In a move that surprised quite a few gunzels, C510 was spot-hired by SCT after one of their own locos couldn't be used to haul 3GX1 (Parkes to Port Germain), & was sighted at Crystal Brook around 2pm today with 22 wagons.

Would this be a first?

In a move that surprised quite a few gunzels, C510 was spot-hired by SCT after one of their own locos couldn't be used to haul 3GX1 (Parkes to Port Germain), & was sighted at Crystal Brook around 2pm today with 22 wagons.

X is Port Augusta.

I noted a GX combine with an MP at Port Germein on 4Trak from Port Augusta recently while checking out approaching traffic but both trains had SCT class as normal.

My question is, why Port Germein?

Why not Crystal Brook or Coonamia? or Mambray Creek, for that matter...

M636C

Would have been a nice train to videotape.

Would have been a nice train to videotape.

You use tape?

Would this be a first?

No. C lass were used on SCT extras for a short time about 10 years ago.

Where is the C class now?  Is it in Adelaide or has it returned to Parkes?

Where is the C class now?  Is it in Adelaide or has it returned to Parkes?

Most likely be picked up by 3PG1 at Pt Germein on its way through today.

3GX1 terminates at Port Germein. Regardless of numbering convention.
Attaches to 3MP9, there is no 3GP1. (Currently)

Port Germein has only a passing loop ie no sidings. How would they do this on what is a busy part of the network

Port Germein has only a passing loop ie no sidings. How would they do this on what is a busy part of the network

I wasn't there, of course, but GX1 got there first and the MP pulled into (presumably) the other track.

Since MP has a crew car ex Adelaide and a GX doesn't, I assume the GX cars were added at the rear.

Certainly I saw the MP train at Stirling North and it had two SCTs and a fuel tank container wagon and a crew car at the front.

It didn't take long and the loco(s) from the GX headed south as light engines as soon as the MP departed.

Some shuffling of the GX locomotives would seem to be required to add the cars on the rear of the MP....

M636C

3GX1 had 22 vehicles/platforms in tow and C510 was the only loco. 9 were detached at Crystal Brook and picked up fairly quickly by 2PM9.

It then proceeded to Port Germein. Quite how the manouevre was carried out I'm not sure, nor do I really care, but 3MP9 following picked up the remaining 13 and carried on its merry way to Port Augusta and beyond.

Regardless of what has been posted above there is a short stub siding at Port Germein as images posted elsewhere clearly show. C510 was stowed in the siding there along with a couple of flatcars loaded with rails that were already there.

Though not confirmed 100%, C510 stayed there (it did not head south light engine) and was to be picked up by 3PG1 today.

A 800 metre siding is being constructed at Port Germein to better accommodate these moves (as reported in the latest issue of Catch Point magazine).

These moves have been going on for a couple of months now and as far as I know go against ARTC general business rules, though things may have changed. Other operators services have been delayed by these moves on several occasions so I'm surprised it has continued to happen.

These moves have been going on for a couple of months now and as far as I know go against ARTC general business rules, though things may have changed. Other operators services have been delayed by these moves on several occasions so I'm surprised it has continued to happen.

Great update BH. Why would the shunting of trains at Port Germein be against ARTC rules?  Can you please explain further?

Customers need to deliver wagons that is why they use the network.

Great update BH. Why would the shunting of trains at Port Germein be against ARTC rules?  Can you please explain further?

Customers need to deliver wagons that is why they use the network.

My understanding, confirmed by a former ARTC employee, is that shunting on the mainline at a crossing loop is a no-no in general circumstances form a safeworking perspective and from disruption to the network. This exchange of wagons at Pt G can block both the mainline and the crossing loop for 60-90 minutes preventing any other train from passing and effectively blocking two running sections.

Until recently this manouevre has been carried out at Spencer Jct, Port Augusta and has been done so for several years. There may be a dispute between GWA and SCT over the cost of using Spencer Jct, but its hardly ARTC's brief to bend the rules to resolve this.

And you are quite right in that customers need to deliver their wagons. But why, as I already stated, should other operators have their timetables disrupted in getting their wagons delivered?

Port Germein has only a passing loop ie no sidings. How would they do this on what is a busy part of the network

How would they do what?

How would they do what?

Combine two intermodal trains, GX1 and MP9, for example.

M636C

Regardless of what has been posted above there is a short stub siding at Port Germein as images posted elsewhere clearly show. C510 was stowed in the siding there along with a couple of flatcars loaded with rails that were already there.

I thought I'd seen that siding...

That helps get the GX1 power out of the way, but MP9 still needs to stop and back onto the additional wagons after the loop points have been changed.

I guess the GX crew can give distance instructions to MP9 and couple the cars, which would speed things up.

On the previous day to my observations (2 May 15) an SCT loco was added to a PM service in Spencer Junction and it had been there for a couple of days following attention at Downer Port Augusta. So SCT still use Spencer Junction yard.

It does save around 100 km not to go to PA, but Crystal Brook would seem a more logical point to combine trains.

M636C

It does save around 100 km not to go to PA, but Crystal Brook would seem a more logical point to combine trains.

M636C

Crystal Brook has two separate grain loading facilities that would be blocked in by these shunts.

Crystal Brook has two separate grain loading facilities that would be blocked in by these shunts.

Crystal Brook would be the perfect place to do that that.  Looking at the location on google earth the yard area is quite long and there does appear to be space for an additional track or two.  is that all Crystal Brook would require?

using the link I draw your attention to the two bridges.  What is the background to these as they appear to be both rail bridges but with only one connected to the network?

Crystal Brook would be the perfect place to do that that.  Looking at the location on google earth the yard area is quite long and there does appear to be space for an additional track or two.  is that all Crystal Brook would require?

I suggest you contact ARTC and SCT and tell them they've got it all wrong then.

Very kind of you also to offer to pay for the additional signalling and switches that would be required at Crystal Brook compared to Pt Germein.

I suggest you contact ARTC and SCT and tell them they've got it all wrong then.

Very kind of you also to offer to pay for the additional signalling and switches that would be required at Crystal Brook compared to Pt Germein.

Why your approach?  Crystal Brook does make sense as previous suggested by another user.  

Please explain your comments about ARTC having it wrong.  The issue we are discussing is the lack of infrastructure at Port Germein which does not allow shunting and management of trains.

In other words customers of ARTC are forced to break ARTC's own rules.  What has not been discussed is why SCT do not use Port Augusta Yard.  However as pointed out this is a longer distance for wagons.

Please explain why additional signalling would be required as there are already grain sidings in the yard.

it may come as a shock to some on this forum but ARTC are there to provide services to customers who wish to use the network.  That is their charter.  I get it, let's ignore the problem and hope it goes away.

Why your approach?  Crystal Brook does make sense as previous suggested by another user.  

Please explain your comments about ARTC having it wrong.  The issue we are discussing is the lack of infrastructure at Port Germein which does not allow shunting and management of trains.

In other words customers of ARTC are forced to break ARTC's own rules.  What has not been discussed is why SCT do not use Port Augusta Yard.  However as pointed out this is a longer distance for wagons.

Please explain why additional signalling would be required as there are already grain sidings in the yard.

it may come as a shock to some on this forum but ARTC are there to provide services to customers who wish to use the network.  That is their charter.  I get it, let's ignore the problem and hope it goes away.

It is a cost issue at Spencer Jct as has already been stated. It is not ARTC's brief to settle squabbles between competing operators.

We are talking about a shunt move of 10-20 wagons twice a week here and you're wanting to put in $1m plus of taxpayer funded infrastructure in at Crystal Brook to accommodate it. If there's a grain train in the siding when SCT wants to do their shunt, SCT will just sit down on the main line blocking access to the network for other operators - you seem to think that bending over backwards for SCT is OK, but it's fine to disadvantage other operators.

EDIT - you may also find there's an ownership issue with the siding at CB - would need to check that though.

We are talking about a shunt move of 10-20 wagons twice a week here and you're wanting to put in $1m plus of taxpayer funded infrastructure in at Crystal Brook to accommodate it.

If there's a grain train in the siding when SCT wants to do their shunt, SCT will just sit down on the main line blocking access to the network for other operators - you seem to think that bending over backwards for SCT is OK, but it's fine to disadvantage other operators.

$1m to put in 1 kilometre of track in a yard environment?  ARTC have clearly lost the plot.

I am not advocating for SCT or any operator.  I am simply suggesting an additional track in the yard at Crystal Brook is a most sensible approach.  it IS the role and job of ARTC to make the network available to operators.

How am I bending over backwards for SCT and how does my suggestion to expand Crystal Brook disadvantage other operators? if anything it actually advantages other operators by:

1. Removing the need for SCT or any other operator to shunt at PG and therefore delaying trains.
2. it provides additional infrastructure at CB for any operator. Not just SCT.
3. it frees up track capacity between CB and PG for those moves.

Other advantages include:

1. Lessening of track access fees for SCT
2. Reduction in carbon emissions
3. Reduction in fuel use.

The mere fact this has not already been done is enough for me to think ARTC network planning and customer service is not doing their job.

The mere fact this has not already been done is enough for me to think ARTC network planning and customer service is not doing their job.

I suggest you contact your local MP.

This photo by Damien Butler (CSR008 SCT002 on 3MP9 cross NR8 NR118 on 2PM5 on the double track at Crystal Brook on 13/5/15) of an SCT cross shows little room for an extra track.  Is this the UP end of the loop?



How many tracks are in existence at Crystal Brook?