[edit] All tlk re passenger trains on the NTR can branch off here:
NTR and passenger trains
http://www.railpage.com.au/f-t11380031-0-asc-s0.htm
[/edit]
Thankyou.
( corrected the link)
I notice that in the US the big operators run bulk fertiliser cars to grain-growing regions as well as the usual bulk grain trains. Is there any scope for that kind of operation in Australia, either as part of a mixed goods or as a unit train if Inland Rail gets up in any form? I understand that Bunge is doing a similar operation with trucks from their terminal at Bunbury in WA - grain to the terminal and fertiliser out of it, back to the growers/bulk handlers.
Thanks for the insight! So there's probably no hope for bulk fertiliser on the Inland Rail, even if they tried bulk-to-terminal and blending it closer to the site?
Are there any other commodities other than grain, cotton, coal and MEL-BNE boxes that could go via Inland Rail/NTR? I guess that fuel is gone and probably won't come back without a subsidy or big regulatory changes.
One possibility I see is perhaps a single engine and a small rake of wagons moving specialty grain around might want to backload from the ports (probably operated by a smaller operator too id guess). But if they could, is there the loading facility at port to do it?A flatcar or two added onto the consist of grain hoppers would probably do the trick for this sort of backhaul operation. Use smaller containers that could be unloaded by a standard forklift to ease the burden of all the extra handling. Simples.
A flatcar or two added onto the consist of grain hoppers would probably do the trick for this sort of backhaul operation. Use smaller containers that could be unloaded by a standard forklift to ease the burden of all the extra handling. Simples.Wouldn't work In this day and age, to much stiffing around for any cost to be saved !
Wouldn't work In this day and age, to much stiffing around for any cost to be saved !
Regular baulk shipments of a curtain type of fertiliser directly from a rail loader at the port to a fertiliser depot/s In the growing areas, may be cost effective, but there would need to be large volumes to justify train loads.
If the fertiliser companies ran their own trains (rolling stock) from their port depot to their Inland depot, that could open up many opportunities ? (as the service would be door to door)
Getting back to the issue of wether to bypass Toowoomba or not, I can only suggest that Toowoomba will (probably) be there long after coal traffic has dwindled. Commuter PAX heading to/from Brisbane are not likely to want to go via Warwick, as they are time-sensitive.
Unfortunately for rail, we're not the US, which can afford a dozen or more 'class 1' range crossings because of the population spread.
My thoughtsGetting back to the issue of wether to bypass Toowoomba or not, I can only suggest that Toowoomba will (probably) be there long after coal traffic has dwindled. Commuter PAX heading to/from Brisbane are not likely to want to go via Warwick, as they are time-sensitive.
Unfortunately for rail, we're not the US, which can afford a dozen or more 'class 1' range crossings because of the population spread.
I can't see the Toowoomba Range changing any time soon - QR's current $55-million upgrade of the narrow gauge crossing suggests the Queensland Government doesn't think so either. But having said that, we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that 16.09-million people now live between Melbourne and Brisbane - and this is growing by more than 1-million every five years - so the age old argument of the great wide open empty land that is Australia won't hold up for much longer on the East Coast.
My thoughtsHere is a possibly more left of centre idea, what about a conversion to SG? If the rolling stock is the issue, then can the SG fleet out there do the job?. They could easily pop over the border or up from Vic. Given inland rail will be SG, the conversion of the Western line to SG (incl possibly to Warwick, though I've got no idea of the freight demand there) might yield a lot of benefit...
Inland isn't due for nearly a decade so they have to do something and $55m is not alot of money compared what is spent on rail infrastructure. Its a necessary upgrade to deal with the fact that the locos and wagons are nearing end of life and the hand me down practice from CQ that kept the SW going for all these decades has stopped / can longer supply stock that fits in the tunnels.
My thoughtsHere is a possibly more left of centre idea, what about a conversion to SG? If the rolling stock is the issue, then can the SG fleet out there do the job?. They could easily pop over the border or up from Vic. Given inland rail will be SG, the conversion of the Western line to SG (incl possibly to Warwick, though I've got no idea of the freight demand there) might yield a lot of benefit...
Inland isn't due for nearly a decade so they have to do something and $55m is not alot of money compared what is spent on rail infrastructure. Its a necessary upgrade to deal with the fact that the locos and wagons are nearing end of life and the hand me down practice from CQ that kept the SW going for all these decades has stopped / can longer supply stock that fits in the tunnels.
Interestingly there's a major sleeper and trackbed strengthening project just starting on the Western Line too. New sleepers are going all the way to Quilpie - supposedly for the new cattle contracts, which will be receiving new rollingstock and heavier locos. 106-tonne hoppers are expected to be moving to the Western Line "soon" as well (there's not much else available anyway)...so Queensland's "forgotten" mainline is finally moving towards the 21st century.
too many LXWithout checking GMaps again, I though there was only about three or four between the southern edges of suburbia and the current station.
We've disabled Quick Reply for this thread as it was last updated more than six months ago.