Re: VIC government probe into standard guage

[Michael Kurkowski <mk@netstra.com.au>]

Michael Walker <wk@cgsc.vic.edu.au> said:

>http://www.theage.com.au/bus/20000710/A61828-2000Jul9.html
>
>The Victorian government is apparently looking at the cost of
>converting the broad gauge into standard.
>
>Government probe into standard gauge

<much snippery>

After favouring the complete standardisation of Victoria, I have seen both 
sides of the argument and have now mixed thoughts on the matter.

The main advantage of standardisation is of course, once it's done, it's 
done. There is no more worry about mixed guage, incompatibility between two 
guages and much increased maintenace costs from doubling up. After 
standardisation, you can run any train wherever you want. No need for 
trans-shipping and especially no need for guage conversion of rollingstock 
to meet demand elsewhere, for example if there are too many wheeties in the 
west, and more is required around Echuca, it would mean guage conversion of 
grain hoppers, or possibly locos. Here we see more costs.

With full standardisation, a train route can be made far more direct. If a 
train from Melbourne with goods for Portland wanted to run, it could run 
Ballarat way. If a train had goods from one of the branchlines in the west 
to take goods to Geelong, it could run via Maroona direct to Geelong. 
Saving in fuel costs. 

With full standardisation, rollingstock and locomotives need not be 
converted all the time, to suit the "other guage". Another loco derails in 
NSW, then no problem, lets send a Gippsland loco up there. Oops, Gippsland 
need this loco more, send a loco back from NSW. etc. Saving in time, and 
therefore costs.

With full standardisation, some/much of the doubling up on tracks and 
safeworking can be abolished. Why have 3 lines up to Albury when you only 
need two? Same with Brooklyn-Geelong-Gheringhap. This presents a big saving 
in ongoing costs alone.

However, there are a number of issues with standardisation. Also mostly 
related to cost cutting, but many relating to reduction of services for 
lines that exclusively haul passengers. 

In the conversion period, there would be much disruption to all sorts of 
traffic, particularly on the interstate mainline to Albury. Particularly if 
done on the cheap, and a line closed for X number of weeks to close the 
tracks in 6.5 inches.

If the existing broad guage track was not to be converted, almost certainly 
will the line become single track most of the way into Melbourne, with only 
a number of crossing loops to compensate for what was double track. This 
would attribute to a decline in service on what is essentially a highly 
utilised line. Passenger trains may be put away for freights in the name of 
keeping a path, which will mean late running for a passenger train. Vice 
versa with freight.

Much planning required for the conversion of the metropolitan area. There 
would be an abortionous amount of time and money spent on the 
standardisation of the suburban area and rollingstock, with even more 
division happening among rollingstock. Where there is now two divisions, 
you are creating a third or even fourth division among passenger stock 
during the conversion period. Much passenger inconvenience will follow with 
even more inflexibility within rollingstock allocation, and passengers may 
be required to swap trains at certain locations to "change guage". This 
issue can be overcome by dual-guaging many key areas and lines, but the 
inevitable outcome will be a large sum of money spent.

Many lines due for conversion may become unfeasible to operate any longer. 
This is especially true of many country branchlines, and even some 
mainlines to an extent. As it stands now, we would probably lose the 
Warrnambool line beyond Geelong or Waurn Ponds and you could almost 
certainly say goodbye to the Leongatha line beyond Cranbourne. In the 
suburban scene, the Alamein and Williamstown lines may go.

Preservation may almost certainly go down the drain, against the high cost 
of rollingstock guage conversion. While much rollingstock can be guage 
converted easily enough, it should also be remembered that older steam 
locos were built for 5'3" only. Probably typical of the K, D3 and Y class. 
But with the headboard issue, Victoria was never really any big on 
preservation anyway.

Track control. As it stands now, Adelaide Rail Track Corporation manage, 
run and control the north east, and western standard guage lines. I don't 
see them giving up this power in a hurry. IMHO, these lines should have 
never left Victorian power.

In the study, the outlay for such a mass undertaking would need to be 
compared with expenditure over a period of say ten to twenty years (or four 
years, under the current political scene) and even longer to see what is 
more beneficial to our future in rail.

Personally, I would love to see the whole state converted to standard 
guage, as long as there isn't a major rationalisation in the process.

Together, we would all have to be prepared for much inconvenience in the 
process, but I believe the end result will be worth it.

Michael