[quote=james.au][quote]Whilst not debating the virtue of converting BG to SG..... a no brainer in C21, how much of rural Victoria, ie not Metro, will be SG and how much BG will remain to be converted when the Murray Basin is completed? What project[s] will follow? [ie Inglewood- Bendigo] When?[/quote]
Per BITRE (via wiki), the Vic distances are currently as follows (distances include metro but not trams)

BG - 2894
SG - 1222
DG - 32
NG - 19
Other - 28

Post MBRP, about 1100km will transfer from BG to SG.

Remaining BG in the regions will be Goulburn Valley (incl. Seymour), Bendigo, Warrnambool and the Gippsland lines.

Realistically, id see the GV lines are next to go (including Toolamba-Echuca-Deni)

[/quote]

So by those figures, post the Murray Basin project, there will be roughly 600Km more SG in Victoria than BG!!! Seymour to Deni would be another 250Km or so. Hmm, that really changes the picture significantly!!!

A further question re Bendigo.

It seems to me that it would be possible to convert the Swan Hill line to SG via Eaglehawk [Bendigo] to Inglewood and then the Murray Basin SG network to collect the Grain from the North Central region. Would this be worthwhile in terms of freight traffic and justify the cost?

That would leave the remaining Melb to Bendigo BG to Passenger movements with a SG passenger service Bendigo to S.H.!

Had the Mel to Adel line not been converted much of the interstate traffic to Perth and Darwin would unlikely remain on rail as this corridor gets very little Adel-Mel traffic.  You'd be lucky to have 1 or 2 trains a day to Adelaide.

If anything the conversion encouraged some traffic to move way from Syd-Adel to going via Mel to Adel to pick up extra tonnages in Mel.

The loss of the Mt Gambia traffic is a bit questionable how much would remain today and a shame it was lost. But if it was so viable for rail, the line would have been converted too. Or would it have been converted and end up like some of SA's other converted lines were eventually the traffic made its own decision and left. If anything the MT Gambia outcome clearly demonstrates why should convert the rest of Vic as break of gauge is bad for rail, not good for rail. The more track that is SG, the more viable these marginal lines become if it increases their customer base near rail.

The SA Baroosa Line was not converted, the traffic eventually folded for its own reasons, not because of rail. The Cement decided on road as has nearly every other cement plant in Australia with a few minor exceptions usually following bulk traffic corridors.

Dragging out the Western Vic conversion to SG has probably done more harm than good to rail, the smart move should have been 20 years ago convert the whole bloody thing at once,. Its not like it was overly expensive at less than $100m, however even Paul Keatings One Nation Conversion was done  poorly with I believe concrete sleepers stacked up along side the railway for a number of years as they paid for the sleepers, but not installation.

Qld's, SA and WA's NG networks are mostly operational islands feeding mostly local ports and while it would be better for conversion the benefit is likely minimal and probably mostly limited to Qld NCL traffic. Tasmania of course is an island and no benefit in conversion. Conversion from NG to SG is also extremely expensive compared to BG to SG.

Had the Mel to Adel line not been converted much of the interstate traffic to Perth and Darwin would unlikely remain on rail as this corridor gets very little Adel-Mel traffic.  You'd be lucky to have 1 or 2 trains a day to Adelaide.

If anything the conversion encouraged some traffic to move way from Syd-Adel to going via Mel to Adel to pick up extra tonnages in Mel.

The loss of the Mt Gambia traffic is a bit questionable how much would remain today and a shame it was lost. But if it was so viable for rail, the line would have been converted too. Or would it have been converted and end up like some of SA's other converted lines were eventually the traffic made its own decision and left. If anything the MT Gambia outcome clearly demonstrates why should convert the rest of Vic as break of gauge is bad for rail, not good for rail. The more track that is SG, the more viable these marginal lines become if it increases their customer base near rail.

The SA Baroosa Line was not converted, the traffic eventually folded for its own reasons, not because of rail. The Cement decided on road as has nearly every other cement plant in Australia with a few minor exceptions usually following bulk traffic corridors.

Dragging out the Western Vic conversion to SG has probably done more harm than good to rail, the smart move should have been 20 years ago convert the whole bloody thing at once,. Its not like it was overly expensive at less than $100m, however even Paul Keatings One Nation Conversion was done  poorly with I believe concrete sleepers stacked up along side the railway for a number of years as they paid for the sleepers, but not installation.

Qld's, SA and WA's NG networks are mostly operational islands feeding mostly local ports and while it would be better for conversion the benefit is likely minimal and probably mostly limited to Qld NCL traffic. Tasmania of course is an island and no benefit in conversion. Conversion from NG to SG is also extremely expensive compared to BG to SG.

The Mount Gambier paper traffic was on the verge of being efficient with the elimination of the need for bogie exchange from BG to SG plus the availability of more high cube and 50 ton vans ex NSW and east-west traffics.

The paper traffic did not get up and go - it was rail that got up and went (amidst all manner of conspiracy theories).

Conversion from BG to SG should have been quick, simple and cheap, especially from Heywood.

[quote=Inland_Sailor][quote][quote]Whilst not debating the virtue of converting BG to SG..... a no brainer in C21, how much of rural Victoria, ie not Metro, will be SG and how much BG will remain to be converted when the Murray Basin is completed? What project[s] will follow? [ie Inglewood- Bendigo] When?[/quote]
Per BITRE (via wiki), the Vic distances are currently as follows (distances include metro but not trams)

BG - 2894
SG - 1222
DG - 32
NG - 19
Other - 28

Post MBRP, about 1100km will transfer from BG to SG.

Remaining BG in the regions will be Goulburn Valley (incl. Seymour), Bendigo, Warrnambool and the Gippsland lines.

Realistically, id see the GV lines are next to go (including Toolamba-Echuca-Deni)[/quote]
So by those figures, Post the Murray Basin project, there will be roughly 600Km more SG in Victoria than BG!!! Hmm, that really changes the picture. Seymour to Deni would be another 250Km or so, so the real changes is on!!!

A further question re Bendigo. It seems to me that it would be possible to convert the Swan Hill line to SG via Eaglehawk (Bendigo) to Inglewood and then the Murray Basin SG network to collect the Grain from the North Central region. Would this be worthwhile in terms of freight traffic and justify the cost?

That would leave the remaining Melb to Bendigo BG to Passenger movements with a SG passenger service Bendigo to S.H.!
[/quote]
If Mangalore to Toc and Mangalore to Déni are done, that is 282km. If Dookie is added, that is another 27km. Though Moama-Deni is in the NSW numbers, not in the Vic numbers I've posted here. So really we are talking 236 out of those numbers (including Dookie).

There is a thread about SG access to Bendigo - go check that one out.

Whilst a lot of traffic has been lost by rail (and dare I say it even deliberately so), it would be interesting to make the distinction between tonneage carried versus traffic mix.   The Melbourne - Adelaide corridor of course feeds the Adelaide to Perth corridor which has a freight mode share of around 80%.   I think and I stress think that actual tonneage certainly in recent times has been recovering.   Take SCT, last week countered 76 solidly loaded wagons on a Perth bound freighter through Gheringhap along with the evening westbound parade of PN and Aurizon intermodals, all pretty much at maximum length and sounding heavy.   We have effectively a daily steel train, a regional intermodal to/from Dooen and then grain operating across the corridor as mineral sands between Maroona and Murtoa.

Sure we had a lot of trains in the past but they were shorter and lighter with lower horsepower units in those days.  

So yes the traffic mix may have changes (or we just can't see it more inside boxes and vans) but has the actual tonnes hauled seriously declined.

Having said that of course I agree we could and should have more and so I'm not saying anyone is right or wrong just adding another perspective.

Had the Mel to Adel line not been converted much of the interstate traffic to Perth and Darwin would unlikely remain on rail as this corridor gets very little Adel-Mel traffic.  You'd be lucky to have 1 or 2 trains a day to Adelaide.

If anything the conversion encouraged some traffic to move way from Syd-Adel to going via Mel to Adel to pick up extra tonnages in Mel.

The loss of the Mt Gambia traffic is a bit questionable how much would remain today and a shame it was lost. But if it was so viable for rail, the line would have been converted too. Or would it have been converted and end up like some of SA's other converted lines were eventually the traffic made its own decision and left. If anything the MT Gambia outcome clearly demonstrates why should convert the rest of Vic as break of gauge is bad for rail, not good for rail. The more track that is SG, the more viable these marginal lines become if it increases their customer base near rail.

The SA Baroosa Line was not converted, the traffic eventually folded for its own reasons, not because of rail. The Cement decided on road as has nearly every other cement plant in Australia with a few minor exceptions usually following bulk traffic corridors.

Dragging out the Western Vic conversion to SG has probably done more harm than good to rail, the smart move should have been 20 years ago convert the whole bloody thing at once,. Its not like it was overly expensive at less than $100m, however even Paul Keatings One Nation Conversion was done  poorly with I believe concrete sleepers stacked up along side the railway for a number of years as they paid for the sleepers, but not installation.

Qld's, SA and WA's NG networks are mostly operational islands feeding mostly local ports and while it would be better for conversion the benefit is likely minimal and probably mostly limited to Qld NCL traffic. Tasmania of course is an island and no benefit in conversion. Conversion from NG to SG is also extremely expensive compared to BG to SG.

The Mount Gambier paper traffic was on the verge of being efficient with the elimination of the need for bogie exchange from BG to SG plus the availability of more high cube and 50 ton vans ex NSW and east-west traffics.

The paper traffic did not get up and go - it was rail that got up and went (amidst all manner of conspiracy theories).

Conversion from BG to SG should have been quick, simple and cheap, especially from Heywood.

If it was so viable, then why didn't someone either govt or private fund the conversion?

How many tonnes per week/annum are we talking?

oh no it seems I've started a flamewar

oh no it seems I've started a flamewar

It seems like you have acheived your objective.   I do love a good troll.

If your not a troll though, you are the dumbest person to ever post on this page.

Well this thread was born from a great foamy mess, but here I go anyway...

[quote=MetroFemme]Take the time to look at the traffic volumes now between Melbourne and Adelaide and number of wagons and you will see volumes have fallen since the conversion of broad gauge between the cities. On conversion metro traffic delivery was also lost to road post conversion as also happened in Melbourne. Has the conversion been good for traffic? [/quote]

This is intangible. There is no way to know what state the Victorian BG freight network would be in right now if the Western Standard Gauge hadn't been built in 1995.

Yes there may have been greater volumes of freight then, but who's to say that if the line wasn't converted there would be less traffic then what we are currently seeing. The reality is it isn't possible to say either way.

[quote=InlandSailor]how much of rural Victoria, ie not Metro, will be SG and how much BG will remain to be converted when the Murray Basin is completed? What project[s] will follow? [ie Inglewood- Bendigo] When? [/quote]

While nothing is certain after the current projects, the likelyhood is next will be all lines north of Seymour, so that's Seymour - Tocumwal, Toolamba - Echuca, Echuca - Deniliquin, with the possible addition of the Dookie and Moulamein branches. Bendigo - Echuca will remain BG for V/Line Pass for the foreseeable future.

I wouldn't hold my breath on Inglewood - Eaglehawk, that will happen only if there is guaranteed interest from a significant freight customer (ie:- a company, not a local council with grand plans for another intermodal) who is good at lobbying both federal & state government.

Long term though (and I mean long term) there is no real reason to think anything past the V/Line commuter (Waurn Ponds, Wendouree, Eaglehawk/Epsom, Seymour and Traralgon) belt can't be easily converted with the possible exception of Bairnsdale. V/Line have plans for a long distance DMU based on the Vlocity, these are to come into service on both gauges, and if Geelong, Ballarat, Bendigo and Seymour were to be serviced by both gauges, then yes, past those commuter towns all lines could be converted to SG. Geelong and Seymour currently have both gauges, Ballarat is about to recieve it, that only leaves Bendigo, the logical way would be via Inglewood, but again, this could provide difficult.

[quote=DangersDan707]the pollies have an obsession with sg every where apart from queensland [/quote]

[b][i]WRONG!!![/i][/b]

The truth of the matter is, 99% of politicians couldn't give a continental about rail freight, it doesn't swing votes like passenger rail can and 75% wouldn't even know the difference between BG and SG. There are bugger all votes in rail freightdespite what some users on Railpage may think, the reality is most people couldn't give a stuff.

The rare politicians who do understand the importance of rail freight understand the one thing that Dangersdan707 doesn't and that is that it is vital that all major cities must be connected by rail, and for it to be effective that rail must be the same gauge.

[quote=x31]Would have been easier to force BG into NSW which was the initial agreement. [/quote]

On What Planet???



-------

I don't understand how anybody with the slightest bit of common sense can seriously come up with a contrary argument. Considering the Trans-Australian Railway (Sydney - Adelaide - Perth) is Standard Gauge and opened in 1917, and the 'New' Ghan track is Standard Gauge (Tarcoola - Alice Springs opened 1980, Alice Springs - Darwin opened 2004), and SG already reached into both Brisbane and Melbourne (Melbourne via the SG North East Line, opened 1962) the logical next step was always to provide a direct link from Melbourne to Adelaide that was compatible with the rest of the nations interstate rail network. This happened in 1995.

If any of you have a problem with Standard Gauge stretching its way across the country, well all I can say is, its too damn late to whinge about it now, its been happening for over 100 years, and it aint going to stop.

Yes I agree, Not converting the Heywood - Mt Gambier line was a clear error, one that I can't understand, and yes there is plenty of traffic that has been lost to road after the conversion of the Melbourne - Adelaide route, but it is also impossible to say how much would have been lost if the line had of been left on BG? Impossible to say, so again get over it, its happening, and the reality is it can't happen quick enough.



Well, there I went.

'If it was so viable, then why didn't someone either govt or private fund the conversion?'

Good question - incompetence and/or the conspiracy theories that abounded at the time.

'How many tonnes per week/annum are we talking?'

You don't measure Mt Gambier paper traffic in tonnes but rather in vans. A long time ago now but 40 or 50 vans/week was not unusual with a mix to Melbourne, Adelaide, Sydney and Brisbane. There was also dolomite traffic to Dandenong. Now there would also be potential timber/woodchip traffic.

Anyway it's all on road now - end of rant.

oh no it seems I've started a flamewar

Well, that's what happens when you state an ignorant opinion as fact.

The prime issue is; break of gauge means extra expense due to transferring freight loads and the inability to run rolling stock on both gauges. Both of these mean extra expense and bother, thus a disincentive to use rail instead of road.

The break of gauge problem could have been fixed in the 1850s when our rail networks were being established or even in 1915 when for some inexplicable reason, the Trans Australian line wasn't built to the S.A. broad gauge or the W.A. narrow gauge, but instead to the NSW standard gauge, even though there was no standard gauge track within 1,000 km.

Now if the trans Australian had been built to broad gauge, by now we would have had broad gauge extending from Melbourne to Perth, probably with lines to Sydney via Albury and Broken Hill also converted to broad gauge. BUT, sadly, the Trans Aust line was built to NSW gauge and we have been stuck with it for 100 years. So while I prefer broad gauge over the skinny, wobbly, standard gauge, for the sake of interoperability, the sooner all freight lines south of Brisbane are converted to standard gauge, the better it will be for growing rail freight in this country.

yes I is to late to save broad gauge in the west thanks to the politicians and history
any way my Origanal point was that I believe that it is pointless to standardise any further other than perhaps the Golborn line over the Murray (for some reason V/line doesn't like Standard gauge)

yes I am naturally stupid though cause of the brain and disabilities I was born with

also slightly off topic the newest I could find on R766 http://rusted2therails.blogspot.com.au/2014/11/r766-standard-gauge-r-class.html

If it was so viable, then why didn't someone either govt or private fund the conversion?

Just a guess, but I'm going to say the same reason the grain line from Barnes to Moulamein has been left to rot. That is Heywood and Mt. Gambier are just unfortunate to be on opposite sides of a state boundary. The line North out of Mt. Gambier (all of which is in SA) was too long to convert, and the more cost-effective route via Heywood was crossing the border, who pays for it? Mt Gambier is in South Australia, so they should pay right? But all of the benefit will go to Victoria when the goods are exported via their ports, or sent to customers in Victoria, either way each state passed the buck to one another, and neither cared enough to actually do anything about it.

Its interesting to note, the line from Heywood to Mt Gambier, was never closed, much like the line from Cranbourne to Leongatha. To close a railway line you need an act of parliament, they didn't even care enough to bother closing it, they just left it there to rot.

'If it was so viable, then why didn't someone either govt or private fund the conversion?'

Good question - incompetence and/or the conspiracy theories that abounded at the time.

'How many tonnes per week/annum are we talking?'

You don't measure Mt Gambier paper traffic in tonnes but rather in vans. A long time ago now but 40 or 50 vans/week was not unusual with a mix to Melbourne, Adelaide, Sydney and Brisbane. There was also dolomite traffic to Dandenong. Now there would also be potential timber/woodchip traffic.

Anyway it's all on road now - end of rant.

40-50 vans a week is not a healthy rail friendly tonnage. Biloela had more than that in meat existing on a branch only a few km long connecting to a well maintained coal line and it was cheaper to close the line and truck haul to a  major depo and transfer to rail in Rockhampton 100km away, and almost opposite direction of the  the destination, Brisbane!

If you had told me 40-50 vans a day, ok the numbers then would be ok as this is a short train a day.

I assume it goes via road to Melbourne and the northern state traffic via rail. Note if some of the traffic was bound for Adelaide this further fragments the traffic but this would be small and would not have remained on rail longterm.

Timber and woodchip on rail has a very unreliable history across Australia. In the 90's truck technology for moving logs moved ahead in leaps and bounds leaving rail in its wake in efficiency.

Dolomite would have been an issue as it needed to swap gauge somewhere.

End of the day this traffic was typical of these cute little country branch lines supported by a mix of small volume traffic, but ultimately very unstable as loss of one  meant the line was likely nonviable or the train schedules deteriorated to the point the others found the rail option less favorable.  The Tas NE Line was very similar around the same time. Almost a daily train made up of a mix of small volumes, but then one closed and the rest quickly found road more attractive as train frequencies reduced and cost of track upkeep fell on a smaller pool of traffic.

I doubt this line would have survived, converted or not. Not without a major customer producing  2-3 trains a week, I mean real train lengths.

Troll child time you departed the section and went to play with your toy trains in the sandpit.

nah though I did enjoy that when I was young and also making rivers    
ahhh the memories

edit this thread should be called 'No Need for More Standard gauge In vic' or 'Gunzels bickering (I enclude myself) about standardisation'

While nothing is certain after the current projects, the likelyhood is next will be all lines north of Seymour, so that's Seymour - Tocumwal, Toolamba - Echuca, Echuca - Deniliquin, with the possible addition of the Dookie and Moulamein branches. Bendigo - Echuca will remain BG for V/Line Pass for the foreseeable future.


Long term though (and I mean long term) there is no real reason to think anything past the V/Line commuter (Waurn Ponds, Wendouree, Eaglehawk/Epsom, Seymour and Traralgon) belt can't be easily converted with the possible exception of Bairnsdale. V/Line have plans for a long distance DMU based on the Vlocity, these are to come into service on both gauges, and if Geelong, Ballarat, Bendigo and Seymour were to be serviced by both gauges, then yes, past those commuter towns all lines could be converted to SG. Geelong and Seymour currently have both gauges, Ballarat is about to recieve it, that only leaves Bendigo, the logical way would be via Inglewood, but again, this could provide difficult.

If all lines north of Seymour were to become SG, then there would have to be a SG passenger service to Shepparton.  This service could/would stop at Seymour, so why would you want to also keep a BG service to Seymour?

If the alternative route for V/Line via Upfield ever eventuates, obviously it would have to be BG, but trains going that way could not go past Seymour.

yes I is to late to save broad gauge in the west thanks to the politicians and history
any way my Origanal point was that I believe that it is pointless to standardise any further other than perhaps the Golborn line over the Murray (for some reason V/line doesn't like Standard gauge)

yes I am naturally stupid though cause of the brain and disabilities I was born with

also slightly off topic the newest I could find on R766 http://rusted2therails.blogspot.com.au/2014/11/r766-standard-gauge-r-class.html

Let me propose a hypothetical:

Lets say for instance, I run a large company based at Bendigo, providing gainful employment to hundreds of locals. I have a product that wins a tender to sell to a large international customer, and I need to get my product to port. Right now I have 3 open options.

Option 1, Rail.

I can currently transport my product to port via the existing broad gauge line, where it has to fight for a path with frequent high speed passenger trains over lengthy single track sections. On top of that there are only 2 freight operators currently working on the BG, Pacific National, who are not known for their competitive pricing, or their track record for keeping customers of my kind happy, the other company is QUBE who are already over-stretching their Broad Gauge capabilities.

Option 2, Road.

While it should be the high cost option, it is very flexible, provides 24 hour access and unlike rail, there are litterally hundreds of operators that would give their 1st born for the steady work.

Option 3, complete re-location.

While this option would cut my transport costs significantly, it would also result in my entire workforce having to either re-locate with me, or more likely they would end up out of work.

Now all 3 options are viable, but the reality is that Option 2 (road) would win out. However, if there was a 4th option, SG rail which does not currently exist, then that would possibly tilt the odds towards rail. More operators work in that world, this creates greater competition, with competition comes more modern rollingstock, more modern work practices, cheaper rates and a better customer experience overall.

This is just an example of why Standard Gauge needs to spread further.


Also, V/Line don't dislike standard gauge, that is rubbish.

What V/Line don't like, is having just one of their lines on a different gauge to the rest. This creates an orphan. That one line needs special rollingstock, that special rollingstock can't run anywhere else, it costs a lot more to maintain it, and unlike every other line V/Line passenger trains run on, it's controlled by someone else. If more V/Line tracks were standard gauge, and they had a larger pool of SG trains, then half of their problem would be solved.

So if anything, V/Line want more of it, so long as they aren't paying for it of course.


As for R766, the best advice I can give you there is to just forget about it, it's gone and it isn't coming home.

oh no it seems I've started a flamewar

Congratulations. Have a nice day.

People, I wouldn't bother.

The break of gauge problem could have been fixed in the 1850s when our rail networks were being established or even in 1915 when for some inexplicable reason, the Trans Australian line wasn't built to the S.A. broad gauge or the W.A. narrow gauge, but instead to the NSW standard gauge, even though there was no standard gauge track within 1,000 km.

Now if the trans Australian had been built to broad gauge, by now we would have had broad gauge extending from Melbourne to Perth, probably with lines to Sydney via Albury and Broken Hill also converted to broad gauge. BUT, sadly, the Trans Aust line was built to NSW gauge and we have been stuck with it for 100 years. So while I prefer broad gauge over the skinny, wobbly, standard gauge, for the sake of interoperability, the sooner all freight lines south of Brisbane are converted to standard gauge, the better it will be for growing rail freight in this country.

If anything, the Trans-Australian Railway could very likely have been built to 1067mm narrow gauge back in the day. It's an interesting counterfactual to ponder.

A narrow gauge Trans-Australian Railway was the logical choice at the time - it would've created a unified narrow gauge railway all the way from Perth to Broken Hill immediately upon opening and consolidated Sydney/Melbourne to Perth trips down to a single break of gauge. That choice in turn would've created some serious competition for standard gauge as the choice of uniform gauge during the deliberations of 1921 Royal Commission. It would've also given SA a significant impetus to create a narrow gauge link between Port Augusta and Adelaide and might even have prevented gauge conversion of the Western system to 1600mm broad gauge.

If all lines north of Seymour were to become SG, then there would have to be a SG passenger service to Shepparton.  This service could/would stop at Seymour, so why would you want to also keep a BG service to Seymour?

If the alternative route for V/Line via Upfield ever eventuates, obviously it would have to be BG, but trains going that way could not go past Seymour.

Seymour is interesting. The long term view sees Wallan being electrified, so this will obviously need to remain BG. On top of that, Shepparton also requires a large increase in frequency. When Wallan is sparked, that will take a large % of the Seymour local trains catchment away.

so the answer:

1. Electrify to Wallan (BG of course)

2. Re-open Upfield - Roxburgh Park (Somerton), double track all of the way, dive the line under the current SG lines at Roxburgh Park. Include a 3rd platform at Roxburgh park for Upfield line trains to terminate.

3. Upgrade all signalling North of Craigieburn, add extra crossing loops between Mangalore and Shepparton.

4. Duplicate SG from Somerton to Wallan convert current broad gauge line from Wallan to Mangalore. This would provide 3 SG tracks from Wallan to Mangalore, 1 for freight, 2 for pass. Retain current SG crossing loops so freight and pass trains are clear of one another.

5. Dual gauge Somerton to Southern Cross via Upfield, Coburg and North Melbourne, 80km/h limit for all BG trains wouldn't be a problem along this line.

Result: Sparks either run to Wallan via Essendon, or to Roxburgh Park via Coburg. V/Line trains run more frequently to Shepparton, with Seymour locals only running at peak times if needed. Albury trains no longer needed to run via the goods lines, nor through Dynon. All V/Line trains to run via Coburg. Via Broadmeadows and Sunshine available during disruption.

Negatives:
I can't think of what I would do about the Apex.
The cost.

Would have been easier to force BG into NSW which was the initial agreement.

There is a PhD thesis out there somewhere that goes through the historic documents and puts the blame at LaTrobe's feet, not NSWs.  Most likely through inaction than any conscious effort to make a problem.

(Though to be fair, colonial administrations at the time never thought the lines would meet so the issue was not a significant one to them).

There are equally-reputable documents that hold a contrary view:
https://digitised-collections.unimelb.edu.au/bitstream/handle/11343/24373/305903_UDS2013255-16-0016.pdf?sequence=1

I think we are starting to recover after THAT person who posted some dumb stuff trying to rewrite history and questioning projects that have proven to be the correct decision.
Melbourne to Adelaide has been singled out and tonnage wise compared to yesteryear is interesting.
Today thanks to Graham Elliot who maintains Gheringhap Loop sightings we have an accurate record of train movements.
The length of the trains is given often in the number of platforms indicating the number of containers on the train.
Because many wagons now are in articulated fixed configuration a comparison to say how many wagons were on the Adelaide Jet service is not as easy to compare. The Jets were limited to 40 wagons and I am open to correction but near the end of the broad gauge service were up to 45?
Without quibbling over the exact number the current consist are often up in the high 70's, albeit platforms and sometimes higher.
Unfortunately we do not have from the past and we do have currently the tonnage carried to compare.
Equally tonnage is not the only comparison factor as the load could be steel or feathers that would be charged on volume and not weight to state the obvious.
Some not all of the trains running east/west were Roadside Goods that added to the Signalman's work load but if we were honest were often carrying modest loads's.
Mt Gambier I find depressingly interesting as the wood chip volumes/tonnage we are told is around 4 million tons per annum to Portland.
Once upon a time Railways became economic above one million tons so we can only speculate as to what happened there.
Unless some one can come up with the minutes of a meeting we will never know what really happened?
We all blame the Fellow from Mt Gambier but he has been dead for a few years so His and the Family's influence must be waining.
Some how in Australia unless the Government pays for the track our Private Enterprise Railway Operators do not. The best They can do is build a Depot/Freight Hub near a Publicly funded railway line.
Obviously no private operator will say they have that sort of venture capital to rebuild a line and operate it.
Mind you I have never heard of a Trucking Company paying for any road either.
How do they fund good ideas but who runs the risk in other countries?
Next stop in the Standardisation March is the Goulburn Valley, let us just do it.
Tocumwal maybe reconnected to the NSW system one day and perhaps not that many sleeps away!
Look out for Santa he is real?????

I think we are starting to recover after THAT person who posted some dumb stuff trying to rewrite history and questioning projects that have proven to be the correct decision.

You could call me a crazy standardisation skeptic!  lol

I think we are starting to recover after THAT person who posted some dumb stuff trying to rewrite history and questioning projects that have proven to be the correct decision.

You could call me a crazy standardisation skeptic!  lol

Dan, I sympathise, but you're too late.

You're at least 22 years too late since they narrowed the Adelaide - Melbourne line, or maybe 60 years too late since they built the standard gauge track from Albury to Melbourne. But you're probably 102 years late since they started building the trans Australian line to standard gauge and you could be 164 years too late after Sydney decided to have a different track gauge to Adelaide and Melbourne.

In any case you are definitely too late to be pushing this cause, so unless you have a time machine handy, let it go!