Port of Melbourne backs Inland Rail

 

News article: Port of Melbourne backs Inland Rail

Brendan Bourke has spoken of the importance of connecting Inland Rail to the Port of Melbourne.

  bevans Site Admin

Location: Melbourne, Australia
Good to see the Port of Melbourne making a positive commitment to Inland rail when Brisbane has done nothing but complain about the project.

The Port is calling out for details on the inland rail intermodal terminal.  Will it be intermodal or trip working to the port.

Also calling out is the connection to the inland rail system.

The best part of the article is the scope of the connection to also include webb dock.

“It is important, therefore, that the infrastructure which supports the movement of freight is connected to the Port. “This entails the Inland Rail Project having a finalised intermodal terminal in Melbourne and a direct freight connection to the Port of Melbourne, including Webb Dock.”
Port of Melbourne


Port of Melbourne backs Inland Rail

Sponsored advertisement

  Carnot Minister for Railways

They would have fun trying to get double-stackers anywhere near the Port at present (Bunbury St Tunnel and bridge for starters).  Although it sounds like the ARTC are reconsidering what will happen to some of the bridges on the NE Vic line for Inland Rail...

https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/rail-corporation-backs-down-on-plan-for-monster-bridges-at-historic-towns-20210426-p57mci.html
  bevans Site Admin

Location: Melbourne, Australia
They would have fun trying to get double-stackers anywhere near the Port at present (Bunbury St Tunnel and bridge for starters).  Although it sounds like the ARTC are reconsidering what will happen to some of the bridges on the NE Vic line for Inland Rail...

https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/rail-corporation-backs-down-on-plan-for-monster-bridges-at-historic-towns-20210426-p57mci.html
Carnot

Double stacking not required into Melbourne for Inland.  It would be better to have a large yard out north and have trip trains to the western Internodal terminal and also to the port and into the Dandenong area and other directly connected customers.

What is clear is the Webb Dock issue needs to be fixed.
  simstrain Chief Commissioner

They would be better off investing in duplicate SG tracks then double stacking. DS is not needed on the east coast.

Ooops my mistake I just realised Euroa is already duplicated SG. They should stop wasting time on such and just focus on duplicating south of Seymour.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
They would be better off investing in duplicate SG tracks then double stacking. DS is not needed on the east coast.

Ooops my mistake I just realised Euroa is already duplicated SG. They should stop wasting time on such.
simstrain
Ds is needed to enable standardisation.

Wagons to/from west via Pakes headed to Brisbane or Melbourne and eventually Sydney can be loaded for a 4000 km end to end journey.

Melbourne - Brisbane traffic may or may not benefit much from DS, but it will be one less reason why Inland could fail. Be stupid to build such a long railway and be held up from DS by a lousy few bridges.
  simstrain Chief Commissioner

I disagree completely. DS is completely pointless task on the east coast. If you want to double stack west of parkes then fine but there is no reason at all to double stack north, south or east of parkes or on the main south. Dual stacking is never going to happen in to Sydney. The inland makes it even less required since you reduce your travel time from Brisbane and freight to Melbourne is still going to go through Adelaide and up the hills.

Duplicate the inland instead and allow more capacity in this regard instead. DS west of parkes if you wish since from there the traffic can be divided up or combined to/from Brisbane, Sydney, Newcastle, Wollongong or elsewhere. This is again another red mark against inland rail and the ARTC where again they aren't investing in the correct solution.
  Nightfire Minister for Railways

Location: Gippsland
I disagree completely. DS is completely pointless task on the east coast. If you want to double stack west of parkes then fine but there is no reason at all to double stack north, south or east of parkes or on the main south. Dual stacking is never going to happen in to Sydney. The inland makes it even less required since you reduce your travel time from Brisbane and freight to Melbourne is still going to go through Adelaide and up the hills.

Duplicate the inland instead and allow more capacity in this regard instead. DS west of parkes if you wish since from there the traffic can be divided up or combined to/from Brisbane, Sydney, Newcastle, Wollongong or elsewhere. This is again another red mark against inland rail and the ARTC where again they aren't investing in the correct solution.
simstrain
A bit of a difference between duplicating the Inland route compared to modifying a couple of dozen road overpasses to achieve the required loading gauge.

Larger profile rollingstock can also be used (If operators want to Invest In them for this route)
  bevans Site Admin

Location: Melbourne, Australia
One of the considerations for investment is now likely the investment in inland rail will drive more trains and if those trains can find a path with the growth.  I have not read anywhere and it does not mean it is not available what the traffic growth is likely to be into Melbourne.

Does anyone have information on this?
  Sulla1 Chief Commissioner

Double track means twice as much track to maintain, twice as much effort and twice as much cost. With CTC and suitably spaced crossing loops, a single track corridor can handle in excess of 50 trains per day at a far lower operating cost than double track.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
I disagree completely. DS is completely pointless task on the east coast. If you want to double stack west of parkes then fine but there is no reason at all to double stack north, south or east of parkes or on the main south. Dual stacking is never going to happen in to Sydney. The inland makes it even less required since you reduce your travel time from Brisbane and freight to Melbourne is still going to go through Adelaide and up the hills.

Duplicate the inland instead and allow more capacity in this regard instead. DS west of parkes if you wish since from there the traffic can be divided up or combined to/from Brisbane, Sydney, Newcastle, Wollongong or elsewhere. This is again another red mark against inland rail and the ARTC where again they aren't investing in the correct solution.
simstrain
One more time

DS from Perth to Parkes is not a destination and adds extra complexity to the train loading at Perth, the destination is Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane. Whether DS between Melbourne and Brisbane is viable is almost but not entirely irrelevant, however it does help and why have just a few bridges as your only impost to providing this option?

DS to Western Sydney is not far from reality, post Inland there is only a few bridges and structure to be upgraded, some maybe be done as part of life cycle replacement others for DS project purposes.  

DS is not about increasing capacity as so much about reducing the cost of running an individual train, this is why they double stack to Darwin despite the lack of traffic on the line. Fixing a few bridges is nothing compared to building hundreds of km of track.
  bevans Site Admin

Location: Melbourne, Australia
Do they double stack to Darwin?

I have seen the Darwin trains but not a double stack.

Sponsored advertisement

Subscribers: bevans, Nightfire, RTT_Rules

Display from: