Murray Basin standardisation

 
  YM-Mundrabilla Minister for Railways

Location: Mundrabilla but I'd rather be in Narvik
Just as an aside - why does wheel diameter impact TAL loadings?
"james.au"

Sponsored advertisement

  YM-Mundrabilla Minister for Railways

Location: Mundrabilla but I'd rather be in Narvik
Just as an aside - why does wheel diameter impact TAL loadings?
YM-Mundrabilla
Dunno but it may.

Wheel diameter v axleload on a given weight of rail is a highly technical engineering matter and you will need a good engineer to explain it..

By way of background, SG freight bogies in Oz are largely of two broad designs viz:

·         2-piece
·         3-piece

2-piece are the high speed bogies much favoured in NSW years ago under NODYs, NQAYs and NQOYs etc. They are around 1 tonne heavier than the equivalent 3-piece bogie.

The 3-piece bogie is the standard freight bogie used by just about everyone outside NSW.

All the above bogies are called ’50-tonne bogies and had 37” [940mm (?)] wheels.

Back in the 1990s National Rail provided the environment for rail to make a real productivity gain with the introduction of thousands of secondhand US sourced ’70-tonne’ bogie frames. 70-tonne bogies have 33” [840mm (?)] wheels.

It was these secondhand (and, more recently, new) 70-tonne bogies plus CCSBs in lieu of gap side bearers that permitted heavier axleloads and higher speeds.

Sadly, we now come to Victoria where freight rail is not to succeed as a matter of policy in general and, in particular, the Murray Basin standardisation where:

It has taken years (so far) to move one rail inwards by 165 mm. AN could and has done similar work in weeks.

Having decided that the Ararat – Maryborough section would be relaid they then proceeded to build, what should have been a new and first class section with:

·         Cheapskate sleepers
·         Lightweight 80lb
·         The section was designed to fail and it surely has, big time, perhaps arbitrarily with a complete ban rather than the more usual speed restriction.?

We now come to the issue of wheel diameters where I am surprised that this issue has even been raised in the context of  Victorian track engineering given the current standards evident almost state wide. Where did the 33” restriction come from initially? I know that FMG is wheel diameter governed to achieve their 42 tonne axleloads but that is a world away from a 2 bob branchline on a hick railway.

One could say that it is all a conspiracy in favour of road but are they capable of even organising that?

At the very outset of this project all those years ago I said that Victoria would make a balls of it and they surely have.

As for the Auditor General, the State Opposition and incompetent media and Ministers ........................ dream on.
  YM-Mundrabilla Minister for Railways

Location: Mundrabilla but I'd rather be in Narvik
Sorry about multiple posts but RP won't let me delete or edit anything at the moment.
I should not have bloody bothered in the first place.

AAAAArRRRRrrrrGGGGGggggggHHHHHH bugger it.
SadRolling Eyes
  bevans Site Admin

Location: Melbourne, Australia
This is a good discussion but it does not address some of the fundamental issues raised in the PN report.

13.5kms of sidings removed which was stupid.  With slower trains you need the ability to do more crosses with more trains trying to use the network.  How could V/Line have approved that design to remove so many sidings.

Look at Mildura now nothing is left through this once busy (even in 2009) yard and local sidings.

Maryborough does not allow for the stabling of trains as it once did with PN bring in rakes from Dimboola if you believe the reports.

Why was the line not rerailed for 80 kms per hour end to end?

Was 100 km/h even possible?
  Richard stroker Junior Train Controller

With the questions on here about wheel diameter v weight, does the diameter affect the distribution of weight and pressure on the track surface , eg , the bigger the contact area of wheels the less weight and pressure put on the track in comparison in comparison to a smaller contact area.

A bit unrelated, years ago I was taught that  high heel shoes do more damage to pavers than a semi trailer because of weight distribution and pressure points on the surface area of contact
  BigShunter Chief Commissioner

Location: St Clair. S.A.
A bit unrelated, years ago I was taught that  high heel shoes do more damage to pavers than a semi trailer because of weight distribution and pressure points on the surface area of contact
Richard stroker

Really Dick...........Razz..you've been surveying this, I presume Shocked more than likely correct but obviously if, the semi was lightly loaded and the person in high heel shoes was a heavy weight unit..Razz   interesting analogy

BigShunter.
  wobert Chief Commissioner

Location: Half way between Propodolla and Kinimakatka
I can vouch for the lack of load distribution from a pair of stilettos  by the bruising on my back. The whip marks on the ribs were there a while to.
  Richard stroker Junior Train Controller

Thanks BS

The weight distribution also  depends on the amount of commers used in the delivery of my highly unqualified report rail report.

After reading wobert’s Post , I think he should write PN’s future reports on the Murray Basin upgrade. A truly honest report by him. , , ,
  BigShunter Chief Commissioner

Location: St Clair. S.A.
Thanks BS

The weight distribution also  depends on the amount of commers used in the delivery of my highly unqualified report rail report.

After reading wobert’s Post , I think he should write PN’s future reports on the Murray Basin upgrade. A truly honest report by him. , , ,
Richard stroker
Very good Dick, now you should be paying more attention, I've been corrected by one of the Highest Authorities in the Literary Dept, the word is spelt ' comma's.

BigShunter.

resume regular telecast.........
  YM-Mundrabilla Minister for Railways

Location: Mundrabilla but I'd rather be in Narvik
Wheel diameter does make a difference in some heavy haul applications but is Ararat - Maryborough such an application?

The circumference of an 840 mm dia wheel is 2639 mm whilst that of a 940 mm wheel is 2953 mm but I know nothing of the wheel/rail interface calculations.

Anything to impede rail success is to be grasped with both hands.

It only remains for them to wheel out 'safety is our first priority' and then we will know that there is something else to hide.
  YM-Mundrabilla Minister for Railways

Location: Mundrabilla but I'd rather be in Narvik
Thanks BS

The weight distribution also  depends on the amount of commers used in the delivery of my highly unqualified report rail report.

After reading wobert’s Post , I think he should write PN’s future reports on the Murray Basin upgrade. A truly honest report by him. , , ,
Richard stroker
Speaking of Commers did you know that they had a weird 3-cylinder, 6-piston diesel engine?

https://www.enginebuildermag.com/2014/10/ferraris-flat-twelve-dyno/

Spend the afternoon nutting this out this to take your mind off the bloody inane, puerile, idiotic, orgasmic football commentary telling you what you can already see. Smile
  Andrewdr Locomotive Fireman

Thanks BS

The weight distribution also  depends on the amount of commers used in the delivery of my highly unqualified report rail report.

After reading wobert’s Post , I think he should write PN’s future reports on the Murray Basin upgrade. A truly honest report by him. , , ,
Speaking of Commers did you know that they had a weird 3-cylinder, 6-piston diesel engine?

https://www.enginebuildermag.com/2014/10/ferraris-flat-twelve-dyno/

Spend the afternoon nutting this out this to take your mind off the bloody inane, puerile, idiotic, orgasmic football commentary telling you what you can already see. Smile
YM-Mundrabilla
The Commer "Knocker" was a very interesting engine.
It had a high power to weight ratio
I understand it was originally conceived as a light aircraft engine.
At the stage it was considered for truck use, the registration fee in the UK was based on the number of cylinders, not the number of pistons. Hence the rego was half of what it might have been.
I used to drive one when I was back in uni. Governed at 48mph, it was slow on the highway, but as is often the case, it was a "tortoise and hare" on the long hauls. Many was the time when we would be passed by a much faster truck, eg, the Magarius Deutz aircooled V6s, only to find them having a snooze on the side of the road Smile
Cheers
Andrew
  Carnot Chief Commissioner

I'll Park this right here and take it with a big grain of salt given it's from RRAV and riddled with inaccuracies IMO:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/railrevival/permalink/2537655496314095/

The Maryborough - Ballarat - Geelong  Gauge Separation Saga

The Gauge Separation from Maryborough to Ballarat and Geelong has had a significant delay to the project. Not just because of no finance to fund the project from the state's coffers and waiting on the Federal Government to pick up the tab of $300 Million to fix the MBRP  and now the Andrews Government wants to tack on the Gauge Separation Project onto the back of the MBRP.

But the Gauge Separation has been set back, because of logistical reason and a major reason is residential creep onto the rail corridors that will prevent the gauge separation being constructed.

V/Line is opposed to Standardising the gauge from Maryborough - Ballarat - Geelong.

This poses a problem that the distance between Maryborough and Geelong make it unsafe for dual gauge all the way from Maryborough through Ballarat and onto Geelong.

The Stalemate that is apparent with the Gauge Separation Project will be interesting to observe, considering the project was raised to get Jacinta Allan off the hook with the atrocious running times and speed restrictions for the freight operator's with their freight trains and for mineral sands and agricultural producers, that was brought about by the fiasco and debacle of the MBRP.
  lkernan Deputy Commissioner

Location: Melbourne
V/Line is opposed to Standardising the gauge from Maryborough - Ballarat - Geelong.

This poses a problem that the distance between Maryborough and Geelong make it unsafe for dual gauge all the way from Maryborough through Ballarat and onto Geelong.
Carnot

This part I have no trouble believing.  One day a government will tell V/line to suck it up and just build up a proper standard gauge fleet.
Until then, they'll continue to be an obstruction.
  bevans Site Admin

Location: Melbourne, Australia
V/Line is opposed to Standardising the gauge from Maryborough - Ballarat - Geelong.

This poses a problem that the distance between Maryborough and Geelong make it unsafe for dual gauge all the way from Maryborough through Ballarat and onto Geelong.

This part I have no trouble believing.  One day a government will tell V/line to suck it up and just build up a proper standard gauge fleet.
Until then, they'll continue to be an obstruction.
lkernan

The answer is really quite simple.  I understand why Vline would not want to SG the main line between Ballarat and Geelong as it will carry passengers once again.

The track between Gheringhap and Warrenheip was dual track mainline when first opened.  Why not just add the second track again as SG?
  Carnot Chief Commissioner

V/Line is opposed to Standardising the gauge from Maryborough - Ballarat - Geelong.

This poses a problem that the distance between Maryborough and Geelong make it unsafe for dual gauge all the way from Maryborough through Ballarat and onto Geelong.

This part I have no trouble believing.  One day a government will tell V/line to suck it up and just build up a proper standard gauge fleet.
Until then, they'll continue to be an obstruction.

The answer is really quite simple.  I understand why Vline would not want to SG the main line between Ballarat and Geelong as it will carry passengers once again.

The track between Gheringhap and Warrenheip was dual track mainline when first opened.  Why not just add the second track again as SG?
bevans
BG trains on Dual Gauge track are limited to 80 km/h.  Just SG the whole lot from Gheringhap to Maryborough.  And put Albury SG V/los on it and run them at 100+ km/h on that section.

And if Sea Lake and Manangatang remain BG in the foreseeable future, repair Inglewood to Eaglehawk BG to keep those lines open.
  bevans Site Admin

Location: Melbourne, Australia
We need to start considering services between Geelong and Ballarat.  The Highway out there is so busy now with commutes between towns along the line to Geelong also Ballarat.

If you are going to SG the lot then you need SG into Geelong.
  james.au Chief Commissioner

Location: Sydney, NSW
The track between Gheringhap and Warrenheip was dual track mainline when first opened.  Why not just add the second track again as SG?
bevans
Cost vs benefits.

The BCR won't stack up.

The answer is simple, weve said it before, SG from Maryborough to Gheringhap....

Can someone* work out what a service pattern might look like if you had the future SG fleet operate Albury-SCS-North Shore-Ballarat-Maryborough??  Might it make some sort of operational sense to run it that way?

*I wish woodford was here, he could do it im sure
  Dangersdan707 Chief Commissioner

Location: On a Thing with Internet
The track between Gheringhap and Warrenheip was dual track mainline when first opened.  Why not just add the second track again as SG?
Cost vs benefits.

The BCR won't stack up.

The answer is simple, weve said it before, SG from Maryborough to Gheringhap....

Can someone* work out what a service pattern might look like if you had the future SG fleet operate Albury-SCS-North Shore-Ballarat-Maryborough??  Might it make some sort of operational sense to run it that way?

*I wish woodford was here, he could do it im sure
james.au
We wish he was still with us.
The Simpler way and cheeper way is to leave it as is in situ as Broad Gauge. Let them suffer for choosing Standard gauge these lines by going via Ararat.
Vline passengers I doubt are going to like changing trains or going via Geelong.
I'm Still fairly certain this project has been pushed under the rug.
  kitchgp Chief Commissioner

Several options have been proposed on these pages:
  • 2 x SG Sprinters to operate Ballarat - Maryborough, much the same as happens with Frankston – Stony Point.
  • 1 x short-haul SG VLocity.
Only the bogies (or wheelsets?) have to be changed to rotate the units through the overall fleet, eg for heavy maintenance, accident repair, etc. DG of one or both platforms at Ballarat would be required.

As compensation for the inconvenience of transferring at Ballarat offer 3 or 4 services a day, instead of the current 2.
  jakar Assistant Commissioner

Location: Melbourne
One day a government will tell V/line to suck it up and just build up a proper standard gauge fleet. Until then, they'll continue to be an obstruction.
Ikerman
What makes you think these decisions aren't coming from a ministerial level already?
  freightgate Minister for Railways

Location: Albury, New South Wales
Sg network if you have to

Geelong to Maryborough
Ballarat to Ararat.
Ararat to Geelong via plains.
  simstrain Chief Commissioner

Why not build the SG as mentioned but for freight only. Why not do passenger services between these routes using the BG vlo's.
  bevans Site Admin

Location: Melbourne, Australia
Why not build the SG as mentioned but for freight only. Why not do passenger services between these routes using the BG vlo's.
simstrain

My point exactly on Gheringhap and Ballarat.  Drop in a second track.

Uplift a platform here and there for SG passenger diversion?
  Dangersdan707 Chief Commissioner

Location: On a Thing with Internet
Why not build the SG as mentioned but for freight only. Why not do passenger services between these routes using the BG vlo's.

My point exactly on Gheringhap and Ballarat.  Drop in a second track.

Uplift a platform here and there for SG passenger diversion?
bevans
But are they willing to spend the money on something as minuscule as this?



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpbbuaIA3Ds



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETxmCCsMoD0

Sponsored advertisement

Display from: