricky with a word limit like that because there's always more that could be said!  Our submissions to the Legislative Council inquiry and the Light Rail Business case, for example, were both about 6,000 words!


We'll keep pushing to get our contributions in, of course.

Re Hobart - Launceston, our key principle around this is because of the proposal to put four lanes on the Midland Highway.  If that wasn't out there as an agenda then we wouldn't be bothering with it.  Damien of TasRail has previously told us that if the line was deviated (on a large scale or with a series of deviations), that it would not make much difference to TasRail's freight market.  Of course, it should make a difference to their maintenance and operational flexibility, but perhaps the cost is not worth the gain for them.  Hopefully in time the freight quantities carried by TasRail will continue to grow thus justifying that as a consideration on it's own, regardless of any highway proposals.

Kind regards,
Toby

  12CSVT Chief Commissioner

Location: Drowning in accreditation red tape!



Re Hobart - Launceston, . Damien of TasRail has previously told us that if the line was deviated (on a large scale or with a series of deviations), that it would not make much difference to TasRail's freight market. .
"DQ2004"


Yes, that is probably right with respect to Tasrails current and immediately prospected market. However, if the main South Line and Western Line were brought up to the standard capable of sustained speeds of 115kph + (as per the mainland), then a whole new level of potential market would open for Tasrail, with the full range of heavy articulated truck traffic then being contestable, as trucks would lose their speed advantage and only have door to door delivery to advantage them. Additionally intrastate passenger services would then be viable as well.

Of course, to get the Main South Line to that sort of speed capability, I contend that would only be achievable by a Jordan River deviation, as the current Brighton - Antill Ponds section, I think is incapable of being brough up to 100kph capability - though some may have an argument that it could - if so, I would like to see it!

  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE





Re Hobart - Launceston, . Damien of TasRail has previously told us that if the line was deviated (on a large scale or with a series of deviations), that it would not make much difference to TasRail's freight market. .

"DQ2004"


Yes, that is probably right with respect to Tasrails current and immediately prospected market. However, if the main South Line and Western Line were brought up to the standard capable of sustained speeds of 115kph + (as per the mainland), then a whole new level of potential market would open for Tasrail, with the full range of heavy articulated truck traffic then being contestable, as trucks would lose their speed advantage and only have door to door delivery to advantage them. Additionally intrastate passenger services would then be viable as well.

Of course, to get the Main South Line to that sort of speed capability, I contend that would only be achievable by a Jordan River deviation, as the current Brighton - Antill Ponds section, I think is incapable of being brough up to 100kph capability - though some may have an argument that it could - if so, I would like to see it!

"12CSVT"


115km/hr! 100 would be more than enough and 115 is for SG, we are talking NG in Tassie, Qld is 100km/hr max on straight track with concrete sleepers. For heavy mineral its 80 pretty much everywhere. I believe there have been numerous studies that indicate freights with an average speed of 80-90km/hr is typically optimum. For Tasrail, its not about the top speed its the average speed. Focus on the low speeds, they are the real money burners, but otherwise 80km/hr for NG on steel sleepers and average weight rail is probably the most cost effective outcome.

Think about the difference between 100 capable and 80, its not much and over 300km, you still spend more time loading and unloading the train the driving it. I heavily doubt there is a viable freight market for rail to get goods from Hobart to L'ton in 2hr, 3hr to BB or NW coast in 3-4hr. This is really the home of the door to door truck express delivery market.

  12CSVT Chief Commissioner

Location: Drowning in accreditation red tape!



115km/hr! 100 would be more than enough and 115 is for SG, we are talking NG in Tassie, Qld is 100km/hr max on straight track with concrete sleepers. For heavy mineral its 80 pretty much everywhere. I believe there have been numerous studies that indicate freights with an average speed of 80-90km/hr is typically optimum. For Tasrail, its not about the top speed its the average speed. Focus on the low speeds, they are the real money burners, but otherwise 80km/hr for NG on steel sleepers and average weight rail is probably the most cost effective outcome.

Think about the difference between 100 capable and 80, its not much and over 300km, you still spend more time loading and unloading the train the driving it. I heavily doubt there is a viable freight market for rail to get goods from Hobart to L'ton in 2hr, 3hr to BB or NW coast in 3-4hr. This is really the home of the door to door truck express delivery market.

"RTT_Rules"


Judging future needs by current standards is whats plagued Australia's retarded railway development since the beginning. By the time there was any serious prospect of getting Tasmania rail network speed average up to the 100kmh mark (the prospects of that are years in the future), the standard gauge network should (hopefully) have advanced to a standard where average speeds have got to the 140kmh mark, hence considering that sort of speed improvement on narrow gauge (whether here or Queensland) as unrealistic is short-sighted. Continuous far sighted and ambitious improvements will act like a magnet to traffic growth to rail, whilst the heavy truck industry crumbles under fair competition and the eventual loss of its years of feather-bedded subsidised advantage.

Most other transport modes have always encouraged visionarys that seek radical future improvements. Rail (in this country especially) has a bad history of regressively resisting radical improvement, remaining satisfied with minor improvements on current restrictive standards. Hence, the sorry history of rail "advancement" in Australia, includes pathetic developments such as;
* the failure to correct the gauge muddle prior to the turn of the century;
* utilisation of ludicrously light rail for years beyond which it was already causing issues with axle-loads (still an issue today);
* long sleeper spacings and minimal if any ballast;
* bridges that would hardly hold up a wheelbarrow;
* the continued forced utilisation of light and feeble locomotives due to the incapability of addressing the points above (again, still an issue today);
* the failure to replace light and weak steam locomotives years after they were totally obsolete;
* the concurrent excessively long utilisation of light, useless 4 wheel wagons anywhere from decades to over half a century from when they should have been banished to history;
* resultant, short, light and inefficent trains and short and useless loops;
* a restrictive loading gauge in far too many parts of the country;
* dieselisation and the elimination of steam at least 20 years after diesels were proven as viable motive power;
........and the list goes on.

Admittedly, there were some rare visionarys in the historic rail industry, such as S.A.R.'s Webb and V.R.'s Clapp. However, these men's efforts were generally stymied by Australia's conservative political system and blind adherence to 'Mother Britain'.

The issues with Australia's regressive rail development is a matter of history and been well explained by the culture of Australia at the time. However, there is no excuse to remain in that mindset these days - at least from the rail industry itself.

My hope is if any of the Inland rail proposals ever get up, the minimum standards should be full U.S. standard axle loadings, loading guage and provision for at least 140kph for freight (regardless whether it was initially needed) and those standards eventually work their way throughout the rest of the D.I.R.N.

Thus my ambitions for the eventual transformation of the Tasmanian network. Realistically, I will probably not see it in my lifetime, but it's a worthwhile aspiration.

  BP4417 Deputy Commissioner

Location: Launceston, Tasmania
In the latest RACT magasine "Journeys" there is an article " Toll commits to the Brighton Freight Hub" Towards the bottom of the article it states " From a road safety perspective the the potential for incidents for railway level crossings between Bridgewater and Hobart will also be eliminated". It appears the RACT don't want any sort of rail connection between the Port and Bridgewater. The RACT has a blog regarding what should happen at Maquarie Point at http://www.ract.com.au/blog/default.aspx. All light rail supporters should leave comment at this website . They should also lobby that all level crossings be returned to the DIER department that looks after roads as it used to be before rail privatisation.
  kettle8632 Train Controller

Location: latrobe tasmania
In the latest RACT magasine "Journeys" there is an article " Toll commits to the Brighton Freight Hub" Towards the bottom of the article it states " From a road safety perspective the the potential for incidents for railway level crossings between Bridgewater and Hobart will also be eliminated". It appears the RACT don't want any sort of rail connection between the Port and Bridgewater. The RACT has a blog regarding what should happen at Maquarie Point at http://www.ract.com.au/blog/default.aspx. All light rail supporters should leave comment at this website . They should also lobby that all level crossings be returned to the DIER department that looks after roads as it used to be before rail privatisation.
BP4417
Surely if they get the go ahead to construct a light rail system, all road interfaces will have barriers and lights? I know this won't totally stop motorist and pedestrian abuse, unless they use full barriers.
  derwentparkjunc Chief Train Controller

[BP4417
In the latest RACT magasine "Journeys" there is an article " Toll commits to the Brighton Freight Hub" Towards the bottom of the article it states " From a road safety perspective the the potential for incidents for railway level crossings between Bridgewater and Hobart will also be eliminated". It appears the RACT don't want any sort of rail connection between the Port and Bridgewater. The RACT has a blog regarding what should happen at Maquarie Point at http://www.ract.com.au/blog/default.aspx. All light rail supporters should leave comment at this website . They should also lobby that all level crossings be returned to the DIER department that looks after roads as it used to be before rail privatisation.
Posted: 29 Mar 2013 09:56]

The comment about level crossings in the article came from Minister O'Byrne's office when the RACT sought clarification of some of the remarks included in the Minister's press release re announcement of the Toll/TasRail deal.
This comment about the road safety benefits of eliminating level crossing incidents between Bridgewater and Hobart is probably a combination of the minister & his office talking up the wider benefits of the Brighton Hub plus a reflection of his alleged  attitude towards the potential future for passenger rail operations in this section of track.

Interesting also that in the same edition of 'Journeys' there is an article on the Light Rail Roundtable recently held at Moorilla.
Another reference to 'rail' comes in the Street-Smart section on the topic of the fuel excise paid by motorists - this is asking members of the public how much of the billions collected is returned as investment in road & rail.

Cheers,

DPJ
  Peter-Hem Locomotive Driver

Location: Tassie
I heard on the radio today that there was a derailment somewhere between Campania and Colebrook last night. Aparrenly tanks of phosphoric acid were spilled in the crash.
  Z1NorthernProgress2110 Chief Commissioner

Location: Burnie, Tasmania
Tanktainer with Phoshoric Acid and two containers with Sodium Hyposulphite.
  tasstockau Station Staff

Probably as a result of the derailment ZBs 2128 and 2122 ran to Hobart at 1730 today with 4 wagons of what looked like paper. After a bit of shunting they left again LE at 1800.  

there are approximately 40 loaded wagons in Hobart ready to head north.

Phil L
  benscaro Chief Commissioner

* the concurrent excessively long utilisation of light, useless 4 wheel wagons anywhere from decades to over half a century from when they should have been banished to history;
12CSVT

why do 4-wheel wagons always get it?  modern 4-wheelers perform well every day on the lines where i live in the UK at far higher speeds than most aussie goods trains, and carry heavy loads.  

if 4 wheelers can cut the mustard in a country with a proper rail system, as agin the fact that they don't seem to cut it in one without a proper rail system, well you may start by looking at the thinking of the folks in the place without the proper rail system and ask what incipient level of crudness in their practices might be underlying the problems ... before blaming something which works perfectly well elsewhere.  

one gripe about 4-wheelers in SA was that they were harder to recover than bogie wagons after derailments.  now, is this a fault of 4-wheel wagons, or is the fault of a rail administration which seems to regard trains hitting the dirt every week as acceptable?

the issue, as with just about everything to do with australian rail, is not the wagons but bad track. whether with rails at different widths, or no ballast, or 100 year old rails, or which wanders over the countryside on inane alignments ... but most everything about australian rail's failures has you pointing down to the track. they couldn't even get the adelaide - melbourne standardisation right.

as for a modern 4 wheeler on good track, well, AN's AQUY was described on here by ex-AN staff as 'a beaut little wagon' with incredible performance in its testing phase. albeit it was not a route they decided to go down, but if they had, there was no mechanical impediment to continued high performance. not everything consigned on rail needs a bogie wagon.
  12CSVT Chief Commissioner

Location: Drowning in accreditation red tape!
The sort of archaic, rigid, light-weight, slow speed 4 wheel wagons I was criticizing were light years away from the modern high speed 4 wheelers popular in Europe. The TGR 'A', 'C' and 'E' type wagons were realistically technologically obsolete by WW1 and should have gone the same way as most of the TMLR stock in the 1920 / 30's. The Grover bogie was a vain attempt to modernise 4 wheelers, but their success was questionable.

I agree totally, Australian historic track standards are generally unsuitable for 4 wheel wagons and the only reason they were persisted with was the slavish devotion to British practice, regardless of the fundamental difference in quality of rail infrastructure. Even now, the continued usage of 4 wheelers in Britain and Europe, on highly engineered permanent way, in a passenger focussed network with short, light freight trains, has little relevance to any potential that they could ever be, or ever were, relevant in the Australian context.

Yes the AQUY had potential to succeed, but in the end it didn't fit in with the increasing tendency of Australian trains to follow American practice of long heavy trains of several thousand tonnes, increasingly utilising rolling stock featuring articulation and double stack capacity or high cubic volume.

Had Australia tended to imitate Canada and the U.S. (whose crudeness of rail engineering was more akin to Australia) rather than continue its blind devotion to 'Mother England', heavier track, longer & heavier trains of pure bogie stock and larger locomotives would have see the Australian rail network stay far more effective and efficient from the Depression to the modern day and have possibly given the road industry less scope to plague the nations roads with outrageously heavy and destructive road crushing monoliths.
  wackywheelz Beginner

Location: Launceston
Another derailment today :/

http://www.examiner.com.au/story/1960836/train-derailment-at-hagley/?cs=95
  lkernan Deputy Commissioner

Location: Melbourne
Another derailment today :/

http://www.examiner.com.au/story/1960836/train-derailment-at-hagley/?cs=95
wackywheelz

According to Tasrail's Facebook page, possibly just one wagon off.  Blocking Station Lane at Hagley.
  muzza86 Station Staff

According to Tasrail's Facebook page, possibly just one wagon off.  Blocking Station Lane at Hagley.
lkernan
Paper train back running went through Perth at 19.30 heading too Western Junction
  muzza86 Station Staff

Paper train back running went through Perth at 19.30 heading too Western Junction
muzza86
Coal Train heading too Railton through Perth at 20.10

Sponsored advertisement

Display from:   

Quick Reply

We've disabled Quick Reply for this thread as it was last updated more than six months ago.