Historic Albury-Wodonga rail bridge facing chop or major upgrade to allow for inland rail

 
Topic moved from News by dthead on 09 Nov 2017 11:06
  Lockspike Train Controller


The Down Main at Junee ends in a 400m long catchpoint, the purpose of which is unknown. If this had been extended as an extension of the Down Main, to the top of the hill mentioned above, with a high speed turnout, then a useful 1500m/1800m/3600m refuge loop would have been formed.
awsgc24
I don't know the purpose of 21 road, I can only assume it was intended as a neck for shunting coaching stock, for which it was used twice a day. It was common practice during the 70s to stow a whole train in there for the weekend. A train would be out of Melbourne on a Friday but not be welcome in Sydney until business resumed on Monday, or so I was told.

It was often speculated that 21 rd would be extended to provide a long loop. These days with trains no longer fitting between the crossing and the start of the single line, it is the practice to hold a Dn train at the 1st Dn Home signal to cross an Up train.

Sponsored advertisement

  Trainplanner Chief Commissioner

Location: Along the Line
Now we could really, really go over the top and be even more "brave" and run the second track from the Murray Bridge, through Albury Yard up the hill and right through to Gerogery and do something decent for relatively low cost.  The ARTC second track passing lanes were relatively inexpensive.  A single track Murray River Bridge literally at the bottom of the hill not that far south of Albury Station and its passenger movement which will increase is just dumb.
  james.au Chief Commissioner

Location: Sydney, NSW
How are the rest of the road bridges over rail for DS in the Albury region?  Will there be additional works for places like North St, Riverina Hwy, Fallon St etc etc?  What is the height requirement for DS btw?  

Ill be down there on the weekend and might have a look at a few of them in some spare minutes.
  james.au Chief Commissioner

Location: Sydney, NSW
Also, it is noted in the current Draft NSW Transport doc that duplication from Junee to Albury is a longer term plan (with NSW and Federal Govt working together.
  LancedDendrite Chief Commissioner

Location: Trapped in a meeting with Rhonda and Karsten
What is the height requirement for DS, BTW?
james.au
For new/modified structures on the Inland Rail route, the height clearance is 7100mm from top of rail (ref. IRAS Appendix C). ARTC's existing double-stack approved lines have a rollingstock height limit of 6500mm from top of rail but you need some room on top of that for the structure outline.
  Valvegear The Ghost of George Stephenson

Location: Norda Fittazroy
This is not criticism, but isn't it interesting the way in which one issue like the old bridge can spread to Albury-Gerogery, works at Junee, double-stacking and so on.
It is a demonstration of how to design a railway system.
  awsgc24 Minister for Railways

Location: Sydney
I thought the down main already passed under the Hill St bridge...

Kindly look at the diagram linked in the previous post. The Down Main finishes north of the Hill Street overbridge, and the DM and UP effectively combine with an X25 crossover into a Single Track Main Line.
I've done a bit of research.

The name of the street on the bridge is Kemp street, not Hill St. Thus there is no "Hill St Bridge".

Hill St is the next east-west street to the north and joins at right angles Edgar Street which passes under the bridge.

I'm looking at a photo I took from the bridge of ST23 XPT with XP 2002 trailing at 1329 on 2 January 2017.

The train is passing signal JE69.

On the left of the train as viewed, so east of the main line is a track. Looking at the photos I took of the XPT approaching, this is an extension of the down main, and it extends south past the Kemp street bridge and past signal JE69.

So as I said, the down main already passes under the bridge. The diagram is wrong, both in where the down main finishes and in the name of the street on the bridge.

But that should clarify your enquiry as to whether the bridge will allow the down main to pass under the bridge.
It already does pass under the bridge.

And by the way, I checked the diagram before answering the first time.
I knew it was wrong and ignored it, and I suggest you do the same.

Peter
M636C
Thanks for the improved info re Hill Street; I shall report the error(s) to the author of this diagram:

http://www.sa-trackandsignal.net/Pdf%20files/ARTC/AR259.pdf .

I tried to view the ARHS T&SV3 and T&SV4 diagrams for Junee, but they weren't working properly for whatever reason(s).

This street map ( http://www.street-directory.com.au/?x=147.58250853239633&y=-34.87462729437095&l=14 ) that Hill Street and Kemp Street are parallel with a dogleg. Depending on the scale of the map, one might mistake one for the other.

What is the name of the Down Main Extended? What is it used for? How long is it?

BTW, the ARHS Digest has a bad habit of often describing track and signal changes in words only, without any diagrams at all.
  BDA Chief Commissioner

Location: Sydney
Bathurst was an exercise in stupidity .
What you obviously don't realise is that it ended up being double lines then single double single .
Had the bridge been double lines it could have continued through the down platform to where it becomes single at the western end . You can't see past it being single in the end . The problem is that every cross will be painfully slow and if a pass is at the up platform you can bet nothing of any length will be allowed past it heading west .
This would be no issue if it had been double lined because there would be no chance of a down train blocking an up train once it cleared the old west box .
My issue is that delays will now go on forever because the short term geniuses don't care about the time/dollar cost to every train that is blocked for countless decades to come . Its called penny wise pound foolish - on a grand scale .

I ultimately hope Albury ends up with a double line bridge and the extra line continues north at least to the top of the grade .
This is what it will take to get long and heavy trains through that area in a timely manner . Stopping and starting and crawling into not insignificant grades , stone age rubbish that has fail written all over it .

The missing down main at Junee is another example of short sightedness .
It probably stems from the fact that very few trains run through that station without stopping , and when built train lengths were a small fraction of what they are and will continue to be .
  Nightfire Minister for Railways

Location: Gippsland
Must be tough for those who think there Is an unlimited amount of funds to build track layouts that dot every Imaginable “I” and cross every “T” regardless If the traffic volume Is there or not !
  Lockspike Train Controller

Now we could really, really go over the top and be even more "brave" and run the second track from the Murray Bridge, through Albury Yard up the hill and right through to Gerogery and do something decent for relatively low cost.  The ARTC second track passing lanes were relatively inexpensive.
Trainplanner
With the exception of the Wagga Viaduct, double tracking Junee - Murray River bridge would be an easy project from an engineering perspective. All the significant underbridges have abutments and piers in place. All overbridges have room for an additional track, (where not already in place). A few bridges would need raising for DS clearances: Kemp St Junee, Best St Wagga, Borella Rd Albury, and the pedestrian bridges at Wagga Stn, Brookong Ave Wagga, and Culcairn. There are a number of signal gantries that may need raising/removing.
The big exception is the Wagga Viaduct; I just cannot imagine a Mn Sth so busy that traffic demands that this be duplicated, but it's possible!
  Trainplanner Chief Commissioner

Location: Along the Line
Thanks Nightfire.   I think with this project it's not about gold plating or going over the top.   At the end of the day with both Inland Rail and the existing Sydney-Melbourne Corridor, we talking about linking the largest areas of population, industry, production ports etc in the entire country.

We keep being told the country's freight task is going to triple and even if it were only to double that still represents a sizeable task and there's a chunk of that that is contestable by rail.    

I try to make a strong distinction between future proofing versus "gold plating".   Rail assets as we all know are in the main very long life assets and some in the industry have debated that because they have such a long life this can be part of the problem, but I digress.

For my perspective its ensuring the alignment, structures etc have been planned and designed so that they can be upgraded for the future as and when the demand requires it.

Having said that there is enough evidence around the place already that the current 25 tonne axleload capability on the Eastern Corridor between Sydney to Melbourne is barely holding up and only in this past week a trip report about how the ride quality is again deteriorating certainly in Victoria.   We know why that is.  Not enough funds to the job right barely 7 years ago.   Funds diverted from orther projects to do ballast remediation work not deep formation and sub grade work and that is being done on a spot by spot basis.   At Gisborne as just 1 tiny example the mudholes there after I think their 4th remediation in 7 years have re-appeared worse than ever.

So moving to the future, is this something we want to replicate by saying we can't afford to ensure from the outset that works like formation, sub grade, drainage, structures, clearances etc are not future proffed to ensure we can move to the higher standards.

Look as I've already quated at Australian National when they concrete sleepered the Trans Line, the Broken Hill route and then the new line to Alice Springs.   Those sleepers now coming up to 40 years old are now being relaid or have been relaid in 60kg/m rail from the existing 47kg/m rail because someone had the future in mind.

From what I read here railpagers would have called that goild plating, I call it future proofing.   ARTC did at least when it "upgraded the north east in Victoria ensure bridge decks in being renewed were also future proofed for 30 tonne axleload.   Is that gold plating or prudent, sensible asset planning.

So going back to the Murray River Bridge it's obvious why it should be built to be a double track track, double stack, 30TAL capable bridge - no brainer and I think everyone has got that.

Now the second point, developing programs that leverage off the benefits of earlier investment.

This is where myself, BDA and others have commented about a host of relatively small investments like a second track through to Table Top, reconfiguring a part of Junee and also Cootamundra to leverage off the track upgrade and remove an impediment that results in an improvement in train operating performance and journey time.   Is that gold plating or working smart to maximize the potential of what you have.

That's the issue.  (Putting aside the funding side which is of course the big issue)
  Trainplanner Chief Commissioner

Location: Along the Line
OOps Not Gisborne its Broadford!!!
  Lockspike Train Controller

For my perspective its ensuring the alignment, structures etc have been planned and designed so that they can be upgraded for the future as and when the demand requires it.
Trainplanner
My post about double tracking Junee - Albury was not meant to be fanciful, I doubt it will be necessary for a long time. My intention was to show how planners in the past future-proofed the work. As a consequence it would be simple to do.
  Trainplanner Chief Commissioner

Location: Along the Line
It's ok Lockspike.  I'm agreeing with you and ARTC in association with TFNSW just needs to ensure nothing impacts the corridor so double tracking is possible in the future.   It would be interesting with the loops and longer passing lanes already in place to work out how much additional track is ulitmately needed to fill the gaps
  Lockspike Train Controller

Rail assets as we all know are in the main very long life assets and some in the industry have debated that because they have such a long life this can be part of the problem, but I digress.
Trainplanner
Hey Trainplanner, While you may consider the above statement a digression and in its original context it may have been, but I think it is an interesting point. I was told years ago that in determining the viability of proposed infrastructure the value of the benefit is never considered beyond 50 years.

Can anyone shed any light on how such projects are considered?
  james.au Chief Commissioner

Location: Sydney, NSW
Rail assets as we all know are in the main very long life assets and some in the industry have debated that because they have such a long life this can be part of the problem, but I digress.
Hey Trainplanner, While you may consider the above statement a digression and in its original context it may have been, but I think it is an interesting point. I was told years ago that in determining the viability of proposed infrastructure the value of the benefit is never considered beyond 50 years.

Can anyone shed any light on how such projects are considered?
Lockspike

This is a financial modelling quirk and really, 30 years is probably the true limit.  This is because of discounting.  For those that do not know, discounting is done to future cashflows to recognise the principal that $1 today is worth less than $1 tomorrow, once inflation and the time value of money is taken into account.  So revenues earned 30 years down the track (and costs too) are worth less than revenues earned today.

Once you hit 30 years, the numbers get pretty small, and even if you have large increases in the volumes, the very high levels of discounting applied mean they often turn into very small numbers.  In most projects you would be getting about 90/95% or more of the value in the first 30 years, after then there isn't much more to be had.

For rail, e.g. Inland Rail, the terms were much longer as their discount rate was 4% and this drove a good benefit cost ratio.  But Infrastructure Australia didn't like this and made them lift it to 7%, which reduced the benefits quite a bit and made it relatively marginal compared to other projects.  There is debate though about what rate is appropriate to use.
  james.au Chief Commissioner

Location: Sydney, NSW
It's ok Lockspike.  I'm agreeing with you and ARTC in association with TFNSW just needs to ensure nothing impacts the corridor so double tracking is possible in the future.   It would be interesting with the loops and longer passing lanes already in place to work out how much additional track is ulitmately needed to fill the gaps
Trainplanner
Here are the maps if someone has time today:

http://www.artc.com.au/uploads/OGW-30-29_Diagram.pdf
http://www.artc.com.au/uploads/OGW-30-30_Diagram.pdf
  RTT_Rules The Ghost of George Stephenson

Location: Dubai UAE
Thanks Nightfire.   I think with this project it's not about gold plating or going over the top.   At the end of the day with both Inland Rail and the existing Sydney-Melbourne Corridor, we talking about linking the largest areas of population, industry, production ports etc in the entire country.

We keep being told the country's freight task is going to triple and even if it were only to double that still represents a sizeable task and there's a chunk of that that is contestable by rail.    

I try to make a strong distinction between future proofing versus "gold plating".   Rail assets as we all know are in the main very long life assets and some in the industry have debated that because they have such a long life this can be part of the problem, but I digress.

For my perspective its ensuring the alignment, structures etc have been planned and designed so that they can be upgraded for the future as and when the demand requires it.

Having said that there is enough evidence around the place already that the current 25 tonne axleload capability on the Eastern Corridor between Sydney to Melbourne is barely holding up and only in this past week a trip report about how the ride quality is again deteriorating certainly in Victoria.   We know why that is.  Not enough funds to the job right barely 7 years ago.   Funds diverted from orther projects to do ballast remediation work not deep formation and sub grade work and that is being done on a spot by spot basis.   At Gisborne as just 1 tiny example the mudholes there after I think their 4th remediation in 7 years have re-appeared worse than ever.

So moving to the future, is this something we want to replicate by saying we can't afford to ensure from the outset that works like formation, sub grade, drainage, structures, clearances etc are not future proffed to ensure we can move to the higher standards.

Look as I've already quated at Australian National when they concrete sleepered the Trans Line, the Broken Hill route and then the new line to Alice Springs.   Those sleepers now coming up to 40 years old are now being relaid or have been relaid in 60kg/m rail from the existing 47kg/m rail because someone had the future in mind.

From what I read here railpagers would have called that goild plating, I call it future proofing.   ARTC did at least when it "upgraded the north east in Victoria ensure bridge decks in being renewed were also future proofed for 30 tonne axleload.   Is that gold plating or prudent, sensible asset planning.

So going back to the Murray River Bridge it's obvious why it should be built to be a double track track, double stack, 30TAL capable bridge - no brainer and I think everyone has got that.

Now the second point, developing programs that leverage off the benefits of earlier investment.

This is where myself, BDA and others have commented about a host of relatively small investments like a second track through to Table Top, reconfiguring a part of Junee and also Cootamundra to leverage off the track upgrade and remove an impediment that results in an improvement in train operating performance and journey time.   Is that gold plating or working smart to maximize the potential of what you have.

That's the issue.  (Putting aside the funding side which is of course the big issue)
Trainplanner
If you only have a fix some of money to spend, you look at the whole line (S-M) or potentially Coota to Melbourne to cover both Inland and S-M traffic and go where can I make the most improvement for my fix bag of money? Provided a bridge is not slowing all traffic down with ridiculously low speed restrictions and the bridge is rated for DS and required axle loadings, not the axle loadings in the distant future, then consideration should move to more land based opportunities as the bridge is unlikely to a major bottle neck.

For example a 2nd bridge over the river may cost $30m for a few hundred metres of double track. How often is this a physical bottle neck? And for the few trains that are required to stop how much time do they loose?  Now what else could I do with this $30m?

The Americans frequently run dual DS tracks on major routes, apart from high cost structures where their accountants tell them the fuel and time lost for the few trains that stop is not worth the cost of a 2nd bridge or tunnel. Slowing down well prior to the bottle neck to enable the conflicting traffic is clear the single track section is also far cheaper than actually running to a red light at full speed. The same would also apply the Murry River Bridge, although on the north side its single track so this mostly works only for traffic approaching from south or even the southern approaching traffic is a passenger train.
  Trainplanner Chief Commissioner

Location: Along the Line
I don't dispute what you say RTT, as you know probably better than I that we are coming off a base for the southern leg of Inland Rail (Illabo to Melbourne that has had decades and decades of underinvestment.   Even with the 2008 to 2010 north-south alliance project which was desperately needed we were really only catching up on decades of deferred maintenance overlaid admittedly with new signalling, some "bits" of new infrastructure like the Murrimbidgee River Bridge, Wodonga By Pass so by any measure not an insignificant investment.

But even by your very reasoned perspective partially addressing decades of deferred maintenance whilst critical still only takes you a very short part of the way forward and to see and hear from others how "fragile" the corridor is even after that investment is not really a very sound base to hang the balance of the remaining 1100km's or thereabouts of Inland Rail from.

As we sit today and I hope I'm wrong and will stick my hand up and say sorry if I am, very little is known about what the actual full scope of upgrading the Illabo to Melbourne segment entails.    I'd be very, very surprised if after allowing for double stacking works there will be much money allocated to actually upgrading the existing track structure other than rerailing possibly from Illabo to Albury to 60kg/m rail as well as rerailing to 60kg/m rail the "west" main between Wodonga and Seymour.

I'm convinced there won't be funds to resleeper with heavy duty concrete sleepers better suited to handle even 25TAL at higher speed and that I mean just to 115km/hr or even as a minimum close up the current sleeper spacing with the existing 25 TAL rated sleepers and that will as I keep harping because those assessing such a monstrous outlay will say but we only substantially upgraded the railway in 2010 with assets suited for a life in excess of 30 years.

So what will this do, add a network constraint nigh on 600km long for decades beyond the opening of the Inland Rail Project.   What will that do, just perpetuate the minimalist thinking because each time decision makers look at rail projects in this country, they with few exceptions never see a rail investment that has achieved its full potential and maximised the benefits its proponents claim.

The ATSB report on the condition of the track between Melbourne and Sydney made it very clear there are extensive remedial works required to get the railway to an acceptable condition and it will take decades of sustained money and investment to get there.   And the prospect of getting there is remote given where we are today.
  Lockspike Train Controller

It's ok Lockspike.  I'm agreeing with you and ARTC in association with TFNSW just needs to ensure nothing impacts the corridor so double tracking is possible in the future.   It would be interesting with the loops and longer passing lanes already in place to work out how much additional track is ulitmately needed to fill the gaps
Here are the maps if someone has time today:

http://www.artc.com.au/uploads/OGW-30-29_Diagram.pdf
http://www.artc.com.au/uploads/OGW-30-30_Diagram.pdf
Ok, I took the bait, pardon the foam!

Junee Sth - double track Sth of river: 163km
Second track already in place: 41km
Remainder: 122km

These figures rounded to nearest whole km.
  james.au Chief Commissioner

Location: Sydney, NSW
Nice work Lockspike. I was meaning to come back to it but didn't.  Where would it be most logical to extend DT do we think based on the mais (eg connecting two passing lanes etc)
  Trainplanner Chief Commissioner

Location: Along the Line
Good on you Lockspike.   If we were to use a rate of $3m to $4m million a kilometre to do the 122km that's a range of $366m to $488m to take account of unknowms, variability etc.  It's a good deal higher than the rate per kilometre for the Darwin Line as you have signalling, crossovers between mains etc to consider.

In 2015 Premier Andrews announced $1.3 billion to add an additional lane to 24km of the Tullamarine Freway.   Sure a much, much more complex project, enormous disruption costs etc but the difference in scale and dollars is staggering.

But going back to RTT's point, my view would be as far as Inland Rail is concerned I'd model the corridor from Ilabo to Melbourne (most likely been done) to extract what is needed to fix up some pinch points like we have been discussing, extend or infill some crossing loops/passing lanes and set about rehabilitating the formation/sub grade of the existing railway.   Resleeper some critical sections with 30 TAL heavy duty sleepers and use the "medium" duty concrete sleepers that are made surplus to close up the sleeper spacing across the remainder of the track to better support the track on a rehabilitated sub-grade.

Not sure what section you would put the "heavy duty" 30TAL sleepers in but I'm guessing/suggesting Melbourne to Seymour because of its tighter curvature and the fact its in more heavier soil, higher rainfall and whatever other factors come into play.  It would release approximately 180,000 sleepers that you could then redistribute across the rest of the corridor to close up sleeper spacing from 1,500 per km (I think) to say 1600 to 1650 sleepers per kilometre.   That would add very significant additional strength to support the current 25TAL standard and extract an increase in speed and improved jouney time from Melbourne to Ilabo whilst better supporting 25TAL operations with reduced heavy impact on the track.

Releasing 180,000 sleepers from Melbourne to Seymour enables you to "close up" from 1500/km to 1650/km some 1200 kms of track.  So you'd have 400 track km's to Wodonga strengthened plus all the way to Illabo (approx 200km) plus Stockingbingal to Parkes.  Its enough to then similarly close up sleeper spacing on other sections on a selective basis such as north of Ilabo on the current main where closer sleeper spacing assists in tightly curved sections or where track needs greater weight distribution.

Does that fly!!!
  james.au Chief Commissioner

Location: Sydney, NSW
Good on you Lockspike.   If we were to use a rate of $3m to $4m million a kilometre to do the 122km that's a range of $366m to $488m to take account of unknowms, variability etc.  It's a good deal higher than the rate per kilometre for the Darwin Line as you have signalling, crossovers between mains etc to consider.

In 2015 Premier Andrews announced $1.3 billion to add an additional lane to 24km of the Tullamarine Freway.   Sure a much, much more complex project, enormous disruption costs etc but the difference in scale and dollars is staggering.

But going back to RTT's point, my view would be as far as Inland Rail is concerned I'd model the corridor from Ilabo to Melbourne (most likely been done) to extract what is needed to fix up some pinch points like we have been discussing, extend or infill some crossing loops/passing lanes and set about rehabilitating the formation/sub grade of the existing railway.   Resleeper some critical sections with 30 TAL heavy duty sleepers and use the "medium" duty concrete sleepers that are made surplus to close up the sleeper spacing across the remainder of the track to better support the track on a rehabilitated sub-grade.

Not sure what section you would put the "heavy duty" 30TAL sleepers in but I'm guessing/suggesting Melbourne to Seymour because of its tighter curvature and the fact its in more heavier soil, higher rainfall and whatever other factors come into play.  It would release approximately 180,000 sleepers that you could then redistribute across the rest of the corridor to close up sleeper spacing from 1,500 per km (I think) to say 1600 to 1650 sleepers per kilometre.   That would add very significant additional strength to support the current 25TAL standard and extract an increase in speed and improved jouney time from Melbourne to Ilabo whilst better supporting 25TAL operations with reduced heavy impact on the track.

Releasing 180,000 sleepers from Melbourne to Seymour enables you to "close up" from 1500/km to 1650/km some 1200 kms of track.  So you'd have 400 track km's to Wodonga strengthened plus all the way to Illabo (approx 200km) plus Stockingbingal to Parkes.  Its enough to then similarly close up sleeper spacing on other sections on a selective basis such as north of Ilabo on the current main where closer sleeper spacing assists in tightly curved sections or where track needs greater weight distribution.

Does that fly!!!
Trainplanner

I think you'd have to add to your $3-$4m/km a few tens of millions for the Murray River Bridge, the Murrumbidgee River Viaduct and a second Murrumbidgee Bridge (the current one looks to be single track but completed for $17m).  $600m would probably be conservative perhaps.  But then, what else could you get for $600m?
  YM-Mundrabilla Minister for Railways

Location: Mundrabilla but I'd rather be in Narvik
Good on you Lockspike.   If we were to use a rate of $3m to $4m million a kilometre to do the 122km that's a range of $366m to $488m to take account of unknowms, variability etc.  It's a good deal higher than the rate per kilometre for the Darwin Line as you have signalling, crossovers between mains etc to consider.

In 2015 Premier Andrews announced $1.3 billion to add an additional lane to 24km of the Tullamarine Freway.   Sure a much, much more complex project, enormous disruption costs etc but the difference in scale and dollars is staggering.

But going back to RTT's point, my view would be as far as Inland Rail is concerned I'd model the corridor from Ilabo to Melbourne (most likely been done) to extract what is needed to fix up some pinch points like we have been discussing, extend or infill some crossing loops/passing lanes and set about rehabilitating the formation/sub grade of the existing railway.   Resleeper some critical sections with 30 TAL heavy duty sleepers and use the "medium" duty concrete sleepers that are made surplus to close up the sleeper spacing across the remainder of the track to better support the track on a rehabilitated sub-grade.

Not sure what section you would put the "heavy duty" 30TAL sleepers in but I'm guessing/suggesting Melbourne to Seymour because of its tighter curvature and the fact its in more heavier soil, higher rainfall and whatever other factors come into play.  It would release approximately 180,000 sleepers that you could then redistribute across the rest of the corridor to close up sleeper spacing from 1,500 per km (I think) to say 1600 to 1650 sleepers per kilometre.   That would add very significant additional strength to support the current 25TAL standard and extract an increase in speed and improved jouney time from Melbourne to Ilabo whilst better supporting 25TAL operations with reduced heavy impact on the track.

Releasing 180,000 sleepers from Melbourne to Seymour enables you to "close up" from 1500/km to 1650/km some 1200 kms of track.  So you'd have 400 track km's to Wodonga strengthened plus all the way to Illabo (approx 200km) plus Stockingbingal to Parkes.  Its enough to then similarly close up sleeper spacing on other sections on a selective basis such as north of Ilabo on the current main where closer sleeper spacing assists in tightly curved sections or where track needs greater weight distribution.

Does that fly!!!
Trainplanner
To respace sleepers involves a complete relay.
That's why it is so important to get the sleeper spacing right in the first place. This is also why Alice Springs - Darwin will always be a cheapskate railway - all for the sake of a few sleepers.
  Trainplanner Chief Commissioner

Location: Along the Line
Thanks YM,   I do understand that but whether its sooner or later ARTC and its Board Members the Transport Minister and Fed Treasurer are going to have to come to grips with the need to do deep rehab work.   I circulated this link before.

Its essentially a complete undercutting, sub grade rehabilitation and relaying activity that utilizes a very high percentage of recycled track elements.  Phenomenally expensive without doubt but all done in one pass which means you can close up sleeper spacing as you go with the recycled sleepers now being relaid on an upgraded sub grade

https://www.plassertheurer.com/en/media-library/listing-videos.html


Its a bit like the roads guys.  They invariably get a section of sub standard road, patch it up year after year and then 1 day decide to bite the bullet and do a full rehabilitation.

Sponsored advertisement

Display from: