Rail link to Tindal shot down by Defence

 
Topic moved from News by bevans on 28 Apr 2020 08:51
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
Of far greater strategic significance is that virtually the whole Australian base fuel requirement for just about everything that moves now comes from Singapore by sea in foreign ships.
Morrison keeps banging on about our strategic reserves (lack of) and says that he is negotiating to store our reserves in the USA for example. What use is that when the supply routes are disrupted? Spin, Spin and more spin ....................
Remember Britain in WW2?
YM-Mundrabilla

Ultimately I feel it matters little where the fuel is stored if at all. For defense purposes the govt would immediately take over any stocks in Australia for the military anyway. Any conflict lasting more than a few weeks will push us back to the 18th century regardless and unlikely such a large scale disruptive conflict would last more than a few hours anyway.

The era of WW2 was very different from today. In the age of globalisation, no country including the US to a degree can be simply cut off from the world and continue to operate anywhere near normal. If we didn't run out of fuel, it would be something else equally disabling. Even if we had our own oil supplies, then what about the spare parts to keep the fields and refineries operating.

Hell likely if Australia was blockaded for 12mth, we wouldn't need the fuel as the bulk of the car/truck fleet would be up on blocks having broken down due to lack of spare parts including tyres.

For example, the primary aluminium sector would be closed within 1-2mths, yet the aluminium sector was kicked off with the opening of Bell Bay in 1956 in a JV between Feds and Tas govt to ensure a supply of aluminium due to WW2. 7 years later the sold that money pit to the private sector because of the usual public service issues and ironically its now one of the worlds oldest continuously operating smelters, however it doesn't run on air.

Storing billions of dollars of oil for a what if of unknowns, many of which is nothing more than a short stay of execution is likely no longer making sense, if it ever did. The US strategic oil reserves is as much if not more about managing and controlling the oil price as it is defense.

Sponsored advertisement

  bevans Site Admin

Location: Melbourne, Australia
How much petroleum gets moved from Darwin to Alice Springs?
NSWGR8022

or does it come from Adelaide?
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
How much petroleum gets moved from Darwin to Alice Springs?

or does it come from Adelaide?
bevans
Not sure on petrol, but I believe some diesel is produced from the SA gas fields and used regionally, how I don't know.
  justapassenger Minister for Railways

No, I don't think so. Its about tonnages, or rather complete lack of and a measly distance of 320km The cost of building rail loading and unloading yards and support infrastructure is far from cheap and who will pay for it? Container yards cost a fraction of a fuel yard.
RTT_Rules
That's not to say it is impossible for rail to take over this task, just that the standard option for that combination of tonnage and distance is road.

The traffic is not going to fall into the lap of the rail operators, therefore if they want it the rail operators will need to work for it by finding a way to undercut the road option and/or provide some superior capability that the road option cannot offer.

If the tonnages were significant enough, fuel tanks could be built alongside the railway yard and the aircraft refueling trucks to the aircraft would simply collect from there, no need for high cost sidings and shunts that go with it.
RTT_Rules
If the tonnage justified rail, my bet is the solution would be a couple of small holding tanks at the siding and a buried pipeline from there to the network of large underground storage tanks (some already there, more US-funded tanks to come) at the air base. A bog standard double walled 100mm diameter line would get the job done, with a second one for redundancy.

Even if the whole setup was being designed from scratch without the existing tanks being a factor, my guess is that the military wouldn’t be impressed with having their storage tanks at a remote rail yard. Security operations would be unnecessarily complex and the fuel trucks shuttling back and forth would be inconvenient during major exercises or operations.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
No, I don't think so. Its about tonnages, or rather complete lack of and a measly distance of 320km The cost of building rail loading and unloading yards and support infrastructure is far from cheap and who will pay for it? Container yards cost a fraction of a fuel yard.
That's not to say it is impossible for rail to take over this task, just that the standard option for that combination of tonnage and distance is road.

The traffic is not going to fall into the lap of the rail operators, therefore if they want it the rail operators will need to work for it by finding a way to undercut the road option and/or provide some superior capability that the road option cannot offer.

If the tonnages were significant enough, fuel tanks could be built alongside the railway yard and the aircraft refueling trucks to the aircraft would simply collect from there, no need for high cost sidings and shunts that go with it.
If the tonnage justified rail, my bet is the solution would be a couple of small holding tanks at the siding and a buried pipeline from there to the network of large underground storage tanks (some already there, more US-funded tanks to come) at the air base. A bog standard double walled 100mm diameter line would get the job done, with a second one for redundancy.

Even if the whole setup was being designed from scratch without the existing tanks being a factor, my guess is that the military wouldn’t be impressed with having their storage tanks at a remote rail yard. Security operations would be unnecessarily complex and the fuel trucks shuttling back and forth would be inconvenient during major exercises or operations.
justapassenger
Yes, 300km is too short for rail to normally be competitive unless very large tonnages. Canberra fuel train of similar distance also ceased for similar reasons.

Yes the pipeline thing is probably cheap enough in that area.

Ironically train filling and discharge of liquids is a piece of pi$$. You don't need to load or unload each separately like the bad old days. Just hook up compressed air to one end and drain at the other with permanent interconnecting hoses and isolation valves for when the train is in motion. Filling is the reverse.

So at the discharge yard
- just needs a supply of compressed air (cheap enough using a roots blower provided power is available),
- connection point where the last wagon would normally be,
- 2nd hose to connect to the other end of the train to collect the fuel
- small buffer tank for fuel
- Duty stand by-pumps to pump to airport.

Connection time is about 10min.
Press Go
- for the wagon to wagon isolation valves from control panel
- Compressor to start
- Pumps to open
Operator goes for lunch

Sponsored advertisement

Subscribers: bevans, RTT_Rules

Display from: