Moot point to why the overland probably does badly as well......
Why does that make a difference? What if the goods were going to Darwin or Perth?
What does a little extra time for 50 containers in one session make the route unviable?
Why does that make a difference? What if the goods were going to Darwin or Perth?The Overland is the passenger train which GSR operate between Melbourne and Adelaide. I think speedemon08 means that by going via Ballarat again, there is potential to pick up more patronage as the train would be travelling through a more densely populated area. His post has nothing to do with container trains, or trains to Darwin or Perth.
What does a little extra time for 50 containers in one session make the route unviable?
Business plan released today - warning 17 MB: http://economicdevelopment.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/1191428/Murray-Basin-Rail-Project-Business-Case.pdf
Short Summary here: http://economicdevelopment.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/1191429/Murray-Basin-Rail-Project-Summary-Brochure.pdf
Basically the Vic Govt wants Option 4 (Dual Gauge Dunolly to Geelong via Ballarat) with Maryborough- Ararat also reopened for traffic to Portland.
I suppose it now comes down to the demand of 'Show Me the Money!"
There's a very long section of track to become dual gauge (Dunolly - Geelong); isn't broad gauge speed-restricted on dual gauge tracks because of the risk of a brake block obstructing the gap? Why not just bite the bullet and convert the whole section to standard gauge if that's the case.For Ballarat to Maryborough the issue is the need to keep BG access for passenger services. Although it would probably mean a reduction in spped from 100 km/h to 80 km/h.
For Ballarat to Maryborough the issue is the need to keep BG access for passenger services. Although it would probably mean a reduction in spped from 100 km/h to 80 km/h.I understand the argument that it leaves some built-in redundancy in the network but being restricted to 80km/h is going to be a really significant drag on the (already slow-ish) Maryborough trains.
DG all the way to Gheringhap has me scratching my head - perhaps to allow some overlap as the project proceeds between 2016-2018, and for a future Castlemaine - Maryborough - Geelong path for BG passenger and freight?
Edit: Reading the fine print it seems that having Ballarat to Geelong DG is: "V/Line periodically uses this section of track for the movement of Velocity trains and cars from Melbourne via Gheringhap to the Ballarat workshops for servicing, there is a dis-benefit associated with standardising this track. PTV considers that retention of broad gauge access is an essential component to ongoing maintenance requirements for V/Line. These train movements can be slow and there are limited options available to facilitate these movements directly via Sunshine – Ballarat. While these dis-benefits are still to be quantified, it is felt that standardising this section may also limit future passenger rail options between Geelong and Ballarat." p.86
don_dunstan
A better option (but much more expensive) would be to reinstate the second track as a standard gauge link - at least from Gheringhap through to Ballarat. Anyway, it's a good thing that Ballarat will be linked to the standard gauge network - it might also mean that the Ballarat workshops could take on standard gauge work if that was viable.
There were several different models proposed for this including re-routing those Murray/Mallee lines from Maryborough to Ararat and two other possible connections from the Mildura line to points along the Warracknabeal/Hopetoun line. There's no information yet about which route will be chosen, I'm guessing that will be done later this year when the business case is released?
Interesting to see the standard gauge network in Victoria expanding again anyway -
Congratulations to Victoria.!There were several different models proposed for this including re-routing those Murray/Mallee lines from Maryborough to Ararat and two other possible connections from the Mildura line to points along the Warracknabeal/Hopetoun line. There's no information yet about which route will be chosen, I'm guessing that will be done later this year when the business case is released?
Interesting to see the standard gauge network in Victoria expanding again anyway -
The route appears to have been chosen and it is not via Hopetoun. The "proper" job is now being approved which also looks to have included the branch lines well at least to Sealake and also to Manangatang. I think both of the lines should be extended to the border. Do it once and do it now.
Also allows for SG access into Bendigo as SG will now go via Inglewood.
@don_dunstan this is a better idea. At least if the second track was returned eventually there could be dual SG capacity.As far as I'm aware much of the right-of-way still exists including a spare bluestone platform facing at Bannockburn. Wikipedia (that source of all things reliable) mentions that it was originally built as double-track and operated as such until the 1890's when the 'direct' route via Bacchus Marsh was opened. The second track was abandoned but not fully removed until 1934... I'm sure there's lots of railway archaeologists out there who can tell us all about traces of where the second track remain, such as bridge abutments and extra-wide culverts.
It will also be fun to see what signalling upgrades are done to enable better control of trains in the section.
For me the biggest benefits are SG into Ballarat and the new ability to convert SG from Ballarat to Ararat and integrating Ballarat with Western Victoria as well as allowing better operators onto the Mildura line.
I think this could be the end for PN to Mildura?
What I would like to see most of all if this option is going to proceed is that the development of a low profile dual gauge concrete sleeper which V/Line was tasked to do some years agoUnlikely, given that the business case indicates that timber sleepers will be used for the Maryborough-Ballarat-Geelong dual gauge sections.
I'm quite impressed with the new scope of the project. Much more forward-thinking than I expected given the initial study.
The first problem I can see is road overbridges, eg Navigators, where the trackbed has been slewed to pass under the centre of the bridge. The trackbed's must have been re-graded over time and even at the highest point the clearance isn't that great.@don_dunstan this is a better idea. At least if the second track was returned eventually there could be dual SG capacity.As far as I'm aware much of the right-of-way still exists including a spare bluestone platform facing at Bannockburn. Wikipedia (that source of all things reliable) mentions that it was originally built as double-track and operated as such until the 1890's when the 'direct' route via Bacchus Marsh was opened. The second track was abandoned but not fully removed until 1934... I'm sure there's lots of railway archaeologists out there who can tell us all about traces of where the second track remain, such as bridge abutments and extra-wide culverts.
Realistically all that would do would be to slightly lower some of the costs of putting the second (standard gauge) track back in; I'm glad you also think it's a good idea but I don't think that's the path they will ultimately go down.
The dog smegheads are closing 3 linesSuch colourful language! As long as the alignment remains in VicTrack hands then they can always be re-instated at a later date. The important thing is to get some decent track down and increase the traffic on each line. That and that alone will give the impetus to extend / re-instate lines.
Murrayville pinneroo
Sea lake mittyack
Manangertong robinvale
So sad mittyack kulwin gone in 2005 RIP MITTYACK KULWIN TRAIN TRACK UR NOT FORGOTTEN![]()
The dog smegheads are closing 3 lines
Murrayville pinneroo
Sea lake mittyack
Manangertong robinvale
So sad mittyack kulwin gone in 2005 RIP MITTYACK KULWIN TRAIN TRACK UR NOT FORGOTTEN![]()
I'm quite impressed with the new scope of the project. Much more forward-thinking than I expected given the initial study.
I agree, good on the Government for including the Ouyen to Murrayville gauge conversion as part of the project rather than the recommendation of the initial study which was to close the line.
Ross
The dog smegheads are closing 3 linesCrocodile tears.
Murrayville pinneroo
Sea lake mittyack
Manangertong robinvale
So sad mittyack kulwin gone in 2005 RIP MITTYACK KULWIN TRAIN TRACK UR NOT FORGOTTEN![]()
And the recommendation to close the line came from where? The Government?I'll quote the 2014 study:
The Ouyen to Murrayville (Pinnaroo) line carries very low tonnages at the present time. The five year rail average on this line is approximately 30,000 tonnes per annum and the road mode share is 66% of the freight task. A business case to justify gauge standardisation would need to be developed by the Grain Industry since it is considered that the capital expenditure and ongoing maintenance costs cannot be justified at this time.
...
Industry support and investment would be required in a similar way that industry invested in the Yaapeet Line and other Victorian lines.
It is noted that the preferred project shown at Figure 2 includes standardisation of the line from Ouyen to Murrayville. Standardisation of this line was not initially included in the scope of the Murray Basin Rail Project as, at the time the project was first considered, the line was found to be carrying too little grain to warrant significant investment. However, GrainCorp, the key user of the line, has subsequently indicated strong interest in investing in the rail capacity of the terminal at Murrayville and increasing use of the line. A separate business case assessment of standardisation of the Murrayville line was subsequently prepared to support addition of this line to the core Murray Basin Rail Project. As a result of this, whilst the line to Murrayville is now part of the preferred project scope of the Murray Basin Rail Project, the assessment of the costs and economic benefits of standardising this line are not included in this business case having been considered in a separate business case.
The dog smegheads are closing 3 lines
Murrayville pinneroo
Sea lake mittyack
Manangertong robinvale
So sad mittyack kulwin gone in 2005 RIP MITTYACK KULWIN TRAIN TRACK UR NOT FORGOTTEN![]()
I wonder if the closure of the Pinaroo (SA) line and therefore the possibility of GrainCorp pinching some business from the Viterra side of the border had any bearing on the pulling out of the proverbial finger?
Since then, GrainCorp has pulled its finger out:It is noted that the preferred project shown at Figure 2 includes standardisation of the line from Ouyen to Murrayville. Standardisation of this line was not initially included in the scope of the Murray Basin Rail Project as, at the time the project was first considered, the line was found to be carrying too little grain to warrant significant investment. However, GrainCorp, the key user of the line, has subsequently indicated strong interest in investing in the rail capacity of the terminal at Murrayville and increasing use of the line. A separate business case assessment of standardisation of the Murrayville line was subsequently prepared to support addition of this line to the core Murray Basin Rail Project. As a result of this, whilst the line to Murrayville is now part of the preferred project scope of the Murray Basin Rail Project, the assessment of the costs and economic benefits of standardising this line are not included in this business case having been considered in a separate business case.
Subscribers: 501M, awsgc24, Beta4Me, bevans, Boss, Boss 2, C2, david harvey, DounutCereal, doyle, Duncs, Edith, ElliotProvis, freightgate, fzr560, garethsh, GheringhapLoop, Greensleeves, Jack Le Lievre, james.au, JoppaJunction, KngtRider, Lachlan's Train Channel, loco958, max_thum, Nightfire, NSWGR8022, Papad, PeeJay, Pressman, R766, Radioman, reubstar6, SAR526, steamfreak, TheMeddlingMonk, Union_Bay, wurx, x31