Inland Rail

[mufreight]

INLAND RAIL, A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE

Historically there has been and there continues to be a disproportionate investment in road transport infrastructure in proportion to rail infrastructure when considered in relation to the freight task carried out which continues to further disadvantage rail.

The parochial attitude of the states has further mitigated against the efficient utilisation of rail infrastructure for freight haulage.  Being state owned they have directed freight flows to and from points within that state rather than interstate regardless of the length of the line haul and until more recent times the rail infrastructure has reflected this.
This state based orientation of rail and break of gauge, gave road transport an advantage particularly in cross border traffic to the nearest port or major centre, an advantage that has increased with high levels of investment in road funding.  The privatization of rail operation in recent times has seen a rethink of operational direction.  It is unfortunate that existing rail infrastructure is in many cases not conducive to these operations, having been created with a state oriented perspective.  These centralised rail systems focused freight traffic on a major port or centre within that state rather than to the nearest port in another state (Mt Gambier South Australia tp Portland in Victoria being an example) with little consideration for either regional based or interstate traffic.
With the extension of the standard gauge network the impediment of break of gauge has lessened.  The formation of National Rail and the introduction of third party access, which enabled private operators who actively sought business either in competition with or in conjunction with road transport to enter the market saw increased national use of rail infrastructure.
While in many cases this meant that freight simply changed from one rail operator to another, rail also gained some freight from road due to improved operating efficiency reflected in lower cost and improved transit times as traffic levels on the East – West corridor have shown, unfortunately the existing inadequate infrastructure continues to inhibit rail realizing it's potential share of the land transport task and thus reducing the demands on road infrastructure.
An example of this is the proposed Inland Rail link which was as originally proposed was one of the most innovative rail infrastructure concepts conceived in this country for many years.
Unfortunately however at that time it was not considered to be a commercially viable proposition and it was argued that the construction of the alternative Alice Springs to Darwin line made the proposal redundant.
The original proposal was then compromised by attempts to make it even more attractive by rerouting the projected line via Toowoomba and Gladstone.  These compromises lengthened the route making it uncompetitive against road freight from the southern states to Darwin.
The real potential for the Inland line has seemingly been overlooked.  The greatest potential for this line is to maximise the use of the infrastructure to the cost effective advantage of both road and rail.  The proposal to route the line via Toowoomba fails because of this compromise by failing to recognise that a railway by its very nature can not be everything to everyone and the proposed routing via Toowoomba disadvantages rail in competition against road and quite effectively renders the proposal impractical.
The proposal by the ATEC group is that the standard gauge line be extended from North Star into Queensland to join the QR Dirranbandi line to the east of Goondiwindi at Carrington and then that line be dual gauged to Inglewood with a new standard gauge line to be built from Inglewood to Milmerran then following the existing QR alignment to Toowoomba which would be rebuilt either to standard gauge or as a dual gauge line.  Further construction to Brisbane would then wait until QR realigns and rebuilds the existing narrow gauge line from Brisbane to Toowoomba.  Overall this proposal achieves little.  Through traffic to and from Brisbane would be forced to tranship at Toowoomba to either road or to QR narrow gauge for forwarding on to Brisbane.
The restricted clearances on the existing QR line between Toowoomba and Brisbane would effectively restrict some container loading in the interim period thus forcing the majority of ant freight routed via the inland route terminating at Toowoomba on to an already overstressed road system.  The capacity of QR to rail this potential loading from Toowoomba to Brisbane would be limited by the number of available train paths over this section and the presently restricted clearances through the tunnels, at the present time grain traffic is being restricted by the need to provide paths for export coal traffic.

The proposed routing of the line to Brisbane via Toowoomba would be some 81 kilometers longer than a line via Warwick and Tamrookum, and would require the construction of 92 kilometers more infrastructure.  The line from Tamrookum to Acacia Ridge which is part of the existing standard gauge network, is to acceptable standards at this time and could be readily upgraded for higher axle loads and the vertical clearances needed to enable the transit of double stacked containers at a minimum cost.
The operation of double stacked containers over a dual gauge line between Toowoomba and Brisbane would preclude any eventual electrification of the western line beyond Rosewood to Toowoomba for passenger traffic and due to the current levels of traffic on this section it would not be practical for QR to reduce the existing double track (Ipswich to Grandchester and Yarongmulu to Helidon) to a single track line for each gauge rather than dual gauge both tracks.
As proposed a new line would be required between Rosewood and Kagaru to gain access to the standard gauge line to Acacia Ridge and the Port of Brisbane.  An unnecessarily expensive proposition when the cost of resumptions for an alignment through an increasingly urbanised area is considered.
As proposed the rout via Toowoomba will require the construction of 153km of new standard gauge line, the reconstruction of a further 277km of existing narrow gauge line for an overall line length of some 440km from North Star (NSW) to Acacia Ridge (Qld).  Some 70km of the line between Toowoomba and Rosewood is double track which adds a further 70km of infrastructure to be rebuilt making 510kmm in all.
At the present time there is better than 6000 tonnes of freight railed into Acacia Ridge daily that would move to the Inland rail link, this is almost double the projected freight loadings that were used to justify the construction of the Alice Springs – Darwin rail link.
It has been estimated that the Inland rail link once in operation would see more than 10% of the freight presently hauled by road diverted to rail in the first year of operation.
At the present time trains operating between Goobang Junction and the Queensland NSW border over the existing lines would have to reverse direction at Werris Creek as there are no facilities at Gap where the lines from Binnaway and Narrabi junction.
Once in operation the route could be further shortened in New South Wales and transit times lowered further by the construction of a new line of some 180km linking Narrabri to the Dubbo – Coonamble line in the vicinity of Gilgandra, this connecting link would more than halve the distance between Narrabri and Dubbo and could be built to an alignment that would provide clearances of 7.1 Metres to allow for double stacking of containers and a 30 tonne axle load at 100kph and intermodal services at speeds of 160kph further reducing transit times and operating costs.
Further improvements in transit times and operating efficiency for the line would be achieved by progressive realignment and upgrading the line between Dubbo and Goorbang Junction to the same standards.
Some of the advantages that would be gained by the construction of the Inland rail link are that freight currently on road would be moved to rail, a single 3500 tonne train takes some 150 plus B Double units off the highways, in itself quite a considerable cost saving that would increase with the rising costs of fuel.  This link would effectively reduce transport costs to the community and lower greenhouse emissions by diverting freight from road to rail.
Comparison can be made between the operation of a train of some 3500 tonnes operated via the existing route from Goorbang Junction to Acacia Ridge via Cootamundra and Sydney and a train of the same 3500 tonnes operated over the Inland route which would on present fuel consumption figures save some 9000 lt of fuel and 25 tonnes of greenhouse emissions.  The savings of routing that same 3500 tonne train via Warwick instead of via Toowoomba would be in the region of 1350 lt of fuel and a further 3.75 tonnes of greenhouse emissions.
Based upon current tonnages on rail alone without any additional tonnage diverted from road this would see three trains per day in each direction.  It is anticipated that a further 10% of freight currently being moved by road would move to rail in the first year of operation seeing at least one additional train daily in each direction.
Further advantages would be for traffic such as grain from North West New South Wales, this is currently moved by road for export because of the present lack of a rail link.  Each rail wagon of 70 tonnes capacity takes two D Doubles off the highways.  Fuel from Brisbane to North West New South Wales (Moree) is also presently moved by road and the cost savings in moving this traffic by rail could see this freight also move to rail which would further reduce the demands on the road infrastructure.
Other traffic that would utilize this line would be grain for export that is presently moved south from Moree by rail to Newcastle for export or by road to the Port of Brisbane.  Container traffic to and from the terminal at Moree which presently has no rail access to the Port of Brisbane, the nearest port which has the advantage over southern ports of being one to two days sailing time closer to Asia for shipping.
Traffic on the Dirrinbandi line would also gain with the infrastructure upgrade if the line were to be routed via Warwick, the line to the east of Goondiwindi to Warwick could be reconstructed as a standard gauge only line instead of dual gauge, the cost savings made could then be utilised to regauge the line to the west of Goondiwindi which would shorten the rail haul for grain and cotton to the port of Brisbane by some 100km and recover much of the freight which is currently handled by road.
The line west of Goondiwindi could be regauged by replacing every fourth sleeper and moving the rails outwards, the replacement of life expired sleepers and rerailing with rail of 41kgm or heavier which would see this section of line available for axle loads in excess of the existing 15 tonne axle load on the QR narrow gauge line.
The somewhat circuitous rout proposed by the ATEC for the standard gauge line via Toowoomba, Miles, Wandoan, Taroom, Theodore and Moura to Gladstone would increase operating costs, transit times and greenhouse emissions and effectively make rail uncompetitive with road when compared with the more direct and logical alternative route direct from Carrington to Miles and thence to Gladstone which would shorten the line haul for freight between Goobang Junction (Parkes) and Gladstone by some 227 km.
Points of further consideration are the effect of lower freight costs on the product of industry, to regional communities and the significant reduction of greenhouse emissions.
The savings to the National economy in lower transport costs that the Inland rail link would create would also act to slow inflation, significantly reduce the fuel consumption of the transport sector (without any transfer of freight from road to rail of some 26.250.000lt of fuel annually) and a reduction of greenhouse emissions (estimated as in excess of 73.00 tonnes annually).
Increased investment in rail infrastructure to a more relative proportion to the respective share of freight between road and rail would produce real benefit for the overall community.  Reductions in freight costs benefit the community and road safety is enhanced with the reduction in heavy vehicle numbers on the highways as well as reducing the demands on road infrastructure.

[SteelPan]

The "via Warwick" proposal has been studied up-hill-and-down, I really do think the via Toowoomba with a new road/rail/service range corridor is what the nation needs.

[ozbob]

Queensland Times --> Ipswich properties likely to be acquired for inland railway

PLANNING for an inland freight rail line is under way with the proposed track to run through the outskirts of Ipswich and properties likely to be acquired.

The Australian Rail Track Corporation visited Ipswich yesterday to outline plans for the 55km stretch of rail from Rosewood to Kagaru, which will link Ipswich with the national rail system.

The new track will divert all freight from the Ipswich commuter line and potentially the Ipswich Mwy, freeing up space for additional passenger services.

The track extends through Peak Crossing and Harrisville, with some properties split by the line already acquired.

The line meets up with the existing line from NSW and will bring freight to a freight terminal at Acacia Ridge which links to the Port of Brisbane.

Last week the ARTC and the Port of Brisbane signed a co-operation deed to develop a plan to construct the line over a 10-year period.

Former National Party leader and Inland Rail Implementation Group chairman John Anderson is touring the project team and said the Rosewood section of the rail line was prioritised because it had been the missing link in the system for so long.

ARTC inland rail construction manager Jim Armstrong said the line would be constructed over a greenfield link, and some land acquisitions had commenced.

He said the line would have several benefits for Ipswich.

"It's more about it presents opportunities for freight which is currently going down the Ipswich corridor and into Brisbane - to move that freight out of that corridor and move out to Acacia Ridge to free up potential passenger capacity in that network," he said.

"It (currently) goes straight through the Ipswich network and gets interwoven with the whole commuter network which is one of the reasons why it is a priority."

[dancingmongoose]

- The dual track from Rosewood only goes I think Grandchster or so then stops.

yes and no. It is single track between Grandchester and the old Yarongmulu signal box location, then it's dual track again until Helidon. There's two tunnels along the single track section. Needs to be realigned to be duplicated.

[dancingmongoose]

I'm not famiiar with the proposed new range crossing by the Qld govt a few years back before ARETC, I assume there was little change up to Grandchestor apart from cutting the odd corner or by-passing the odd town.

This what you're referring to, Grandchester to Gowrie rail corridor? http://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/~/media/Projects/G/Gowrie%20to%20Grandchester%20Rail%20Corridor%20Study/Pdf_ggrcs_newsletter_11.pdf

[The Reaper]

http://www.mpsc.nsw.gov.au/index.php/about-us/information-available/downloadable-documents/doc_download/1745-vince-orourke-national-trunk-rail-7mar14

If nothing else page 4 gives a good comparison between existing, proposed, the alternative (which is the subject of the presentation), and the road.

[The Reaper]

Good PPT. Makes you feel all warm and fuzzy, but who will pay? We cannot get money for the ARTC proposal, how will you get more for NTR proposal?

If you don't want to take this seriously, don't comment. Where does the $10b in road investment come from? Nothing is funded until it is, then it is.

I see that the bulk of the NTR proposal can be built off the ARTC proposal. ie curve easing, by-passes, alt western route into Vic. So maybe you need to walk before you can crawl.

You've failed to grasp the point of the argument. IF the decision is made to build inland rail then the ARTC option doesn't provide benefits over road to cause a modal shift, so you're spending billions to achieve not very much. If instead you built the NTR proposal there is significant advantage for rail over road, so you're spending similar billions to cause significant modal shift from road to rail between Brisbane and Melbourne.

To use your analogy (which I strongly dislike as it's little more than a slogan which in reality means nothing, and it was the wrong way around), 'road' is already 'jogging'. Rail doesn't need to crawl, or walk, it needs to run. Whether this piece of infrastructure is the most important in the country at the moment is moot - if it's going to be done it should be done properly.

[ozbob]

The Courier --> Inland Rail promise finally to be fulfilled

Construction of the long-awaited Inland Rail is scheduled to start next year following a $300 million allocation from the federal government.
The project has been discussed for many years as a way of moving freight from the regions to the ports more quickly and economically.
The team responsible for delivering the project, the Inland Rail Implementation Group, met community members and stakeholders at the Narrabri Bowling Club yesterday to explain its progress and direction.
The inland route, known as the far western corridor, passes through Albury, Stockinbingal, Parkes, Narromine, Gwabegar, Narrabri, Moree and North Star before heading into Queensland through Yelarbon.
It will continue through Inglewood, Milmerran, Oakey, Gowrie, Rosewood and Kagaru and finish in Brisbane.
Narrabri Shire Mayor Cr Conrad Bolton said it was logical that the Narrabri area would be the site for one of the inter-modal hubs on the route.
The implementation group is working from a 2010 study into the Inland Rail, which chose the far western corridor over a number of alternatives.
A senior advisor on the project, Dale Budd, said the corridor was 170 kilometres shorter than the coastal route and would slash the transit time by 10 hours.
Although the specific land to be affected by the route hasn't been finalised, former Deputy Prime Minister and the implementation group chair, John Anderson AO, told yesterday's meeting that the implementation group was "not far off that point now where you can have concrete certainty where it's going".
Mr Anderson said the inland route was the missing link in Australia's rail network, which is the sixth largest rail network in the world.
"The government's put some hard money on the table to kick things off: $300 million," he said.
"We're charged with finalising the route.
"The 2010 study looked closely at a few routes and came up with the model that the government has essentially asked us to take forward."
He is confident regional communities, farmers and businesses will support the project, and has already been assured by one major supermarket chain that it will use the infrastructure when it's in place.
"I definitely think it's an economic reform that's in the nation's best interest," he said.
Three sections of the track have been identified as priority projects and, according to Mr Anderson, will immediately improve rail transport in those local areas.
They include a major upgrade of the network between Narrabri and North Star, an upgrade from Parkes to Narromine, and construction of the Rosewood-Kagaru section near Ipswich, Queensland.
Australian Rail Track Corporation – Inland Rail construction manager Jim Armstrong said construction of such an extensive corridor across three states would be complex.
Locally, the project will need to consider Narrabri's flat typography and tendency to flood, national parks and cultural heritage sites, mineral resources licences, major farming operations and reactive soils.
"The black soil country here is not favourable to building rail track so the natural ground surface needs a lot of work," Mr Armstrong said, adding that the design would vary to suit each location.
The Inland Rail will incorporate the latest technology, much of which has been developed in Australia, and will be built to accommodate the larger, longer trains of the future.
It will also have the ability to expand and be updated with new technology, dubbed "future-proofing".
The track will transport double-stacked container trains, though this will require making adjustments to bridges and tunnels where such containers won't currently fit, running at a sustained 115km/h.
Passing loops will be included to reduce delays.
Forty-one per cent, or 700 kilometres, of the Inland Rail is already part of the existing interstate network, and a quarter, or about 400 kilometres, will comprise upgrades to existing corridors.
Another 600 kilometres will be greenfield construction, including rural, forest and semi urban areas.
Mr Armstrong said the greenfield process, the most labour-intensive part, would offer opportunities for local employment.
The implementation group will identify the land to be acquired in September and deliver a final costing of the 10-year construction plan to government in December and January.
Mr Budd said the corridor was the way forward in transport, as without it, the coastal route would choke with congestion by the middle of this century.
The Narrabri, Moree, Gunnedah and Tamworth councils were represented at yesterday's meeting and Mr Anderson encouraged them to voice their support for the Inland Rail to keep it on the agenda.
"We need your support and enthusiasm, we need you on the case of your local state and federal members and we need you to be thinking laterally about how you can use it," he said.
"We need you to be the wind in their political sails."

[The Reaper]

While I don't post often on these forums for reasons that are my own, I'm sufficiently annoyed at some of your comments that you're forcing me to retaliate. Don't get me wrong Shane, your enthusiasm is admirable but some of the comments you make cause my teeth to ache, so factually incorrect are they. I'm not intending to have a personal attack but it seems too often you're allowing the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought, and I can't stand having mistruths stated as fact.

Disclaimer: I have no association with NTR, any of their staff, any of the organisations that would benefit from their proposal. I simply support common sense.

My point was very serious. The PPT was as we call it in industry, a mother hood PPT. Has the warm and positive comments about a proposal, but without any substance. There is no substantiation, ROT, NPV etc. This is not a business case.

Well that must be the case in a different industry to the one I've been in for more years than I care to count, known as the rail industry. A motherhood statement would be something like "let's aim to get 15% of all trips on public transport". When these guys are presenting an alignment, travel time comparisons, consist details - that's not a motherhood statement. They might not be revealing all the detail of their plan in this presentation but you can pretty clearly see (or, if you, you know, bother to research them further on the internet) that they have more detailed plans and costings and staging programs for the project. And don't use business cases as an argument. It was a briefing presentation, seriously.

As for the $10B of road funding, so you want to tax the taxpayer more to build it or you want to cancel road funding to fund it? We all in this group feel rail gets the short straw in funding. The current funding arrangement is supported by both sides of govt which gets +80% of the vote so nothings going to change quickly. ARTC has also projected the inland isn't needed for nearly another 10 years.

Let's descend into the arena of farce argument shall we? Let's do some combination of increasing taxes and cancelling road funding, as one set is too low and the other is too high. Let's go further. You advocate a second class solution that won't cause mode shift to rail from road, therefore you are supportive of the number of heavy vehicle movements that currently provide that task, inclusive of the road toll that they cause. Hence, you are advocating the deaths of innocent road users. Seems unfair.

Don't use "80% of the vote" arguments. How ridiculous. You'd see a different outcome if you had voting on individual pieces of infrastructure investment - for a start your despised high speed rail would likely get up in the popular vote, yet neither major party is interested.

Why should we care what ARTC thinks? And what is such a statement based on? Is it not needed for 10 years based on capacity? In that so long as you're not carrying more than 20% of the freight task by rail it isn't needed? Well that's great, good luck with that. Perhaps don't stand in the way of those who are trying to improve the situation.

The NTR argument is that the ARTC proposal doesn't shift the tonnes, but ARTC is unlikely to put a proposal on the table that wasn't viable and the end game is to sell to the Inland to the govt with sufficent evidence it won't be a money pit. The Darwin line was sold with all this promise and despite massive govt subsidy, wasn't able to be viable for the original investor.

That's not their argument at all. Their argument is that the ARTC proposal won't cause modal shift. There's no doubt ARTC's option would provide capacity to move the freight on rail that they want to - the good old sub 20% mode share.

My analogy was based on the simple fact no one private or govt investor will build the NTR proposal up front. It maybe the end game, but you won't get there in one step. The first part of the project will be built that literally joins the dots at the lowest cost. The Liverpool range is probably the main reason the Inland doesn't exist now as it chews up a significant proportion of the total funds for a short route.

Without knowing the cost you don't know that. As for everything else, that's exactly the sort of problematic thinking the NTR presentation addresses. It's thinking like yours which got this country to the terrible state it's in (transportation wise). ARTC has spent so much money so far to achieve nothing of note, they haven't taken freight off road which should be the objective. Your incremental proposal would ultimately see multiples of the cost and disruption that simply building something like the NTR in one go would cost, without causing the mode shift. What a waste of money!

The feds are also progressively upgrading the southern section of the route from Parkes with improved capacity and dual track. The section of the interstate with the most capacity that's chewed up the most dollars in recent times is what you propose to by-pass. The argument for running through there is not even valid for the route to Qld.  The reality is the line would be built as cheap as possible to get it up and running with planned on going upgrades and by-passes to speed up when the logistics operators say that if they get this they can deliver that. I mean the by-pass on the Nth Star branch? How much does it cost and how much does it save? The ground out there is flat. It doesn't take much to move a 23t axle at 100km/hr, but to build a new line $$$$. Its called bang for your buck.

I'm not proposing it, NTR are. And thanks for talking down to me, I didn't realise what "bang for your buck" meant. Obviously it's about spending a similar amount of money to achieve a sub par outcome? Right, got it, can I be the boss of infrastructure planning for the country now?

My understanding container freights make money going between 80 and 120km/hr, beyond that speed the fuel consumption is too high and the costs infrastructure and rolling stock is also too high. The main requirement for M-B was sub 24hr travel time. This way a freight train can leave around midday and arrive around mid day giving morning pickup following afternoon delivery. Where in the world do freights run at 200km/hr in larger volumes? Does doing the trip in 19hr generate sufficient volumes over 19hr to justify the extra capital? Grain and coal won't care, nor will empty containers and most containers attracted for 24hr travel time.

Oh, sigh. Yes it probably makes money at that *average* speed, but it's the stuff that isn't willing to travel to by rail at those speeds that would be attracted across from road. Running trains faster also results in more efficient use of rollingstock, in that you don't need as much to shift the same amount of freight. No one was saying to run freight at 200km/h! Even so the French have been running La Poste TGVs for how long? Freight may efficiently run at 200km/h in the next 20 years, so why design for the speeds of 100 years ago? Passenger traffic could run on the line! My goodness!

Good news, 10 year construction period appears dragged out, but it appears to have multi party support so elections should not slow it down.

Good news for advocates of mediocrity and continuing road toll!



As this has been rendered moot and I shouldn't work myself up any further given my condition, I will no longer comment on this thread.

[ozbob]

From the Queensland Times 9th June 2014 page 7

Chief of Inland Rail Implementation body seeks sharing of ideas

[ozbob]

Inland Rail --> https://inlandrail.artc.com.au/

The Australian Government has commissioned the Australian Rail Track Corporation (ARTC) to design and construct an inland rail line west of the Great Dividing Range linking Melbourne and Brisbane – this project is known as the Inland Rail programme.

[aldonius]

Excellent news.

[dancingmongoose]

Really curious to see exactly how it will look Gowrie -> Rosewood. Wonder what impact it would have on the proposed Grandchester to Gowrie and Salisbury to Beaudesert lines. Would be nice if it was dual track all the way, that way all we'd have to do is string up some lines and whack in some platforms where needed. Just imagine...

[ozbob]

Brisbanetimes --> Brisbane rail freight track on conference agenda

[Stillwater]

Port of Brisbane website: www.portbris.com.au/news-media/item/?release=/News-and-Media/Dedicated-Freight-Rail-Corridor-passes-another-cri

[colinw]

Really curious to see exactly how it will look Gowrie -> Rosewood. Wonder what impact it would have on the proposed Grandchester to Gowrie and Salisbury to Beaudesert lines. Would be nice if it was dual track all the way, that way all we'd have to do is string up some lines and whack in some platforms where needed. Just imagine...

Grandchester - Gowrie will almost certainly follow the route identified some 11 years ago:

http://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/Travel-and-transport/Rail/Gowrie-to-Grandchester-Rail-Corridor-Study.aspx

http://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/~/media/Projects/G/Gowrie%20to%20Grandchester%20Rail%20Corridor%20Study/Pdf_ggrcs_newsletter_11.pdf

Likewise, Kagaru to west of Rosewood will be something fairly close to the already identified Southern Rail Freight Corridor.

http://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/Projects/Name/S/Southern-Freight-Rail-Corridor-Study.aspx

http://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/~/media/Projects/S/Southern%20Freight%20Rail%20Corridor%20Study/SFRCfinalassessmentreport.pdf

ARTC has already put maybe 90% of the work required into dual gauging Acacia Ridge to Bromelton, although that project remains unused and mothballed.  The 3rd rail is in place for most of the way, but dual gauge turnouts are missing at some locations.  Dual gauge sleepers appear to go as far as Glenapp, although I doubt we'll see 3'6" south of the proposed new yard at Bromelton.

As for the wisdom of a longer than necessary route via Toowoomba, and half baking Melbourne - Brisbane with a bunch of cobbled together branch lines in NSW ... hmmm.  I very much suspect that this project will end up being more of benefit for the coal traffic from the Downs, and for a future Toowoomba interurban service, than it will ever be as an interstate freight line.

That is assuming that it isn't just so much hot air.  I wonder how that tree at Goondiwindi is going?

Meanwhile at the Brisbane end of things, I am also very dubious about the proposed Acacia Ridge to Port of Brisbane tunnel.

[ghostryder]

Of all the current MB services running now 12 have no need to go via Sydney, the remaining services of the MB AB runs shunt in Sydney. There are some services that i am not sure which way they could go, these are the steel trains, they take over 24 hours to go from Port Kembla to Brisbane, shunting Sydney Newcastle and Grafton as they go and have a top speed of 80km/h, also having seen first hand what disruptions can do to rail services having both the coast route and the inland route would have benefits. 

[Simon Lovell]

Of all the current MB services running now 12 have no need to go via Sydney, the remaining services of the MB AB runs shunt in Sydney. There are some services that i am not sure which way they could go, these are the steel trains, they take over 24 hours to go from Port Kembla to Brisbane, shunting Sydney Newcastle and Grafton as they go and have a top speed of 80km/h, also having seen first hand what disruptions can do to rail services having both the coast route and the inland route would have benefits.

But surely not as much as dual track, at least outside of the Railcorpse area.

[ozbob]

Rail Express --> Government to heed industry advice on Inland Rail

Chair of the government's Inland Rail Implementation Group and former deputy prime minister John Anderson says a recent meeting held with industry stakeholders has given the implementation group a lot to work with.
 
Government to heed industry advice on Inland Rail

Inland Rail will run from Brisbane to Melbourne in a more direct manner than existing lines.
REX_knightfrank_200x53

Freight forwarders, rail operators, peak bodies, state government agencies and local councils met in Sydney on October 17 to help finalise the service offering for the Inland Rail freight project.

The proposed Inland Rail line will connect Brisbane to Melbourne via regional south east Queensland, inland New South Wales and rural Victoria.

Anderson late last week explained the service offering details what Inland Rail will deliver – a road-competitive service based on transit time, price and reliability, intended to prompt freight forwarders to take more Melbourne to Brisbane freight off the road and put it on rail.

"The Implementation Group, which had its latest meeting on October 24, welcomed the feedback from the logistics industry," Anderson said.

"The service offering is a key part of the information that will be provided to the Australian Government in December to enable them to make further investment decisions. Having Australia's major freight forwarders and rail users on board is critical to the success of the programme.

"The rail operators and service providers present at the forum gave valuable insights into additional services that they might use, such as a premium express service from Melbourne to Brisbane for time sensitive freight."

Anderson stressed the importance of an efficient, reliable rail freight link between Melbourne and Brisbane for Australia's economic competitiveness.

"Investment in transport infrastructure is critical to reducing our cost base and making our industries more competitive," he said.

"Inland Rail will deliver modern infrastructure that reduces the cost of congestion in our cities, invigorates our regions and connects our farms and mines to export ports. Inland Rail will also play an important role in enabling the efficient movement of manufactured goods between capital cities.

"By making the Inland Rail a priority now, we are putting in place an alternative freight route that will be able to meet the future demands of moving freight along the east coast."

[ozbob]

Twitter

Aust Railway Assoc ‏@AustRail

http://tinyurl.com/ljsbcfc  The Nationals pledge ongoing support for #InlandRail

[ozbob]

IRJ --> ARTC launches first Inland Rail tender

AUSTRALIAN Rail Track Corporation (ARTC) has issued an invitation to tender for engineering design and environmental consultancy services for the Inland Rail project, the first contract to be tendered for the new freight link from Brisbane to Melbourne.

The 1700km route will combine upgraded sections of the existing interstate freight network with new lines to create a new north-south route for freight traffic bypassing congested lines in the Sydney area, which will reduce Brisbane – Melbourne journey times by around 10 hours. The line will be cleared for double-stack container trains and high axle-loads with a maximum speed of 115km/h.

The contract covers the development of reference designs for track alignment, hydrology, detailed designs for replacement structures, and environmental assessment for the upgrading of the 106km Parkes – Narromine section and the 307km new-build Narrabri – North Star stretch of the route in New South Wales. The closing date for registrations is March 20.

The Australian government has allocated $US 300m for the initial phases of the project and the minister for infrastructure and regional development Mr Warren Truss has charged ARTC with developing a 10-year implementation plan. Former deputy prime minister Mr John Anderson has been appointed to head the Inland Rail Implementation Group, which will oversee the planning process.

Three priority sections have been identified for the initial stage of the project, including the Parkes – Narromine and Narrabri – North Star sections in New South Wales and Rosewood – Kagaru line in Queensland, which is expected to bring immediate benefits for freight traffic on the Toowoomba – Brisbane corridor.

[pandmaster]

I am not convinced of the importance of the inland line. Some features would really boost its utility. Double stacking would be a massive plus. As would decent passing loops (or double track but unlikely). Standardising the Mildura line and linking it to the Adelaide-Sydney line must be a priority if the inland line goes ahead. I thought the time savings would be an hour or two, not ten? Whatever happens, rail freight on the East Coast needs a lot of attention.

Hooray for the Coalition spending on rail!!!!!

[SurfRail]

They will spend on interstate freight rail, no worries there.  Any kind of passenger services, urban or otherwise, forget it.  Unless you want to run trains to Beaudesert of course.

[ozbob]

[ozbob]

Rail Express --> First Inland Rail tender awarded

[ozbob]

ABC News --> No funding for inland rail in Agriculture White Paper disappoints grain growers

[ozbob]

[ozbob]

ABC News --> Inland Rail report finds freight train between Brisbane and Melbourne would cost $10b and boost economy

A long-mooted freight train line connecting Brisbane and Melbourne would cost about $10 billion to build but would be good for the Australian economy, according to a new report.

The Inland Rail delivery plan recommends finishing the 1,700 kilometre track over the next decade and providing more money in the federal budget from next year.

The project, which the Nationals have long dreamed would revitalise country towns, would run through Moree, Narromine, Parkes, Wagga Wagga and Albury, ensuring freight trains do not have to travel through the congested Sydney rail network.

The report was written by former deputy prime minister John Anderson and warns if construction does not start soon, eastern Australia will become far more reliant on "heavy" multi-carriage trucks.

It estimates one 3.6km interstate train could carry the equivalent of 110 B-double trucks and claims the line could eventually "result in 15 fewer serious road crashes each year".

While the economic analysis indicates the track could provide a $16 billion boost to NSW, Queensland and Victoria over the next 60 years it cautions "the expected operating revenue over 50 years will not cover the initial capital investment", meaning governments will have build it.

Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss, who has already promised to fast track the project said it "will create up to 16,000 direct jobs during a 10-year construction period and a regular 600 jobs once operating".

Labor's Transport spokesman Anthony Albanese said he "couldn't understand" why the Government had not already started construction or put more money in the budget.

"Seriously, what are they waiting for? They've been in Government for two years. Just get on and build it," he said.

The project's business case has now been referred to Infrastructure Australia.

[ozbob]

http://minister.infrastructure.gov.au/wt/releases/2015/September/wt285_2015.aspx

Government releases Delivery Plan to build Inland Rail

Media Release

WT285/2015

11 September 2015

The iconic Inland Rail project—connecting Melbourne to Brisbane with a high performance freight line—moved closer today with the Australian Government releasing the Delivery Plan.

Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development Warren Truss received the final Report of the Inland Rail Implementation Group from chair John Anderson AO in Canberra today.

The Delivery Plan outlines a 10-year construction timeframe to complete the 1,700km project—including some 600km of new track, and puts the cost at $10 billion. Accompanying the plan is a detailed Business Case, developed by the Australian Rail Track Corporation.

"This Report and Business Case provides the information needed to consider how best to build the Inland Rail network to meet the freight challenge of the coming decades—expected to treble along the eastern seaboard to 2030," Mr Truss said.

"Inland Rail will complement existing road and rail networks and will dramatically boost productivity. Initially, it will provide for 1,800 metre long trains carrying containers stacked two high and, in the longer term, much heavier 3,600 metre long trains.

"The new freight line will reduce transit time between Melbourne and Brisbane by more than 10 hours—reducing the journey to less than a day. It will remove 200,000 trucks, or 5.4 billion net tonne kilometres of freight, from roads each year.

"For the first time, south east Queensland will connect by rail to Melbourne, Adelaide and Perth, avoiding the need for freight to transit through the congested Sydney network. Inland Rail will reduce the distance between Melbourne and Brisbane by 200 km and carve 500 km from the Brisbane to Perth trip."

Mr Truss said the Australian Government has already committed $300 million to get pre-construction activities underway, including detailed corridor planning, environmental assessments and priority land acquisitions. This work is continuing.

"The project will create up to 16,000 direct jobs during a 10-year construction period and a regular 600 jobs once operating," Mr Truss said.

"The Delivery Plan indicates Inland Rail will generate economic benefits of around $22.5 billion.

"Importantly, the Implementation Group has identified that an early commitment to Inland Rail will give certainty for businesses and will allow the private sector to invest in complementary projects leveraging Inland Rail's enhanced logistics benefits.

"The Implementation Group's analysis indicates that there is some scope for private sector funding, however, the release of this Report will now allow potential investors to consider the merits of the proposal. If viable alternatives emerge that are substantiated by evidence, these would be considered on their merits and referred to Infrastructure Australia as appropriate.

"As with any project of this magnitude, it is important that Australian Government fully considers the project and how best to implement and fund it. As part of our consideration, I am referring the business case to Infrastructure Australia."

The full Inland Rail Implementation Group Report is available online at www.infrastructure.gov.au/rail/inland/. The Government will now consider the report in the context of the 2016 Federal Budget.

[pandmaster]

$10 billion seems a bit high for me. Unless the track "upgrades" are substantial (e.g. relaying large segments). Surely a $10 billion investment in the existing line from Melbourne to Brisbane would be better value?

[SurfRail]

$10 billion seems a bit high for me. Unless the track "upgrades" are substantial (e.g. relaying large segments). Surely a $10 billion investment in the existing line from Melbourne to Brisbane would be better value?

Doubtful.  The route is inherently slower and has the added complexity of travelling via Sydney, no matter how much you improve it.

[ozbob]

Rail Express --> Inland Rail to generate $22.5bn

[colinw]

You could blow the $10  billion just getting a decent standard route built from Gosford to Campbelltown.

[SurfRail]

There's also the fact we really want the proposed route built for our own reasons. 

The Calvert to Bromelton stage should have the effect of removing nearly all freight from the Ipswich line and enabling more frequent passenger services without having to lift a finger on infrastructure or anything else. 

You would only have regular freight on the section between Normanby and Sherwood (not that frequent in the scheme of things, has 4 tracks and can be split with the Merivale Bridge as it is now), and the odd other movement to places like Dinmore (cattle), Redbank workshops (while they remain open), Box Flat or wherever which will obviously not be on a huge scale.

The Calvert to Gowrie stage would also potentially make regional express trains from Roma Street to Toowoomba feasible, although that is a fairly low priority.

[pandmaster]

The project certainly seems to benefit Queensland a lot. The improvements in the line to Toowoomba are long over due. Good on the government for wanting to dual track this section so most freight can go off the Ipswich line. Brisbane will also be well linked to Perth for freight, which rail is very attractive due to the immense distance for trucks to travel. I am not sure how much will go between Melbourne and Brisbane, hopefully there is a boost. At present there are lots of "Brisbane to Melbourne" freights (according to BITRE), though no distinction is made between trains that stop to load and unload and ones that do not.

[ozbob]

Rail Express --> Bulk, non-bulk to draw separate benefits from Inland Rail

[ozbob]

Couriermail Quest --> Inland rail report shows a new track could be built behind thousands of southeast Brisbane homes

[ozbob]

Couriermail Quest --> Inland rail report shows a new track could be built behind thousands of southeast Brisbane homes

^ Beat up ... will never be built ..  Uncle Warren et al.  are rather keen on the tunnel from Acacia Ridge to the Port  ..  sure Bob ..

[ozbob]

Brisbanetimes --> Deputy mayor Adrian Schrinner rails against freight route

[colinw]

I'll believe it when I see it! 

Schrinner is being his usual foolish and shrill self.  Appears he may dislike all things rail, too.

As someone who lives within earshot of the Gateway Mwy, he certainly does not speak for me.  A freight railway wouldn't bother me any more than the existing motorway does.