Rail link to Tindal shot down by Defence

 
Topic moved from News by bevans on 28 Apr 2020 08:51
  bevans Site Admin

Location: Melbourne, Australia
The rebuilding of the Tindal base to deal with a lot of fuel and ordanance is a perfect opportunity to get rail into the base and take dangerous freight off the stuart highway.

The Defence White Paper outlines $20 billion in federal government spending on infrastructure over the next two decades, including a potential link to the base from existing rail network "to support the transporting and handling of explosive ordnance and bulk fuel", Mr Chandler then said.
Somebody

The Government should have rail factored into all infrastructure they build now as a part of defence as it mostly in the USA.

Despite Prime Minister Scott Morrison's enthusiasm for the project when he visited in February, the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works has to look closely at the spending detail and heard from Defence last week, including its decision not to build a rail link.
Somebody
I am assuming the fuel would come in from Darwin?

Not sure if fuel is currently delivered to Katherine via rail?

Rail link to Tindal shot down by Defence

Sponsored advertisement

  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
The rebuilding of the Tindal base to deal with a lot of fuel and ordanance is a perfect opportunity to get rail into the base and take dangerous freight off the stuart highway.

The Defence White Paper outlines $20 billion in federal government spending on infrastructure over the next two decades, including a potential link to the base from existing rail network "to support the transporting and handling of explosive ordnance and bulk fuel", Mr Chandler then said.
Somebody

The Government should have rail factored into all infrastructure they build now as a part of defence as it mostly in the USA.

Despite Prime Minister Scott Morrison's enthusiasm for the project when he visited in February, the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works has to look closely at the spending detail and heard from Defence last week, including its decision not to build a rail link.
Somebody
I am assuming the fuel would come in from Darwin?

Not sure if fuel is currently delivered to Katherine via rail?

Rail link to Tindal shot down by Defence
"bevans"


There are a few differences between the USA Defence force and Australia.
Tanks for example Aust - 59 and USA - 10,000 - 12,000

The USA also moves things from East to West coasts and to bases spread across the country which is done mostly by land. Most of our bases (loose term by USA standards) are near the sea ports).

While Tindal is nearly 300km from Darwin, its only 12km from an existing rail terminal and could be used for materials as needed. If there was higher demand then a branch to the site would likely prove useful, but unlikely justified. The fuel consumed at the base would probably be less than a medium sized town.
  aussie48 Junior Train Controller

Location: Melbourne
You don't have much of an idea do you.
To refuel the FA-18's at Tindal takes 238,000 Litres of JP8, that's without taking them for a spin which they do every day.  RAAF Transport aircraft C17A Globemaster III 112,000 litres, C130J Hercules 26,344 litres and C-27J Spartan not disclosed.
Search ResultsWeb results
So the fuel holdings are rather more than a medium sized Town.  Without any exercises usually at least 1 per year) in the top end RAAF use approximately 30 Million Litres per ear and fuels for exercises stretches the supply system quite considerably.  All fuel comes from Singapore and is then transported to Tindal by Civilian fuel tankers which only hold approximatel 15,000 Litres for a B Double.



So how much do you think is stored at Tindal or are you just plucking thought bubbles out of your behind.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
You don't have much of an idea do you.
To refuel the FA-18's at Tindal takes 238,000 Litres of JP8, that's without taking them for a spin which they do every day.  

RAAF Transport aircraft C17A Globemaster III 112,000 litres, C130J Hercules 26,344 litres and C-27J Spartan not disclosed.

Search ResultsWeb results


So the fuel holdings are rather more than a medium sized Town.  Without any exercises usually at least 1 per year) in the top end RAAF use approximately 30 Million Litres per ear and fuels for exercises stretches the supply system quite considerably.  All fuel comes from Singapore and is then transported to Tindal by Civilian fuel tankers which only hold approximatel 15,000 Litres for a B Double.




So how much do you think is stored at Tindal or are you just plucking thought bubbles out of your behind.
"aussie48"


A few comments
- Before stating where you think people pull bubbles from, why not ask?

- You are quoting in litres rather than tonnes which makes the numbers look bigger than they really are.  

- Unless you use the plane, once you fill it, it generally stays full.

- The size of the planes fuel tanks is irrelevant, its how much they use.

- A 15,000L fuel road tanker is rather small in volume, are you confident its that small? I would expect around 40,000L for a semi, 60,000L for B-double.

- The supply chain is stretched  during exercises because once or twice a year they use alot in a small space of time. Something likely easily resolved with another truck or two.

- 30,000,000 Lpa = 24,000 tpa = SFA for the rail freight industry.
Its basically a 2 trailer road train of fuel a day or likely less than two rail wagons a day. Logistics wise you'd probably work on 48 hr turn around delivering 3 x a week, so likely 3-4 wagons or 2 x week using 5-6 wagons, which helps the rail equation a bit more.

-  If memory serves me right, the town of Emerald used to get around a dozen rail tankers twice a week of diesel, which is more than Tindal and doesn't include petrol.

- The distance is marginal for rail unless volumes are there, but if you can make it work, why not. I'm not opposing rail delivery for fuel and anything else, just highlighting the volumes are unlikely to be commercially attractive.

- I'm not sure but I think Mt Isa maybe one of the last places in Oz for fuel to railed for the mining industry and that's 1000km for which most if not all the train is on the same point to point destination. The former Canberra Oilie is similar rail distance to Tindal and moved alot more than Tindal being a train load in its own right, did not stack up and unfortunately closed.

- Coming from Singapore is interesting, I wonder what is the back plan in case of war in the region?
  justapassenger Chief Commissioner

The fuel capacity of a Hornet is 4.9t (about 6,000L), not 193t (238,000L)

If we are generous and assume that normal peacetime operations at Tindal see four of them flying each day and landing with an average 25% of the fuel capacity on board, that's 14t of fuel used per day. There's no way that operations would be that intense as the RAAF has been restricting Hornet flight hours for years due to their needy maintenance regime (18 man hours of maintenance per flight hour) and the need to maximise the remaining hours on the airframes for when they are purchased by Canada as the RAAF swaps over to the F-35.

The first result I found on Google for fuel carrying trucks in Australia was ATE Tankers, who offer an AB Triple road train with 108,800L capacity (about 88t, just over six days).

Then there would be extra loads to account for aircraft from other bases - 75 Squadron with their Hornets are the only flying unit based at Tindal. 2 truck runs a week would easily provide enough to sustain normal operations and put a small surplus into the storage tanks, 3-4 might be required to sustain normal operations while also filling up the new RAAF and USAF storage tanks once they are constructed.

The difficult part for rail getting involved with RAAF Tindal is that the operator up there is 1Rail (The Artist Formerly Known As GWA) who are not the easiest operator for customers to deal with. In the event that Defence did decide to make rail a priority, 1Rail would have the challenge of keeping the RAAF's displeasure with them closer to the "screw it, let's use a truck" level and well short of the "screw it, we'll use them for target practice" level.

- Coming from Singapore is interesting, I wonder what is the back plan in case of war in the region?
RTT_Rules
Activate a Railpage account and post a forum thread asking for advice, of course.

More seriously, my guess would be that some of the elements included in this sort of planning would include the new storage tanks at Tindal (as referred to in the article) and other bases in northern Australia which can be activated as necessary (for example RAAF Darwin / Darwin International Airport, where nearby houses have had sound insulation installed to permit F-35 operations there), alternate supply routes, and the use of the new KC-30A (Australian/US designation for the A330 Multi Role Tanker Transport) operating out of RAAF Amberley.
  bevans Site Admin

Location: Melbourne, Australia
Lets also not forget the ordnance could also come in via rail  as it has in the past.

Could the Darwin base also be made rail accessible?
  justapassenger Chief Commissioner

Intermodal (ship/train for long haul, truck from the port/terminal to the base) is probably fine for Darwin just as it is for Katherine/Tindal.

But if 1Rail aren't interested in putting their best foot forward and doing a good job of making their intermodal facilities work for the Defence supply trains, there won't be any hope of anyone getting convinced to take the next step and built direct links.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
Lets also not forget the ordnance could also come in via rail  as it has in the past.

Could the Darwin base also be made rail accessible?
bevans
How many bombs are we talking? Train economics normally work in hundreds to thousands of tonnes, how much $hit does the RAAF actually blow up in peace time?

As far as safety is concerned. I know being a bomb people think unsafe, but are not these things pretty much made "bomb proof" (pun intended) with the firing pin or what ever removed. For example the US has a small history of dropping a few nuc's from planes by mistake or planes crashing, loud noise but no large scale landscaping by mistake.  

The UAE has one major road that runs the length of the country, military movements are visible than would be in Oz. Going by the level of security, following emergency services and shape around a certain movement you can kind of guess what maybe in transport and for other things looking from the side tanks even covered in camo sitting on a truck, only look like tanks covered in camo sitting on a truck. Anyway, it doesn't appear to be an issue.

As Just a ... said, there is a perfectly good inter modal terminal in use for Katherine railway, there is no reason this could not be used over a costly 10-12 km long siding for low tonnages and light use that needs a shunter and everything else. I support the use of rail for this purpose. Hell even fuel could be moved this way via isotanker.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
The fuel capacity of a Hornet is 4.9t (about 6,000L), not 193t (238,000L)

If we are generous and assume that normal peacetime operations at Tindal see four of them flying each day and landing with an average 25% of the fuel capacity on board, that's 14t of fuel used per day. There's no way that operations would be that intense as the RAAF has been restricting Hornet flight hours for years due to their needy maintenance regime (18 man hours of maintenance per flight hour) and the need to maximise the remaining hours on the airframes for when they are purchased by Canada as the RAAF swaps over to the F-35.

The first result I found on Google for fuel carrying trucks in Australia was ATE Tankers, who offer an AB Triple road train with 108,800L capacity (about 88t, just over six days).

Then there would be extra loads to account for aircraft from other bases - 75 Squadron with their Hornets are the only flying unit based at Tindal. 2 truck runs a week would easily provide enough to sustain normal operations and put a small surplus into the storage tanks, 3-4 might be required to sustain normal operations while also filling up the new RAAF and USAF storage tanks once they are constructed.

The difficult part for rail getting involved with RAAF Tindal is that the operator up there is 1Rail (The Artist Formerly Known As GWA) who are not the easiest operator for customers to deal with. In the event that Defence did decide to make rail a priority, 1Rail would have the challenge of keeping the RAAF's displeasure with them closer to the "screw it, let's use a truck" level and well short of the "screw it, we'll use them for target practice" level.

- Coming from Singapore is interesting, I wonder what is the back plan in case of war in the region?
Activate a Railpage account and post a forum thread asking for advice, of course.

More seriously, my guess would be that some of the elements included in this sort of planning would include the new storage tanks at Tindal (as referred to in the article) and other bases in northern Australia which can be activated as necessary (for example RAAF Darwin / Darwin International Airport, where nearby houses have had sound insulation installed to permit F-35 operations there), alternate supply routes, and the use of the new KC-30A (Australian/US designation for the A330 Multi Role Tanker Transport) operating out of RAAF Amberley.
justapassenger
Thanks for that

Why is 1rail a pain to deal with?

Sponsored advertisement

Subscribers: bevans, RTT_Rules

Display from: