Government Minister wants to shift cargo from trucks to rail

 
Topic moved from News by bevans on 05 Jun 2019 22:02
  bevans Site Admin

Location: Melbourne, Australia
My god do we now actually have a minister who is a clear thinker and has insight into the problem we have and how unsustainable the idea of more trucks really is?

5,500 truck movements to the port each and every day.  That it already WAY to high.

Government Minister wants to shift cargo from trucks to rail

Sponsored advertisement

  Gman_86 Chief Commissioner

Location: Melton, where the sparks dare not roam!
Words are great, action is better.

We have been hearing a lot of words on this topic over the past few years, I would prefer to see some action.
  potatoinmymouth Chief Commissioner

This is the first time the details of the shortly to be released Rail Access Strategy have been made public. It sounds like they’ve put some serious thought into how to rearrange the rail access.

I suspect the Port will pay for the on-dock upgrades out of their own pocket, but it’ll have to be matched by PRS funding from the state to be viable.
  apw5910 Deputy Commissioner

Location: Location: Location.
Words are great, action is better.

We have been hearing a lot of words on this topic over the past few years, I would prefer to see some action.
Gman_86
I'm sure the Government Minister will see the error of his ways soon.
  potatoinmymouth Chief Commissioner

I'm sure the Government Minister will see the error of his ways soon.
apw9510

Now if you’d read the article, you might know the Government Minister in question is a woman.
  The Vinelander Minister for Railways

Location: Ballan, Victoria on the Ballarat RFR Line
Words are great, action is better.

We have been hearing a lot of words on this topic over the past few years, I would prefer to see some action.
I'm sure the Government Minister will see the error of his ways soon.
apw5910

Oh dear... Sad
  apw5910 Deputy Commissioner

Location: Location: Location.
Okay. I'm sure the Minister will see the error of HER ways soon.
  8077 Chief Train Controller

Location: Crossing the Rubicon
This is the first time the details of the shortly to be released Rail Access Strategy have been made public. It sounds like they’ve put some serious thought into how to rearrange the rail access.

I suspect the Port will pay for the on-dock upgrades out of their own pocket, but it’ll have to be matched by PRS funding from the state to be viable.
potatoinmymouth

Quite correct they will need to put their hands in their pockets for cash but the port will be better placed for rail and this will lower costs as less port movements.  The idea of the trains coming back onto the docks is what is happening in other ports across the world and needs to happen back again in Melbourne.

Sydney is already doing this and I also think Adelaide?

The $15 is neg and will be cheaper than the $100 per TEU for the container movement between the rail yard and the dock.

Track access is this still a problem and what about Webb Dock this needs to be sorted asap.
  lkernan Deputy Commissioner

Location: Melbourne
But is there any point building these new terminals if the rail operators don't want to service them?

It's great to say you want to put more freight on rail but you can't force the operators into bidding for the work.
  8077 Chief Train Controller

Location: Crossing the Rubicon
But is there any point building these new terminals if the rail operators don't want to service them?

It's great to say you want to put more freight on rail but you can't force the operators into bidding for the work.
lkernan

Capital will flow into market opportunities.

The Port of Melbourne is big enough to operate those transfers themselves or outsource them to a 3rd party like SSR?

This work is vital for the Inland Rail and maybe just maybe this is part of the port shuttle delays?
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
There is a perfectly good SG line to the Port of Brisbane built under the "One Nation" program, fortunately its DG so at least one of the rails is shinny. My point being building is great but is it what industry wants or needs and if not why not.
  bevans Site Admin

Location: Melbourne, Australia
My thoughts are this is a big significant shift from the way rail has been treated to the Port of Melbourne.  Creating the ability to go on and off the dock and yards and removing the need to truck the container from North Dynon, or the MFT is a BIG win for rail.  It means only one lift on and one lift off the train. I cannot see how this is anything but a major step forward but i would have liked to have seen the Webb Dock line included and this is important for the entire deal.

How any manager at V/Line arrived at the conclusion delivering containers to a rail yard and then expecting that container to be lifted onto a truck for the 400 metres to the dock was a good idea had rocks in their heads. Then again Kennett did pull up the rail network to the docks which had to be relaid. (forced upon them?)

Inland rail when connected will ensure a seamless connection to and from the Port of Melbourne reducing cost.

Why would a rail operator not want to see costs taken out of the supply chain?
  potatoinmymouth Chief Commissioner

My thoughts are this is a big significant shift from the way rail has been treated to the Port of Melbourne.  Creating the ability to go on and off the dock and yards and removing the need to truck the container from North Dynon, or the MFT is a BIG win for rail.  It means only one lift on and one lift off the train. I cannot see how this is anything but a major step forward but i would have liked to have seen the Webb Dock line included and this is important for the entire deal.

How any manager at V/Line arrived at the conclusion delivering containers to a rail yard and then expecting that container to be lifted onto a truck for the 400 metres to the dock was a good idea had rocks in their heads. Then again Kennett did pull up the rail network to the docks which had to be relaid. (forced upon them?)

Inland rail when connected will ensure a seamless connection to and from the Port of Melbourne reducing cost.

Why would a rail operator not want to see costs taken out of the supply chain?
bevans
How many times have we been through the Webb Dock situation already? The Port estimates their four-terminal plan to be "in the hundreds of millions of dollars". Add Webb Dock to that and you're looking at billions, because of the need to cross the river, while avoiding the Bolte and West Gate bridges.

This is an excellent example where the perfect would be the enemy of the good if insisted upon.

As to whether the scheme will attract operator interest, if the Port Rail Shuttle scheme is set up well, it will make those operations considerably more useful and profitable.
  bevans Site Admin

Location: Melbourne, Australia
My concern is Webb Dock is a growth terminal and is also close to the Tasmanian Terminal which would benefit from rail access as it once had. If it is not included and no one especially me is advocating for the Port of Melbourne to pay (the VCT guys already asked for the siding to be returned when they setup shop) and this was ignored by the Port's Minister.

I believe RP has articles going back 10 years on this with a cost of around $100m for the rail works.
  potatoinmymouth Chief Commissioner

I believe RP has articles going back 10 years on this with a cost of around $100m for the rail works.
bevans

If you can build a bridge that’s safe and works for $100m bevans I think they want you in the government.
  bevans Site Admin

Location: Melbourne, Australia
Seems a study is already underway?

https://www.railpage.com.au/news/s/vict-supports-the-plan-for-webb-dock-rail
  potatoinmymouth Chief Commissioner

Seems a study is already underway?

https://www.railpage.com.au/news/s/vict-supports-the-plan-for-webb-dock-rail
bevans
That was an election promise by the state Opposition.

The Feasibility Study Party was deemed unfeasible by the Victorian electorate and consequently no feasibility study exists.
  bevans Site Admin

Location: Melbourne, Australia
VICT identified rail access as a major issue for the development of the container port contract and this has been ignored by a minister who really has delivered very little in terms of progress on port integration with rail and the transport industry as a whole.  It really is a shocking outcome for the industry when you have 5,500 trucks per day descending on a small piece of land in inner Melbourne.  Where else does this happen in the western world?
  james.au Minister for Railways

Location: Sydney, NSW
There is a perfectly good SG line to the Port of Brisbane built under the "One Nation" program, fortunately its DG so at least one of the rails is shinny. My point being building is great but is it what industry wants or needs and if not why not.
RTT_Rules
At the risk of going off tangent (so ill confine my Qld comments here), its not just about building port rails.  The whole network needs to be viewed in entirety.  Decent NG/SG to the port is useless in Queensland if the rest of the network is low TAL, winding and circuitous NG that costs more and is less attractive than the road alternative.

Vic is the same.  Sorry Dangersdan but some of the BG network is not good enough and needs greater TAL, better signalling and derangement from the passenger network etc etc etc to make it truely part of a good supply chain that industry want to use.  And SG has more oeprators who can offer more competition to further lower the cost and improve service quality.
  bevans Site Admin

Location: Melbourne, Australia
But how relevant is this James in the context of the POM initiative?  

NSW uses this approach for port shuttles for Botany do you see a limitation with TAL on the NSW network which is current hampering this arrangement?
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
But how relevant is this James in the context of the POM initiative?  

NSW uses this approach for port shuttles for Botany do you see a limitation with TAL on the NSW network which is current hampering this arrangement?
bevans
The point was laying rails and expecting they will come is not a certainty as shown in the case of PoB which I highlighted. What does industry want and why?

with regard to PoB, James mentioned TAL, yet there are plenty of trains each week running to PoB from CQ and as far north as Townsville, could there be more???

The issue for PoB wasn't' about the NG, its about the SG, its there but apart from a short spurt during the late 200's mining boom, the SG tracks are grossly underutilized and often with long periods of NADA, yet there is 4-5 SG trains a day to Brisbane. How will the Inland affect this?

Is the work in Mel going to replicate Sydney or Brisbane?
  potatoinmymouth Chief Commissioner

If there’s one good thing about a private port, James, it does give me confidence that they’re reflecting the demands of industry with this project. If they are going to be stumping up their own cash they will expect a substantial commercial return.

What that looks like exactly, who knows, but there’s no reason to think it’s an idle and unbanked thought bubble.
  bevans Site Admin

Location: Melbourne, Australia
The point was laying rails and expecting they will come is not a certainty as shown in the case of PoB which I highlighted. What does industry want and why?

with regard to PoB, James mentioned TAL, yet there are plenty of trains each week running to PoB from CQ and as far north as Townsville, could there be more???

The issue for PoB wasn't' about the NG, its about the SG, its there but apart from a short spurt during the late 200's mining boom, the SG tracks are grossly underutilized and often with long periods of NADA, yet there is 4-5 SG trains a day to Brisbane. How will the Inland affect this?

Is the work in Mel going to replicate Sydney or Brisbane?
RTT_Rules

So the issue with the SG is there is a lack of port bound or outbound container traffic which could use the SG line to PoB or is it just operators who do not want to use it?
  Dangersdan707 Chief Commissioner

Location: On a Thing with Internet
Vic is the same. Sorry Dangersdan but some of the BG network is not good enough and needs greater TAL, better signalling and derangement from the passenger network etc etc etc to make it truely part of a good supply chain that industry want to use. And SG has more operators who can offer more competition to further lower the cost and improve service quality.
James.au


I agree with the TAL argument however what about Dandenong Way? There is no chance that A SG line is going past Flinders street. I'm surprised this is not discussed more often due to the sheer amount of Trucks on the Monash Freeway heading eastward.
  bevans Site Admin

Location: Melbourne, Australia


I agree with the TAL argument however what about Dandenong Way? There is no chance that A SG line is going past Flinders street. I'm surprised this is not discussed more often due to the sheer amount of Trucks on the Monash Freeway heading eastward.
Dangersdan707

The issue with trucks on the Monash is the unavailability of an intermodal terminal in the Dandenong area which was part of the rail shuttle project.

Sponsored advertisement

Subscribers: Beta4Me, bevans, Boss 2, RTT_Rules

Display from:   

Quick Reply

We've disabled Quick Reply for this thread as it was last updated more than six months ago.