The Melbourne-Brisbane Inland Rail Alignment Study

[ozbob]

The Melbourne-Brisbane Inland Rail Alignment Study

--> http://www.artc.com.au/Content.aspx?p=175

The Melbourne-Brisbane Inland Rail Alignment Study

In March 2008 the Australian Government asked ARTC to undertake a study of the proposed Melbourne to Brisbane inland railway, to determine an optimum alignment and to assess the financial and economic prospects of the project.

ARTC managed the study in accordance with the agreed Terms of Reference, including commissioning consultants to undertake a range of tasks.

ARTC and the consultants met a wide range of stakeholders during the study, including state and local governments, train operating companies, potential end customers and many others. The results of successive stages of the study, in the form of detailed working papers, were published on ARTC's website and stakeholders were invited to comment on the study as it progressed.

The final report of the study was presented to the Government in July 2010.

[somebody]

What about a completely greenfield Narrabri-Brisbane via Warwick?

[Jonno]

Study did not take into account the reduced externalities (i.e. reduced road trauma, reduced congestion, etc.). So only half the study has been done!!!
EDIT : Ok so it does but I need to understand if they have taken the total costs into account. It does state that it does not take into account the beenfits of Sydney/Melbourne and Brisbane/Sydney nor passenger benefits both local and interstate.  Seems strange.

Will post after reading cost benefit analysis more.  

[colinw]

What about a completely greenfield Narrabri-Brisbane via Warwick?

Personally I think the proponents of the Toowoomba route are talking through their hat

I'm originally from Toowoomba, and know the Southern Downs area quite well.  One thing that constantly surprises me is that the inland rail proposals going all the way back to the Via Recta have always proposed taking a direct path through some of the hardest terrain around.  The fact is that the easiest graded, most sensible route across the range has never been considered.  Proposal after proposal either wants to ascend the range in the area of Cunningham's Gap or Spicer's Gap, or take a circuitous approach to the north via Toowoomba where the range is somewhat easier but still a major obstacle.

Meanwhile, the existence of a relatively gentle approach to the main range about half way between Toowoomba & Cunningham's Gap goes largely un-noticed. The route I'm talking about would roughly follow Route 80 - Gatton to Clifton road.  Coming off the Main Line just west of Gatton, I'd propose to follow the approximate route of the road via Winwill, Ma Ma Creek, Mt Whitestone, West Haldon, Hirstglen & Pilton.

Click here for a link to Google Maps.

cheers,
Colin

[somebody]

Cunningham's Gap is still shorter.  Would a tunnel through the range which appears to be quite steep but short make this route more viable than the route 80 option?

Personally, on that map I think the answer to the above is NO.

[Jonno]

Here is a strange quote that has me intrigued:

About 70% of intercapital freight currently travelling from Melbourne-Brisbane or Brisbane-
Melbourne is freighted on road, principally on the Newell Highway between Victoria and
Queensland.

While this is expected to reduce to around 33% by 2040 if Inland Rail commences
operations in 2020, it is estimated to reduce to 39% even if there is no inland railway
because fuel and labour costs are forecast to increase in over time, impacting more on road
as it is more fuel and labour intensive.

So where does the other 31% of freight go even if the inland rail is not built?  It does not explain this shift or reduction at all?  Surely if the costs of rail are less then there will be a greater shift to rail.

Next

Road crash costs 0.41 cents/ntk
Rail crash costs 0.04 cents/ntk

This says that rail crash costs are 10% of that of road.  So if 18 billion is the cost of road trauma a year then rail accidents cost 1.8 billion.  This does not compute or I am missing a lot of rail accidents.  Thoughts?


Next

Road externality costs 0.5 cents/ntk
Rail externality costs 0.2 cents /ntk
Weighted for urban and non-urban assuming 10% of the trip is in urban areas

So externalities of rail are 40% of road.  Not sure I agree there either.  Seems high. Given a train generates 40% lower CO2 per kg moved alone.
The 10% may be right but the externality costs would be 90% higher if you live near a freeway.

Next

Road congestion costs 0.1 cents/ntk

Not sure this is correct either.  Seems low given the 9 billion reported in Brisbane alone due to congestion.  Each year we are spending billions building more and more roads to fix congestion yet we are making no reduction in congestion.

Interested in others thoughts.  

[ozbob]

Rail is generally 40 times safer than road (ABS).  The figures are nebulous in this study.  Even allowing for the gross underestimation of true road costs overall it is no brainer for more rail.

[somebody]

So where does the other 31% of freight go even if the inland rail is not built?  It does not explain this shift or reduction at all?  Surely if the costs of rail are less then there will be a greater shift to rail.

Via the existing coastal route.

Road crash costs 0.41 cents/ntk
Rail crash costs 0.04 cents/ntk

This says that rail crash costs are 10% of that of road.  So if 18 billion is the cost of road trauma a year then rail accidents cost 1.8 billion.  This does not compute or I am missing a lot of rail accidents.  Thoughts?

Hmm.  I could suggest that when rail accidents do occur they are very expensive, e.g. Hines Hill wrote off a couple of locos and some wagons and a few lives: Probably $15m, maybe more
Beresfield wasn't fatal but probably cost at least $10m
Tilt Train: a few mill
but I cannot get near 1.8bn/year


Don't have anything to add on your other points though.

[Jonno]

Rail is generally 40 times safer than road (ABS).  The figures are nebulous in this study.  Even allowing for the gross underestimation of true road costs overall it is no brainer for more rail.

We know it, it seems everone else knows it but the reports say "not really worth it at the moment". Something is amiss.

[Golliwog]

The costs of accidents for rail would also include the cost of shutting down the line until the crash is cleared, plus clearing a rail accident would be more expensive as you need to get in heavy lifting equipment to lift derailed trains/cars back onto the tracks, or if they can't run on tracks then they need to be transported by road. I think its just that in general when rail accidents happen they are far more expensive to fix up.

[Jonno]

On reading the market take up analysis I can see there is a move to the coastal line (despite the 27 hrs) and when the Inland is built thay claim an impressive 80% of the market by 2045.  But at what cost to the country in road trauma, environment, congestion and contruction costs.   Also is Sudney's new focus on PT just going to crowd out freight as well.  No real assessment of that.

more reading on these latter bits now.

[somebody]

On reading the market take up analysis I can see there is a move to the coastal line (despite the 27 hrs) and when the Inland is built thay claim an impressive 80% of the market by 2045.  But at what cost to the country in road trauma, environment, congestion and contruction costs.   Also is Sudney's new focus on PT just going to crowd out freight as well.  No real assessment of that.

more reading on these latter bits now.

This is the question I ask you, Jonno:
Are you prepared to give up on Sydney-Brisbane and Sydney-Melbourne rail freight to get the inland line?

[Jonno]

No...and I don't think I have to.  The externalities of road freight are severly under estimated so when a cost benefit analysis is done there is no case for actively reducing road transport.  I have nonissue with the coastal routes and wish to see both put in place with active reduction in road freight.

[somebody]

Most proponents of the inland line would concede that it's hard to invest in both routes.  We need to bring traffic levels of the coastal route up to a level that has double track all the way with reasonable ruling grades and high average speeds.  If that is done, then a single track inland route will not be a very attractive investment.

That's how I see it.

[mufreight]

More on the Inland Rail.

On the 9th August "Somebody" made the following post in which he questioned,
"what about a completely Greenfield Narrabri-Brisbane via Warwick"

Also on the same day "Colin W" noted that,
"I'm originally from Toowoomba, and know the Southern Downs Area quite well, one thing that continually surprises me is that the Inland Rail proposals going all the way back to the Via Recta have always proposed taking a direct path through some of the hardest terrain around.
The fact is that the easiest graded, most sensible route across the range has never been considered.  Proposal after proposal either wants to ascend the range in the area of Cunninghams Gap or Spicers Gap, or take a circuitous approach to the north via Toowoomba where the range is somewhat easier buy still a major obstacle.
Meanwhile, the existence of a relatively gentle approach to the main range about halfway between Toowoomba and Cunninghams Gap goes largely un-noticed.  The route I'm talking about would roughly follow Route 80, Gatton to Clifton road. (this is the old Murphys Creek road up the range which saw considerable use with heavy trucks and oversize loads crossing the range in the 1940/50 years)  Coming off the Main line just west of Gatton, I would propose to follow the approach route of the road via Winwill, Ma Ma Creek, Mt Whilestone, West Haldon, Hirstglen and Pilton."

This post was then followed by a further post by "Somebody".
"Cunninghams Gap is still shorter.  Would a tunnel through the range which appears to be quite steep, but short, make this route more viable than the route 80 option?"

To respond to these posts first let us make some comparisons.

All proposals follow basically the same alignments from North Star in New South Wales to Inglewood in Queensland, from that point the proposed routes differ.
Via Millmerran, Gowrie, Toowoomba and Ebenezer to join the existing standard gauge line near Kagaru.
Via Thane, bypassing Warwick to the north about halfway between Warwick and Hendon then to Meryvale and through the range in the vicinity of Cunninghams Gap to Boonah and joining the existing standard gauge line between Bromelton and Tamrookum.

In terms of distance the line via Cunninghams Gap would be some 85km shorter but apart from the two tunnels that would be required would require far less major infrastructure than the alternative route via Toowoomba.

It would seem that in an attempt to justify construction the line via Toowoomba the consultants claimed that to route the line via Warwick would require the construction of three spirals and some 24 km of viaduct.
In reality each of the three alternative options to descend the range each based upon 19th century engineering practice contained ONE spiral or partial spiral, not as claimed three spirals.
Using modern engineering practice a base line tunnel of some 13 to 14 km through the main range would provide a more direct and easier graded line with a maximum ruling gradient of approximately 120 to 1 as against a maximum grade of approximately 90 to 1 if the line were to be routed via Toowoomba.

As in the late 1800's (1884) it was proposed to construct a more direct line between Brisbane and Warwick via Spicers gap and Mt Edwards which using the construction technology of the time did not require any spirals and used minimal bridging and viaducts and very limited short sections of tunnel yet achieved an alignment with a maximum ruling grade of 1 in 39.

With modern tunneling equipment a rail tunnel of some 12 kilometers under Spicers Gap would see the line shortened further and a maximum grade of 1 in 100 or possibly less.

The inland line is supposedly to be constructed to cater for the increasing volumes of north south freight and to take this freight off the nations roads yet to suit seemingly vested interests it is proposed to construct a longer and slower line that will be more costly overall not only to construct but also to operate thus giving the road freight industry a further advantage in competition with rail.

The costs of constructing a long base line tunnel would be considerably lower than the additional 80 plus kilometers of line and the reconstruction of the existing narrow gauge lines from Helidon to Rosewood (double track, some 180 track kilometres) and new crossings of the Toowoomba range and Little Liverpool range which will involve the construction of an extensive length of tunnels possibly as much as 7 kilometres.

By comparison the route via Toowoomba will require the construction of some 165 km of new greenfield alignment, the realignment and reconstruction of some 383 km existing ng line to standard gauge standards while under traffic, a far more costly work than Greenfield construction.

This compared with the route via Warwick which would entail the Greenfield construction of 136 km of new standard gauge alignment and the realignment and reconstruction of only 202 km of existing ng alignment to standard gauge standards.

The route via Warwick would admittedly require in total some 14 km of tunnel as against some 7 to 8 km required via Toowoomba but this would be more than compensated for by the higher operating speeds and lower costs of operation as a result of better alignment, easier grades and shorter distance.

In comparison with the route suggested by Colin W via Murphys Creek the line via Warwick is again shorter, faster due to its better alignment and grades and less costly to construct.
One could easily come to the conclusion that vested interests are promoting the Toowoomba route as by the use of a base line tunnel and modern engineering practices no spirals or extensive viaducts are required to construct a shorter faster line that would cater for the operation of double stacked intermodal freight services and be time competitive with road freight.

By not routing the standard gauge inland rail link down the range from Toowoomba the inland line can cater for the operation of double stacked intermodal freight services thus leaving the way clear for the extension of electrification on the western line beyond Rosewood to Gatton and Toowoomba for the operation of passenger services once a new tunnel is constructed to cross the Little Liverpool Range between Grandchester and Laidley.

The short answer to the question posed by Somebody of "would a tunnel through the range which appears to be quite steep, but short, make this route more viable than the route 80 (Murphys Creek) option?  Unquestionably YES, and also less costly to construct and more importantly to operate.

[colinw]

Eh? Route 80 from Gatton to Clifton doesn't go anywhere near Murphy's Creek! Here's what I wrote (without the addition mentioning Murphy's Creek, which was not me):

'm originally from Toowoomba, and know the Southern Downs area quite well.  One thing that constantly surprises me is that the inland rail proposals going all the way back to the Via Recta have always proposed taking a direct path through some of the hardest terrain around.  The fact is that the easiest graded, most sensible route across the range has never been considered.  Proposal after proposal either wants to ascend the range in the area of Cunningham's Gap or Spicer's Gap, or take a circuitous approach to the north via Toowoomba where the range is somewhat easier but still a major obstacle.

Meanwhile, the existence of a relatively gentle approach to the main range about half way between Toowoomba & Cunningham's Gap goes largely un-noticed. The route I'm talking about would roughly follow Route 80 - Gatton to Clifton road.  Coming off the Main Line just west of Gatton, I'd propose to follow the approximate route of the road via Winwill, Ma Ma Creek, Mt Whitestone, West Haldon, Hirstglen & Pilton.

Having said that, I can see merit in Mufreight's reasoning, particularly if it shortens the route significantly.  I am also very much in favour of an eventual commuter service to Laidley, Gatton & Toowoomba.  I still miss the Helidon railcar service & co-ordinated bus to Toowoomba.