Should we go Standard Rail?

[#Metro]

Should we change the rail gauge, by phasing it in on busy lines? Perhaps by using a secondary track?
What other alternatives are there?

[haakon]

For the commuter rail lines around SEQ? No, what we gain is not worth the cost of conversion.

For the Freight rail network? Quite probably it would be as it has to interface with the national standard gauge network at some point.

[mufreight]

If the Inland rail link is built via the less costly and shorter route from Northstar in New South Wales to Acacia Ridge joining the existing standard gauge line in the region of Tamrookum there is a valid argument to then regauge the line to Dirranbandi rather than dual gauge the line from Carrington to Warwick.
A logical argument could also be made for a standard gauge line between the border and Gladstone as a direct line from Carringron to Miles and then following the line proposed to link the western downs to Banana and Gladstone, but apart from these lines until the inland standard gauge line is constructed there is little merit in changing the gauge of the states rail system.
If a new coal port and rail system were to be built for that port from scratch it might be justifiable to build such a system to standard gauge due to the economies of operation of trains of 120 tonne capacity rolling stock possible on standard gauge but otherwise colonial standard gauge serves this state well despite its limitations and the costs of regauging the whole system are simply not justifiable.
As for the interface between standard and narrow gauge containers have to a large degree resolved that problem as the efficiencies of the intermodial yard arrangements at Acacia Ridge exhibit at this time.

[stephenk]

No.

It would be an utter waste of money that would be better spent improving the current poor infrastructure.

Most of Japan's JR network uses (approx) metre gauge track as well.

[mufreight]

Most of the Japanese rail network is the same gauge as here 3ft 6ins or 1067 mm gauge.

[Sunbus610]

Keep dreamin' mate....OMG could you just imagine the cost of changing over in todays money Mind you....it's a bloody pity the 4ft 8 1/2in was decided on as a suitable rail gauge for Queensland back in the early federation days .

[ozbob]

Just for interest, Brisbane's trams were 4ft 8 1/2in!

[mufreight]

Davemail66, I expect that it was a typo on your part but I think what you meant is that it is a pity that 3ft 6ins was decided on as a suitable rail gauge for Queensland gauge rather than 4ft 8 1/2.
The reality is that Queensland would not have had the rail system it developed if the lines had originally been built to standard gauge, Queensland was only able to build the railway system it developed covering most of the state because the railways built in this state were built to 3ft 6ins gauge.
As is the case today not enough money to build in standard gauge.

[Sunbus610]

We could try blaming our forefathers I guess . Australia's railway network would have certainly been very different had all states adopted a single standard gauge for heavy rail. Unfortunately, cost cutting and just plain rivalry played a big part in Queensland choosing the 3ft 6in (1067mm) gauge, a cheaper lighter rail and rollingstock (well back in those days anyway), shorter sleepers, tighter curves (which cut down costs) just to name a few.

[somebody]

I don't think that the 3'6" decision was nearly as bad as the 4'8.5" decision.  The latter was taken by NSW after they had agreed with VIC and SA to go 5'3".  Oh dear.

At least the 3'6" made things like the Zig Zag to get over the Blue Mountains unnecessary.

[mufreight]

Somebody hate to shower on your parade but even if the line accross the Blue Mountains had been 2ft gauge there would still have been need for either a series of spirals or swirchbacks to get over the range and down the other side.
Should Queensland convert to standard gauge? well it would be an advantadge on lines like Townsville-Mt Isa and the coal lines but the cost makes large scale gauge conversion impractical when issues such as connectivity between lines and the length of rail in this state are considered.
To be practical, no. At the present time the coal trains operated by QR are more efficent and are larger than their equivalents operated on many standard gauge systems. For general freight the era of the container has reduced the problem of break of gauge to something that was nerver envisaged 50 years ago and is now a manageable inconvenience.
Were Queensland to go standard gauge for the entire system the only lines would be the coal lines and the Mt Isa line with the size of the network reducing to less than half of its current size and the state would be broke for the next 100 years.

[O_128]

the only suggestion i would say is to ahve all new lines built as dual guage.

[somebody]

Well, they did at the Towoomba range, and that's a more impressive obstacle to drive over in a car in the sense that it seems HEAPS steeper.  But the point was that it changed the economics largely by allowing tighter turns.

I would have liked to see dual guage when they did the NCL upgrade for the RTT, but I guess it would have been prohibitively expensive.

[mufreight]

Well somebody, might I suggest that you obtain copies of topographical maps for both areas and make a comparison and you will find that you are attempting to compare apples with bananas.
The decent into the Lithgow valley gave the rail builders two choices, use a switchback or tunnels, the route currently in use which replaced the Zig Zag switchback is heavily graded, has numerous tight curves which restrict train speed and and loads as well as tunnels,
It is even in this day and age less than effective to operate freight services over this line due to these facts which is the reasoning for the line between Lithgow and Bathurst and which was double track having been singled for most of the distance and freight services being routed via Cootamundra to Parkes.
The approach to the Toowoomba range is considerably more gradual than even the eastern approach to the Blue mountains where the alignment is pretty serpentine and the descent on the western side even moreso

[justanotheruser]

While I can't back this up with proof my understanding is that they do plan on going dual guage.Just laying an extra track down. For the most part there is enough room across the network from what I have seen although it has been some time since I travelled north.

[somebody]

While I can't back this up with proof my understanding is that they do plan on going dual guage.Just laying an extra track down. For the most part there is enough room across the network from what I have seen although it has been some time since I travelled north.

That would be impossible in the suburban network unless all the platforms were on the same side of the tracks.  Which they aren't.

I think they were planning to build the dawson valley railway on dual guage sleepers.

Well somebody, might I suggest that you obtain copies of topographical maps for both areas and make a comparison and you will find that you are attempting to compare apples with bananas.
The decent into the Lithgow valley gave the rail builders two choices, use a switchback or tunnels, the route currently in use which replaced the Zig Zag switchback is heavily graded, has numerous tight curves which restrict train speed and and loads as well as tunnels,

I don't believe this is correct, I didn't notice it at first reading.  The climb from Lithgow peaks at 1:42 grades IIRC.  It's 1:90 for most of the way.  It's the descent from Mt Victoria down to somewhere around Lapstone which has the 1:33 grades.  Also, the Parkes-Lithgow track is pretty awful, and there's electric staff signalling in some places, so you would have an unbalanced staff problem.  I think it's just the combination of all these factors which make it unattractive for eastbound freight to take the Blue Mountains.  It's definitely the 1:33 grades facing westbound trains which causes them to run via Goulburn which still has 1:40 grades IIRC.

[#Metro]

Hi, could you just quickly explain what 1:33 means etc?

[somebody]

Hi, could you just quickly explain what 1:33 means etc?

For every 33m of track, you rise or fall by 1m.

[ozbob]

Ratio of one part rise per so many parts horizontal.

1:33 means a rise of one metre for every 33 metres in a horizontal direction (run).

Sometimes as a percentage in USA particularly 100 x 1/33  =  3%   1:33 is steep for mainline.

The steepest adhesion line in Australia was on the Campbelltown - Camden branch line 1:19. 


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c7/Arhs_campbelltown_camden.jpg/250px-Arhs_campbelltown_camden.jpg
A C30 class steam locomotive leads the 'Camden Tram' towards the first grade after departing from Campbelltown

[ozbob]

Grades on the Brisbane rail network can be found in this document here --> here! External PDF

eg. Between Corinda and Rosewood, the maximum grade (not compensated for horizontal alignment) that a westbound (Up) train will encounter is 1 in 70 (Riverview) whilst for an eastbound (Down) train the maximum grade is 1 in 67 (Darra)

[mufreight]

Bathurst to Raglin was single track heading east and remained that way due to the need for a major bridge, the prime reason for the divirsion of freight services via the south to Cootamundra then to Parkes was to enable the operation of larger trains and this applied in both directions and to reduce the maintenance of the then underused line between Lithgo and Bathurst the line was singled west of Tarana.
Prior to this the greater amount of freight traveled from the west to the coast, grain, coal, concentrates and wool rather than the general freight traveling to the west.
The grades that somebody are what exist to this day on the descent into the Lithgow valley they were achieved when the line was rebuilt on a new alignment with tunnels and duplicated to replace the Zig Zag switchback.
There is no comparison between the Blue Mountains and the Toowoomba Range crossings and the QR line over the Toowoomba range uses curves of considerably smaller radius which would have been impractical with standard gauge.
Hope this helps to correct some misconceptions.  Apples aint Oranges

[somebody]

There is no comparison between the Blue Mountains and the Toowoomba Range crossings and the QR line over the Toowoomba range uses curves of considerably smaller radius which would have been impractical with standard gauge.

Wasn't that my original point?

[justanotheruser]

That would be impossible in the suburban network unless all the platforms were on the same side of the tracks.  Which they aren't.

Just out of curiosity I know the XPT doesn't stop at the stations but doesn't it travel through stations where the platforms aren't all on the same side or am I just not remembering the trip properly? Perhaps I will ask my parents to kep an eye out when they come up in a week on the very cheap ticket (the entire NSW part of the journey is free for them as pensioners)

[somebody]

That would be impossible in the suburban network unless all the platforms were on the same side of the tracks.  Which they aren't.

Just out of curiosity I know the XPT doesn't stop at the stations but doesn't it travel through stations where the platforms aren't all on the same side or am I just not remembering the trip properly? Perhaps I will ask my parents to kep an eye out when they come up in a week on the very cheap ticket (the entire NSW part of the journey is free for them as pensioners)

I'm pretty sure there are no platforms between Dutton Park and Salisbury inclusive on the dual guage.  At South Brisbane the standard guage pulls away from the platform for some strange reason even though it is on the correct side, the functional platform at South Bank and the one I'm not sure is usable at Park Rd are both on the common rail side of the dual guage, which is the correct side.