I have actually spoken to DTEI about the cost of rebuilding lines when I was inquiring about the track up to Riverton last year (when I was living there), and it starts at about $1 million per kilometre for basic renewal where only sleepers, ballast, etc. need work....

Believe that and you'll believe anything

Basic rehab would be 20-25% of those quoted costs.

Exactly..... we were building Pilbara heavy haul railways in late 2007 for under $2m per kilometre with everything (earthworks, track, signalling, etc) for Rio Tinto, Bing's comments on cost are spot on.......

Trust me - when dealing with government departments, their costings are well above what the contractor will do it for, by a large factor...... My current job is working for a government department by being seconded from a private contractor, and the money being discussed would gold plate every turd from here to the east coast.....  

Does G&W still actually own the Appamurra line?
The same question could also be asked of all BG lines north of Roseworthy.
Regards
Stuart Maier

Does G&W still actually own the Appamurra line?
The same question could also be asked of all BG lines north of Roseworthy.
Regards
Stuart Maier

At this time yes they do. But probably not for much longer now that they have bigger fish to fry.

If people had attended the Adelaide Hills Rail History Tour last weekend ( 29 Jan )that was posted on this board, we went out as far as Murray Bridge and also visited parts of the Appamurra Line.

I will put my five cents worth in , how can ROAD transport be cheaper than rail, when a b double costs 400k plus rego ,insurance ,fuel, wages ,etc someone in the rail industry is not on this planet.

The person getting something transported does not need to own a truck you just pay someone to cart it for a set fee. Most trucks and trucking company's will do it for minimum profit but rail will charge higher fee's because of overheads.

Actually the fuel and wages are about the only two revelant things, the rest including purchase price has nothing really to do with the actual cost of the transport of something for a customer.

I will put my five cents worth in , how can ROAD transport be cheaper than rail, when a b double costs 400k plus rego ,insurance ,fuel, wages ,etc someone in the rail industry is not on this planet.

Well for starters, whats the access fee to the DIRN Adelaide to Melbourne, then compare that to the access fee a truck would pay to drive down route 8.

If I may add my 50 cents here. Take note of where the grain industry has been spending on new storage in the past 15 years. In the early 90's SACBH set up a "strategic site committee" to quantify and establish the best location for upgrading and/or constructing new receival sites.

It's mainly been on the main north/south interstate rail corridor. AWB entered the storage & handling part of the industry with it's "Grainflow sites" at Crystal Brook & Mallala and SACBH built Bowmans from nothing only 10k's from Balaklava (which pretty much sums up the fate of the mid north BG then). New bunker sites were built at Snowtown, Gladstone, Tailem Bend. For the purpose of helping ensure the viablity of the Mallee railway lines, a new site at Tookayerta and building new bunkers at Pinnaroo was done.

The Pinnaroo & Loxton lines are the only domestic lines still in use east of Spencer Gulf.

For a minority number of grain growers in the eastern part of the mid north the strategic site committee has failed them completely.
This policy has passed on some massive freight distances for their grain.
Remember that Viterra has a fill & shut policy on all of it's small sites like Andrews & Burra so growers in this region have 4 distant choices to take their grain once these are full. Gladstone, Snowtown, Bowmans or Roseworthy.

I would have thought that if it's economical to keep either the Loxton or Pinnaroo lines open then it would equally have been economical to build a bunker site at..... (I would suggest Farrell Flat), and keep that line open. You would be suprised the patronage it would receive.

Was the conversion of the Mallee lines (including Apamurra) to SG, funded by the Commonwealth when the Adelaide /Melbourne line was converted?

Others here would know better but surely (and I'm talking about mid-nineties not 2011) the old Burra line must have been in a hell of a lot better condition than the Appamurra line ever was.

What I'm getting at is that if the BG to SG conversion costs had to be justified to keep the Appamurra, Loxton And Pinnaroo in use then why couldn't just one mid north BG line receive the same consideration? Did these Mallee lines receive a political freebie?

Over time we have seen 6 lines consolidated down to 2 out in the Mallee. I would have thought that of the 5 lines that went through the Mid North could still have had more than just the 1 interstate line remaining; especially because it's the western most line of the 5 that were originally laid.

Was the conversion of the Mallee lines (including Apamurra) to SG, funded by the Commonwealth when the Adelaide /Melbourne line was converted?

Apamurra line was gauge converted pretty soon after the Adelaide -Melbourne line was done.
The Loxton and Pinnaroo line remained BG for a number of years with a captive fleet of wagons and a handfull of BG 830's.
Tailem Bend silo complex is a sub-terminal so had the facilities to unload trains as well as load them. This made it easy to unload BG trains and store the grain before outloading to SG trains for transport to an Export terminal. Monarto South did not have facilities to unload a train, to effect a BG to SG transfer.
All three lines where gauge converted during AN's tenure so in a way the $$ did come from the Commonwealth.

What I'm getting at is that if the BG to SG conversion costs had to be justified to keep the Appamurra, Loxton And Pinnaroo in use then why couldn't just one mid north BG line receive the same consideration? Did these Mallee lines receive a political freebie?

Over time we have seen 6 lines consolidated down to 2 out in the Mallee. I would have thought that of the 5 lines that went through the Mid North could still have had more than just the 1 interstate line remaining; especially because it's the western most line of the 5 that were originally laid.

The Peterborough (via Burra) Line was originally the main line to the eastern states (with a bogie change at Peterborough) so the line would have been in good condition in it's hey day. The SG conversion of the Adelaide - Pirie line basically killed off the BG traffic via Burra.

tractorshunter's post raise many questions that woudl take a small thesis to respond to.

Simply however, while the rail industry could have done more to encourage greater use of rail, decisions on the location of new or expanded storage facilities are the prerogative of the grain handlers and marketers.   [/b]

The Loxton and Pinnaroo line remained BG for a number of years with a captive fleet of wagons and a handfull of BG 830's.

Pretty sure it was less than 12 months - would need to check though.

Agree with your point though about the Mallee standardisation and the condition of the Burra line being two separate issues.

And which broad gauge line would you have standardised and thus isolated at Gawler?

There would have been no connection to any Standard Gauge Network for the line to standardised. You would have had to take it up to Terowie and Peterborough to connect to SG line, which would have involved more cost, then be the least efficient route.

The only other option may have been to regauge the entire network, which means the train would need to run-around at Hamley Bridge, and head for Balaklava, then 10-15km would need to be built to connect to the SG Line at Bowmans. Megabucks required, obviously.

BG Trains to Saddleworth ran until a few years ago, which also included Roseworthy. There may be potential when the Gawler Line becomes SG, through to Roseworthy, but beyond is now beyond repair. The only line on this Mid-North Network that has any shot of being made SG is the line to the Penrice Quarry.

tractorshunter's post raise many questions that woudl take a small thesis to respond to.

Simply however, while the rail industry could have done more to encourage greater use of rail, decisions on the location of new or expanded storage facilities are the prerogative of the grain handlers and marketers.

This I do agree with.  One way to ensure a reduction in environmental impacts for new receval sites is to ensure (as they do in other jurisdictions) rail is provided as the primary means of transportation.

Planning approvals for new silos should include this requirement as it exists for other bulk commodities.

--Bill

G'day all

A grain receival centre was been erected at Eudunda just after the rail tracks were pulled out.

Great planning.

We are reaping the "benefits" of the SA Government of the 1970's selling off the rail network so it had no control over transport within the state.

I have just been inspecting a facility at Pt Adelaide from which will originate up to 12 road trains per day transporting stuff to Roxby.

On another project I have helped on its way there is a facility at Roxby for handling 30 road trains per day.

30 Road trains per day makes the grain haulage seem like Tonka Toy stuff. None of it is going by rail!

Regards
Ian

G'day all

A grain receival centre was been erected at Eudunda just after the rail tracks were pulled out.

Great planning.

We are reaping the "benefits" of the SA Government of the 1970's selling off the rail network so it had no control over transport within the state.

Still?  What about the proposal (if there is one) to pull out the current line? Do we blame the guys in the 1970's for that?

If the operator does not want the line then hand it back to the government for someone else to use.

I have just been inspecting a facility at Pt Adelaide from which will originate up to 12 road trains per day transporting stuff to Roxby.

On another project I have helped on its way there is a facility at Roxby for handling 30 road trains per day.

Why can't this traffic go on rail?  Is it bulk or containerised?  Why didn;t the government insist on having rail haulage the primary source of transport as governments do in other jurisdictions?

30 Road trains per day makes the grain haulage seem like Tonka Toy stuff. None of it is going by rail!

Regards
Ian

--Bill

Bill (Freightgate), at present there is no rail line to Roxby Downs / Olympic Dam. Freight would have to be trans-shipped at Pimba for the last 90km to Roxby Downs of 105km to Olympic Dam. While you and I see this as a better option that the road trains, BHP obviously does not, although I believe they are interested in putting in a line to the mine, maybe it's been mentioned in the EIS? Certainly should have been, IMHO.

Bill (Freightgate), at present there is no rail line to Roxby Downs / Olympic Dam. Freight would have to be trans-shipped at Pimba for the last 90km to Roxby Downs of 105km to Olympic Dam. While you and I see this as a better option that the road trains, BHP obviously does not, although I believe they are interested in putting in a line to the mine, maybe it's been mentioned in the EIS? Certainly should have been, IMHO.

BHP are only interested in a line to the mine if the taxpayer picks up the tab.

Well ... who can blame them....they've just posted a measly $30billion profit for the last 12 months, haven't they?  

G'day all

A grain receival centre was been erected at Eudunda just after the rail tracks were pulled out.

Great planning.

Where is this located?

Can't find anything on Google maps

BHP are only interested in a line to the mine if the taxpayer picks up the tab.

Is this something the company has stated in a round about way or is this your assumption Bingley?

Rail would surely be a better cost option for BHP in any case so why has this not been addressed?  

Who would have signed off on the use of trucks? A rural council?

--Bill

G'day all

A grain receival centre was been erected at Eudunda just after the rail tracks were pulled out.

Great planning.

Where is this located?

Can't find anything on Google maps

According to an ABB document that I have from a few years ago, Eudunda is a road-serviced "general site", as opposed to a "strategic site". As far as I am aware, many of these "general sites" are simply the old SACBH silo complexes, with no grain bunkers or sheds included, as they are at most of the "strategic sites". The nearest "strategic site" to Eudunda is Saddleworth.

According to an ABB document that I have from a few years ago, Eudunda is a road-serviced "general site", as opposed to a "strategic site". As far as I am aware, many of these "general sites" are simply the old SACBH silo complexes, with no grain bunkers or sheds included, as they are at most of the "strategic sites". The nearest "strategic site" to Eudunda is Saddleworth.

Looks like a site which has had some investment of late.  New silos to the north west of the existing two?

http://maps.google.com.au/maps?q=Eudunda&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Eudunda+South+Australia&gl=au&ll=-34.175693,139.086147&spn=0.003329,0.006427&t=h&z=18&iwloc=A

--Bill

Bing

Check the bunkers on Saleyards Road just east of the town in the fork of the Morgan and Robertstown junction.

Ian

Definately look like grain bunkers do when they're empty, Ian. Assuming the imagery is the same as that around Saddleworth, to the west of Eudunda, the Saddleworth grain bunkers are holding a lot more grain. Is the Eudunda area considered marginal for cropping? Are these bunkers filled every year? Are the silos used?

All I know is that a distant relative of mine owns a farm very close to the Andrews silo and has been forced to spend big bucks on on-farm storage because of the time involved taking grain to Snowtown.

That's all I meant by the eastern mid north being ignored by SACBH (as it was then) when all these new bunkers across the state were constructed. Before any one jumps down my throat I'm not suggesting the old Spalding line should be used when I mention Andrews. It's just that he's used Andrews, Burra, Farrell Flat or Brinkworth as delivery options. All basically now defunct because of Viterra's fill and shut policy and using them for minor segradations like oats and faba beans.

With the higher and more reliable rainfall, the area around Clare and Burra could have used rail with similar tonnages to Pinnaroo or Loxton and certainly Appamurra! I scratch my head as to why the Appamurra line was seen as viable but the Burra line wasn't when, from a maintenence perspective, the Burra line was in better condition.

And which broad gauge line would you have standardised and thus isolated at Gawler?

The concept of converting the Burra line to SG was just thrown in as a comparison to the expense of converting the mallee lines.  I'm aware that Salisbury to Gawler was the sticking point 15 years ago although it would be less of an issue now with the future metro plans. Obviously fron GWA's end of it, it would have been cheaper to retain some BG hoppers then spend on conversion.