Did the report also state the CO2 reductions by changing modes?

Did the report also state the CO2 reductions by changing modes?

Did the report also state the CO2 reductions by changing modes?

No.

The overall total cost reduction for reinstatement of the Heywood line is $15.6 million annually. With an estimated reinstatement cost of between $120-$150 million, based on reinstatement cost of similar rail lines in Victoria, the ROI without considered avoided costs would be 7.7 years – 9.6 years.

The diversion of 254,413 tonnes of freight from the road network to rail would also incur additional savings such as a reduction in both road maintenance and road crash costs. It is estimated these savings would be $1.7 million annually. This reduces the ROI1 to 6.9 years – 8.6 years.

Along with transport cost reductions, reinstatement of the region’s rail lines would result in reduced carbon dioxide emissions. It is estimated this would be 8,675 tonnes annually, equivalent to removing 1,842 passenger cars each year or 143,443 tree seedlings grown for 10 years

The overall total cost reduction for reinstatement of the Heywood line is $15.6 million annually. With an estimated reinstatement cost of between $120-$150 million, based on reinstatement cost of similar rail lines in Victoria, the ROI without considered avoided costs would be 7.7 years – 9.6 years.

The diversion of 254,413 tonnes of freight from the road network to rail would also incur additional savings such as a reduction in both road maintenance and road crash costs. It is estimated these savings would be $1.7 million annually. This reduces the ROI1 to 6.9 years – 8.6 years.

Along with transport cost reductions, reinstatement of the region’s rail lines would result in reduced carbon dioxide emissions. It is estimated this would be 8,675 tonnes annually, equivalent to removing 1,842 passenger cars each year or 143,443 tree seedlings grown for 10 years

This is a very rough cut of a few of the benefits and im betting it doesnt include all the things that a standard BCR would add in.  But suggests that the BCR would probably be good.

Which for 100km of track, adding into the national network, could be a reasonably easy incremental addition to the network.

Id assume ARTC would be doing or have done the sums on this one...

James, I have not read the report in detail as yet sorry, been too busy with day work for the week. Does the report cover all the track which would be bought back into service?

8 years payback for track capital which has a life of 25 years+ is a good return for the investor and an excellent returna nd outcome for the community.

Did the report also state the CO2 reductions by changing modes?

Why? It is a nice thing to consider, apparently, but not to help with final decisions.

Do you really think that the current government will make a decision based on this aspect?

I can't remember the last time a government decision has been based on CO2 benefits, let alone in regard to triple bottom line outcomes?

It is always $$$$$$$.

If a project proceeds due to the cost:benefit or ROI then they will have marketing spin about CO2 benefits.

Our country is not at that level of maturity yet. It might do when my generation (Gen X) and above, shuffle off this mortal coil.

When millennials finally become CEOs in companies, Departmental Secretaries (or DGs in states) or Ministers in governments, then we may finally see decision making that is truly based on triple bottom line assessment. Sadly I won't be around to see it.

It will continue to be purely reporting and lip service, but not a critical decision point. It will continue to be about $$$$.

ARTC's remit is to manage the interstate and Hunter Valley networks.

Any change to that would require legislative change at a federal and appropriate state levels.  

As of now it has nothing to do with ARTC.

And before you start.......list the bankable contracts they have been offered as part of this exercise.

Did the report also state the CO2 reductions by changing modes?

Why? It is a nice thing to consider, apparently, but not to help with final decisions.

Do you really think that the current government will make a decision based on this aspect?

I can't remember the last time a government decision has been based on CO2 benefits, let alone in regard to triple bottom line outcomes?

It is always $$$$$$$.

If a project proceeds due to the cost:benefit or ROI then they will have marketing spin about CO2 benefits.

Our country is not at that level of maturity yet. It might do when my generation (Gen X) and above, shuffle off this mortal coil.

When millennials finally become CEOs in companies, Departmental Secretaries (or DGs in states) or Ministers in governments, then we may finally see decision making that is truly based on triple bottom line assessment. Sadly I won't be around to see it.

It will continue to be purely reporting and lip service, but not a critical decision point. It will continue to be about $$$$.Milliennials are not the first generation to be focused on the Env and certainly CO2 is not the first "industry by-product" that we have had to reduce or eliminate.

When the Millennials become CEO's, they will face the same $ focus for CEO's of today and in the CEO's of past who also had growing Env and social issues to content with. If its not CO2 in the future it will be something else.

The CO2 aspect will only grow over the next 100 years, its importance is growing, not diminishing.

Yes, in the end of the day $$$$ is the tool that will make the change, but the prioritisation of using $$$$ for CO2 reduction will gain higher prioritisation over other elements in some cases.

NB. Nice to see you back here being active, I noticed that you weren't posting for a little while.

ARTC's remit is to manage the interstate and Hunter Valley networks.

Any change to that would require legislative change at a federal and appropriate state levels.  

As of now it has nothing to do with ARTC.

And before you start.......list the bankable contracts they have been offered as part of this exercise.

Which is the legislation they are subject to BH?  Ive not been aware that they have any special legislative purpose?   Oaklands and Portland lines are definitely not in the DIRN or HV and so theyre not consistent with a legislative remit if there is one.

And given that the flows on this could increase DIRN flows from Maroona to Melbourne and/or Sydney (and other places) then it may be that they ar ewell within their rights to pursue a small network increase?

EDIT: This says there is no separate legislation

https://www.finance.gov.au/business/government-business-enterprises/australian-rail-track-corporation-artc

OK maybe not legislation, but all tracks held by ARTC (outside of the former CR/AN trackage) are done so under lease agreements with the respective state governments which would have to be renegotiated.

They don't own the Heywood - Mt Gambier - Wolseley line trackage so unless someone (preferably the private sector) has gone to them offering 500,000 tonnes per annum of traffic, they would be wasting resources chasing rainbows. By far the the greatest tonnage on offer in the SE is woodchips, and while I don't agree with it, for now that ain't going to happen because the customer don't want it.    

Let's not forget, others (including myself) have tried in vain to get these lines re-opened over the last 25 years. There comes a time when you have to be realistic and say that there are bigger battles to be fought, and this is just a mere distraction, at least a far as ARTC is concerned.

Guess which one of the two people above has actually had to deal with paperwork and bureaucrats....

So some sort of submission has been made to Infra Australia.  And Kimberly Clark is especially mentioned.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-09-09/push-to-resurrect-rail-across-south-east-sa-western-victoria/12643854

Doesnt sound like it is lead with a particular operator in mind but more of a putting a pin in a map type of submission.  Which itself has merits esp if IA finds it worthwhile.

"..... possibly funded between three governments — being Victorian, South Australian, and federal," Mr Gandolfi said."

Would the SA Govt have any interest, given it would be happening mostly in Victoria?

There are 3 major plants/locations at Snugery which would require the line to be SG and upgraded.  The track within the snugery plant has already been updated to SG awaiting the main line to be done.

There are two tracks entering the Mill.

        Image removed

There is also the works across the line and another major facility adjacent the Snugery Railway Station site.

        Image removed

Would there be scope for chemicals to come inbound to the plant by rail?

There are 3 major plants/locations at Snugery which would require the line to be SG and upgraded.  The track within the snugery plant has already been updated to SG awaiting the main line to be done.

There are two tracks entering the Mill.

        Image removed

There is also the works across the line and another major facility adjacent the Snugery Railway Station site.

        Image removed

Would there be scope for chemicals to come inbound to the plant by rail?The limestone coast study didnt envisage reopening to Millicent - id imagine that track would be far more gone than Heyward-Mt Gambier. But if the sidings are done then that might be less prob

Re inbound, all depends on the supply chain characteristics and a willing rail operator.  Where is the chemical coming from and what exactly is it?

There are 3 major plants/locations at Snugery which would require the line to be SG and upgraded.  The track within the snugery plant has already been updated to SG awaiting the main line to be done.

There are two tracks entering the Mill.

        Image removed

There is also the works across the line and another major facility adjacent the Snugery Railway Station site.

        Image removed

Would there be scope for chemicals to come inbound to the plant by rail?The limestone coast study didnt envisage reopening to Millicent - id imagine that track would be far more gone than Heyward-Mt Gambier. But if the sidings are done then that might be less prob

Re inbound, all depends on the supply chain characteristics and a willing rail operator.  Where is the chemical coming from and what exactly is it?When were the sidings converted?   Seems odd.