Call to reinstate Limestone Coast rail line

 
Topic moved from News by bevans on 26 Aug 2020 12:38
  Big J Deputy Commissioner

Location: In Paradise

Did the report also state the CO2 reductions by changing modes?
NSWGR8022
Rolling Eyes

Why? It is a nice thing to consider, apparently, but not to help with final decisions.

Do you really think that the current government will make a decision based on this aspect?

I can't remember the last time a government decision has been based on CO2 benefits, let alone in regard to triple bottom line outcomes?

It is always $$$$$$$.

If a project proceeds due to the cost:benefit or ROI then they will have marketing spin about CO2 benefits.

Our country is not at that level of maturity yet. It might do when my generation (Gen X) and above, shuffle off this mortal coil.

When millennials finally become CEOs in companies, Departmental Secretaries (or DGs in states) or Ministers in governments, then we may finally see decision making that is truly based on triple bottom line assessment. Sadly I won't be around to see it.

It will continue to be purely reporting and lip service, but not a critical decision point. It will continue to be about $$$$.

Sponsored advertisement

  james.au Minister for Railways

Location: Sydney, NSW
Did the report also state the CO2 reductions by changing modes?
NSWGR8022
No.
  james.au Minister for Railways

Location: Sydney, NSW
Did the report also state the CO2 reductions by changing modes?
No.
james.au
Sorry I am wrong

Here is some of the good stuff in the report

The overall total cost reduction for reinstatement of the Heywood line is $15.6 million annually. With an estimated reinstatement cost of between $120-$150 million, based on reinstatement cost of similar rail lines in Victoria, the ROI without considered avoided costs would be 7.7 years – 9.6 years.

The diversion of 254,413 tonnes of freight from the road network to rail would also incur additional savings such as a reduction in both road maintenance and road crash costs. It is estimated these savings would be $1.7 million annually. This reduces the ROI1 to 6.9 years – 8.6 years.

Along with transport cost reductions, reinstatement of the region’s rail lines would result in reduced carbon dioxide emissions. It is estimated this would be 8,675 tonnes annually, equivalent to removing 1,842 passenger cars each year or 143,443 tree seedlings grown for 10 years
CSIRO
This is a very rough cut of a few of the benefits and im betting it doesnt include all the things that a standard BCR would add in.  But suggests that the BCR would probably be good.

Which for 100km of track, adding into the national network, could be a reasonably easy incremental addition to the network.

Id assume ARTC would be doing or have done the sums on this one...
  bevans Site Admin

Location: Melbourne, Australia
James, I have not read the report in detail as yet sorry, been too busy with day work for the week. Does the report cover all the track which would be bought back into service?

8 years payback for track capital which has a life of 25 years+ is a good return for the investor and an excellent returna nd outcome for the community.
  james.au Minister for Railways

Location: Sydney, NSW
No it doesnt, just says reinstatement of the Heywood or Wollesly lines, and mentions that the infrastructure and supply chain retooling would also be required (ie for intermodals etc)

Here is the report - download it before the link rot sinks in....

https://www.rdalc.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/TraNSIT-Limestone-Coast-Final-Report-website.pdf
  NSWGR8022 Deputy Commissioner

Location: From the lands of Journalism and Free Speech

The overall total cost reduction for reinstatement of the Heywood line is $15.6 million annually. With an estimated reinstatement cost of between $120-$150 million, based on reinstatement cost of similar rail lines in Victoria, the ROI without considered avoided costs would be 7.7 years – 9.6 years.

The diversion of 254,413 tonnes of freight from the road network to rail would also incur additional savings such as a reduction in both road maintenance and road crash costs. It is estimated these savings would be $1.7 million annually. This reduces the ROI1 to 6.9 years – 8.6 years.

Along with transport cost reductions, reinstatement of the region’s rail lines would result in reduced carbon dioxide emissions. It is estimated this would be 8,675 tonnes annually, equivalent to removing 1,842 passenger cars each year or 143,443 tree seedlings grown for 10 years
This is a very rough cut of a few of the benefits and im betting it doesnt include all the things that a standard BCR would add in.  But suggests that the BCR would probably be good.

Which for 100km of track, adding into the national network, could be a reasonably easy incremental addition to the network.

Id assume ARTC would be doing or have done the sums on this one...
james.au

Stoked to see some attention being paid to the real cost to the environment by a move to rail for what is a large amount of freight.  I hope this project is taken seriously and ARTC as has been suggested are engaged to get the ob done right,  The most important part is to get rail access to the customer(s).

Freight Victoria should get on with completing the terminal at Portland North and also look to co-funding the intermodal terminal at Mount Gambier.

Did much paper come out of the Millicent area with the manufacturer being based there when  the lines were open?
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
James, I have not read the report in detail as yet sorry, been too busy with day work for the week. Does the report cover all the track which would be bought back into service?

8 years payback for track capital which has a life of 25 years+ is a good return for the investor and an excellent returna nd outcome for the community.
bevans
Normally 8 years would be yes, but in an industry of short term contracts and no potential customer is likely to commit to using, 8y is along time. Likely too as soon as the railway is approved to upgrade, the trucking contracts will come down in price so some traffic may never eventuate.

Even govt(s) have at some point paid for a number rail upgrades in most states and had no traffic or sustainable traffic eventuate.  

The original private owners of Tasrail paid for the Tas NE line to be upgraded including tunnel lowering and got almost no new traffic and the line closed a few years later after its base traffic ceased production.

So no from a private investment point of view no one will touch it unless that get a contract from a customer(s) that provide a bankable guarantee, take or pay being one of them, which has happened to rail before, Hellyer mine being an example.

However if the ARTC can some commitments from potential customers, then yes it should proceed.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE

Did the report also state the CO2 reductions by changing modes?Rolling Eyes

Why? It is a nice thing to consider, apparently, but not to help with final decisions.

Do you really think that the current government will make a decision based on this aspect?

I can't remember the last time a government decision has been based on CO2 benefits, let alone in regard to triple bottom line outcomes?

It is always $$$$$$$.

If a project proceeds due to the cost:benefit or ROI then they will have marketing spin about CO2 benefits.

Our country is not at that level of maturity yet. It might do when my generation (Gen X) and above, shuffle off this mortal coil.

When millennials finally become CEOs in companies, Departmental Secretaries (or DGs in states) or Ministers in governments, then we may finally see decision making that is truly based on triple bottom line assessment. Sadly I won't be around to see it.

It will continue to be purely reporting and lip service, but not a critical decision point. It will continue to be about $$$$.
Big J
Milliennials are not the first generation to be focused on the Env and certainly CO2 is not the first "industry by-product" that we have had to reduce or eliminate.

When the Millennials become CEO's, they will face the same $ focus for CEO's of today and in the CEO's of past who also had growing Env and social issues to content with. If its not CO2 in the future it will be something else.
  bingley hall Minister for Railways

Location: Last train to Skaville
ARTC's remit is to manage the interstate and Hunter Valley networks.

Any change to that would require legislative change at a federal and appropriate state levels.  

As of now it has nothing to do with ARTC.

And before you start.......list the bankable contracts they have been offered as part of this exercise.
  james.au Minister for Railways

Location: Sydney, NSW
ARTC's remit is to manage the interstate and Hunter Valley networks.

Any change to that would require legislative change at a federal and appropriate state levels.  

As of now it has nothing to do with ARTC.

And before you start.......list the bankable contracts they have been offered as part of this exercise.
bingley hall
Which is the legislation they are subject to BH?  Ive not been aware that they have any special legislative purpose?   Oaklands and Portland lines are definitely not in the DIRN or HV and so theyre not consistent with a legislative remit if there is one.

And given that the flows on this could increase DIRN flows from Maroona to Melbourne and/or Sydney (and other places) then it may be that they ar ewell within their rights to pursue a small network increase?

EDIT: This says there is no separate legislation

https://www.finance.gov.au/business/government-business-enterprises/australian-rail-track-corporation-artc
  Big J Deputy Commissioner

Location: In Paradise

Did the report also state the CO2 reductions by changing modes?Rolling Eyes

Why? It is a nice thing to consider, apparently, but not to help with final decisions.

Do you really think that the current government will make a decision based on this aspect?

I can't remember the last time a government decision has been based on CO2 benefits, let alone in regard to triple bottom line outcomes?

It is always $$$$$$$.

If a project proceeds due to the cost:benefit or ROI then they will have marketing spin about CO2 benefits.

Our country is not at that level of maturity yet. It might do when my generation (Gen X) and above, shuffle off this mortal coil.

When millennials finally become CEOs in companies, Departmental Secretaries (or DGs in states) or Ministers in governments, then we may finally see decision making that is truly based on triple bottom line assessment. Sadly I won't be around to see it.

It will continue to be purely reporting and lip service, but not a critical decision point. It will continue to be about $$$$.Milliennials are not the first generation to be focused on the Env and certainly CO2 is not the first "industry by-product" that we have had to reduce or eliminate.

When the Millennials become CEO's, they will face the same $ focus for CEO's of today and in the CEO's of past who also had growing Env and social issues to content with. If its not CO2 in the future it will be something else.
RTT_Rules
The CO2 aspect will only grow over the next 100 years, its importance is growing, not diminishing.

Yes, in the end of the day $$$$ is the tool that will make the change, but the prioritisation of using $$$$ for CO2 reduction will gain higher prioritisation over other elements in some cases.

NB. Nice to see you back here being active, I noticed that you weren't posting for a little while.
  bevans Site Admin

Location: Melbourne, Australia
The CO2 aspect will only grow over the next 100 years, its importance is growing, not diminishing.

Yes, in the end of the day $$$$ is the tool that will make the change, but the prioritisation of using $$$$ for CO2 reduction will gain higher prioritisation over other elements in some cases.

NB. Nice to see you back here being active, I noticed that you weren't posting for a little while.
Big J

The cost of Co2 emissions will over the next 10 years be a major part of assessing investments of all types.  Sadly it is taking longer than I would like here in Australia but the times they are a changing.  


BTW: Triple Bottom Line accounting principles are have around for at least a decade.
  simstrain Chief Commissioner

I think it is a great idea if their is significant paper and / or log traffic. This is obviously something that the ARTC should be taking up since it will connect to their track. I think it is time for the feds to come in and buy this track from Victoria and South Australia outright in exchange for money for other projects the states are looking for. Time to start money bartering with the states.
  bingley hall Minister for Railways

Location: Last train to Skaville
ARTC's remit is to manage the interstate and Hunter Valley networks.

Any change to that would require legislative change at a federal and appropriate state levels.  

As of now it has nothing to do with ARTC.

And before you start.......list the bankable contracts they have been offered as part of this exercise.
bingley hall
Which is the legislation they are subject to BH?  Ive not been aware that they have any special legislative purpose?   Oaklands and Portland lines are definitely not in the DIRN or HV and so theyre not consistent with a legislative remit if there is one.

And given that the flows on this could increase DIRN flows from Maroona to Melbourne and/or Sydney (and other places) then it may be that they ar ewell within their rights to pursue a small network increase?

EDIT: This says there is no separate legislation

https://www.finance.gov.au/business/government-business-enterprises/australian-rail-track-corporation-artc
"james.au"


OK maybe not legislation, but all tracks held by ARTC (outside of the former CR/AN trackage) are done so under lease agreements with the respective state governments which would have to be renegotiated.

They don't own the Heywood - Mt Gambier - Wolseley line trackage so unless someone (preferably the private sector) has gone to them offering 500,000 tonnes per annum of traffic, they would be wasting resources chasing rainbows. By far the the greatest tonnage on offer in the SE is woodchips, and while I don't agree with it, for now that ain't going to happen because the customer don't want it.    

Let's not forget, others (including myself) have tried in vain to get these lines re-opened over the last 25 years. There comes a time when you have to be realistic and say that there are bigger battles to be fought, and this is just a mere distraction, at least a far as ARTC is concerned.
  james.au Minister for Railways

Location: Sydney, NSW
OK maybe not legislation, but all tracks held by ARTC (outside of the former CR/AN trackage) are done so under lease agreements with the respective state governments which would have to be renegotiated.

They don't own the Heywood - Mt Gambier - Wolseley line trackage so unless someone (preferably the private sector) has gone to them offering 500,000 tonnes per annum of traffic, they would be wasting resources chasing rainbows. By far the the greatest tonnage on offer in the SE is woodchips, and while I don't agree with it, for now that ain't going to happen because the customer don't want it.    

Let's not forget, others (including myself) have tried in vain to get these lines re-opened over the last 25 years. There comes a time when you have to be realistic and say that there are bigger battles to be fought, and this is just a mere distraction, at least a far as ARTC is concerned.
bingley hall
I dont think that the leases would need renegotiation by virtue of adding ~115 extra track into it.  Just enter into separate leases with SA and Vic for those tracks.  Assuming it makes sense to do so of course.

There is an interesting piece to the report too.  It has a hypothetical 100,000 tonne factory of some sort that is new traffic to the region and analyses what would happen if it started.  Which could be a backdoor way of saying that there is a development potentially coming on line in the region.  The factory was food related, one thing it could be is canola crushing, as there is a bit of that down there and lots of canola goes into domestic supply chains (compared to wheat not much of it is exported).
  speedemon08 Mary

Location: I think by now you should have figured it out
Guess which one of the two people above has actually had to deal with paperwork and bureaucrats....
  Jack Le Lievre Assistant Commissioner

Location: Moolap Station, Vic
Guess which one of the two people above has actually had to deal with paperwork and bureaucrats....
speedemon08
As far as I know, both. I know for a fact that at least one does so on a daily basis.
  RustyRick Chief Commissioner

Location: South West Vic
Ok, so the Heywood - Mt G track is stuffed. Heavily overgrown, formation failing in places, and I’d be worried about the condition of the bridge at Dartmoor.

Hardwood chip traffic - the mill at Myamyn has been mothballed, supposedly due to reduced demand due to COVID. In reality, there’s a large number of mobile chippers that have been mobilised over the last year. It would not be economical to load chips onto a truck, travel to a rail loading point, load to rail, and unload at the Port.

Logs - same. Moving hardwood south to the rail from around Casterton is pointless if it’s being exported. Some logs go to Geelong, but they are a small proportion of the total cut. Softwood -  maybe if it was around Winnap.

Intermodal site at North Portland - still should happen. It would kill any demand for rail to the Mount.

I’ll save this to paste into further regurgitation of this topic...
  james.au Minister for Railways

Location: Sydney, NSW
So some sort of submission has been made to Infra Australia.  And Kimberly Clark is especially mentioned.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-09-09/push-to-resurrect-rail-across-south-east-sa-western-victoria/12643854

Doesnt sound like it is lead with a particular operator in mind but more of a putting a pin in a map type of submission.  Which itself has merits esp if IA finds it worthwhile.
  Lad_Porter Chief Commissioner

Location: Yarra Glen
"..... possibly funded between three governments — being Victorian, South Australian, and federal," Mr Gandolfi said."

Would the SA Govt have any interest, given it would be happening mostly in Victoria?
  bevans Site Admin

Location: Melbourne, Australia
So some sort of submission has been made to Infra Australia.  And Kimberly Clark is especially mentioned.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-09-09/push-to-resurrect-rail-across-south-east-sa-western-victoria/12643854

Doesnt sound like it is lead with a particular operator in mind but more of a putting a pin in a map type of submission.  Which itself has merits esp if IA finds it worthwhile.
james.au

There are 3 major plants/locations at Snugery which would require the line to be SG and upgraded.  The track within the snugery plant has already been updated to SG awaiting the main line to be done.



There are two tracks entering the Mill.



There is also the works across the line and another major facility adjacent the Snugery Railway Station site.

Would there be scope for chemicals to come inbound to the plant by rail?
  james.au Minister for Railways

Location: Sydney, NSW
"..... possibly funded between three governments — being Victorian, South Australian, and federal," Mr Gandolfi said."

Would the SA Govt have any interest, given it would be happening mostly in Victoria?
Lad_Porter


This is the problem with all of these cross border projects.  SA based business and road owners will benefit, Vic road owners will benefit.  Even NSW road owners will benefit.  Feds benefit because ARTC has more volumes.  Ideally the benefits need to be calculated and then the funding should be based on who benefits

Have a read of this:

https://ses.library.usyd.edu.au/handle/2123/21221
  james.au Minister for Railways

Location: Sydney, NSW

There are 3 major plants/locations at Snugery which would require the line to be SG and upgraded.  The track within the snugery plant has already been updated to SG awaiting the main line to be done.

There are two tracks entering the Mill.

        Image removed

There is also the works across the line and another major facility adjacent the Snugery Railway Station site.

        Image removed

Would there be scope for chemicals to come inbound to the plant by rail?
bevans
The limestone coast study didnt envisage reopening to Millicent - id imagine that track would be far more gone than Heyward-Mt Gambier. But if the sidings are done then that might be less prob

Re inbound, all depends on the supply chain characteristics and a willing rail operator.  Where is the chemical coming from and what exactly is it?
  skitz Chief Commissioner


There are 3 major plants/locations at Snugery which would require the line to be SG and upgraded.  The track within the snugery plant has already been updated to SG awaiting the main line to be done.

There are two tracks entering the Mill.

        Image removed

There is also the works across the line and another major facility adjacent the Snugery Railway Station site.

        Image removed

Would there be scope for chemicals to come inbound to the plant by rail?The limestone coast study didnt envisage reopening to Millicent - id imagine that track would be far more gone than Heyward-Mt Gambier. But if the sidings are done then that might be less prob

Re inbound, all depends on the supply chain characteristics and a willing rail operator.  Where is the chemical coming from and what exactly is it?
james.au
When were the sidings converted?   Seems odd.
  Dangersdan707 Chief Commissioner

Location: On a Thing with Internet

There are 3 major plants/locations at Snugery which would require the line to be SG and upgraded.  The track within the snugery plant has already been updated to SG awaiting the main line to be done.

There are two tracks entering the Mill.

        Image removed

There is also the works across the line and another major facility adjacent the Snugery Railway Station site.

        Image removed

Would there be scope for chemicals to come inbound to the plant by rail?The limestone coast study didnt envisage reopening to Millicent - id imagine that track would be far more gone than Heyward-Mt Gambier. But if the sidings are done then that might be less prob

Re inbound, all depends on the supply chain characteristics and a willing rail operator.  Where is the chemical coming from and what exactly is it?When were the sidings converted?   Seems odd.
skitz
Was done by the Owner following the closure and conversion of the mainline to SG iirc, awaiting this line to be converted too....

Sponsored advertisement

Display from: