Freight trains could be banned from Dandenong Rail Line

 

News article: Freight trains could be banned from Dandenong Rail Line

Railpage has been provided with information concerning the development of the skyrail above ground rail line construction on the Dandenong corridor.

  bevans Site Admin

Location: Melbourne, Australia
One wonders how this situation could have eventuated and who is responsible for all engineering decisions on the level crossing programme?

Freight trains could be banned from Dandenong Rail Line

Sponsored advertisement

  woodford Chief Commissioner

The article has no signature and no source is given, something like 95% of such information WILL be rubbish. BEFORE briinging in the exicutioner it is WELL advised to get some MUCH more credible evidence.

Another point is these bridges WILL one assumes have to handle ballast and works trains and if it can take those it can take a freight.

woodford
  wongm GEEWONG

Location: Geelong, Victoria
I wonder who the hell let this piece of dribble be posted to Railpage as a 'news' article - presenting such ridiculous dribble as 'fact' brings down the rest of the web site.
  bevans Site Admin

Location: Melbourne, Australia
Let's wait and see what the level crossing authority have to say about this claim which they have failed to respond top as yet. I am not sure it is our job to decide what information is published and what is not.  Let's wait and see what transpires.
  woodford Chief Commissioner

Let's wait and see what the level crossing authority have to say about this claim which they have failed to respond top as yet. I am not sure it is our job to decide what information is published and what is not.  Let's wait and see what transpires.
bevans
I understand your position in trying to maintain a "free press", a point I will bring is I as woodford became noted for clear and accurate reporting, this WAS deliberate on my part. I ONLY published items if, one, they were witnessed by my own eyes or, two, If I was told anything THE SOURCE MUST HAVE BACK EVIDENCE, NO MATTER WHO was giving the report.

What I found was something like 95 percent of items one was told would be incorrect in some way, if then in the end you wish to maintain Railpage as an accurate source, the moderators WILL have to be selective.

woodford
  bevans Site Admin

Location: Melbourne, Australia
I have most recently spoken to the Media area who confirm they are aware of the claim (not just reported on Railpage) and will be replying to my email today.
  Nightfire Minister for Railways

Location: Gippsland
My understanding that new tracks will be built to 25 Tonne axle loads.
  HardWorkingMan Chief Commissioner

Location: Echuca
My understanding that new tracks will be built to 25 Tonne axle loads.
Nightfire
axle loads and total weight are different things when it comes to structures.  It may be able to handle a load at a particular point but not the load of maximum weights at all points.  It's a common issue in bridges and viaducts, factory and warehouse floors etc. It's even a problem in loading aircraft properly.

To give an example any point on the viaduct may be able to handle a 25 tonne load but the span may only be rated for 320 tonnes. Take off an allowance for the rails, sleepers and ballast (lets say that's 40 tonnes for the point of the exercise - I don't have the actual figure) and that means the span can only hold 280 tonnes. As most of the trains are double headed if the span is longer than 2 locos (or 2 locos and part of a wagon) then the span may not be able to hold the weight of the train.

In steam days there were bridges where 2 R Classes were not allowed to pass due to the weights on the spans.  They could however double head on some of them as the span length meant the weight of the 2 locos was never on a single span.  However if they were going opposite directions to locos could be on the same span at the same time and if both were R classes the design weights were exceeded
  jdekorte Deputy Commissioner

Location: Near Caulfield Station
I believe that the spans won't have ballasted track. The track will be laid directly on clips that are fixed to a concrete base which I think is supposed to limit noise - similar to the RRL track that was laid over the extended Dudley St bridge in the city.  This would take some of the weight off.  I'd also be surprised if the Maryvale freight has not been considered when designing the structures.
  HardWorkingMan Chief Commissioner

Location: Echuca
I believe that the spans won't have ballasted track. The track will be laid directly on clips that are fixed to a concrete base which I think is supposed to limit noise - similar to the RRL track that was laid over the extended Dudley St bridge in the city.  This would take some of the weight off.  I'd also be surprised if the Maryvale freight has not been considered when designing the structures.
jdekorte
Even if the tracks aren't ballasted the point I was making that the weight the span can cope with is different to the maximum load at one point.

I agree the current and projected future freight growth should have been considered when putting the designs together.  Hopefully they have (including an allowance in case future locos are heavier than the current fleet) but stuff ups have happened before (such as buying rollingstock that won't fit past platforms) then history rewritten (the platforms were meant to be cut back before the trains arrived but budget cuts and a shortage of resources......)
  DirtyBallast Chief Commissioner

Location: Standing at the limit of an endless ocean
I believe that the spans won't have ballasted track. The track will be laid directly on clips that are fixed to a concrete base which I think is supposed to limit noise - similar to the RRL track that was laid over the extended Dudley St bridge in the city.  This would take some of the weight off.  I'd also be surprised if the Maryvale freight has not been considered when designing the structures.
Even if the tracks aren't ballasted the point I was making that the weight the span can cope with is different to the maximum load at one point.

I agree the current and projected future freight growth should have been considered when putting the designs together.  Hopefully they have (including an allowance in case future locos are heavier than the current fleet) but stuff ups have happened before (such as buying rollingstock that won't fit past platforms) then history rewritten (the platforms were meant to be cut back before the trains arrived but budget cuts and a shortage of resources......)
HardWorkingMan
I am absolutely sure that current and future freight growth has been considered for the simple fact that during the major outage at Maryvale in July, works along the Maryvale spur will take place. If skyrail can't handle these trains it is pointless spending money on the Maryvale spur in the meantime.
  stooge spark Chief Train Controller

Location: My House
Can someone clarify if the "news report" is a troll or not? Or just a misguided individual?
  YM-Mundrabilla Minister for Railways

Location: Mundrabilla but I'd rather be in Narvik
How would such a rumoured situation relate to the potential trip trains to/from the proposed port at Westernport?
Sillier things have happened, however.
  True Believers Chief Commissioner

This is utter nonsense, its a claim not a news story. There is basically no evidence to back up this claim. This claim was probably from an anti skyrail group, to spread its propaganda here. LXRA have already mentioned that freight would continually used the line, so probably already designed this way. If it wasn't designed for freight where would the freight go. Doesn't make any sense at all should be removed from the site.
LXRA already said information was false, via Daniel Bowen's tweet.
  bevans Site Admin

Location: Melbourne, Australia
This is utter nonsense, its a claim not a news story. There is basically no evidence to back up this claim. This claim was probably from an anti skyrail group, to spread its propaganda here. LXRA have already mentioned that freight would continually used the line, so probably already designed this way. If it wasn't designed for freight where would the freight go. Doesn't make any sense at all should be removed from the site.
LXRA already said information was false, via Daniel Bowen's tweet.
James974

We are still waiting for a response from LXRA who have advised they are aware of the claims across the media and will be responding.  Do you have a link to the LXRA tweet?
  True Believers Chief Commissioner

This is utter nonsense, its a claim not a news story. There is basically no evidence to back up this claim. This claim was probably from an anti skyrail group, to spread its propaganda here. LXRA have already mentioned that freight would continually used the line, so probably already designed this way. If it wasn't designed for freight where would the freight go. Doesn't make any sense at all should be removed from the site.
LXRA already said information was false, via Daniel Bowen's tweet.

We are still waiting for a response from LXRA who have advised they are aware of the claims across the media and will be responding.  Do you have a link to the LXRA tweet?
bevans
Here is the link:
  MetroFemme Assistant Commissioner

Was also on 3aw today and other media outlets and some talk around the government and not the first time this has been raised. The link above does not provide comment from any credible source. Daniel Bowen has let himself down by quoting some Wong guy ranting about Railpage and is not from LXRA. Has no clue either.

Clever Railpage very clever as you have teased out the LXRA management who will need to make a formal statement on the subject.
  cabidass Chief Train Controller

This is utter nonsense, its a claim not a news story. There is basically no evidence to back up this claim. This claim was probably from an anti skyrail group, to spread its propaganda here. LXRA have already mentioned that freight would continually used the line, so probably already designed this way. If it wasn't designed for freight where would the freight go. Doesn't make any sense at all should be removed from the site.
LXRA already said information was false, via Daniel Bowen's tweet.
James974
I presumed the article to have more credibility, so I contacted my local councilors amongst others. These are their responses:


Latrobe City Council (via email) -

"Indeed alarming, but the story appears to be the 'recirculation' of a rumour that has been doing the rounds for several months now.

Council referred the matter to State government officers some time ago and received assurances that freight trains will be able to use the 'Skyrail' sections of the Gippsland line.

Interesting as, in the past, I have always found 'Railpage' to be a reasonably accurate source.



Harriet Shing MP -

Freight trains can run on the elevated rail corridor.

Freight trains already operate on elevated rail right across Victoria, Australia and the world. The elevated design will involve far less disruption to freight services
than a trenched solution which would have shut down the line for months.

The detail is available online at the LXRA website via the following link:


http://levelcrossings.vic.gov.au/crossings/previous-consultation-caulfield-to-dandenong/caulfield-to-dandenong-frequently-asked-questions



The link above references 'Freight' 6 times. If there is any other evidence to the contrary, it should be posted within the article, or the article removed.
  MetroFemme Assistant Commissioner

Can anyone find a media statement stating freight will be unaffected?
  Carnot Minister for Railways

So it sounds like "Fake News". That's a relief. I hope...
  woodford Chief Commissioner

Can anyone find a media statement stating freight will be unaffected?
"MetroFemme"


The SECOND FAQ from the Level Crossing Authority....................

Will you continue to run diesel trains on the old tracks underneath the new rail line?

The new elevated structure will be designed to safely carry both Metro passenger trains and diesel freight trains. Just as passenger and freight trains share tracks currently, they would continue to share tracks in the elevated design.

This is from the mob doing the work...................

woodford
  woodford Chief Commissioner

Can anyone find a media statement stating freight will be unaffected?
"MetroFemme"


The SECOND FAQ from the Level Crossing Authority....................

Will you continue to run diesel trains on the old tracks underneath the new rail line?

The new elevated structure will be designed to safely carry both Metro passenger trains and diesel freight trains. Just as passenger and freight trains share tracks currently, they would continue to share tracks in the elevated design.

This is from the mob doing the work...................

woodford
"woodford"


You just need to look at the link in "cabidass"'s post..........................
  True Believers Chief Commissioner

Was also on 3aw today and other media outlets and some talk around the government and not the first time this has been raised. The link above does not provide comment from any credible source. Daniel Bowen has let himself down by quoting some Wong guy ranting about Railpage and is not from LXRA. Has no clue either.

Clever Railpage very clever as you have teased out the LXRA management who will need to make a formal statement on the subject.
MetroFemme
Daniel Bowen found the proof by looking at the LXRA website. This is now credible. Thanks I rest my case MetroFemme. So the article should be removed ASAP.

  LancedDendrite Chief Commissioner

Location: Gheringhap Loop Autonomous Zone
Was also on 3aw today and other media outlets and some talk around the government and not the first time this has been raised. The link above does not provide comment from any credible source. Daniel Bowen has let himself down by quoting some Wong guy ranting about Railpage and is not from LXRA. Has no clue either.
MetroFemme
That 'some Wong guy' is a well-respected member of the rail enthusiast community who has been quoted in multiple newspaper articles over the years. You could learn a lot from him.

Railpage has done itself an immense disservice by publishing such baseless drivel and it should be retracted. If Railpage wants to pretend that it's a reputable news source, then the people running the News section have to actually act like it is one. Protip: when it comes to the rail industry, an anonymous 'Letter To The Editor' is as worthless as any other nonsense rumour cooked up because Old Mate didn't have anything else interesting to talk about over lunch.
  Gman_86 Chief Commissioner

Location: Melton, where the sparks dare not roam!
At risk of sounding like an overgrown toddler with a strangely orange complexion, disturbing hair and unproportionate fingers...


FAKE NEWS!!



Just more scare mongering from that sad pathetic Anti-Skyrail crowd.

It's an indictment of this website that such unsubstantiated manure could be passed off as credible news.

Sponsored advertisement

Display from:   

Quick Reply

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