Port Rail Shuttles For Melbourne At Last

 
  501M Train Controller

Location: The Borough
The scope of port shuttles I thought was not to manage longer distance inland port trains but to handle local truck deliveries of containers to and from the rail yard in say Dandenong and Somerton and a western terminal to ferry containers from the yards to the port and back.  gauge should not be a problem for the delivery of this model.
That is the concept of Port Shuttles (Trip Trains in NSW) as I understand it. Anything outside the basic outer Metrop is not a trip train as we are discussing it.

Dandenong (somewhere), Somerton (somewhere) and Truganina (somewhere) was the concept for the big PTV (whatever they were called that day) Report a few years ago.

Watching Metro, Vline and Trip trains mingling will be a sight to behold.Laughing
YM-Mundrabilla

That's why I think Port Rail shuttles in Melbourne will never get past political spin.  The solution will be more HPFVs on the road.

Sponsored advertisement

  speedemon08 Mary

Location: I think by now you should have figured it out
Seems Ports in the USA do own track and presumably rolling stock.

https://www.railpage.com.au/news/s/port-starts-operations-of-the-coos-bay-rail-line
bevans
Few ports seemingly have their own railways, and if they do they usually they just shunt/stage trains.
  YM-Mundrabilla Minister for Railways

Location: Mundrabilla but I'd rather be in Narvik
The scope of port shuttles I thought was not to manage longer distance inland port trains but to handle local truck deliveries of containers to and from the rail yard in say Dandenong and Somerton and a western terminal to ferry containers from the yards to the port and back.  gauge should not be a problem for the delivery of this model.
That is the concept of Port Shuttles (Trip Trains in NSW) as I understand it. Anything outside the basic outer Metrop is not a trip train as we are discussing it.

Dandenong (somewhere), Somerton (somewhere) and Truganina (somewhere) was the concept for the big PTV (whatever they were called that day) Report a few years ago.

Watching Metro, Vline and Trip trains mingling will be a sight to behold.Laughing

That's why I think Port Rail shuttles in Melbourne will never get past political spin.  The solution will be more HPFVs on the road.
501M
Absolutely.
  potatoinmymouth Chief Commissioner

I stumbled across the tender documents for the shuttle this morning while looking for something else and nearly dropped my coffee when I read this:

The PRSN has potential to enhance IRP outcomes by efficiently shuttling freight between the POM and a new Melbourne interstate rail freight terminal that can handle trains up to 3,600 metres long with double stacked containers, which the existing Dynon terminals cannot efficiently handle.
Transport for Victoria
link

No wonder they had trouble getting operators to sign up if they're talking about 3600m trains!!!

I can only assume the intention was to describe a facility that could handle two 1800m trains facing off, but I'm really struggling with reasons for that anyway... or maybe they really do want trains that can be at Dynon and in Tottenham Yard simultaneously.

Anyway, with vague instructions like this for integrating into the IRP, who can blame the operators for being a bit less than enthusiastic.

YMMG:

PRSN - Port Rail Shuttle Network
IRP : Inland Rail Project
POM: Port of Melbourne
YMMG: Yard Manager Mundrabilla Glossary
  james.au Chief Commissioner

Location: Sydney, NSW
I stumbled across the tender documents for the shuttle this morning while looking for something else and nearly dropped my coffee when I read this:

The PRSN has potential to enhance IRP outcomes by efficiently shuttling freight between the POM and a new Melbourne interstate rail freight terminal that can handle trains up to 3,600 metres long with double stacked containers, which the existing Dynon terminals cannot efficiently handle.
link

No wonder they had trouble getting operators to sign up if they're talking about 3600m trains!!!

I can only assume the intention was to describe a facility that could handle two 1800m trains facing off, but I'm really struggling with reasons for that anyway... or maybe they really do want trains that can be at Dynon and in Tottenham Yard simultaneously.

Anyway, with vague instructions like this for integrating into the IRP, who can blame the operators for being a bit less than enthusiastic.

YMMG:

PRSN - Port Rail Shuttle Network
IRP : Inland Rail Project
POM: Port of Melbourne
YMMG: Yard Manager Mundrabilla Glossary
potatoinmymouth
Im not sure I agree that this is a turnoff - I don't think anyone expects a port shuttle to be 3600m or 1800m long.  I see this para as merely saying that the future interstate terminal will cater for such lengths for compatibility with the Inland* which is a logical thing to make people assume.  

Also, port shuttles and the Inland* are not going to cater for same traffic but some of the traffic from the port will possibly be shuttled to the future intermodal, and added to the interstaters for drop off along the way.

Though I think that most port traffic will instead be its own block train (as the Mildura, Tocumwal, Fletchers, Crawfords trains etc currently are).  Current operators with the possible exception of SCT in some cases prefer to run a block train on the interstate between the capitals (and in  my view the interstate network is a misnomer, it is really the inter-capital network).

* Inland = IRP for YMM**.
** YMM = YM***-Mundrabilla
*** YM = Yardmaster
  bevans Site Admin

Location: Melbourne, Australia
The port sidings are not anywhere near that length are they?
  YM-Mundrabilla Minister for Railways

Location: Mundrabilla but I'd rather be in Narvik
I stumbled across the tender documents for the shuttle this morning while looking for something else and nearly dropped my coffee when I read this:

The PRSN has potential to enhance IRP outcomes by efficiently shuttling freight between the POM and a new Melbourne interstate rail freight terminal that can handle trains up to 3,600 metres long with double stacked containers, which the existing Dynon terminals cannot efficiently handle.
link

No wonder they had trouble getting operators to sign up if they're talking about 3600m trains!!!

I can only assume the intention was to describe a facility that could handle two 1800m trains facing off, but I'm really struggling with reasons for that anyway... or maybe they really do want trains that can be at Dynon and in Tottenham Yard simultaneously.

Anyway, with vague instructions like this for integrating into the IRP, who can blame the operators for being a bit less than enthusiastic.

YMMG:

PRSN - Port Rail Shuttle Network
IRP : Inland Rail Project
POM: Port of Melbourne
YMMG: Yard Manager Mundrabilla Glossary
Im not sure I agree that this is a turnoff - I don't think anyone expects a port shuttle to be 3600m or 1800m long.  I see this para as merely saying that the future interstate terminal will cater for such lengths for compatibility with the Inland* which is a logical thing to make people assume.  

Also, port shuttles and the Inland* are not going to cater for same traffic but some of the traffic from the port will possibly be shuttled to the future intermodal, and added to the interstaters for drop off along the way.

Though I think that most port traffic will instead be its own block train (as the Mildura, Tocumwal, Fletchers, Crawfords trains etc currently are).  Current operators with the possible exception of SCT in some cases prefer to run a block train on the interstate between the capitals (and in  my view the interstate network is a misnomer, it is really the inter-capital network).

* Inland = IRP for YMM**.
** YMM = YM***-Mundrabilla
*** YM = Yard Manager
james.au
Thanks James for the acronyms. I hope that others appreciate the explanations too.

Sorry but only one small pin prick. YM = Yardmaster! Smile

I am a great believer in forward planning but even I cannot imagine PN (whoever) putting together a 3,600 metre train to run Melbourne to Brisbane. Such a train would be longer that most Pilbara Ore Trains.

Keep smiling.
  YM-Mundrabilla Minister for Railways

Location: Mundrabilla but I'd rather be in Narvik
The port sidings are not anywhere near that length are they?
bevans
No nothing like it.
Maybe 1400 - 1500 metres maximum depending on where you measure to/from but how much is actually usable may well be something altogether different.
  bevans Site Admin

Location: Melbourne, Australia
The port sidings are not anywhere near that length are they?
No nothing like it.
Maybe 1400 - 1500 metres maximum depending on where you measure to/from but how much is actually usable may well be something altogether different.
YM-Mundrabilla

3600 metres seens really an odd requirement as it would in the metro area extend past 1 single interlocking length?
  james.au Chief Commissioner

Location: Sydney, NSW
I stumbled across the tender documents for the shuttle this morning while looking for something else and nearly dropped my coffee when I read this:

The PRSN has potential to enhance IRP outcomes by efficiently shuttling freight between the POM and a new Melbourne interstate rail freight terminal that can handle trains up to 3,600 metres long with double stacked containers, which the existing Dynon terminals cannot efficiently handle.
link

No wonder they had trouble getting operators to sign up if they're talking about 3600m trains!!!

I can only assume the intention was to describe a facility that could handle two 1800m trains facing off, but I'm really struggling with reasons for that anyway... or maybe they really do want trains that can be at Dynon and in Tottenham Yard simultaneously.

Anyway, with vague instructions like this for integrating into the IRP, who can blame the operators for being a bit less than enthusiastic.

YMMG:

PRSN - Port Rail Shuttle Network
IRP : Inland Rail Project
POM: Port of Melbourne
YMMG: Yard Manager Mundrabilla Glossary
Im not sure I agree that this is a turnoff - I don't think anyone expects a port shuttle to be 3600m or 1800m long.  I see this para as merely saying that the future interstate terminal will cater for such lengths for compatibility with the Inland* which is a logical thing to make people assume.  

Also, port shuttles and the Inland* are not going to cater for same traffic but some of the traffic from the port will possibly be shuttled to the future intermodal, and added to the interstaters for drop off along the way.

Though I think that most port traffic will instead be its own block train (as the Mildura, Tocumwal, Fletchers, Crawfords trains etc currently are).  Current operators with the possible exception of SCT in some cases prefer to run a block train on the interstate between the capitals (and in  my view the interstate network is a misnomer, it is really the inter-capital network).

* Inland = IRP for YMM**.
** YMM = YM***-Mundrabilla
*** YM = Yard Manager
Thanks James for the acronyms. I hope that others appreciate the explanations too.

Sorry but only one small pin prick. YM = Yardmaster! Smile

I am a great believer in forward planning but even I cannot imagine PN (whoever) putting together a 3,600 metre train to run Melbourne to Brisbane. Such a train would be longer that most Pilbara Ore Trains.

Keep smiling.
YM-Mundrabilla
Damn i have confused people.  I will fix Smile

The Inland is being planned with 3600m trains in mind, so i suspect the users are potentially looking for them.  What is the max length on the East West at the moment?
  james.au Chief Commissioner

Location: Sydney, NSW
Guys im pretty sure the 3600m trains will be from the future terminal to Acacia Ridge/Bromelton only and operating on the DIRN only (and maybe to PER if they upgrade some loops).  They won't venture elsewhere because of the length issues you identify.
  potatoinmymouth Chief Commissioner

I have to confess I had no idea 3600m was under contemplation for the Inland. I had only the 1800m length in my head. But:

1800m with future proofing for ultimate 3600m train length
ARTC


link
  james.au Chief Commissioner

Location: Sydney, NSW
I have to confess I had no idea 3600m was under contemplation for the Inland. I had only the 1800m length in my head. But:

1800m with future proofing for ultimate 3600m train length


link
potatoinmymouth
Yep its been on the cards for a very long time.

Can you imagine a 3600m double stack train?  That is going to be some volume.....
  SEMartin Chief Train Controller

Location: Canberra ACT
I stumbled across the tender documents for the shuttle this morning while looking for something else and nearly dropped my coffee when I read this:

The PRSN has potential to enhance IRP outcomes by efficiently shuttling freight between the POM and a new Melbourne interstate rail freight terminal that can handle trains up to 3,600 metres long with double stacked containers, which the existing Dynon terminals cannot efficiently handle.
link

No wonder they had trouble getting operators to sign up if they're talking about 3600m trains!!!
potatoinmymouth
FML Crying or Very sad

The new Melbourne interstate terminal will be the one at either Truganina (WIFT) or Beveridge (BIFT). The Port Rail Shuttle RFQ documents (not online) required proponents to state how they'd work a 'reference train' of 600 metres in length from the suburban terminals into the Port.
  YM-Mundrabilla Minister for Railways

Location: Mundrabilla but I'd rather be in Narvik
Does FML really mean what  google says it means?
  Dangersdan707 Chief Commissioner

Location: On a Thing with Internet
Does FML really mean what  google says it means?
YM-Mundrabilla
Yes, f-word my life
  ptvcommuter Train Controller

How much would a Port of Melbourne/Webb dock elevated rail line cost to West melbourne/south Dynon.
  bevans Site Admin

Location: Melbourne, Australia
How much would a Port of Melbourne/Webb dock elevated rail line cost to West melbourne/south Dynon.
ptvcommuter

Over 1 million TEU movements to Webb Dock at the moment measured Annually.  Port Rail Shuttles need to include this terminal.
  potatoinmymouth Chief Commissioner

Where do you propose to connect a Webb Dock line to the rest of the rail network?
  ptvcommuter Train Controller

Where do you propose to connect a Webb Dock line to the rest of the rail network?
potatoinmymouth


Through the south dynon freight area, which is connected to Melbourne’s freight network
  potatoinmymouth Chief Commissioner

Where do you propose to connect a Webb Dock line to the rest of the rail network?


Through the south dynon freight area, which is connected to Melbourne’s freight network
ptvcommuter
There's a river in the way. The old alignment has been built over. A new bridge would be required with at least the clearance of the Bolte to allow access to Victoria Dock. But, if you go any further downstream than the Bolte, you run into Appleton.

It's a nightmare, I think we can safely say it is highly unlikely in the near future.
  ptvcommuter Train Controller

There's a river in the way. The old alignment has been built over. A new bridge would be required with at least the clearance of the Bolte to allow access to Victoria Dock. But, if you go any further downstream than the Bolte, you run into Appleton. It's a nightmare, I think we can safely say it is highly unlikely in the near future.
potatoinmymouth



So what do we do
Port of Melbourne and Webb Dock need freight rail access to take thousands of cars of the road in the Fishermends Bend area. The line can be elevated into the Port through Lormier and Todd Rd, that’s relatively cheap but how do you get across the Yarra.
  bevans Site Admin

Location: Melbourne, Australia
There's a river in the way. The old alignment has been built over. A new bridge would be required with at least the clearance of the Bolte to allow access to Victoria Dock. But, if you go any further downstream than the Bolte, you run into Appleton. It's a nightmare, I think we can safely say it is highly unlikely in the near future.



So what do we do
Port of Melbourne and Webb Dock need freight rail access to take thousands of cars of the road in the Fishermends Bend area. The line can be elevated into the Port through Lormier and Todd Rd, that’s relatively cheap but how do you get across the Yarra.
ptvcommuter

Yes and to think the government allowed the Webb Dock business to build up without rail shows you just how much the ALP really do care about rail. ZERO.
  ngarner Train Controller

Location: Seville


So what do we do
Port of Melbourne and Webb Dock need freight rail access to take thousands of cars of the road in the Fishermends Bend area. The line can be elevated into the Port through Lormier and Todd Rd, that’s relatively cheap but how do you get across the Yarra.
ptvcommuter
Thousands of cars don't carry freight, trucks do...

When the Webb Dock rail line was built originally it crossed the Yarra at a relatively low level near where Flinders St extension now finishes. The line connected with the former Melbourne Yard close to where Marvel Stadium now sits. The line closed with the removal of Melbourne Yard.
To put a new rail link from Fishermans Bend to anywhere near the surviving rail yards is nigh impossible due to the build up of the Docklands area and the amount of water in between the two.
One of the few real options would be a tunnel, at a ridiculous cost. Bridges are unlikely due to gradient issues and where they start and finish, which is also something that would make a tunnel difficult.

Bagging anyone for not putting a replacement line in is IMHO not taking in any consideration of the geography and constraints of the area. I would be interested to see anyone come up with a viable plan to return rail to Webb Dock that didn't cost a bomb.

Neil
  skitz Chief Commissioner



So what do we do
Port of Melbourne and Webb Dock need freight rail access to take thousands of cars of the road in the Fishermends Bend area. The line can be elevated into the Port through Lormier and Todd Rd, that’s relatively cheap but how do you get across the Yarra.Thousands of cars don't carry freight, trucks do...

When the Webb Dock rail line was built originally it crossed the Yarra at a relatively low level near where Flinders St extension now finishes. The line connected with the former Melbourne Yard close to where Marvel Stadium now sits. The line closed with the removal of Melbourne Yard.
To put a new rail link from Fishermans Bend to anywhere near the surviving rail yards is nigh impossible due to the build up of the Docklands area and the amount of water in between the two.
One of the few real options would be a tunnel, at a ridiculous cost. Bridges are unlikely due to gradient issues and where they start and finish, which is also something that would make a tunnel difficult.

Bagging anyone for not putting a replacement line in is IMHO not taking in any consideration of the geography and constraints of the area. I would be interested to see anyone come up with a viable plan to return rail to Webb Dock that didn't cost a bomb.

Neil
ngarner
If it ever happened it would be a lifting or swinging bridge.

Sponsored advertisement

Display from: