I guess idling trains waiting for a cross is not what residents are looking for.

Cabramatta rail loop proposal cause for council concern

I was looking forward to bagging the mayor as just another narrow minded attention-seeker. After a bit of research, I wonder if Cabramatta is the right place for a loop. With no real knowledge of the costs involved, I  assume that resuming land outside the rail, right of way, would be horrendously expensive and politically difficult. There does seem to be some available land available between Cabramatta Junction and Leightonfield Loop.

I was looking forward to bagging the mayor as just another narrow minded attention-seeker. After a bit of research, I wonder if Cabramatta is the right place for a loop. With no real knowledge of the costs involved, I  assume that resuming land outside the rail, right of way, would be horrendously expensive and politically difficult. There does seem to be some available land available between Cabramatta Junction and Leightonfield Loop.

The bottle neck is a made up storey in any case. There aren't anywhere near enough freight trains to bottleneck between Leightonfield and Casula in the first place. Inland rail will make it even less necessary by removing long interstate freight trains from Sydney.

The trains at 115km/h are only taking 10 minutes to get from leightonfield to the casula loop in any case and you may as well duplicate the line the whole way if a bottleneck exists.

Most freight trains travel on the SSFL between Chullora and Macarthur at 80km/hr and none do 115 as speeds are restricted to 90km/hr or 100km/hr max most of the way. 65km/hr on the flyover at Glenfield and the crossing loop at Glenfield has 50km/hr points each end.

Leightonfield loop has 25km/hr points both ends and the entire loop is restricted to 25km/hr.

Many freight trains have to cross trains at both these loops on their way into Sydney or out of Sydney. The line can be quite congested at times.

With the new intermodal terminal coming on line near the Glenfield loop soon the amount of trip trains traversing the SSFL will increase significantly and this will cause further congestion and it makes sense to build another crossing loop in the section north of Glenfield.

ARTC don't build new crossing loops very often with their limited funds so it must be justified if they propose this new loop.

Duplication of the entire SSFL would be the ideal solution but the massive cost can't be justified. Far better to invest in crossing loops to keep traffic moving in the congested northern half of the SSFL.

Any investment in the improvement of moving freight by rail is good to see.

Most freight trains travel on the SSFL between Chullora and Macarthur at 80km/hr and none do 115 as speeds are restricted to 90km/hr or 100km/hr max most of the way. 65km/hr on the flyover at Glenfield and the crossing loop at Glenfield has 50km/hr points each end.

Leightonfield loop has 25km/hr points both ends and the entire loop is restricted to 25km/hr.

Many freight trains have to cross trains at both these loops on their way into Sydney or out of Sydney. The line can be quite congested at times.

With the new intermodal terminal coming on line near the Glenfield loop soon the amount of trip trains traversing the SSFL will increase significantly and this will cause further congestion and it makes sense to build another crossing loop in the section north of Glenfield.

ARTC don't build new crossing loops very often with their limited funds so it must be justified if they propose this new loop.

Duplication of the entire SSFL would be the ideal solution but the massive cost can't be justified. Far better to invest in crossing loops to keep traffic moving in the congested northern half of the SSFL.

Any investment in the improvement of moving freight by rail is good to see.

I'm sorry but why would the northern half be more congested then the southern half? There is no yard connection to the ssfl between leightonfield and macarthur. You can count on two hands how many trains use the ssfl each day and casula is perfectly in the middle between Sefton and Macarthur.

Maybe the ARTC should be investing in fixing the slow point speeds rather then adding an unneeded loop. Leightonfield loop could be extended further west past villawood station as there is plenty of room.

The casula loop could have extended north to just south of casula station adding about 400 metres to that loop.

I'm sorry but why would the northern half be more congested then the southern half? There is no yard connection to the ssfl between leightonfield and macarthur. You can count on two hands how many trains use the ssfl each day and casula is perfectly in the middle between Sefton and Macarthur.

Maybe the ARTC should be investing in fixing the slow point speeds rather then adding an unneeded loop. Leightonfield loop could be extended further west past villawood station as there is plenty of room.

There will be a yard connection in the Northern section soon. The points have already been installed at the north end of Glenfield loop leading into new terminal under construction.

I'm sorry but the assumption that there is only a dozen trains a day on the SSFL is simply wrong. There would be on average 30 trains or more per day.

Without listing every service some are
PN 6 -8 Return Stone trains to Boral Cooks River and Enfield sometimes even more.
PN Cement trains

PN Intermodals and Steel Trains
Domestic Grain Trains PN and SSR
Export Grain Trains Qube,SSR and PN
Botany Garbage trains, Log trains from Goulburn to Botany
Occasional diversions of services of the West or Illawarra.
The list goes on...

PN steel Trains shunt sidings at Leigtonfield daily.
Qube run multiple return trip trains to Minto that don't actually use the SSFL as they need to access siding at Minto via the mainline however they do obviously travel on the goods lines from Enfield to Sefton Jct adding to movements on that section.

The congestion will increase substantially on the Northern Section (Glenfield to Chullora) because there will be many trip trains from Botany/Enfield to Glenfield when the new terminal opens there. I believe this is the main driver for proposed new loop at Cabramatta.

When this terminal opens the new loop will have plenty of use. Loops are not just used to cross trains they are also handy to stage a train because of congestion. There is only 2 tracks in ARTC staging loop at Enfield. Congestion at port Botany means trains are held at Enfield. This loop would provide another staging location during busy times.

The problem is most trains seem to arrive or depart Sydney at similar times creating congestion. Curfews on the west and northern lines don't help either.

I suspect the Inland will have minimal impact as the traffic to/From Brisbane placed on Inland is likely to be replaced by other as the curfew limits number of trains at favourable times.

Cabramatta is not a place to be staging freight trains. That will cause huge environmental issues in what is a housing and parkland area.

Staging should be left for enfield, chullora, leightonfield and the new moorebank intermodal.

I suspect the Inland will have minimal impact as the traffic to/From Brisbane placed on Inland is likely to be replaced by other as the curfew limits number of trains at favourable times.

You would be wrong. What other is there that isn't from intermodals within sydney?

I suspect the Inland will have minimal impact as the traffic to/From Brisbane placed on Inland is likely to be replaced by other as the curfew limits number of trains at favourable times.

You would be wrong. What other is there that isn't from intermodals within sydney?

Would you be kind enough to rephrase the question so it is more easily understood?
BTW, the loop south of Liverpool is called Glenfield.

I suspect the Inland will have minimal impact as the traffic to/From Brisbane placed on Inland is likely to be replaced by other as the curfew limits number of trains at favourable times.

You would be wrong. What other is there that isn't from intermodals within sydney?

Would you be kind enough to rephrase the question so it is more easily understood?
BTW, the loop south of Liverpool is called Glenfield.

I'm asking RTT what "other" he is talking about in reference to freight traffic post inland rail line opening.

When did I say it wasn't called that and considering that a large portion of the glenfield loop is in casula what difference does it make if I had called it the casula loop.

Intermodal freight trains regularly attain 115km/h between Glenfield and Minto. The points at Glenfield are 60km/h, not 50.

Glenfield is also the only loop capable of fitting 1800m interstate trains. Whether that will still be possible with the new terminal is unknown but the only other option is for them to be held on the Bi-di at either Glenlee or Maldon.

Glenfield will remain the only loop capable of handling 1800m trains according to this link (https://www.artc.com.au/projects/cabramatta-loop-project/). The Cabramatta loop is only going to be 1650 metres and staging diesel spewing trains is not something you should be doing besides a residential and parkland area. If the ARTC want more staging then they should find somewhere else to do it.

Leightonfield is the perfect place to stage as it is an industrial area with plenty of room to add tracks.

For diagram of Cabramatta see: http://www.sa-trackandsignal.net/Pdf%20files/ARTC/AR282.pdf

For street map of Cabramatta see: https://www.street-directory.com.au/?x=150.93633088699215&y=-33.91124982740804&l=15

The main problems getting the loop to extend to Warwick Farm and the Georges River at Liverpool, is getting under the Hume Highway overbridge. The single track slew of the SSFL is to close to the WF platform, so the platform may be needed to move southwards to allow for a double track slew under the Hume Hwy, allowing an 1800m loops clear of the contentious loss of car parking at Cabramatta.

Alternately, an extra span at the Hume Highway needs to be punched through the embankment of the Hume Highway overbridge, which may be a challenge.

Ideally the new loop should be 1800 + 300 + 300m including two 300m overlaps that allow for simultaneous arrivals. If the loop extends to Liverpool station, a viaduct parallel to the Georges River would be necessary, with piers in the water like the S-shaped "Seacliff Bridge" viaduct at Coal Cliff.

For diagram of Cabramatta see: http://www.sa-trackandsignal.net/Pdf%20files/ARTC/AR282.pdf

For street map of Cabramatta see: https://www.street-directory.com.au/?x=150.93633088699215&y=-33.91124982740804&l=15

The main problems getting the loop to extend to Warwick Farm and the Georges River at Liverpool, is getting under the Hume Highway overbridge.

There are way more problems then that. I know the area well as I live in the area and have walked and rode along the rail line. Leightonfield to Casula only takes 10 minutes if that on the ssfl and so why not use the money to fix up leightonfield yard instead. If it was done up you could easily get your 1800m passing lane and more staging here then anything that could be achieved at Warwick Farm.

There are way more problems then that. I know the area well as I live in the area and have walked and rode along the rail line. Leightonfield to Casula only takes 10 minutes if that on the ssfl and so why not use the money to fix up Leightonfield yard instead. If it was done up you could easily get your 1800m passing lane and more staging here then anything that could be achieved at Warwick Farm.

I agree.

For a diagram of Leightonfield see http://www.sa-trackandsignal.net/Pdf%20files/ARTC/AR283.pdf

This  loop can be extended at the eastern end by punching a hole under the Chester Hill Road overbridge, which would be a quiet road with alternate routes at Hector Street, unlike the Hume  Highway overbridge at Warwick Farm  which is very busy.

This loop to be extended enough so as to allow simultaneous arrivals, 1800 + 300  + 300 = 2400m.

Regarding the Wokka Farm (Hume highway) road overbridge, I shall just leave this here...


The construction of the Hume Highway deviation / overbridge replaced the level crossing.

At some stage after this, some turkey decided to move the platforms northwards to butt up to the roadbridge. forever stuffing up the two-track portal on the right. Someone else decided that it is not a good idea to have such a flimsy steel structure supporting the centre of the bridge (Granville, anyone?) and a large concrete base has been built around the centre steel supports, significantly encroaching into the portal space.

There is only room for one track - the SSFL - because of this.

if you ever stand on - or walk around - Warwick Farm station, make sure you have this photograph with you.

marvin
-------
There is so much in this old photo... it just cannot be put in words.

Regarding the Wokka Farm (Hume highway) road overbridge, I shall just leave this here...

There is only room for one track - the SSFL - because of this.

What is the practicality of "punching" an extra hole in the embankment on the east side of the Hume Highway overbridge?

A hole for the North Strathfield was also "punched through" under the Main Norths and North Relief totalling 3 tracks with 1 track spare, by this method using a tunnelling shield .

I K Brunel used this method for the Thames Tunnel even before the first railways arrived in 1830.

For North Strathfield Dive see http://www.sa-trackandsignal.net/Pdf%20files/Sydney/RC2301.pdf

For details of the Thames Tunnel built using a tunnelling shield (1825-1843) see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thames_Tunnel

If the Hume Highway can be widened to four tracks, then a loop can extend from

Hospital Road Liverpool overbridge - 34.871km
Cabramatta Road _ _ _ _ overbridge - 32.115lkm
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.756km
Less the length of the turnouts . . . . . . 0.300km
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . .2.456km which exceeds 1800m comfortably.

For details of the original 1825 shield see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunnelling_shield

The station itself being so close to the bridge and the expansion of Peter warren and the car park on the eastern side which is more important then the freight line to the people of Warwick Farm and surrounds.

The station itself being so close to the bridge and the expansion of Peter warren and the car park on the eastern side which is more important then the freight line to the people of Warwick Farm and surrounds.

The way car sales have plummeted the car yard might be frothing at the mouth to sell the seagull tip.

Who is going to buy it if they did want to sell the seagull tip? ARTC are poor remember, well at least they cry poor and so where would they get the money to buy said land. A property developer would pay a hell of a lot more then the ARTC could afford.

The station itself being so close to the bridge and the expansion of Peter warren and the car park on the eastern side which is more important then the freight line to the people of Warwick Farm and surrounds.

simstrain, are there spare spans on bridges between the Hume Highway (exclusive) at Warwick Farms and the Glenfield Loop.?

A longitudinal viaduct would be needed along the Georges River with piers  in the river itself.

Don't need any viaduct. There is plenty of room and 3.2km's from casula station to Liverpool station.

Don't need any viaduct. There is plenty of room and 3.2km's from casula station to Liverpool station.

So all the overbridges between Casula (exclusive) and Liverpool have either spare width or spare spans?



RailExpress magazine of Oct 2020 p15 says that the loop at Cabramatta will allow trains of 1300m to cross, not even 1500mm long.