Article: Push to bring back Gatton trains

[SurfRail]

There is certainly scope to extend electrification, and I am not opposed to rail to Gatton - just to using the current alignment.  That requires either electrification (stranded investment once the upgrades eventually happen) or DMUs (expensive compared to upping bus frequency or using heritage rollingstock).  Get the line right for electrification and you're onto a winner.

[ozbob]

Yes, electrification to Grandchester is straight forward.  That would be very useful in-itself.

[SteelPan]

But of course the cost of the 4 lane highway was not an issue as it was needed to "keep freight moving" and "make driving safer". 

The article goes from running some diesel trains (a smart idea) to we have to completetly rebuild the line including a tunnel?

Honestly, for the distances involved and the pressing need to connect Toowoomba into the SEQ Metro Network, we'd be better off setting a 10yr plan and extending electrification up to Toowoomba, part of a new road/rail tunnel up the range.  A great example of what I posted recently - backing a new road crossing IF rail is also part of the deal!

[mufreight]

Steelpan, after years of experience the best way to eat an elephant is to ensure that it is well cooked then take small bites and chew well.
To regrade, realign and electrify the line to Toowoomba is an elephant size project, it is doable but better done in small bites.
Electrify to Grandchester, realign the line between Grandchester and Laidley with a new low level tunnel through the Little Liverpool Range even if the tunnel is only single track, the existing heritage tunnel on the present speed inhibiting alignment lacks sufficent clerance for overhead anyway, then extend the electrification westward to Helidon.
The majority posting on this site unfortunately are focused on passenger services and lose sight of the other basic purpose of railways, the movement of freight.
The new alignment through the Little Liverpool Range would not only allow for the electrification but would speed up and lower the costs of operating freight services which would in turn encourage the increase in freight which would then in turn justify the actual construction of the new better graded and faster alignment of the line to Toowoomba.
Lets take a small bite first, the realignment of the line between Grandchester and Laidley and having acomplished that take the next bite, even if we never see the meal completed we will see some progress.      

[colinw]

Right on mufreight.  Important as passenger services to the Lockyer Valley & Toowoomba will eventually be, the original Main Line to Toowoomba & beyond is a critical freight artery that is not coming even close to its potential due to the severe gradients and poor alignments both between Grandchester & Laidley, and on the main range.  Yes, its a lovely bit of heritage line, but frankly the best thing we could do for it is replace it.

A base tunnel through the Little Liverpool Range would kill several birds with one stone:

1.  It would eliminate one of the worst gradients facing loaded coal trains travelling toward Brisbane. (But I think Kingsthorpe to Toowoomba is still about 1 in 50?)
2.  It would eliminate the clearance problem preventing electrification to Gatton or Helidon.
3.  It would eliminate the first major loading gauge obstruction on the line (certain rollingstock cannot operate west of Grandchester).

Of course the main range is the biggest piece of the elephant, but having fixed the Little Liverpool Range there should be some momentum gained toward doing so. Even if interim steps were taken, e.g. daylighting the main range tunnels and widening the resulting cuttings to fix the clearance & loading gauge problems. (Heritage types will probably want to shoot me at this point, but we're letting our worries about some not particularly significant tunnels doom this line irrelevance due to an 1860s alignment).

The ultimate goal should be a new range crossing which reduces the gradients to no worse than 1 in 80 and preferably 1 in 100.

Before anyone cries about the cost, remember this: thanks to the coal traffic, the main line to Toowoomba is now carrying similar tonnages to the North Coast Line, and I think it may have now exceeded NCL tonnages (says something about how bad the NCL is really). At the peak of grain season something like 30 trains a day are having to negotiate the main range.  At times the crossing loops on the range are coping with suburban levels of frequency - trains every half hour in each direction, with crosses occurring at each of the loops (Holmes, Spring Bluff & Rangeview).  If the double track to Helidon didn't exist, we would now have a severe congestion problem out there similar to north of Beerburrum, and that is without any passenger services in the mix.

[somebody]

The ultimate goal should be a new range crossing which reduces the gradients to no worse than 1 in 80 and preferably 1 in 100.

Do you mean for the main range or the Little Liverpool Range?

I can't see that 1 in 80 for the main range is a reasonable ask.  That would require (probably) spirals, tunnels and no end of expense.  Given that a large portion of the traffic is coal anyway (i.e. downhill), why bother?  If for the smaller range, fair enough.  Using less locos for coal is always a positive.  Also, if we can bring back westbound freight, there would be a surplus of locomotive capacity from the coal division (i.e. empty coalies could go back with less locos, at least in theory.

Love to know how much the Little Liverpool range realigning would cost.  It would surely need a tunnel somewhere, so do we need to allow for double stacking?

[mufreight]

Actually a 1 in 80 grade for the Main Range requires no spirals nor does it require numerous speed restricting curves, it does require however one lengthy tunnel in the route between Helidon and Gowrie to the west of Toowoomba.
The required tunnel to ascend the Main Range and the tunnel required through the Little Liverpool Range in themselves would justify electrification rather than a complicated and expensive both to construct and to operate ventilation system that would be required for diesel operation but the height of QR ng electrification is such that future double stacking of containers would then be impractical.

[colinw]

The ultimate goal should be a new range crossing which reduces the gradients to no worse than 1 in 80 and preferably 1 in 100.

Do you mean for the main range or the Little Liverpool Range?

I meant main range.  1 in 80 with a long tunnel is not impractical. Mufreight's reply above covers it nicely.

Love to know how much the Little Liverpool range realigning would cost.  It would surely need a tunnel somewhere, so do we need to allow for double stacking?

Grandchester to Laidley realignment includes a tunnel of moderate length.

Neither new range crossing has been costed yet.

The corridor for the new line to Toowoomba has been identified & preserved, details here

[somebody]

1 in 80 with a long tunnel is not impractical. Mufreight's reply above covers it nicely.

Ok, but would a steeper grade result in a cheaper price tag?  Where's the benefit of keeping the grade so easy, in the direction that the coalies are empty?  (And, if an inland line goes through via Gowrie, intermodal trains are less heavily loaded AIUI also).  Perhaps I am missing something.

Pretty sure that the price has been quoted as $1.xx bn for Grandchester-Gowrie.

[mufreight]

1 in 80 with a long tunnel is not impractical. Mufreight's reply above covers it nicely.

Ok, but would a steeper grade result in a cheaper price tag?  Where's the benefit of keeping the grade so easy, in the direction that the coalies are empty?  (And, if an inland line goes through via Gowrie, intermodal trains are less heavily loaded AIUI also).  Perhaps I am missing something.

Pretty sure that the price has been quoted as $1.xx bn for Grandchester-Gowrie.

The difference in cost in constructing the line with a 1 in 80 and a 1 in 50 bearing in mind that using modern technology the line would be as straight as possible hence requiring tunnel is not that great, but, the difference in operating costs is quite considerable.
The difference for a fully loaded coal train for instance would be being able to control the speed of the train making its descent of the range with the dynamic brake and having to use both dynamic and westinghouse burning up brake shoes, increased wheel wear and a slower transit time as using the westinghouse brake requires cycling the braking to enable the recharge of the system rendering it impossible to maintain the actual posted track speeds.
Any railway built in this day and age should be built to the optim standards possible not to the previous standards of the 18th century if rail is to be competitive with road.

[colinw]

Ok, but would a steeper grade result in a cheaper price tag?  Where's the benefit of keeping the grade so easy, in the direction that the coalies are empty?  (And, if an inland line goes through via Gowrie, intermodal trains are less heavily loaded AIUI also).  Perhaps I am missing something.

Minimising gradient in the direction of travel is also important for long & heavy trains like coalies, not only to reduce wear & tear on brakes, but to allow higher safe speeds, and to allow closer headways.  A heavy train going down a steep grade takes a long time to stop, and that impacts signal spacing and headways.

[mufreight]

Ok, but would a steeper grade result in a cheaper price tag?  Where's the benefit of keeping the grade so easy, in the direction that the coalies are empty?  (And, if an inland line goes through via Gowrie, intermodal trains are less heavily loaded AIUI also).  Perhaps I am missing something.

Minimising gradient in the direction of travel is also important for long & heavy trains like coalies, not only to reduce wear & tear on brakes, but to allow higher safe speeds, and to allow closer headways.  A heavy train going down a steep grade takes a long time to stop, and that impacts signal spacing and headways.

Simon I think that you have it wrong when you suggest that intermodal trains operated on the SG would be lighter than the coalies.
At present the coalies gross out at about 3000 tonnes, an interstate intermodal could run to 5000 tonnes on present proposals.
Now the question of track capacity arises, from Gowri to Bromelton is it proposed to double track the entire line as dual gauge because if that is not the case the operation of the SG services will further constrain the line capacity in terms of paths, a further reason why the more direct route for the SG via Warwick and Murphies Gap should be used rather than via Gowrie.
There is no question that the new alignment and tunnel between Grandchester and Laidley will have to be built in the near future to meet the demands of the ng traffic.

[somebody]

I expect the coalies would be likely to grow if the range was ever re-done.  Ulan line SG coalies are around 10k tonnes, and I think some of the ones in northern QLD with distributed power are even bigger.

FWIW.

I don't doubt your figures for the current range beasts.

[mufreight]

The current 16tonne axle load limitation west of Rosewood puts heavier coal trains of the downs into the undoable at this stage without a massive track upgrade program not only between Gowrie and Ipswich but also west of Gowrie to the mines, if it were not for this axle load this limitation they would probably be operating the 2600 class locos on the coalies to speed up the running times.

[somebody]

Ouch.  16tal would ruin your whole day.