Started by Fares_Fair, August 31, 2011, 22:23:31 PM
Quoteapparently current practice is that an electrical fitter be present when sets are amalgamater to go into service
Quote from: HappyTrainGuy on January 31, 2012, 15:18:54 PMPretty sure Doomben still might do it too. They used to have 2x 6 car services run out that way in morning peak but the manual safeworkings were deemed unsafe to use two platforms back in 09 so they just ran 1x 6 car set and split it for two services.
Quote from: Fares_Fair on March 05, 2012, 10:14:58 AMI contacted the Department of Defence in July 2011 asking if they had any plans or requirements for the North Coast Line.I can confirm for the record here, via email correspondence, that the Department of Defence have no plans for the North Coast rail line.July 2011Our office is unable to assist you with your enquiry.I have received advice from Defence Support Group and the Directorate of Infrastructure Business Support that they are unable to provide any assistance with your enquiry as Defence do not have any plans in relation to the North Coast Rail Line in support of Defence activities. It would be interesting to know if there was a reason for this, since rail was a major mover of both men and materiel during wartime.Perhaps it's because of the single line track.Bear in mind that any threat is currently perceived as coming fom the north to north west of Australia, however a sneak attack over the south pole is not out of the question.Regards,Fares_Fair.
Quote from: SurfRail on March 05, 2012, 11:28:32 AMAustralia's defence posture is not based on the defence of Australia, but in better diplomacy with our neighbours and active involvement in international affairs.All the heavy materiel is generally based in the north of the country anyway, or can be shipped up by rail to Darwin. Anything else can fly up (fighters, transports, refuellers, helicopters etc) or be flown up (mainly troops and their equipment and supplies). I sincerely doubt the NCL or any QR rollingstock would cope with an M1 Abrams main battle tank!
Quote from: SurfRail on March 05, 2012, 12:02:46 PMlonger range air-to-air missiles on our fighters
Quote from: Simon on March 05, 2012, 13:11:23 PMQuote from: SurfRail on March 05, 2012, 12:02:46 PMlonger range air-to-air missiles on our fighters You mean the AMRAAM, or something else?
Quote from: Golliwog on March 05, 2012, 15:30:02 PMFares Fair, just out of curiosity, what carries more for the economy, the Bruce Highway or the NCL? I would have assumed the NCL, though Mr Newman is saying the highway is very important economically for Nth QLD so needs to be upgraded.
Quote from: SurfRail on March 05, 2012, 12:02:46 PMI'm very happy with our detection, anti-shipping and anti-air capabilities - JORN, Harpoon missiles, submarines, new AEW aircraft, plus longer range air-to-air missiles on our fighters and longer range surface to air missiles on our warships coming shortly. I doubt anybody has the ability to project force into Australia without us knowing about it weeks and weeks in advance, and we and our local allies (like Singapore) would be able to repel most of the combined tonnage of amphibious assault vessels in the entire Pacific (excluding the USN) with our current arsenal. There are massive supply line vulnerabilities as well - everything would have to be flown or shipped in because there is little in the way of forage or agriculture up that way, leaving anybody who wants in vulnerable to persistent attacks from sea and air.It is surprising just how few troops any country can deploy at once and how slow the build-up takes. The days when a taskforce would just show up and disgorge hundreds of thousands of troops and thousands of armored vehicles are long gone, and even if they were here we would spot it in a flash thanks to our buddies in the US and their orbiting toys. (They have a vested interest in a free Australia as a trading partner, a staging area and a host to several US facilities.)I think the only significant use of the NCL in a time of war would be as a supply corridor and as a secondary evacuation route - but frankly, it is so vulnerable to attack (no defences, no secondary routes) I doubt it figures into ADF strategy as something to rely on.The big issue for us is personnel numbers.
Quote from: Simon on March 06, 2012, 13:12:53 PMQuote from: Golliwog on March 05, 2012, 15:30:02 PMFares Fair, just out of curiosity, what carries more for the economy, the Bruce Highway or the NCL? I would have assumed the NCL, though Mr Newman is saying the highway is very important economically for Nth QLD so needs to be upgraded.I believe that the NCL only has about 30% of the market. I think that's the answer to your question.A lot better than SYD-MEL, MEL-BNE or SYD-BNE which are all around 20% or less, but not as good as SYD/MEL-PER or ADL-DRW which are more like 80% rail market share.
QuoteNCL duplication has a BCR of 1.433 according to QR's figures from 2006 Productivity Commission report (greater than CRR's).
Quote from: Fares_Fair on March 06, 2012, 16:38:44 PMbut what of the benefits of 1500m freight trains as opposed to 650m long ones?
QuoteI understand the principle of what you are saying TT,but what of the benefits of 1500m freight trains as opposed to 650m long ones?CRR won't allow that for North Quensland and our eastern seaboard, why? there's a bottleneck further up the track.what of the immediacy for NCL bottleneck removal compared to 2016 deadline for Merivale Street bridge?CCR, a core capacity upgrade with a Sunshine Coast / NCL bottleneck doesn't assist us in any meaningful way.@TT, I do not know the NPV for the NCL upgrade.
Quote from: tramtrain on March 06, 2012, 16:48:25 PMQuoteI understand the principle of what you are saying TT,but what of the benefits of 1500m freight trains as opposed to 650m long ones?CRR won't allow that for North Quensland and our eastern seaboard, why? there's a bottleneck further up the track.what of the immediacy for NCL bottleneck removal compared to 2016 deadline for Merivale Street bridge?CCR, a core capacity upgrade with a Sunshine Coast / NCL bottleneck doesn't assist us in any meaningful way.@TT, I do not know the NPV for the NCL upgrade.Allow me to frame the question in a different way.Suppose you have a red pin and a map of the rail network. The red pin represents a bottleneck.You have to place the pin somewhere, BUT you have a choice of placing the pin in one of two locations - on the Merivale Bridge or on the Sunshine Coast line.Which bottleneck is worse - one located pretty much next to the core or one located on the SC line?In this case we are deciding not which option is better, but which option is least worst.None of this is to say CRR is a higher priority than NCL or vice-versa, but I think we have to choose.NPV will shed light on the situation. The benefits of CRR are around $9 billion. The NCL upgrade would have to generateat least $9 billion worth of benefits to be a higher priority than the NCL in my opinion.
Page created in 0.192 seconds with 22 queries.