Redevelopment plans for Port of Hobart

 
Topic moved from News by bevans on 24 Mar 2021 12:09
  bevans Site Admin

Location: Melbourne, Australia
And now with removed rail access.  How stupid can these planners be?

Redevelopment plans for Port of Hobart

Sponsored advertisement

  Graham4405 The Ghost of George Stephenson

Location: Dalby Qld
And now with removed rail access.  How stupid can these planners be?

Redevelopment plans for Port of Hobart
bevans
How many trains would Antarctic explorers and research scientists use? My guess is zero...
  bevans Site Admin

Location: Melbourne, Australia
And now with removed rail access.  How stupid can these planners be?

Redevelopment plans for Port of Hobart
How many trains would Antarctic explorers and research scientists use? My guess is zero...
Graham4405

None from a passenger perspective but certainly a LOT of freight is loaded and carried down there in containers if I am not mistaken?
  Bulbous Deputy Commissioner

How many trains would Antarctic explorers and research scientists use? My guess is zero...
Graham4405


It does note that this expansion will:
actively support the growth of log export and container throughput, lifting capacity by up to 52 additional container services per annum
Project Brief


Cheers,

Matt
  8502 Train Controller

For all intents and purposes, from memory, the line from the junction is still in place to the port area and could be reconnected.  This is my first post but I see how silly planning can be in Australia and this is one example.
  Nightfire Minister for Railways

Location: Gippsland

None from a passenger perspective but certainly a LOT of freight is loaded and carried down there in containers if I am not mistaken?
bevans
What do you call lots ?
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
How many trains would Antarctic explorers and research scientists use? My guess is zero...


It does note that this expansion will:
actively support the growth of log export and container throughput, lifting capacity by up to 52 additional container services per annum


Cheers,

Matt
Bulbous
Before we get too excited and abusing Planners, a few things to remember

1) When the rail connection was there, traffic relocated north

2) The railway is a key reason Hobart Port has almost not commercial freight traffic as up until the mid 90's nearly all the freight currently railed to the Northern Ports was going out Hobart.

3) The log traffic would more than likely be southern generated, so not on rail anyway

4) The bulk fuel will not be on rail anyway

5) Antarctic support needs will either be sourced locally and if shipped in from the mainland maybe on rail to the current terminus and tonnages so minor reopening the railway is not warranted.

6) Container ships, they are "hopeful" of 1 / week, maybe! Highly unlikely this traffic would support rail reopening. The Zinc plant had rail to its factory and said it was cheaper to truck to the old container depo at the port or new one and rail to Burnie for export.

Yes, the line is still there, however it is highly unlikely there will be any tonnage of significance to Tasrail and remember why the terminus was moved in the first place, i.e. an inner city rail yard that was not fit for purpose is not well suited as a modal change depo.
  12CSVT Chief Commissioner

Location: Drowning in accreditation red tape!
And now with removed rail access.  How stupid can these planners be?

Redevelopment plans for Port of Hobart
How many trains would Antarctic explorers and research scientists use? My guess is zero...
Graham4405
Yes, but before PN blew up their ownership of Tasrail in dispute with the Tas Govt killing tourist & heritage rail in the process, DVR had just captured access to the cruise ship market. 15 years on, the slow grind to regain access is reaching resolution and forward plans for DVR in co-operation with TTMS is to regain the cruise ship market, so there has been a long campaign to restore rail access to the Macquarie wharves for cruise ships. Meanwhile the Hobart Northern Suburbs Rail proposal has been assessed in the "Report to end all Reports" (PWC) as the most expensive (but with obviously exaggerated cost estimates)  but most cost effective mode for the Hobart Rail Corridor and as part of the corridor, HNSR will need access through Mac Pt and out onto Evans / Hunter Sts to get to Mawson Square (and eventually the Elizabeth St Transit Mall)
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
And now with removed rail access.  How stupid can these planners be?

Redevelopment plans for Port of Hobart
How many trains would Antarctic explorers and research scientists use? My guess is zero...
Yes, but before PN blew up their ownership of Tasrail in dispute with the Tas Govt killing tourist & heritage rail in the process, DVR had just captured access to the cruise ship market. 15 years on, the slow grind to regain access is reaching resolution and forward plans for DVR in co-operation with TTMS is to regain the cruise ship market, so there has been a long campaign to restore rail access to the Macquarie wharves for cruise ships. Meanwhile the Hobart Northern Suburbs Rail proposal has been assessed in the "Report to end all Reports" (PWC) as the most expensive (but with obviously exaggerated cost estimates)  but most cost effective mode for the Hobart Rail Corridor and as part of the corridor, HNSR will need access through Mac Pt and out onto Evans / Hunter Sts to get to Mawson Square (and eventually the Elizabeth St Transit Mall)
12CSVT
Yes, its was heart wrenching to see all their good work unfold, but unfortunately even a dozen cruise ships a year is not enough to justify keeping the line open.

While i'm keen to see the corridor used for RPT and understand your concerns about cost estimates, its very rare in Australia that a RPT project goes from feasibility study to completed project for less than the Feasibility study recommended. Just need to look at the costs to extend the Sydney Inner West light rail to see what it really costs. The 3rd phase was around $500m for a line and corridor that was already there. 2nd phase I think was much cheaper to convert per km, but they went cheap after phase 1 project and basically didn't touch the track and OH initially, those costs were hidden and left to another day.

If the line goes LR, the option of meeting cruise ships is finished.
  12CSVT Chief Commissioner

Location: Drowning in accreditation red tape!
Yes, its was heart wrenching to see all their good work unfold, but unfortunately even a dozen cruise ships a year is not enough to justify keeping the line open.

While i'm keen to see the corridor used for RPT and understand your concerns about cost estimates, its very rare in Australia that a RPT project goes from feasibility study to completed project for less than the Feasibility study recommended. Just need to look at the costs to extend the Sydney Inner West light rail to see what it really costs. The 3rd phase was around $500m for a line and corridor that was already there. 2nd phase I think was much cheaper to convert per km, but they went cheap after phase 1 project and basically didn't touch the track and OH initially, those costs were hidden and left to another day.

If the line goes LR, the option of meeting cruise ships is finished.
RTT_Rules
The PWC Report was delivered in July 2020 ("The Report To End All Reports") and studied 3 modes for the Hobart Rail Corridor. Rail, Trackless Tram & Bus Rapid Transit. It was done remotely from Sydney due to COVID, so no actual site inspections were done, so a lot of assumptions were made.

The total cost estimates came out at $596M for Rail; $445M for Bus and $512M for Trackless Tram. The modes were assessed against city shaping criteria including effectiveness and attractiveness for transit, housing development and employment creation.

Early on, the Trackless Tram option was dismissed, as cost levels approaching rail, but effectiveness approaching bus. So the final options considered were Bus & Rail. The report clearly showed that in all criteria (other than cost) rail had far and away the highest scores for all outcome based criteria.

Now as far as the costs go, assumptions made included: 56% contingency (Very High); Complete removal and replacement of the bike track (why? Yes fences need to be taken down for work access but the complete removal and replacement of the concrete path is unnecessary, unless damaged by excavators, etc.), complete replacement of the existing track (why? The existing track was fully upgraded in 2013 with new rails and steel sleepers, though there were bits missed that need doing now and the track needs enhancing with new loops, etc. but total replacement? Unnecessary), regauging (why? No reason. Light / medium rail vehicles are widely made in metre gauge (easily adaptable to 1067m) so vehicle availability is not a reason), replacement of all bridges & drainage (why? Existing bridges are mostly fine, no drainage issues, so again, pointless cost blowouts. Seriously, major bridges like at Risdon Rd, Tower Rd, Main Rd Rosetta, Brooker Highway, Berriedale and Main Rd, Claremont have been fine for years carrying thousand of tonnes of freight trains and B Doubles. There is nothing wrong with them).  

One way to expunge the dubious cost assumptions is to do a detailed 'on the ground' engineering study, which both the PWC Report and Glenorchy Council & HNSRAG are now calling for, funded by promised City Deal Federal Funding. It would be happening now, but for the Govt, which was banking on "bus being best" now severely inconvenienced by the conclusive assessment that rail is best on all outcome based criteria and when costs are reassessed on the ground, that advantage will just grow. If anything the current cost estimate (based on Hobart - Granton) will likely not change when assessed on the ground right through to Brighton.

The insistence to pointlessly re-gauge would yes, exclude Tourist & Heritage rail co-use of the line, but retaining the current track would not - considering the sort of vehicles being proposed are used widely in Europe on heavy rail routes providing regional transit (Alsthom Coradia Lint & Bombardier Talent series).
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
The PWC Report was delivered in July 2020 ("The Report To End All Reports") and studied 3 modes for the Hobart Rail Corridor. Rail, Trackless Tram & Bus Rapid Transit. It was done remotely from Sydney due to COVID, so no actual site inspections were done, so a lot of assumptions were made.

The total cost estimates came out at $596M for Rail; $445M for Bus and $512M for Trackless Tram. The modes were assessed against city shaping criteria including effectiveness and attractiveness for transit, housing development and employment creation.

Early on, the Trackless Tram option was dismissed, as cost levels approaching rail, but effectiveness approaching bus. So the final options considered were Bus & Rail. The report clearly showed that in all criteria (other than cost) rail had far and away the highest scores for all outcome based criteria.

Now as far as the costs go, assumptions made included: 56% contingency (Very High); Complete removal and replacement of the bike track (why? Yes fences need to be taken down for work access but the complete removal and replacement of the concrete path is unnecessary, unless damaged by excavators, etc.), complete replacement of the existing track (why? The existing track was fully upgraded in 2013 with new rails and steel sleepers, though there were bits missed that need doing now and the track needs enhancing with new loops, etc. but total replacement? Unnecessary), regauging (why? No reason. Light / medium rail vehicles are widely made in metre gauge (easily adaptable to 1067m) so vehicle availability is not a reason), replacement of all bridges & drainage (why? Existing bridges are mostly fine, no drainage issues, so again, pointless cost blowouts. Seriously, major bridges like at Risdon Rd, Tower Rd, Main Rd Rosetta, Brooker Highway, Berriedale and Main Rd, Claremont have been fine for years carrying thousand of tonnes of freight trains and B Doubles. There is nothing wrong with them).  

One way to expunge the dubious cost assumptions is to do a detailed 'on the ground' engineering study, which both the PWC Report and Glenorchy Council & HNSRAG are now calling for, funded by promised City Deal Federal Funding. It would be happening now, but for the Govt, which was banking on "bus being best" now severely inconvenienced by the conclusive assessment that rail is best on all outcome based criteria and when costs are reassessed on the ground, that advantage will just grow. If anything the current cost estimate (based on Hobart - Granton) will likely not change when assessed on the ground right through to Brighton.

The insistence to pointlessly re-gauge would yes, exclude Tourist & Heritage rail co-use of the line, but retaining the current track would not - considering the sort of vehicles being proposed are used widely in Europe on heavy rail routes providing regional transit (Alsthom Coradia Lint & Bombardier Talent series).
12CSVT
Thanks,
I cannot find the July 2020 version. I assume its from Granton, about 20km.

How much is it supposed to be single track?

56% contingency is high, but also dependent on the investment level of the study Normally they start at 30%, maybe govt infrastructure projects are higher due to greater unknowns.

YEs agree it could be NG and ridden the same in Germany among others, its not like LR has cornering speeds to worry about.

Track standard, yes unlikely fully needed but again the Sydney Light Rail went down that path as well

The bridge issues and likely the track will likely come from a requirement the project is handed over with a 25-35 year service life and liability issues for a fixed price contractor.


So I think a scope of Granton to City centre, you won't get much change from $400m, if not more. The city in road section is around 2km, that's around $100m - $200m alone depending on how much is a single track loop and how much is parallel and exact distance.

Each station will easily be $1-2 m assuming two plats.

Rolling stock, plus depo and maintenance facilities will be +$100 m.

Assume 15km of dual track, 5km of single track OH costs will be at least $50m


Cannot see even LR using NG track would be open to usage by T&HR operations as this opens a long list of "risks" the govt or at least their insurance agency including that of the T&HR operator won't want to touch, especially during normal operating hours of the LR. It would tram to terminus and then train from there.  

Still think the project should proceed, just be realistic of the costs and precedent of a number if LR projects in Australia during the las decade states around $80 - 120m per km for dual track mostly embedded track bed. Hobart won't have a high degree of embedded track, but still there are other issues that need addressing.
  12CSVT Chief Commissioner

Location: Drowning in accreditation red tape!
Thanks,
I cannot find the July 2020 version. I assume its from Granton, about 20km.

How much is it supposed to be single track?

56% contingency is high, but also dependent on the investment level of the study Normally they start at 30%, maybe govt infrastructure projects are higher due to greater unknowns.

YEs agree it could be NG and ridden the same in Germany among others, its not like LR has cornering speeds to worry about.

Track standard, yes unlikely fully needed but again the Sydney Light Rail went down that path as well

The bridge issues and likely the track will likely come from a requirement the project is handed over with a 25-35 year service life and liability issues for a fixed price contractor.


So I think a scope of Granton to City centre, you won't get much change from $400m, if not more. The city in road section is around 2km, that's around $100m - $200m alone depending on how much is a single track loop and how much is parallel and exact distance.

Each station will easily be $1-2 m assuming two plats.

Rolling stock, plus depo and maintenance facilities will be +$100 m.

Assume 15km of dual track, 5km of single track OH costs will be at least $50m


Cannot see even LR using NG track would be open to usage by T&HR operations as this opens a long list of "risks" the govt or at least their insurance agency including that of the T&HR operator won't want to touch, especially during normal operating hours of the LR. It would tram to terminus and then train from there.  

Still think the project should proceed, just be realistic of the costs and precedent of a number if LR projects in Australia during the las decade states around $80 - 120m per km for dual track mostly embedded track bed. Hobart won't have a high degree of embedded track, but still there are other issues that need addressing.
RTT_Rules
The original proposal (now Stage 1 proposal) was Hobart CBD to Granton, though council input has agitated for its extension to Brighton (now Stage 2) to capture Hobarts fastest growing population centre, whilst Govt has tried to limit it to Claremont and even Glenorchy (Greens - McKim).

Track layout as described in the HNSRAG submission to the Legislative Council (2012) as computerised automated loops being located at New Town, Glenorchy, Claremont & Granton. Since the development of the huge Whitestone Point sub-division where the long gone Risbys & K&D timber-mills were, there is justification to add a loop at Whitestone Point (there were two loops originally supplying Risbys & K&D) which would break up the long Claremont / Granton section. Although the intention is for computer scheduled dispatch, obviously timings do get out of whack - extended station stops, breakdowns etc. - so there is scope for extended 'passing lanes' that can be included at Granton - South Granton; Claremont - Chigwell; Derwent Park - Moonah and Botanical Gardens -  Macquarie Point.

I think the high contingency was part due to the inability for PWC to physically inspect the site. Hence with the scale of assumptions made (they only had Google Earth to inspect the route) they factored in a big "not real sure" contingency figure.

Most bridges - esp. road overpasses, are fit for purpose. Risdon Rd overpass is a heavily engineered legacy structure that is absolutely solid. Humphrey's Rivulet bridge is the sole bridge in question, but that is due to be upgraded as part of the pending TTMS lease of Glenorchy - Chigwell / Claremont.

$400M is the figure that HNSRAG and Glenorchy Council's accept as the most likely estimated cost and highlight against competing road bypass / tunnel proposals that come out at around $2.5 Billion or so.

With the granting of a lease to TTMS, and eventual pending access requests from DVR & DRR, legacy access rights will be claimed with the Govts crown liability of $200M PL insurance more than enough to cover off any risk issues.

Cheers,
SZ

Sponsored advertisement

Subscribers: bevans, Nightfire, RTT_Rules

Display from: