Port of Brisbane releases their study for a direct freight port connection to the Inland

 
  james.au Chief Commissioner

Location: Sydney, NSW
https://www.railpage.com.au/downloads?mode=download.view&id=1205

Happy reading.  There is too much detail for me to summarise but of course, they want it.

Though what they really want is investment in the network over and above the Inland given the Qld Government has not done.  Including upcountry standardisations etc

Also they fire a cannon at the Inland to Gladstone and blow it out of the water.  Of course they would.

Sponsored advertisement

  bingley hall Minister for Railways

Location: Last train to Skaville
This would be the same Port of Brisbane that 20 years ago didn't want a bar of Inland Rail or rail in general for that matter.
  bevans Site Admin

Location: Melbourne, Australia
Bingley do we know why trains cannot use the existing network into the Port of Brisbane?    We need to fill that capacity before we open up more.
  james.au Chief Commissioner

Location: Sydney, NSW
This would be the same Port of Brisbane that 20 years ago didn't want a bar of Inland Rail or rail in general for that matter.
bingley hall
Well they dont really want Inland now, really, what they want is a better hinterland network to feed into the port more effectively.

Which is what this report is all about.  Its not much at all about any freight south of say Moree.
  bevans Site Admin

Location: Melbourne, Australia
This would be the same Port of Brisbane that 20 years ago didn't want a bar of Inland Rail or rail in general for that matter.
Well they dont really want Inland now, really, what they want is a better hinterland network to feed into the port more effectively.

Which is what this report is all about.  Its not much at all about any freight south of say Moree.
james.au

James so more about NG links rather than SG?
  Carnot Chief Commissioner

Bingley do we know why trains cannot use the existing network into the Port of Brisbane?    We need to fill that capacity before we open up more.
bevans
Read the report (it's very good IMO).  No possibility of double stacked containers, tangled up with sparks etc etc.
  RTT_Rules Dr Beeching

Location: Dubai UAE
When the Inland opens SG trains will have instant access to the port on a section of track that is barely used by SG services.

The 9km section DG from Salisbury to Dutton Park is shared with sparks and not suited to DS, to do so would require
- Building a dedicated 4th track,
- Rail over pass of the junction to Corinda (same as they did in Adelaide)
- Removal of the unused OH from Salisbury into AR yard.
- Potentially lowering the track bed under the odd bridge (I haven't read the report yet)

None of this is exceptionally hard and the corridor is wide enough for most of the route except the last bit close to Dutton Park fly over.

However to add some complexity to the situation it won't be a 4th track, rather it would be a 5th track as the Qld govt one day in the distant future will build the Greenbank / Beaudesert line which parallels the DG and interstate and completion of the CRR project. Again its one of those things the Qld govt and Feds should get together and plot out a jointly funded solution (with the caveat Qld has a notorious history of being dependent on Feds for suburban rail upgrades).

North of Dutton Park, there is no O/H all the way to the port and not shared with sparks and should not be an issue with the exception of the odd older bridge (maybe), an easy to fix proble, by sinking the rail or building a new bridge. Nothing that hasn't been done before.

Brisbane Port is currently open to 900m SG trains, some changes will be required for longer or shunt at AR. I would however say demand much drive this spending, not guess work.

Is any of this required now, no, is any of this required from day one of the Inland opening, mmm, not sure but the answer would likely be no, but follow the Inland project opening again part of a major upgrade of the Sals - Dutton Park corridor for the Greenbank line on what would be the worst designed piece of rail infrastructure in the country.
  Sulla1 Chief Commissioner

The Interlink Intermodal Terminal 13km west of Toowoomba will be up and running in 2020, and is planning to move 20,000 TEU by an unspecified rail operator per annum to Fisherman Island. Watco is usually rumoured to be the operator but no official announcement has been made. Start-up will be three return services per week.
  Graham4405 Minister for Railways

Location: Dalby Qld
When the Inland opens SG trains will have instant access to the port on a section of track that is barely used by SG services.
RTT_Rules
Not barely used, unused.

Lack of separation from passenger rail is the issue.
  Graham4405 Minister for Railways

Location: Dalby Qld
so more about NG links rather than SG?
bevans
No the Inland Rail will be SG, so an uninterrupted SG connection (or perhaps DG) to the POB is required.
  RTT_Rules Dr Beeching

Location: Dubai UAE
When the Inland opens SG trains will have instant access to the port on a section of track that is barely used by SG services.
Not barely used, unused.

Lack of separation from passenger rail is the issue.
Graham4405
Thanks I was playing it safe by saying "barely used" as there is or was a SG train at the port in Google Satellite.

During the boom times of the late 2000's they didn't have any issues running SG to the port although Coppers Plains trains didn't exist then. Coal trains seem to make it ok and there is always night time, but maybe too restrictive however there is a passing loop on the section from Sals to Dutton Park.

The DG rack from AR to Salisbury, the OH poles are there but the wire is missing, I'm sure that had OH at one stage. So perhaps they have started in some minor degree to ready the line for DS in distant future?
  dthead Site Admin

Location: Melbourne, Australia
Thought the sg to the port was stuffed with the over use of the sg by the gold coast trains, already  the xpt to Roma at is hard to repath !
  dthead Site Admin

Location: Melbourne, Australia
Thought the sg to the port was stuffed with the over use of the sg by the gold coast trains, already  the xpt to Roma at is hard to repath !
  tazzer96 Deputy Commissioner

Its not so much interfering with passenger services.  Its interfering with coal trains.  Lack of a SG loop on the cleveland line section is an issue.
  RTT_Rules Dr Beeching

Location: Dubai UAE
Its not so much interfering with passenger services.  Its interfering with coal trains.  Lack of a SG loop on the cleveland line section is an issue.
tazzer96
Its around 20km or so from Moorooka to the port with no SG passing loop and  the section from Moorooka to Dutton Park is           also congested with Sparks.

There is plenty of opportunity to build a low cost passing loop on the Cleeveland line section. Moorooka to Dutton Park is however more costly, perhaps combining with a fly over of the Yerongpilly would work. The costings of this would be easy, just refer to the Adelaide project and add 20% for higher wages in Qld and increased project complexity.
  justapassenger Chief Commissioner

This would be the same Port of Brisbane that 20 years ago didn't want a bar of Inland Rail or rail in general for that matter.
bingley hall
The Port of Brisbane Pty Ltd website shows that the directors and CEO all joined the company within the last ten years.

It's good to see that new leadership has led to a new approach to the port's connectivity to land transport networks.
  bevans Site Admin

Location: Melbourne, Australia
Its not so much interfering with passenger services.  Its interfering with coal trains.  Lack of a SG loop on the cleveland line section is an issue.
Its around 20km or so from Moorooka to the port with no SG passing loop and  the section from Moorooka to Dutton Park is           also congested with Sparks.

There is plenty of opportunity to build a low cost passing loop on the Cleeveland line section. Moorooka to Dutton Park is however more costly, perhaps combining with a fly over of the Yerongpilly would work. The costings of this would be easy, just refer to the Adelaide project and add 20% for higher wages in Qld and increased project complexity.
RTT_Rules

Why not start with that as build the traffic from there?  What SG trains are using the port nowdays?
  phil_48 Assistant Commissioner

Location: Wynnum North
The current NG trains to the Port use the existing Cleveland line as passing loops in various locations between suburban services which are 4 trains per hour in off peak and after about 2030 plus no trains between roughly 0130 and 0345.
  RTT_Rules Dr Beeching

Location: Dubai UAE
Its not so much interfering with passenger services.  Its interfering with coal trains.  Lack of a SG loop on the cleveland line section is an issue.
Its around 20km or so from Moorooka to the port with no SG passing loop and  the section from Moorooka to Dutton Park is           also congested with Sparks.

There is plenty of opportunity to build a low cost passing loop on the Cleeveland line section. Moorooka to Dutton Park is however more costly, perhaps combining with a fly over of the Yerongpilly would work. The costings of this would be easy, just refer to the Adelaide project and add 20% for higher wages in Qld and increased project complexity.

Why not start with that as build the traffic from there?  What SG trains are using the port nowdays?
bevans
There is or was a short shunt to Moorooka, but to actual port I thought it was very rare however others are saying zip. Street view photos (when ever they were taken) at some LX show a very rusty SG rail.
  Sulla1 Chief Commissioner

The standard gauge connection to the port is already there, it has been for more than twenty years and has barely been used at all. Add to the situation that up to two thirds of the existing freight paths may become available during the next twelve months as the New Acland mine winds down.

In other words, if capacity is the issue, now is the time to test the port's and rail operators' resolve to use the existing infrastructure.
  RTT_Rules Dr Beeching

Location: Dubai UAE
The standard gauge connection to the port is already there, it has been for more than twenty years and has barely been used at all. Add to the situation that up to two thirds of the existing freight paths may become available during the next twelve months as the New Acland mine winds down.

In other words, if capacity is the issue, now is the time to test the port's and rail operators' resolve to use the existing infrastructure.
Sulla1
True.

Thinking a bit on this, the feds are dumping alot of money into separating freight from Pax in Sydney, Mel and Adelaide with more to come. You can only assume that Brisbane will eventually be also receiving the same separation projects, which  compared to Sydney is fairly simple, maybe $250m which if spent at the same time as other works such as quadding the southern line from Dutton Park to Salisbury would  be a platform change over the out dated arrangement they have now.
  james.au Chief Commissioner

Location: Sydney, NSW
What would make more difference though is upcountry investment.  If you had decent feeder lines with decent TAL, I'm sure the current SG track would get used more.
  neillfarmer Chief Train Controller

The report is worth reading. What is telling is the comparison of shipping grain from Goodiwindi to the PoB by rail and road.
The report lays the blame for the dismal use of rail for the transport of containers to/from PoB at the neglect of the rail freight system by the Queensland Government.
  Graham4405 Minister for Railways

Location: Dalby Qld
What SG trains are using the port nowdays?
bevans
As I said above, NONE. Please read the thread!
  RTT_Rules Dr Beeching

Location: Dubai UAE
What would make more difference though is upcountry investment.  If you had decent feeder lines with decent TAL, I'm sure the current SG track would get used more.
james.au
I'm thinking Yes and No,

The current Port line is basically an extension of the North Coast SG to AR for which between the Hunter Valley and PoB I believe there are only a hand full or even less customers of the railway outside the interstate intermodal to Brisbane. For example Casino Cement and Rocklea Steel are the only two customers of the railway I'm aware of, maybe there are others at Casino, Grafton, Taree. So any potential customer has a nice long rail friendly haul to the port with a reasonable standard railway and TAL.

The few branch lines on the NSW NCL did not fail due to TAL.

Ironically the biggest potential source of traffic from NSW is grain from from NW NSW.

A traffic that may, just may have a chance with the Inland is Ammonia from Gibson Island, Incetec feeding directly into the grain districts, but this would incur transfer from road to rail in the grain area.

Sponsored advertisement

Subscribers: bevans, james.au, RTT_Rules

Display from: