Still waiting for rail upgrade

 
Topic moved from News by bevans on 29 Nov 2016 16:46
  freightgate Minister for Railways

Location: Albury, New South Wales
SG passenger also includes the overland and 4 XPT services per day.

DG from The north for SG traffic sounds like a solution.

Sponsored advertisement

  LancedDendrite Chief Commissioner

Location: North Haverbrook; where the monorail is king!
DG is a problem as is shown by issues with the XPT in Brisbane.
Simstrain
No, the problem is that there's only one track into Roma St that the XPT can use, and it's shared with other traffic that is often travelling in the opposing direction. You make both tracks over the Merivale Bridge DG (and/or build Cross-River Rail) and those access issues are solved.

As james.au pointed out, the existing Shepparton line service can slot into the ARTC's current train plan right now. The only question is whether this is sustainable given that the Shepparton line is apparently in dire need of a frequency boost and hence will require more services to run on it. Upgrades to ARTC track involving almost-complete duplication between Craigieburn and Seymour (through gauge conversion and passing lane extensions) are a conceptually easier fix but they may not solve the problem.

A 'clearways' program between Tottenham and the North Melbourne Flyover might be another way to hep fix the access the problem. This would involve turnout upgrades to at least 80kph and the complete elimination of shunting moves along a pair of tracks all the way through this corridor. Think of it as an SG version of RRL, but on a shoestring. This would get rid of the 'crawl' through Dynon for SG traffic to Southern Cross and slotting them into paths across the North Melbourne Flyover much easier by increasing reliability.

Another possibility is to reduce Seymour services that terminate at Southern Cross and replace them with new, much higher frequency post-electrification Wallan services that through run on the suburban network; this would free up platform space at Southern Cross if this is another problem.

Other than those options there isn't really that much low-hanging fruit to improve capacity. There's no room for an extra flyover at North Melbourne, the best you could do is make the SG connection to said flyover into a flying junction with RRL instead of a flat junction.
  Duncs Chief Commissioner

There's currently 32 level crossings (I may be 1 out here, you get the idea though) with only signs and 11 crossings with a warning system between Managalore and Shepparton. Incedently there is 2 unsignaled level crossings between Seymour and Mangalore, these are paddock access crossings mostly used by track maintence staff.

woodford
woodford
Given the number of level crossings (32), and the glacial pace of replacing them. [eg. Echuca] An upgrade of the track for N sets at 115kph would be a big help. As locos can safely go faster here. The crossings will be upgraded eventually, then V Locities can be used.
Otherwise build a DMU than can (but hopefully not be required to) withstand a high speed collision. BTW; how strong are the NSW Hunter Valley Railcar DMU's?
  simstrain Chief Commissioner

All NSW passenger rolling stock have to meet significant crash standards. HAving said that the hunter railcars don't have to deal with anywhere near as many level crossings as vlocitys have in regional Victoria.
  Duncs Chief Commissioner

All NSW passenger rolling stock have to meet significant crash standards. HAving said that the hunter railcars don't have to deal with anywhere near as many level crossings as vlocitys have in regional Victoria.
simstrain
Thanks Simstrain

As far as you know, what is the maximum speed the Hunter Rail cars can travel through an unprotected level crossing?
  simstrain Chief Commissioner

All NSW passenger rolling stock have to meet significant crash standards. HAving said that the hunter railcars don't have to deal with anywhere near as many level crossings as vlocitys have in regional Victoria.
Thanks Simstrain

As far as you know, what is the maximum speed the Hunter Rail cars can travel through an unprotected level crossing?
Duncs

I don't know if they actually have any unprotected level crossings to travel through up that way. Just looking at the railway line on google earth it is hard to find a level crossing period let alone an unprotected one. I'm not 100% sure but the hunter railcars might not even go to Dungog or Singleton which would be done by the endeavours.
  woodford Chief Commissioner

Duncs Said............

"Otherwise build a DMU than can (but hopefully not be required to) withstand a high speed collision. BTW; how strong are the NSW Hunter Valley Railcar DMU's?"

Unlikely to occur, the problem being the physics of collisions,, WIth an N class, V a truck, we have a 120 ton locomotive with a very solid frame meeting a vehicle weighing between 1 and 40 tons, this means the weight of the loco will well over power any inertia the truck has. The loco's solid construction means it uses the truck as its "crumple zone" and thus in most cases protecting the crew and the passengers.

A DMU whoever is built with a similar construction as a heavy truck and is around the same weight so in a collision both vehicles crumple together, the accelaration imparted to the DMU in such an encounter is also far higher than in case of the loco so there's more  likely hood of injuries.

woodford
  Trainplanner Chief Commissioner

Location: Along the Line
There is a view from the National Regulator that any line where regularly scheduled passenger trains operate will eventualy require all level crossing to have fully active level crossing protection.  That entails bells, lights, booms and approach advanced yellow warning lights as seen on a number of crossings now in WA and Victoria.    This will be incredibly expensive and I think the approach should be what I would call a new generation Alcam assessment tool that considers more criteria in determining the risk profile for each crossing than the current Alcam assessment does now.

I also believe based on the Victorian experience and also applied in some other juridstictions reducing road speed down to 80km/hr is also another consideration.

even so yes there are a lot of crossings and no doubt there will be moves to increase the number of actively protected crossings regardless.
  Carnot Chief Commissioner

The other option is to simply close the crossing.  Note that the Maryborough to Ararat line which will be reactivated in about 12 months time will have numerous crossings removed (most are on private land).
  Duncs Chief Commissioner

Duncs Said............

"Otherwise build a DMU than can (but hopefully not be required to) withstand a high speed collision. BTW; how strong are the NSW Hunter Valley Railcar DMU's?"

Unlikely to occur, the problem being the physics of collisions,, WIth an N class, V a truck, we have a 120 ton locomotive with a very solid frame meeting a vehicle weighing between 1 and 40 tons, this means the weight of the loco will well over power any inertia the truck has. The loco's solid construction means it uses the truck as its "crumple zone" and thus in most cases protecting the crew and the passengers.

A DMU whoever is built with a similar construction as a heavy truck and is around the same weight so in a collision both vehicles crumple together, the accelaration imparted to the DMU in such an encounter is also far higher than in case of the loco so there's more  likely hood of injuries.

woodford
woodford
Hi Woodford

Thanks for that information. N Sets are clearly the safest way to go here, at least for the time being. Until all the LX  are replaced or closed.
  simstrain Chief Commissioner

An Xplorer carriage is 57-58 tonnes. An XPT power car is 76 tonnes. Is that strong enough for you woodford?

One thing I did notice while looking along the rail line to dungog was that roads followed rivers under rail bridges and hence no need for level crossing period. In victoria there probably wouldn't be the elevation change to make this viable and so why there are so many level crossings without protection.
  hbedriver Chief Train Controller

Some level crossings on the Shep line maybe could easily be closed. A couple of others really should have booms regardless of train type, given increase of users (e.g. that one about 500m north of Toolamba serving a new housing area).

Upgrade to 115km/h for loco-hauled would not be wasting money, as if ever they eliminated the passive crossings they could readily run railcars at 130km/h. Some time savings possible.

This corridor is really constipated at the moment; dunno how they are going to run the freight trains with extra passenger trains. Both freight Operators use the same sets fairly hard, not much down-time. QUBE especially run theirs almost constantly, whether to Deniliquin or Tocumwal. The sets spend more time loading at their destination than in Melbourne, where they unload and re-load the wagons and fuel/service the locos within just a couple of hours; smart work, really. If their trains had to be re-scheduled they may be unhappy if journey times extended; they don't really need to obtain another broad gauge train just because V/L want to handicap their services.

Wonder whether Murchison East will be regularly re-opened as an attended crossing station?
  bevans Site Admin

Location: Melbourne, Australia


Wonder whether Murchison East will be regularly re-opened as an attended crossing station?
hbedriver

Why not remote the crossing loops to Seymour and be done with it?

Does Shepparton still have a panel?

Sponsored advertisement

Display from:   

Quick Reply

We've disabled Quick Reply for this thread as it was last updated more than six months ago.