High speed rail an 'economic game changer' for Wagga, Labor leader Albanese says

 
Topic moved from News by bevans on 14 Sep 2020 11:59
  Duncs Chief Commissioner

The section that needs to be electrified will be about five times the length of the existing electrified section in NSW which makes 25 kV AC justifiable.
They won't be electrifying the Donnybrook - Illabo section of the existing mainline, unless the overhead can be strung up (and kept) at 7100 metres above the rails.
7100 metres? Or 7.1 metres? Why is that height an issue?
Minimum vertical clearance for double stacking containers
Cubologist
OK Thanks for that.

Sponsored advertisement

  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
"Duncs"
RTT You do have a point there. Frequency is the big factor here.[/quote]

Yeah, its a reality issue. Even if we had 1 train per hour for 14h a day, this wouldn't justify OH, look at Vic, NSW and SA where DMU's are operated at much greater frequency. Adding freight may help the numbers, but only if the bulk of the route by most of the trains is under the wires and the wires will need to be 25kV for freight, unfortunately Inland traffic won't be.

Anyway, OH is out side the priority of things to upgrade the line. Until there are 4 rails heading south in a mostly straight alignment, why bother with OH.

Canberra maybe the exception if the route was upgraded to say sub 3h using 160 km/h train technology with 1-2h frequency as this would then enable all the Southern Highland services to go spark as well. Yes, the Double Stack OH height will need to be catered for.
  viaprojects Chief Train Controller

The section that needs to be electrified will be about five times the length of the existing electrified section in NSW which makes 25 kV AC justifiable.
They won't be electrifying the Donnybrook - Illabo section of the existing mainline, unless the overhead can be strung up (and kept) at 7100 metres above the rails.
7100 metres? Or 7.1 metres? Why is that height an issue?
Duncs


would look at indian railways and see the issue - " IR settled on a contact wire height of 7 450 mm and a catenary height of 8 650 mm "

https://www.railwaygazette.com/freight/indian-railways-starts-double-stack-electric-operation/56733.article



You'll need AC / DC bi-mode for electrification of this length, not the ordered DC / diesel bi-mode.

The system on the new regional trains can be setup for AC and DC I believe although they are setup only for 1500vdc at the moment. These new trains are going to be using so much less fuel then the Xplorer and XPT it isn't funny.
Both Victoria and NSW used the same 1500 vdc set up. So no issues there.
Victoria doesn't have any electrified standard gauge.
Nightfire


if any one reads the FAQ for the new NSW trains .. the trains will not be using the overhead power for both states QLD and VIC .. to many state issues of who pays ..
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE


if any one reads the FAQ for the new NSW trains .. the trains will not be using the overhead power for both states QLD and VIC .. to many state issues of who pays ..
"viaprojects"


The main issue for using OH in Mel and Qld is purely the lack of significant under wire operation to make it worth while. 2km out from Roma Street in Brisbane and there is a 1km section of SG track not under the wire and the wire over the DG is centre for NG services. Even if both these issues are resolved, the wire only runs for about 15km and you still need to deal with 25kVAC system.

Melbourne is at least the same voltage, but again only a few km are under the wire.


Regards
Shane
  Nightfire Minister for Railways

Location: Gippsland
7100 metres? Or 7.1 metres? Why is that height an issue?
Duncs
Sorry my error.
  LancedDendrite Chief Commissioner

Location: Gheringhap Loop Autonomous Zone
Generally agree, but do we need HSR to take over Syd-Can air? MSR with an average speed of 120-130km/h, top end speed of 200km/h in long straights on Canberra branch line can do the job in 2.25h, with a service frequency of 1h and you include all those south of Moss Vale as part of the customer base and it becomes a no brainer. You don't even need dual track on CBR branch, but move the terminus to the airport and come straight across from Bundendore.

Would HSR actually achieve much more when you factor in all the stops and starts and slow approach through Sydney burb's?

Likewise the same applies to Newcastle, achieve sub 2h and job is mostly done considering the high cost terrain.

I'm all for dual track Sydb to Mel with a 2hrly frequency from 5am to 7pm, average speed of +120km/h, 6-7h trip duration, but after that, leave the line to freighters and track crews. Same applies to Brisbane.
RTT_Rules
There's a couple of topics to respond to here, but I'll start with the principle that guides all of them. Firstly: if you have to build new track on a greenfields corridor, the cost difference these days between building a corridor over a reasonable length with the curvature and grades to handle 350kph vs one capable of 160kph is marginal. That's because earthworks are relatively cheap compared to land acquisition. Likewise, if you can get away with a direct 'base tunnel' route through an area that avoids land acquisition for the large part then you're also ahead.

The maxims therefore are:
  1. The cheapest railway track is the one you already have that has enough traffic capacity, is built to the required infrastructure standards and in a land corridor that means the grade and curvature requirements that you've defined for the project.
  2. Next best to that is upgrading existing track to meet those standards - electrification, curve easing within the railway land corridor, grade separating crossings and so on.
  3. Finally, new track.

And of course if you can relax your grade and curvature requirements for the project, you can get away with using more existing track. Traffic separation figures into this: HSR due to its speeds requires traffic separation from slower 'local' and freight trains and hence requires a brand new double-track route for its whole length.

This is why High Speed 2 is being built right now in the UK: the West Coast Main Line is at capacity (track and land corridor-wise) with its current mix of express, freight and local traffic. Upgrading the East Coast Main Line (which is also a mixed-traffic railway) doesn't buy enough time to handle traffic growth - and before anyone mentions the Coronavirus pandemic, traffic statistics indicate that a rail traffic recovery is already underway - and it doesn't go anywhere near the population centres of Liverpool, Manchester or Birmingham. So a new greenfields line is required. A greenfields express or freight corridor costs much the same as a High Speed Rail corridor - and the HSR corridor unlocks more capacity on the West Coast (and East Coast and Midland) Main Lines because express services soak up lots of headway time compared to locals or even freight.

Generally agree, but do we need HSR to take over Syd-Can air?
RTT_Rules
You don't. But when you consider that along the route:
  • In the Sydney suburban area you need a new greenfields corridor for the most part as suburban rail corridors are at capacity. So a greenfields line similar to Melbourne's Regional Rail Link to handle regional trains is required. You may as well build it nice and straight - that requires less land and/or less tunnelling, so you get a HSR corridor for the same price
  • The existing Southern Highlands route through to Goulburn is windy and 'orrible for trains. Blast a new line through to Goulburn. You can build it to HSR curvature standards but build it as a mixed-traffic corridor. You don't need it for all freight trains, but certainly intermodal trains could do with a nice fast line
  • The existing corridor from Goulburn to Bungendore is reasonable, but could do with some targeted curve-easing deviations Lake Bathurst - south of Tarago and especially from Mount Fairy - Bungendore, and that would bring it mostly up to 250kph+ standards
  • Access to Canberra from Bungendore onwards is a mess and a new line to Canberra Aiport could be justified (as you mentioned)
You've basically built most of a HSR line anyway, albeit with some single-track 'legacy' sections from Goulburn to Bungendore.

Likewise the same applies to Newcastle, achieve sub 2h and job is mostly done considering the high cost terrain.
RTT_Rules
Sydney-Newcastle is very simple: you need to build a new greenfields line. There's no room along most of the corridor for quadruplication and the dual track line is at capacity. Based on the maxims I stated above, it's just as costly to go whole-hog and build a HSR-standard line than it is to build one to lesser standards. You don't need to operate it as a pure HSR line (you could run fast electric freight on it too) but it doesn't make sense to build a lesser line.

I'm all for dual track Sydb to Mel with a 2hrly frequency from 5am to 7pm, average speed of +120km/h, 6-7h trip duration, but after that, leave the line to freighters and track crews.
RTT_Rules
Melbourne-Sydney could easily be an hourly frequency, with that including a mix of 'local' and express services. Keep the number of trains constant but tailor the stopping patterns within reason. There's no reason that a single night train departing each way couldn't be run as well without impacting on freight, particularly as electric freight would be mandatory to keep up the section running times (and would prove lucrative for the freight operators as higher speed freight services will start eating into truck traffic volumes).

As for track crews: the better you build the track from the start, the less routine maintenance work you need to do.

Same applies to Brisbane.
RTT_Rules
Newcastle-Brisbane is a much harder nut to crack. Best to focus on the Melbourne-Canberra-Sydney-Newcastle corridor initially. Sydney-Wollongong, Melbourne-Shepparton and Melbourne-Geelong would be logical smaller projects, either as follow-ons or as pilot/staging projects.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
There's a couple of topics to respond to here, but I'll start with the principle that guides all of them. Firstly: if you have to build new track on a greenfields corridor, the cost difference these days between building a corridor over a reasonable length with the curvature and grades to handle 350kph vs one capable of 160kph is marginal. That's because earthworks are relatively cheap compared to land acquisition. Likewise, if you can get away with a direct 'base tunnel' route through an area that avoids land acquisition for the large part then you're also ahead.

The maxims therefore are:
  1. The cheapest railway track is the one you already have that has enough traffic capacity, is built to the required infrastructure standards and in a land corridor that means the grade and curvature requirements that you've defined for the project.
  2. Next best to that is upgrading existing track to meet those standards - electrification, curve easing within the railway land corridor, grade separating crossings and so on.
  3. Finally, new track.

And of course if you can relax your grade and curvature requirements for the project, you can get away with using more existing track. Traffic separation figures into this: HSR due to its speeds requires traffic separation from slower 'local' and freight trains and hence requires a brand new double-track route for its whole length.

This is why High Speed 2 is being built right now in the UK: the West Coast Main Line is at capacity (track and land corridor-wise) with its current mix of express, freight and local traffic. Upgrading the East Coast Main Line (which is also a mixed-traffic railway) doesn't buy enough time to handle traffic growth - and before anyone mentions the Coronavirus pandemic, traffic statistics indicate that a rail traffic recovery is already underway - and it doesn't go anywhere near the population centres of Liverpool, Manchester or Birmingham. So a new greenfields line is required. A greenfields express or freight corridor costs much the same as a High Speed Rail corridor - and the HSR corridor unlocks more capacity on the West Coast (and East Coast and Midland) Main Lines because express services soak up lots of headway time compared to locals or even freight.

Generally agree, but do we need HSR to take over Syd-Can air?
RTT_Rules
You don't. But when you consider that along the route:
  • In the Sydney suburban area you need a new greenfields corridor for the most part as suburban rail corridors are at capacity. So a greenfields line similar to Melbourne's Regional Rail Link to handle regional trains is required. You may as well build it nice and straight - that requires less land and/or less tunnelling, so you get a HSR corridor for the same price
  • The existing Southern Highlands route through to Goulburn is windy and 'orrible for trains. Blast a new line through to Goulburn. You can build it to HSR curvature standards but build it as a mixed-traffic corridor. You don't need it for all freight trains, but certainly intermodal trains could do with a nice fast line
  • The existing corridor from Goulburn to Bungendore is reasonable, but could do with some targeted curve-easing deviations Lake Bathurst - south of Tarago and especially from Mount Fairy - Bungendore, and that would bring it mostly up to 250kph+ standards
  • Access to Canberra from Bungendore onwards is a mess and a new line to Canberra Aiport could be justified (as you mentioned)
You've basically built most of a HSR line anyway, albeit with some single-track 'legacy' sections from Goulburn to Bungendore.

Likewise the same applies to Newcastle, achieve sub 2h and job is mostly done considering the high cost terrain.
RTT_Rules
Sydney-Newcastle is very simple: you need to build a new greenfields line. There's no room along most of the corridor for quadruplication and the dual track line is at capacity. Based on the maxims I stated above, it's just as costly to go whole-hog and build a HSR-standard line than it is to build one to lesser standards. You don't need to operate it as a pure HSR line (you could run fast electric freight on it too) but it doesn't make sense to build a lesser line.

I'm all for dual track Sydb to Mel with a 2hrly frequency from 5am to 7pm, average speed of +120km/h, 6-7h trip duration, but after that, leave the line to freighters and track crews.
RTT_Rules
Melbourne-Sydney could easily be an hourly frequency, with that including a mix of 'local' and express services. Keep the number of trains constant but tailor the stopping patterns within reason. There's no reason that a single night train departing each way couldn't be run as well without impacting on freight, particularly as electric freight would be mandatory to keep up the section running times (and would prove lucrative for the freight operators as higher speed freight services will start eating into truck traffic volumes).

As for track crews: the better you build the track from the start, the less routine maintenance work you need to do.

Same applies to Brisbane.
RTT_Rules
Newcastle-Brisbane is a much harder nut to crack. Best to focus on the Melbourne-Canberra-Sydney-Newcastle corridor initially. Sydney-Wollongong, Melbourne-Shepparton and Melbourne-Geelong would be logical smaller projects, either as follow-ons or as pilot/staging projects.
"LancedDendrite"


In general I'm going to say I don't think its this simple or straight forward.

European HSR costs around $50 - 60 m/km. Approaching the cost of laying LR through an existing city street.

HSR needs min curves of 5400m, 160 - 200 km/h needs 1800m. Building a line that allows 1/3 the radius is inherently cheaper  unless you are building across the Nullarbor. At 5400m you basically need to put two dots on a map, draw a straight line and demolish everything inbetween, build tunnels and large bridges. Basically why China built most of its HSR on a viaduct.

HSR track is also much more expensive per km to install on the ROW as is the OH.

HSR, you basically build 100% new track, MSR, even if you can get away with new with using as much as 50% of the current corridor or close to it (not saying actual track, just corridor), its inherently cheaper.

I'm not saying you put curves in for the sake of it, but it gives you more options and if the line is of mixed use anyway, what does it matter.

Likewise building HSR through Sydney 'burbs would be horrific in cost if being build to 300km/h standards. Much cheaper to go in a tunnel, but tunnels are speed limiting.

To build HSR to Newcastle is going to be very costly with likely 50km of tunnels. However the existing alignment still has alot of opportunity, for example Asquith to Berowra can easily be straightened and likewise Brooklyn to Koolingwong with a new tunnel to by-pass Woy Woy deviation, even following Cockle Creek ou can easily straighten that alignment and make it wider for 3 or 4 tracks.

The high cost bit is Berowra to Brooklyn, just about all of this would need to be built in a more direct route and very long tunnel to avoid the climb to Cowan and then back down again and the very curvaceous route it follows as a result.  

The Geelong line is already fairly straight and with good track speed, no need to waste fed money on it, as usual its the city end that causes the longer than you'd expect running times.
  LancedDendrite Chief Commissioner

Location: Gheringhap Loop Autonomous Zone
HSR needs min curves of 5400m, 160 - 200 km/h needs 1800m. Building a line that allows 1/3 the radius is inherently cheaper unless you are building across the Nullarbor. At 5400m you basically need to put two dots on a map, draw a straight line and demolish everything in between, build tunnels and large bridges. Basically why China built most of its HSR on a viaduct.
RTT_Rules
I don't think you're quite understanding what I said. Land acquisition is the biggest cost driver for greenfields rail corridors, followed by tunnelling and large bridges, then everything else. A straight line requires less land acquisition than a curvy one.
If you're building a new rail corridor it's going to be 100% grade separated anyway, so good luck avoiding viaducts - they minimise land acquisition compared to embankments. So build the new rail corridors and track to HSR standards, it won't care what's running over the top of it so long as it's not a Pilbara iron ore train.

With the Sydney-Newcastle corridor, totally bypassing the existing track is necessary because the current track is already approaching capacity. "Straightening out" the existing corridor won't give you the benefits of a new corridor and will have a cost approaching that of a new corridor. On other lines we can 'cheat' and use existing track (like in the Riverina and Victorian North East) but we're going to have to bite the bullet on this one and build a new HSR line.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
HSR needs min curves of 5400m, 160 - 200 km/h needs 1800m. Building a line that allows 1/3 the radius is inherently cheaper unless you are building across the Nullarbor. At 5400m you basically need to put two dots on a map, draw a straight line and demolish everything in between, build tunnels and large bridges. Basically why China built most of its HSR on a viaduct.
I don't think you're quite understanding what I said. Land acquisition is the biggest cost driver for greenfields rail corridors, followed by tunnelling and large bridges, then everything else. A straight line requires less land acquisition than a curvy one.
If you're building a new rail corridor it's going to be 100% grade separated anyway, so good luck avoiding viaducts - they minimise land acquisition compared to embankments. So build the new rail corridors and track to HSR standards, it won't care what's running over the top of it so long as it's not a Pilbara iron ore train.

With the Sydney-Newcastle corridor, totally bypassing the existing track is necessary because the current track is already approaching capacity. "Straightening out" the existing corridor won't give you the benefits of a new corridor and will have a cost approaching that of a new corridor. On other lines we can 'cheat' and use existing track (like in the Riverina and Victorian North East) but we're going to have to bite the bullet on this one and build a new HSR line.
LancedDendrite

Hi
Yes, land acquistion in Suburban Sydney starts around $5m/acre, in rural areas, much much much much less. The Metro is being built underground due to the cost of land. In rural areas, topography and earth works are far more costly than land.

The cost of the Inland is around $10m/km average, HSR is about 3-5 x that.

New corridor Syd - New is going to be one of the most expensive railways per km in the world. The existing corridor has ample room to be amplified and realigned (I commuted on it for a decade) and push Syd - New trains to sub 2h, potentially sub 90min.
  simstrain Chief Commissioner

try $50 million an acre
  simstrain Chief Commissioner

Unlike Melbourne there is nowhere for a regional route to be built like it has in Melbourne. The lines out of Sydney are the only lines out for a reason. Sydney is surrounded by rivers, mountains and valleys with national parks surrounding the city. Tunneling and bridging is the only way anything new can be built and that is going to cost $50-100 billion.

However there is scope to amplify along certain routes in Sydney and to improve the alignment to areas such as Newcastle and the Southern Highlands.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
try $50 million an acre
"simstrain"


Talking suburban area, not CBD.

A quick review and rural areas along the basic route get to as low as $3000/ac.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
Unlike Melbourne there is nowhere for a regional route to be built like it has in Melbourne. The lines out of Sydney are the only lines out for a reason. Sydney is surrounded by rivers, mountains and valleys with national parks surrounding the city. Tunneling and bridging is the only way anything new can be built and that is going to cost $50-100 billion.

However there is scope to amplify along certain routes in Sydney and to improve the alignment to areas such as Newcastle and the Southern Highlands.
"simstrain"


This is why HSR is an over sold myth.

To get the claimed times, the trains will not start from the CBD, more likely Western Sydney Airport or Paramatta.

Heading to the city, from Macarthur to East Hills,

MSR no issue, just plot in another pair of tracks due to congestion, HSR would be the same, but the speed would be sub 160-200km/h. From East Hills, the line would be Quaded to Revesby and after onto the Suburban tracks to Wolli Creek. A 12km tunnel is the alt and this will be a few billion.  

From Wolli Creek to the city, realistically you need 6 tracks, which is not a big ticket item on this corridor with the Metro releasing 2 tracks through Sydenham and from there the corridor is partly built for 2 extra tracks already and then via the dive into central. Again a tunnel would be billions.

You build tunnels for Metro's that carry 20,000 people an hour, not for a regional line that carries maybe 20,000 a day.

With the above, you can certainly reduce the time taken for the current XPT and XPL'ers to get from the outer fringes of the electrified network to the CBD from 36/38min to sub 30, maybe as low 25min. How many billion should it cost to save less than 20min?  The lines would be also used by interurban commuter to help reduce congestion and increase capacity and reduce travel time.

Meanwhile on the current route, for around $10B to duplicate the remainder of the line, cut the tight corners out, a few by passes of some towns and other slow sections including the spiral etc and job done, upgrade the existing track bed, 160km/h top end speed over most of the route Campelltown to Broadmeadows. Everyone using rail wins, including boxes and commuters.
  james.au Minister for Railways

Location: Sydney, NSW
SO this is the umpteenth discussion on HSR and i just want to post a reminder.


HSR is built when airspace is congested and they need to get more people between big cities fast, with new alignment to provide new capacity.  Sorry but Wagga is nowhere near a big city for HSR terms.

MSR is built when rail is competing against road transport and trying to improve congestion and connection outcomes.


So, Clearly MSR is what we are looking for, and given that studies show that MSR is by far the best investment for Australia over HSR, MSR is what we should be going for.

Wagga-Sydney (or Wagga-Melbourne) in 5 hours would pick up a lot of road traffic, especially that which goes to the city itself.  Canberra-Sydney in 2 hours would make a pretty big dent in the Hume Highway and show how overcapitalised it really is....
  simstrain Chief Commissioner

Wagga - Sydney should be faster then 5 hours especially if the alignment is straightened a bit.
  james.au Minister for Railways

Location: Sydney, NSW
Wagga - Sydney should be faster then 5 hours especially if the alignment is straightened a bit.
simstrain
I agree - its currently 6hr 14mins to Wagga (6hr 40 mins to Central).  Some of the deviations could make quite a difference, ive seen a paper from Prof Laird suggesting about 105 minutes could be shaved off that trip with things like the Wentorth deviation etc.  As to how economically viable that is, thats another question*. Duplicate track between Wagga and Junee would reduce the need to wait for the Melbourne bound XPT too.

*though i think it is going to have to be asked as post inland, there wont be any inter capital freight on rail on the Main South...
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
Wagga - Sydney should be faster then 5 hours especially if the alignment is straightened a bit.
simstrain
I agree - its currently 6hr 14mins to Wagga (6hr 40 mins to Central).  Some of the deviations could make quite a difference, ive seen a paper from Prof Laird suggesting about 105 minutes could be shaved off that trip with things like the Wentorth deviation etc.  As to how economically viable that is, thats another question*. Duplicate track between Wagga and Junee would reduce the need to wait for the Melbourne bound XPT too.

*though i think it is going to have to be asked as post inland, there wont be any inter capital freight on rail on the Main South...
"james.au"


(See next post for link)

There will still be freight north of Coota. If the Inland projections are correct, then should be same amount as the Inland be collecting mostly growth traffic.
  djf01 Chief Commissioner

Wagga - Sydney should be faster then 5 hours especially if the alignment is straightened a bit.
I agree - its currently 6hr 14mins to Wagga (6hr 40 mins to Central).  Some of the deviations could make quite a difference, ive seen a paper from Prof Laird suggesting about 105 minutes could be shaved off that trip with things like the Wentorth deviation etc.  As to how economically viable that is, thats another question*. Duplicate track between Wagga and Junee would reduce the need to wait for the Melbourne bound XPT too.

*though i think it is going to have to be asked as post inland, there wont be any inter capital freight on rail on the Main South...


file:///C:/Users/EM2248/Downloads/CORE%202018_Laird.pdf

There will still be freight north of Coota. If the Inland projections are correct, then should be same amount as the Inland be collecting mostly growth traffic.
RTT_Rules

Did you mean this? https://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2463&context=eispapers1

Thanks for your user ID BTW, but you can PM me your password Smile
  Transtopic Deputy Commissioner

Location: Sydney
*though i think it is going to have to be asked as post inland, there wont be any inter capital freight on rail on the Main South...
james.au
As far as I'm aware, Sydney is also considered to be a 'Capital' city and the last time I looked, it is Australia's largest city.

Of course there will continue to be inter-capital freight on the Main South - between Sydney and Melbourne.  There will also continue to be inter-capital freight on the North Coast Line between Sydney and Brisbane.  Inland rail will cater for direct freight between Melbourne and Brisbane, which will bypass Sydney.  I suggest that it will be a fraction of the freight traffic on the existing routes for Sydney-Melbourne and Sydney-Brisbane freight as their origins/destinations and vice versa.  I hardly think that freight traffic to and from Sydney for Melbourne and Brisbane will detour via Parkes on the Inland Rail.  The same goes for freight to and from Port Kembla and Newcastle.

The Eastern rail routes will still be very busy and will continue to grow.
  Transtopic Deputy Commissioner

Location: Sydney

Did you mean this? https://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2463&context=eispapers1

Thanks for your user ID BTW, but you can PM me your password Smile
djf01
It's interesting to note that Professor Laird hasn't acknowledged the NSW XPT in his paper.  Although I think it used to run up to 160km/h on the Main South between Junee and Albury, I believe it was cut back.  There are still speed boards at 150km/h on the Western Line between Wellington and Dubbo.  Do the V/Locitys actually reach 160km/h on their regional routes?
  L1150 Assistant Commissioner

Location: Pakenham Vic.

Did you mean this? https://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2463&context=eispapers1

Thanks for your user ID BTW, but you can PM me your password :-)It's interesting to note that Professor Laird hasn't acknowledged the NSW XPT in his paper.  Although I think it used to run up to 160km/h on the Main South between Junee and Albury, I believe it was cut back.  There are still speed boards at 150km/h on the Western Line between Wellington and Dubbo.  Do the V/Locitys actually reach 160km/h on their regional routes?
Transtopic
Yes Transtopic, the V/Locities do regularly run at 160km/h. On the Geelong line from Deer Park through Tarneit to Wyndham Vale, Most of the running is at a consistent 160. On the Ballarat line, beyond Ballan, there are long sections of high speed running. The Bendigo line has some sections of 160 but it requires a skillful driver to make good use of the high speed limit. The Traralgon line, particularly beyond Warragul has long sections of 160 running. Trains that run express from Warragul to Moe run at a consistent 160 and even the stoppers can usually achieve 160 between stops.Very Happy
  simstrain Chief Commissioner

Agree with Transtopic on the main south still having freight post inland rail for the exact reasons he mentioned. The inland will just remove traffic that is heading directly to Brisbane from Melbourne, Adelaide and Perth only. It will not remove any traffic that is heading to Sydney, Newcastle and Wollongong from these or other origins.
  james.au Minister for Railways

Location: Sydney, NSW
Agree with Transtopic on the main south still having freight post inland rail for the exact reasons he mentioned. The inland will just remove traffic that is heading directly to Brisbane from Melbourne, Adelaide and Perth only. It will not remove any traffic that is heading to Sydney, Newcastle and Wollongong from these or other origins.
simstrain
How many SM and MB services are being kept running by BM/MB freight?

Take that out and do the economics stack up?
  simstrain Chief Commissioner

Agree with Transtopic on the main south still having freight post inland rail for the exact reasons he mentioned. The inland will just remove traffic that is heading directly to Brisbane from Melbourne, Adelaide and Perth only. It will not remove any traffic that is heading to Sydney, Newcastle and Wollongong from these or other origins.
How many SM and MB services are being kept running by BM/MB freight?

Take that out and do the economics stack up?
james.au

SCT will definitely move on to the inland since they don't disembark in Sydney and sure there will be a drop but that 1 percent still needs to be moved by rail and maybe with the train not having to worry about the curfew between Sydney and Melbourne there could be an increase in that 1 percent.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
Agree with Transtopic on the main south still having freight post inland rail for the exact reasons he mentioned. The inland will just remove traffic that is heading directly to Brisbane from Melbourne, Adelaide and Perth only. It will not remove any traffic that is heading to Sydney, Newcastle and Wollongong from these or other origins.
How many SM and MB services are being kept running by BM/MB freight?

Take that out and do the economics stack up?

SCT will definitely move on to the inland since they don't disembark in Sydney and sure there will be a drop but that 1 percent still needs to be moved by rail and maybe with the train not having to worry about the curfew between Sydney and Melbourne there could be an increase in that 1 percent.
simstrain
There are limitations in track capacity and the curfew is driving freight onto road, so clearly if that premium path is released by the Inland, its likely to be filled by freight that's currently on the road because they didn't have a choice.

Sponsored advertisement

Display from: