Thread: why dont they use rail?

Originally Posted by tony66_au

..........

As for Pollution from aircraft as far as I understand it Jet fuel is similar to diesel so there is particulate pollution in the form of carbon, Hi Lead Avgas is getting harder to get and only used on old radial piston engines and older light aircraft neither of which do freight.

Jet engines will burn a variety of fuel, but the fuel sold for the purpose in Australia is kerosene. And in any case the production of particulate carbon depends on the combustion process not the fuel type - and modern turbines produce very low levels of these (as do modern diesels). Hi Lead Avgas has not been routinely available in Australia for many years, being replaced by 100LL - probably the key reason for the exit of the Caribou. As an aside, diesel engined light aircraft usually burn jet fuel, not distillate.

John

Originally Posted by V8Ian

And how long will the local supermarket be able to wait for supplies when this sort of thing happens?

Coal wagon derailment leaves a mess in Boggabri - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Expected 3-4 months for repairs to be completed. Road freight has the flexablity to detour at short notice, unlike rail.

In the days when there was no alternative to rail, this sort of damage was routinely repaired (or bypassed by temporary track) in days, sometimes, if really critical, in hours. This sort of repair response would be a necessary part of any return to large scale reliance on rail, and the existence of resources for this sort of repair all over the network was a significant part of the overhead that lead to rail losing out to road for "retail" transport.

And your point about flexibility is well made.

Sometimes we forget that rail carried almost all freight well within the lifetime of many who are alive today. For example, I can clearly remember the existence of a parcel service run by electric parcel trains in the Sydney metropolitan system - parcel offices were at most, if not all, suburban stations.

John

Originally Posted by Lotz-A-Landies

You're assuming I read posts by isuzurover!

Ahh so your not really reading the thread or subject of the post I responded to, just cherry picking or trollng


We do have the potential infrastructure to have a much larger slice of our interstate freight on rail, ( original post go google earth, cosgrove rd enfield and look how close tnt HQ is to rail)and if the Swiss can run 60%+ surely we could do a bit better than the tiny amount we do now. The Swiss alps would have much higher weather and construction issues than we would and they don't seem to have 3 month delays on goods

Originally Posted by frantic

... We do have the potential infrastructure to have a much larger slice of our interstate freight on rail, ( original post go google earth, cosgrove rd enfield and look how close tnt HQ is to rail)and if the Swiss can run 60%+ surely we could do a bit better than the tiny amount we do now. The Swiss alps would have much higher weather and construction issues than we would and they don't seem to have 3 month delays on goods

The Enfield rail yards have mostly had the track torn up and currently does not have direct access to any of the motorways. The planned intermodal precinct at the SME Moorebank will have direct access to the M5 West/Hume Highway/M7 and the Port Botany - Metropolitan freight rail network and East Hills - Campbelltown rail lines.

As for Switzerland, have you been there? The Alps are huge and mostly have single lane road tunnels tens of kilometres long making transport bottlenecks and hence the need to shift significant volume out of the tunnels onto the rail. You can also drive completely through Switzerland from Mont Blanc on the French border to Winterthur near the German border (400Km) or from Schaffhausen on the German border to Lugarno on the Itanian border (300Km) or basel to Geneva (250Km) in less than four hours.

The situation in Australia is vastly different. I would however think it would sort of be comparable to Australia if everything from Sydney had to be driven over the Blue Mountains through Lithgow to reach the rest of Australia, but that is clearly not the case.

Originally Posted by Lotz-A-Landies

The Enfield rail yards have mostly had the track torn up and currently does not have direct access to any of the motorways. The planned intermodal precinct at the SME Moorebank will have direct access to the M5 West/Hume Highway/M7 and the Port Botany - Metropolitan freight rail network and East Hills - Campbelltown rail lines.

As for Switzerland, have you been there? The Alps are huge and mostly have single lane road tunnels tens of kilometres long making transport bottlenecks and hence the need to shift significant volume out of the tunnels onto the rail. You can also drive completely through Switzerland from Mont Blanc on the French border to Winterthur near the German border (400Km) or from Schaffhausen on the German border to Lugarno on the Itanian border (300Km) or basel to Geneva (250Km) in less than four hours.

The situation in Australia is vastly different. I would however think it would sort of be comparable to Australia if everything from Sydney had to be driven over the Blue Mountains through Lithgow to reach the rest of Australia, but that is clearly not the case.

The first paragraph shows the POTENTIAL. Look it up. that tiny road running along the opposite side of the rail yard whats that called? It also runs past rookwood and oylmpic park homebush to st ives and is mostly 3 lanes each direction.

Your second paragraph demonstrates why they should be using road over rail with travel times that good but their not. Yes I have been there on a bus over a decade ago and unless the tunnels from italy and Austria have shrunk they where mostly 2-3 lanes each direction.So with travel times of close to 100kph for trucks in your examples it made sense to go rail but here we are lucky to do 3/4 that or 1/2 if you include city traffic.

So in your 3rd paragraph you agree? It should be easier to build a reliable rail system in a country that is NOT perched on the side of a cliff. And is not subject to blizzards and snow 3 months a year that would melt and destroy tracks with the runoff.

I think we can not compare our situation, with countries in Europe, because of the vast distances involved.What may work here is a combination of Rail/ Road, with a new rail network supplying transport hubs, and trucks delivering freight from the hub, but restricted in how far they travel. It would require a complete new rail network, freight only, and judicious placement of the hubs. Ideally this would negate trucks from our major highways, thus saving money on road repairs long term, and use of electric trains, using new alternate energy sources, would take the pressure off fuel supplies. New rolling stock, designed to carry large numbers of livestock, plus , at the hubs, container cranes like we see at our ports, to reduce the effort required to distribute product, could streamline the operation. Dreaming? yep, unfortunately, I don't think this country has any politician [ because it would need political will to make it happen] or entrepreneur ,[ because it would be a risky undertaking], with the foresight to take it on. And before the naysayers start picking it to pieces, just take a moment to consider, it may actually work. Bob