Nullabor frequency

 
  scoot Junior Train Controller

Location: Safety Bay, Western Australia
Hey all,
Anyone have an idea how many trains cross the Nullabor on a daily basis?
Shane

Sponsored advertisement

  potatoinmymouth Chief Commissioner

https://www.artc.com.au/uploads/Spence-Jct-to-Kalgoorlie.pdf
Get counting!

Plus ad hoc movements of course.
  ANR Chief Commissioner

Is there a possibility that the passing loops may be extended to allow longer trains beyond 1.8km? This would be one way to increase, decrease or maintain the current frequency but to increase the amount of freight shipped.
  james.au Minister for Railways

Location: Sydney, NSW
Is there a possibility that the passing loops may be extended to allow longer trains beyond 1.8km? This would be one way to increase, decrease or maintain the current frequency but to increase the amount of freight shipped.
ANR
It is said that rail mode share for the East West route currently is around 80 or 90%.  So I think that there isn't really a lot of need to make changes to the loops as there isnt all that much extra to haul, even if the freight rates were lowered through longer trains (or for that matter higher TAL trains etc).
  justapassenger Minister for Railways

Is there a possibility that the passing loops may be extended to allow longer trains beyond 1.8km?
ANR
Probably not.

There's no deficit of capacity on the route, so it wouldn't be a suitable project for public funding. There are other higher priorities in the rail world for any large handouts which start being thrown around, plus every other competing priority outside of rail.

I doubt that the operators would choose to fund crossing loop extensions to run longer trains, as the money saved (wages for the mainline drivers) would be heavily offset by all the extra handling at terminals and lost business due to increased door-to-door times.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
Looking around at 1800m we operate the 3rd longest, only USA and Canada are longer for container trains.

Both Can/USA seem to have a limit of 3700m due to brake-pipe limits, but I think that's with distributed power which as posted by others does increase turn around time at depos. So maybe 1800m is the brake-pipe limit for non-distributed power or coupler weight limit?

Having all the noisey bits up front makes it easy to cut them off at the end of the run, fuel, service and then place on the front of the next service.
  DBclass Chief Commissioner

Location: Western Australia
Longer trains that way when there’s a wash away they pile up 3km of train instead of 1.8 lol
  speedemon08 Mary

Location: I think by now you should have figured it out
My crystal ball shows 7 trains plying the Nullabor as of 8:31 on the 22nd Jan
  awsgc24 Minister for Railways

Location: Sydney
Is there a possibility that the passing loops may be extended to allow longer trains beyond 1.8km? This would be one way to increase, decrease or maintain the current frequency but to increase the amount of freight shipped.
"ANR"


Between Port Pirie and Perth basically all crossing loops are 1800m long.

Between Parkes and Port Pirie, only about 50% of the crossing loops are 1800m with the others about 900m. Priority should therefore be given to extending the short loops to 1800m or even 3600m if you like. Attention should also be given to spacing all the loops evenly timewise, and this may require additional loops.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (short) . (long)
????? Goobang Junc:
505.0 Yarrabandi; see http://www.sa-trackandsignal.net/Pdf%20files/ARTC/AR406.pdf . . . . . . . . (1920m)
546.3 Condobolin: see http://www.sa-trackandsignal.net/Pdf%20files/ARTC/AR406.pdf (956m)
576.8 Kiacatoo: see http://www.sa-trackandsignal.net/Pdf%20files/ARTC/AR405.pdf . . . . . . . . . (1870m)
619.2 Euabalong: see http://www.sa-trackandsignal.net/Pdf%20files/ARTC/AR405.pdf (900m)
664.7 Matakana: see http://www.sa-trackandsignal.net/Pdf%20files/ARTC/AR405.pdf . . . . . . . . (1850m)
????? Roto
750.1 Trida: see http://www.sa-trackandsignal.net/Pdf%20files/ARTC/AR404.pdf . . . . . . . . . . . . (1850m)
816.4 Ivanhoe: see http://www.sa-trackandsignal.net/Pdf%20files/ARTC/AR404.pdf . . . . . . . . . . (2019m)
881.0 Darnick: see http://www.sa-trackandsignal.net/Pdf%20files/ARTC/AR404.pdf . . . . . . . . . . (900m + 900m)
944.8 Kaleentha: see http://www.sa-trackandsignal.net/Pdf%20files/ARTC/AR403.pdf . . . . . . . . (1833m)
1006.8 Menindee: see http://www.sa-trackandsignal.net/Pdf%20files/ARTC/AR403.pdf (1145m)
1065.8 Kinalung: see http://www.sa-trackandsignal.net/Pdf%20files/ARTC/AR403.pdf . . . . . . . . (1850m)
?????? Broken Hill: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1169m)
389.8 Kanandah: see http://www.sa-trackandsignal.net/Pdf%20files/ARTC/AR1079.pdf (1014m)
365.5 Thackaringa . . . . . . (996m)
320.8 Mingary: see http://www.sa-trackandsignal.net/Pdf%20files/ARTC/AR1079.pdf . .  . . . . . . (1854m)
276.9 Olary: see http://www.sa-trackandsignal.net/Pdf%20files/ARTC/AR1077.pdf . . . . . . (998m)
239.6 Mannahill: see http://www.sa-trackandsignal.net/Pdf%20files/ARTC/AR1076.pdf . . (1420m)  . . . . . . (lxing)
195.8 Yunta: see http://www.sa-trackandsignal.net/Pdf%20files/ARTC/AR1075.pdf . . . . . . . . . . . (1984m)
146.0 Hillgrange: . . . . . . . . . ................................................................................................................. (1877m)
109.7 Peterborough: see http://www.sa-trackandsignal.net/Pdf%20files/ARTC/AR1073.pdf . . . . . (2200m)
98.6 Yongala: see http://www.sa-trackandsignal.net/Pdf%20files/ARTC/AR1073.pdf . . . . . (1009m)
73.5 Jamestown: see http://www.sa-trackandsignal.net/Pdf%20files/ARTC/AR1072.pdf (1017m)
60.0 Caltowie: see http://www.sa-trackandsignal.net/Pdf%20files/ARTC/AR1072.pdf . . . (1054m)
43.8 Gladstone: see http://www.sa-trackandsignal.net/Pdf%20files/ARTC/AR1071.pdf . . . . . . . . . . (1990m)
22.6 Crystal Brook: see .............................................................................................................(968m)
double track
1.8 Coonamia: see http://www.sa-trackandsignal.net/Pdf%20files/ARTC/AR080.pdf ........(????m)
26.5 Port Germein: see http://www.sa-trackandsignal.net/Pdf%20files/ARTC/AR081.pdf . . . . . . . . . (1800m)
45.0 Mambray Creek: see http://www.sa-trackandsignal.net/Pdf%20files/ARTC/AR081.pdf . . . . . . . (1875m)
71.5 Winninowie: see ................................................................................................................................ (1800m)
91.6 Port Augusta: See http://www.sa-trackandsignal.net/Pdf%20files/ARTC/AR084.pdf . (1040m)

Melbourne-Ararat-Adelaide also has some short loops. Long loops are either 1500m or 1800m, indicating a change of mind.

Kalgoorlie-Perth also has some short loops. Long loops are either 1500m or 1800m.

To be continued.
Note that sa-trackandsignal diagrams are not guaranteed to be up to date.
  justapassenger Minister for Railways

Looking around at 1800m we operate the 3rd longest, only USA and Canada are longer for container trains.

Both Can/USA seem to have a limit of 3700m due to brake-pipe limits, but I think that's with distributed power which as posted by others does increase turn around time at depos. So maybe 1800m is the brake-pipe limit for non-distributed power or coupler weight limit?

Having all the noisey bits up front makes it easy to cut them off at the end of the run, fuel, service and then place on the front of the next service.
RTT_Rules
The ~2400m coal trains on the Flinders Power runs required a brake compressor van on the back. They were ridiculously cumbersome and had an insanely restrictive effect on the timetabling of the ARTC East-West Corridor despite using said corridor for less than 100 metres.

Inland Rail plans are proposing maximum train lengths of 3600m. The truckies who managed to get that put into the plans will be laughing their heads off, because they would be able to get a load well into NSW before a load going via rail even leaves the Melbourne terminal.

Instead, Inland Rail should be building a 21st century railway with double track (plus strategically located loops), 25kV electrification,  bidirectional in-cab signalling and fast intermodal freight (140-160km/h) to give customers a genuine advantage when they pick rail over the Newell Highway.
  Nightfire Minister for Railways

Location: Gippsland

Instead, Inland Rail should be building a 21st century railway with double track (plus strategically located loops), 25kV electrification,  bidirectional in-cab signalling and fast intermodal freight (140-160km/h) to give customers a genuine advantage when they pick rail over the Newell Highway.
justapassenger
Far from viable !

The cost of electrification would be outrageous.
  justapassenger Minister for Railways

It sure will be if the railway is built to 1960s standards first and then electrification is added later on.

But include it from day one and the cost drops dramatically, plus there's no period of major disruption during electrification works.

Kazakhstan has over 3000km of electrified track with freight hauled by modern Alstom locos built in country. We don't want a reputation for building more backward railways than Borat-land do we?
  witzendoz Junior Train Controller

Location: Fremantle
It sure will be if the railway is built to 1960s standards first and then electrification is added later on.

But include it from day one and the cost drops dramatically, plus there's no period of major disruption during electrification works.

Kazakhstan has over 3000km of electrified track with freight hauled by modern Alstom locos built in country. We don't want a reputation for building more backward railways than Borat-land do we?
justapassenger
The losses in a power line the length of the Nullarbor are massive.  There would have to be power generation along the route to maintain power.  The reason there is no power line across the Nullarbor connecting east and west.  Electric trains in this case are not practical.
  justapassenger Minister for Railways

I was talking about electrifying Inland Rail. It should be a 21st century railway from day one, not built to standards that are already obsolete.

The Nullarbor (kudos for managing to spell it correctly, Nullabor is way too common on this forum) is a rather unique challenge in the world of railways. No other long rail line in the world has anywhere near such a long distance without a decent sized settlement of some kind.
  ANR Chief Commissioner

Justapassenger wrote: "It should be a 21st century railway from day one, not built to standards that are already obsolete"...
This is what out nation building has become. Look at the NBN. The copper network is still... "how we connect".
  james.au Minister for Railways

Location: Sydney, NSW
I was talking about electrifying Inland Rail. It should be a 21st century railway from day one, not built to standards that are already obsolete.

The Nullarbor (kudos for managing to spell it correctly, Nullabor is way too common on this forum) is a rather unique challenge in the world of railways. No other long rail line in the world has anywhere near such a long distance without a decent sized settlement of some kind.
justapassenger
Everyone just has to remember it means 'no trees - null arbor'.  Nullarbor is (surprisingly) not an aboriginal word.
  awsgc24 Minister for Railways

Location: Sydney
Is there a possibility that the passing loops may be extended to allow longer trains beyond 1.8km?
"ANR"


1800m is a rounding down of imperial 6000 feet (equal to metric 1830m), an arbitrary figure.

You cannot start running longer than 1800m trains until you have a "significant" number of 1800plus loops, of which there are now next to none. Cook is 3800m only to allow fueling points in the middle of the loop to suit engines at the front of the train.

Delays with Train Orders are supposed to be eliminated once ARTC gets its improved radio signalling system is finally brought into use.
  don_dunstan Dr Beeching

Location: Adelaide proud

Instead, Inland Rail should be building a 21st century railway with double track (plus strategically located loops), 25kV electrification,  bidirectional in-cab signalling and fast intermodal freight (140-160km/h) to give customers a genuine advantage when they pick rail over the Newell Highway.Far from viable !

The cost of electrification would be outrageous.
Nightfire
I don't want to give the Greenies any ideas but the most viable thing would be to have small solar power plants on long distance lines. But I really don't think it would be in any way viable at the moment.
  duttonbay Minister for Railways

I was talking about electrifying Inland Rail. It should be a 21st century railway from day one, not built to standards that are already obsolete.
justapassenger
Inland Rail is planned to accommodate double stacked containers. Does anybody, anywhere in the world, run double stacked containers under overhead wires?
  bingley hall Minister for Railways

Location: Last train to Skaville
I was talking about electrifying Inland Rail. It should be a 21st century railway from day one, not built to standards that are already obsolete.
Inland Rail is planned to accommodate double stacked containers. Does anybody, anywhere in the world, run double stacked containers under overhead wires?
duttonbay

India
  BrentonGolding Chief Commissioner

Location: Maldon Junction
I was talking about electrifying Inland Rail. It should be a 21st century railway from day one, not built to standards that are already obsolete.
Inland Rail is planned to accommodate double stacked containers. Does anybody, anywhere in the world, run double stacked containers under overhead wires?

India
bingley hall
So that is what happened to all the old W Class trolley poles Laughing

BG
  duttonbay Minister for Railways

I was talking about electrifying Inland Rail. It should be a 21st century railway from day one, not built to standards that are already obsolete.
Inland Rail is planned to accommodate double stacked containers. Does anybody, anywhere in the world, run double stacked containers under overhead wires?

India
bingley hall
Thanks. Wikipedia suggests ""overhead wiring at 7.45 m (24.4 ft) above rail" which I guess is what is needed. That seems very high. There is, of course, significantly higher population in India than here in Australia.
  BrentonGolding Chief Commissioner

Location: Maldon Junction
I was talking about electrifying Inland Rail. It should be a 21st century railway from day one, not built to standards that are already obsolete.
Inland Rail is planned to accommodate double stacked containers. Does anybody, anywhere in the world, run double stacked containers under overhead wires?

India
Thanks. Wikipedia suggests ""overhead wiring at 7.45 m (24.4 ft) above rail" which I guess is what is needed. That seems very high. There is, of course, significantly higher population in India than here in Australia.
duttonbay
https://www.railjournal.com/regions/asia/electrification-contract-awarded-for-indias-western-Railfan/

All I can say is wow.

BG
  duttonbay Minister for Railways

https://www.railjournal.com/regions/asia/electrification-contract-awarded-for-indias-western-Railfan/

All I can say is wow.

BG
BrentonGolding
Feel free to say 'wow'. Unfortunately that link gives me a "page not found"
  justapassenger Minister for Railways

The Chinese are going there too.

Even in Europe, the Dutch built in provision for future double-stacking (not yet realised) when building the electrified Betuweroute line which carries over 150 trains per day between Rotterdam and destinations in Germany.

Sponsored advertisement

Display from:   

Quick Reply

We've disabled Quick Reply for this thread as it was last updated more than six months ago.