Murray Basin standardisation

 
  Carnot Chief Commissioner

So are there any tenders out for SG conversion of Gheringhap to Ballarat, and DG to Maryborough?

Sponsored advertisement

  james.au Chief Commissioner

Location: Sydney, NSW
So are there any tenders out for SG conversion of Gheringhap to Ballarat, and DG to Maryborough?
Carnot
Ballarat-Maryborough no, but the Gheringhap-Warrenheip section was envisaged in the previous contract.
  Carnot Chief Commissioner

So are there any tenders out for SG conversion of Gheringhap to Ballarat, and DG to Maryborough?
Ballarat-Maryborough no, but the Gheringhap-Warrenheip section was envisaged in the previous contract.
james.au
Thanks!  I'm guessing the previous contract has gone thru the shredder?
  kitchgp Chief Commissioner

So if Sea Lake and Manangatang remain BG, Maryborough - Ballarat is DG and either:
Ballarat - Gheringhap is DG
or
Ballarat - Gheringhap SG and BG freight goes via Ballan and, for Geelong traffic, Melbourne.
There would be no access to Portland from Sea Lake and Manangatang (such as mineral sands).
  potatoinmymouth Chief Commissioner

Thanks!  I'm guessing the previous contract has gone thru the shredder?
Carnot

Yes, in the middle of last year when the contractor went belly up, my understanding is that the contract was terminated, in the specific legal sense of no obligations continuing to exist for either party.
  james.au Chief Commissioner

Location: Sydney, NSW
So are there any tenders out for SG conversion of Gheringhap to Ballarat, and DG to Maryborough?
Ballarat-Maryborough no, but the Gheringhap-Warrenheip section was envisaged in the previous contract.
Thanks!  I'm guessing the previous contract has gone thru the shredder?
Carnot
Maybe, it could be on the Victorian govt tenders website but id say they'd have scrubbed as much of it away as possible.

If only someone had downloaded all of the contract and ammendments as they were issued.........

PM me if you want the link to my drive file Smile

EDIT: PIMM's response seems to be what you're after, I'm referring to the tender documents.
  LancedDendrite Chief Commissioner

Location: Trapped in a meeting with Rhonda and Karsten
So if Sea Lake and Manangatang remain BG, Maryborough - Ballarat is DG and either:
Ballarat - Gheringhap is DG
or
Ballarat - Gheringhap SG and BG freight goes via Ballan and, for Geelong traffic, Melbourne.
There would be no access to Portland from Sea Lake and Manangatang (such as mineral sands).
kitchgp
Iluka needs SG for its mineral sands traffic. Keeping Sea Lake & Manangatang on BG is a temporary measure while the State Govt. finds some more funding sources (like the Feds). My money would be on some sort of scope reduction for that phase of the project too - I wonder how much of the Sea Lake line they can close without affecting traffic volumes too much?
  james.au Chief Commissioner

Location: Sydney, NSW
When are the mineral sands going to happen though?
  kuldalai Chief Commissioner

So if Sea Lake and Manangatang remain BG, Maryborough - Ballarat is DG and either:
Ballarat - Gheringhap is DG
or
Ballarat - Gheringhap SG and BG freight goes via Ballan and, for Geelong traffic, Melbourne.
There would be no access to Portland from Sea Lake and Manangatang (such as mineral sands).
Iluka needs SG for its mineral sands traffic. Keeping Sea Lake & Manangatang on BG is a temporary measure while the State Govt. finds some more funding sources (like the Feds). My money would be on some sort of scope reduction for that phase of the project too - I wonder how much of the Sea Lake line they can close without affecting traffic volumes
LancedDendrite
Not  necessarily .  If they re-open the mothballed processing plant at Hamilton then Manangatang - Dunolly needs to go to sg so sands can get to Hamilton to be processed then exported via Portland.

But if the plant at Hamilton remains closed (Which Iluka have cast doubt on Hamilton re-opening) the sands can go on bg and be shipped from there to Western Australia and processed at Ilukas major processing plant in WA .
  cbinyon Train Controller

Location: London, England
So if Sea Lake and Manangatang remain BG, Maryborough - Ballarat is DG and either:
Ballarat - Gheringhap is DG
or
Ballarat - Gheringhap SG and BG freight goes via Ballan and, for Geelong traffic, Melbourne.
There would be no access to Portland from Sea Lake and Manangatang (such as mineral sands).
Iluka needs SG for its mineral sands traffic. Keeping Sea Lake & Manangatang on BG is a temporary measure while the State Govt. finds some more funding sources (like the Feds). My money would be on some sort of scope reduction for that phase of the project too - I wonder how much of the Sea Lake line they can close without affecting traffic volumes too much?
LancedDendrite
The Sea Lake line has many large loading outlets. Sea Lake itself is big ans services many towns around it. Berriwollock & Wycheproof are also very large along with Charlton which has Graincorp and Grainflow sites.
By the sound of it the Manangatang line is in far worse condition than the Sea Lake line. Both still operational, Sea Lake had a grainy only a fortnight back.
  potatoinmymouth Chief Commissioner

https://www.bendigoadvertiser.com.au/story/6227190/murray-basin-rail-fail-fix-will-be-costly-says-expert/

Good in-depth article with lots of comments from different sources, which I present largely without comment...

...except that if the allegation that every single sleeper on the Manangatang line needs replacing is true, or close to it, then something is very seriously rotten in the state of Denmark.
  kitchgp Chief Commissioner

Posted higher up. Ararat - Cressy?
  justarider Chief Train Controller

Location: Stuck on VR and hoping for better.
@PIMM there is nothing wrong with the tracks in Denmark.Way better than Vic. aspires.

All the talk about sending sand (and grain) to Portland has a simple major flaw. The port have made it abundantly clear that they are not interested,  and ARTC have closed the line accordingly.

Keeping Sealake & Manang as BG to either/both of the "real" ports in Vic is for now a much more sensible business proposition.

cheers
John
  BigShunter Chief Commissioner

Location: St Clair. S.A.
@PIMM there is nothing wrong with the tracks in Denmark.Way better than Vic. aspires.

All the talk about sending sand (and grain) to Portland has a simple major flaw. The port have made it abundantly clear that they are not interested,  and ARTC have closed the line accordingly.

Keeping Sealake & Manang as BG to either/both of the "real" ports in Vic is for now a much more sensible business proposition.

cheers
John
justarider
You spot on, with your comments about the Port of Portland and mineral sand, is there even a loading point available at Manang, for sand ?

The Sea Lake line is only 140ish k long, so could spruce it up, leave it BG, Manang line really needs to be SG to give Qube a sporting chance with their new traffic building.

Interesting view point, though.

BigShunter.
  Donald Chief Commissioner

Location: Donald. Duck country.
Yesterdays up Qube grainy at Donald and todays down Fruity at Watchem were seen travelling at about 20 - 30 km/h.   Do WOLOs operate in cold weather?   Or has the track failed that much that this is now the limit?
  james.au Chief Commissioner

Location: Sydney, NSW
All the talk about sending sand (and grain) to Portland has a simple major flaw. The port have made it abundantly clear that they are not interested,  and ARTC have closed the line accordingly.

Keeping Sealake & Manang as BG to either/both of the "real" ports in Vic is for now a much more sensible business proposition.
justarider

Has Portland though? I think the problem is the Maroona-Portland line - at 19TAL it can't compete.  But if this was upgraded to 21 or even 23TAL, with lower speeds, I'm sure the port would welcome grain traffic with open arms.

The issue isn't in my view the port as much as it is the access to it.
  Mufreight Train Controller

Location: North Ipswich
https://www.bendigoadvertiser.com.au/story/6227190/murray-basin-rail-fail-fix-will-be-costly-says-expert/

Good in-depth article with lots of comments from different sources, which I present largely without comment...

...except that if the allegation that every single sleeper on the Manangatang line needs replacing is true, or close to it, then something is very seriously rotten in the state of Denmark.
potatoinmymouth
Since these lines are in such bad condition all sleeper replacements should be done with gauge convertible sleepers that can accommodate rail up to 60kgm size this would then mean some progress would be made towards gauge conversion and reduce the time that these lines would need to be closed for conversion.
  Mufreight Train Controller

Location: North Ipswich
https://www.bendigoadvertiser.com.au/story/6227190/murray-basin-rail-fail-fix-will-be-costly-says-expert/

Good in-depth article with lots of comments from different sources, which I present largely without comment...

...except that if the allegation that every single sleeper on the Manangatang line needs replacing is true, or close to it, then something is very seriously rotten in the state of Denmark.
Since these lines are in such bad condition all sleeper replacements should be done with gauge convertible sleepers that can accommodate rail up to 60kgm size this would then mean some progress would be made towards gauge conversion and reduce the time that these lines would need to be closed for conversion.
  james.au Chief Commissioner

Location: Sydney, NSW
https://www.bendigoadvertiser.com.au/story/6227190/murray-basin-rail-fail-fix-will-be-costly-says-expert/

Good in-depth article with lots of comments from different sources, which I present largely without comment...

...except that if the allegation that every single sleeper on the Manangatang line needs replacing is true, or close to it, then something is very seriously rotten in the state of Denmark.
Since these lines are in such bad condition all sleeper replacements should be done with gauge convertible sleepers that can accommodate rail up to 60kgm size this would then mean some progress would be made towards gauge conversion and reduce the time that these lines would need to be closed for conversion.
Mufreight
Or just timber sleepers and be done with it.
  simstrain Chief Commissioner

or maybe something which is as cheap as timber using recycled material but can handle 22.5 tonne axle loads and looking to get authorisation for use with 30 tonne axle loads.

http://www.strail.com/index.php?id=1244&L=1

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-05-15/plastic-railway-sleepers/8526114

It is also mentioned in the 2019 may edition of rail express https://www.railexpress.com.au/rail-express-may-2019/
  potatoinmymouth Chief Commissioner

They could be made of moon cheese for all I or anyone else cares.

But they need to support 21TAL with future increase to 23 (60kg/m might be overkill for that at Class 4? not sure) and be gauge convertible.

If timber is good enough for that, then use timber and don’t try to reinvent the wheel.
  james.au Chief Commissioner

Location: Sydney, NSW
The bonus for using the polymer solution is, if from recycled plastics, is an announcable for the government in a progressive state, and might also provide some good volumes to help kick start our plastics recycling industry.
  Mufreight Train Controller

Location: North Ipswich
The bonus for using the polymer solution is, if from recycled plastics, is an announcable for the government in a progressive state, and might also provide some good volumes to help kick start our plastics recycling industry.
james.au
No matter what type of sleepers are used common sense would indicate that they have to be sleepers that will not need changing to standardise the gauge so BG concrete sleeps are out and timber will only have a limited life span, polymer well can they be rebored to standard gauge without weakening them so that leaves either steel or gauge controvertible concrete.
  kitchgp Chief Commissioner

One good thing about the MBRP is that the order of implementation was well thought out. The project, once started, has to be finished and in the planned order, ie Sea Lake & Manangatang gauge-converted and at the same time or later Maryborough – Ballarat – Gheringhap SG.

The longer Sea Lake & Manangatang remain BG the more it will delay SG Maryborough – Ballarat – Gheringhap, meaning Mildura & Murrayville continue via Ararat. When Sea Lake & Manangatang are converted, all traffic will be via Ararat, until Maryborough – Ballarat – Gheringhap is converted.

In order to keep Sea Lake & Manangatang BG and provide a SG path Maryborough – Ballarat – Gheringhap, you would have to DG Maryborough – Ballarat (see below). If it was acceptable for Sea Lake & Manangatang freights to share the Ballarat RFR via Ballan, then Ballarat – Gheringhap could be SG only. BG freights to Geelong would incur an extra 80 km or so over the more direct Gheringhap route. If it is not acceptable, then Ballarat – Gheringhap would have to be DG. The DG, and its associated extra cost, would become redundant (apart from a few BG fan trips and service movements) once Sea Lake & Manangatang go SG.

Gauge-converting Manangatang and leaving Sea Lake BG would require DG Korong Vale – Inglewood, then
For BG, either:
DG at least as far as Ballarat (some existing); then some sort of BG path as discussed above;
or
reactivating Inglewood – Eaglehawk, which, apart from the cost, would mean additional freight trains on the Bendigo RFR.
For SG:
If Inglewood – Eaglehawk not activated, DG Inglewood – Dunolly, otherwise SG; then follow whatever Mildura & Murrayville are doing.

Long-term DG Ballarat – Maryborough is a separate issue and is for BG VLocity passenger services, although it could be part of the short-term solutions discussed above. Whether the cost is justified or a SG shuttle service used instead is open to debate. (A SG shuttle fits in with the proposed return of passenger services to Horsham and Hamilton.) Also, at the moment there is an 80 km/h limit on BG when using DG, which doesn’t affect freight but would mean a reduction for the 100 km/h passenger service.

Using Maryborough – Ballarat – Nth Geelong SG as the primary route keeps freight separated from passenger, apart from the up to 4 x daily Ballarat – Maryborough (Clunes Booktown Festival notwithstanding) and 4 x weekly GSR Melbourne – Adelaide passenger movements. Future Ballarat – Geelong and extension of Ballarat - Maryborough passenger services could easily be accommodated.

Sponsored advertisement

Display from: