This article really calls on the Victorian Government to get the BG line upgraded for additional freight traffic which can utilise the national network but how would this happen as we would need a yard in say Seymour at the junction of the Goulburn Valley line for transhipping goods.

Could gauge changing wagons be of use here?

Inland rail: Station costs derailed Shepparton line option

x31 I think this sentence (below) from the article is referring to the Vic Gov upgrading the line to SG (like the Murray Basin upgrades in the west of the state)


Mr Mrdak noted there may be a business case for Shepparton in the future, with the Federal and Victorian governments working to upgrade the state’s broad-gauge network, which “will provide additional opportunity to link into the national network by Shepparton and other locations”.

Article mentions nothing about the station...........

Article mentions nothing about the station...........

Yes that is weird.

In my mind the route Seymour, Tocumwal then onto Narrandera was the most logical as it is shorter than going via Albury.
If these studies show the economics are not there I have to accept that as in the end I am glad the Inland Rail Project is going ahead.
There will be a lot of it should have gone this way and not that way as has been the case with all projects since the first railway lines were built in Victoria.  
I hope once the Murray Basin project is finished attention will then focus on the Tocumwal and Deniliquin lines.
With some luck V/line will get over their perceived dislike of standard gauge and will expand the fleet of passenger stock to run on that odd width of track.  
Regards bogie exchanging wagons all very good, perhaps cheaper just to lift the container by crane to another wagon.
What we have to focus on these alternatives are inefficient when we consider transhipping we are still maintaining two sets of rolling stock for the same load.
Standardize the Tocumwal/Deniliquin sections and the Locomotives, wagons etc can roam the National System to where the work is and not be trapped by gauge.
The multiple gauges are an expensive mistake and there is no cheap way to unravel the situation.
Sometimes you just have to accept Grandad made an error and this Generation has to fix.

The ARTC has a lease on most of the route of the inland in victoria and southern nsw and so that is why this route was chosen. Going via Tocumwal requires leasing more track from vline. Those routes are also currently dead ends and that is another reason why the ARTC chose the route via Albury.

The ARTC has a lease on most of the route of the inland in victoria and southern nsw and so that is why this route was chosen. Going via Tocumwal requires leasing more track from vline. Those routes are also currently dead ends and that is another reason why the ARTC chose the route via Albury.

Thats probably a secondary factor.

Primary one is the economics don't stack up, and the debt required to build it is $1-$2 billion more than the Albury route.

The ARTC has a lease on most of the route of the inland in victoria and southern nsw and so that is why this route was chosen. Going via Tocumwal requires leasing more track from vline. Those routes are also currently dead ends and that is another reason why the ARTC chose the route via Albury.

Thats probably a secondary factor.

Primary one is the economics don't stack up, and the debt required to build it is $1-$2 billion more than the Albury route.

$1.2B to build and upgrade a corridor that is on average less than 100km and in the target locations less than 70km east of the existing partly dual track corridor.

Going via Tocumwal would also require building a completely new rail line from there to Parkes as there is no other existing north/south railway west of Stockinbingal that connects to Parkes. This is over 400km's of new track that is not necessary when an existing corridor already exists.

With the chosen route there is a piece of track from Illabo to Stockinbingal which could be left to last to get the more needed new nsw / qld sections done. Basically the inland from Melbourne to Narromine is already there.

Going via Tocumwal would also require building a completely new rail line from there to Parkes as there is no other existing north/south railway west of Stockinbingal that connects to Parkes. This is over 400km's of new track that is not necessary when an existing corridor already exists.

With the chosen route there is a piece of track from Illabo to Stockinbingal which could be left to last to get the more needed new nsw / qld sections done. Basically the inland from Melbourne to Narromine is already there.

So close to the existing line that if they are not using it now they are unlikely to use the alternative route.

From Melbourne to Narromine it is about upgrading the line to allow double stacking. I don't understand the need for double stacking since the only place it is used now is from Melbourne to Perth because of the long travel time. Melbourne to Brisbane in 24 hours will negate any need for double stacking north or south of Parkes.

From Melbourne to Narromine it is about upgrading the line to allow double stacking. I don't understand the need for double stacking since the only place it is used now is from Melbourne to Perth because of the long travel time. Melbourne to Brisbane in 24 hours will negate any need for double stacking north or south of Parkes.

You clearly don't understand the economics of double stacking. The 'long travel time' aspect is irrelevant; Perth-Parkes/Adelaide just happens to be the only double-stack compatible ARTC route. Once both terminals are double-stack capable, there's practically no difference in train loading time between single and double-stacked container trains of the same length. It can even work for short distance Port Rail Shuttles if there's an appropriate double-stacking compatible route.

The point of double-stacking is that you can up to double the carrying capacity of an intermodal train when you don't have weight-constrained wagons. That's the big incentive. Not all containers are loaded to their weight limit and sometimes if the traffic flow has a predominant direction then many containers on the train might actually be empty. This is especially true on export trains from regional destinations.

From Melbourne to Narromine it is about upgrading the line to allow double stacking. I don't understand the need for double stacking since the only place it is used now is from Melbourne to Perth because of the long travel time. Melbourne to Brisbane in 24 hours will negate any need for double stacking north or south of Parkes.

Double stacking is only currently permitted West of Parkes (Goobang Junction) and North of Adelaide to Perth and Darwin.
There is no current double stacking out of Melbourne.

Distance has sweet f.a. to do with double stacking, it's about maximising the loading. A 40' container is approx. 30 tonne (fully loaded) Double stacking allows up to 60 tonnes per 40' space.... simples!

There is a very good economic analysis on DS in Australia in I think ARTC page. Its not the bee's knees it is made out, although 1500-2000km is around the margin where it is viable due to time and organisation required to double stack plus limitations in DS. So yes distance very much impacts on the viability. For example ignoring height issues you won't see a port shuttle DS'ed.


Also note some Qld trains are headed to the west and its the standard for which ARTC should universally apply to all new or upgrade projects.

How many trains are actually double stacked at the moment between Parkes and Perth? The steelie train that took the perth b cars across the country was never double stacked or even anywhere near full so when will there even be a need for double stacking even when the inland is built.

How many trains actually have double stacking in this country anyway. SCT use it on there Melbourne to Perth services but I don't know of anybody else who uses DS or even has a need for it. ARTC is never going to be able to double stack into Sydney and there certainly won't be any need to DS from Melbourne to Brisbane.

SCT use it on there Melbourne to Perth services but I don't know of anybody else who uses DS or even has a need for it.

And that is why sometimes it just pays to be quiet

How many trains are actually double stacked at the moment between Parkes and Perth? The steelie train that took the perth b cars across the country was never double stacked or even anywhere near full so when will there even be a need for double stacking even when the inland is built.

How many trains actually have double stacking in this country anyway. SCT use it on there Melbourne to Perth services but I don't know of anybody else who uses DS or even has a need for it. ARTC is never going to be able to double stack into Sydney and there certainly won't be any need to DS from Melbourne to Brisbane.

Only SCT double stack or use their High Roof vans to their depot at Goobang Junction near Parkes
SCT, PN & Aurizon all run well wagons on their MP/PM trains, so they can double stack out of Adelaide to Perth
There are even triple deck car carriers used on some trains

G&WA also double stack on the Darwin line AD/DA trains

How many trains actually have double stacking on east west corridor?  MOST of them!

How many trains are actually double stacked at the moment between Parkes and Perth? The steelie train that took the perth b cars across the country was never double stacked or even anywhere near full so when will there even be a need for double stacking even when the inland is built.

How many trains actually have double stacking in this country anyway. SCT use it on there Melbourne to Perth services but I don't know of anybody else who uses DS or even has a need for it. ARTC is never going to be able to double stack into Sydney and there certainly won't be any need to DS from Melbourne to Brisbane.

Something to consider,

- the only routes available now for DS is Parks to Perth/Darwin, thus reducing fleet flexibility

- The more its available, the more that may use it

- Not every commodity (in a container) is suitable due to weight, ie Steel is heavy

- The B cars came from Brisbane, so I assume did most of the contents in the train, a DS train wouldn't get past the bridge at the end of the AR yard (targeted for fixing as part of Inland)

- Its not a 1 stop shop solution

- They didn't build the EC corridor suitable for DS 100 years ago and so today we don't do it because we cannot, who knows what the number state?

- The operators are asking for it, I would listen to them first.

- You have to start somewhere or for ever be dammed.

- What is the incremental cost for converting the Inland project from SD to DS?

- More destinations, may see more use over existing corridors. For a start a DS train cannot start from the two largest major centres. Would we see trains from Melbourne head to Perth via Parkes, I doubt it but again, you need to make a start.

RTT ...... only one railway corridor was built from scratch to DS standards and that was Alice Springs to Darwin.

the Trans line, Kalgoorlie to Perth, Port Augusta to Adelaide, Crystal Brook to Parkes were all modified to allow DS
Australian National did the Trans, PA to Adelaide and Crystal Brook to Broken Hill off their own back. Kal to Perth by WAGR and Broken Hill to Goobang Junction by NSWGR

SCT use it on there Melbourne to Perth services but I don't know of anybody else who uses DS or even has a need for it.

And that is why sometimes it just pays to be quiet

Well in this case it was a question rather then a statement so why should I shut up when I was looking for some info.

How many trains are actually double stacked at the moment between Parkes and Perth? ...ARTC is never going to be able to double stack into Sydney and there certainly won't be any need to DS from Melbourne to Brisbane.

Something to consider, ...

I've been out at Goobang and watched containers being double stacked onto PN SP services. About a decade back ARTC completed works to Crystal Brook to increase height clearance to 6500mm to allow 'full' DS.

The Inland Rail studies (particularly the second one) were quite extensive, including the pros/cons of various route options. The current route was pretty much decided years ago.

RTT ...... only one railway corridor was built from scratch to DS standards and that was Alice Springs to Darwin.

the Trans line, Kalgoorlie to Perth, Port Augusta to Adelaide, Crystal Brook to Parkes were all modified to allow DS
Australian National did the Trans, PA to Adelaide and Crystal Brook to Broken Hill off their own back. Kal to Perth by WAGR and Broken Hill to Goobang Junction by NSWGR

Agreed, although I doubt there was a hell of alot to do between Perth and Parkes to convert to DS.

I think some of the clearances were originally a lower height DS and later improved with various capital projects.

SCT use it on there Melbourne to Perth services but I don't know of anybody else who uses DS or even has a need for it.

And that is why sometimes it just pays to be quiet

Well in this case it was a question rather then a statement so why should I shut up when I was looking for some info.

All the operators use DSon most services, and despite its current route limitations, they make the effort to still use it and believe its worth the effort. I think mostly Parkes and Adelaide freight to/from west or Darwin get through on top. Hardly a major source of freight. Now if DS got to Sydney and/or Melbourne as part of the DS to Brisbane. The whole picture would change.

Most of the Cootamundra - Macarthur railway alignment needs a total rebuild, to get rid of the steam age alignments.

Is there an opportunity to build a rail bypass of Cootamudra for Melbourne - Sydney trains using the new proposed Illabo - Stockinbingal diversion, than turning East at Stockinbingal and following B94 Burley Griffin Way than rejoining to Main South between Jindalee and Wallendbeen (Sydney - Parkes trains could also use this diversion) ?

Most of the Cootamundra - Macarthur railway alignment needs a total rebuild, to get rid of the steam age alignments.

Is there an opportunity to build a bypass of Cootamudra for Mel - Syd and Syd - Parkes, using some of this new proposed diversion ?

We all know the main south needs realignment but who is going to do that. The Feds aren't going to invest in it when the priority is the inland and the NSW Government isn't going to get the ARTC to build new alignments on it's behalf.

How steep are the grades looking on the QLD part of the inland. A full DS train might need 8 locomotives to get a full DS train up the hill.