Re: Darwin Gateway to Australia: was.... (OT)Re: Darwin port to be expanded.

["< Tell >" <telljb@netozemail.com.au>]

Well, physics and flying pies aside, I dont think
everybody in this group is suggesting that ALL
containers coming to Australia should move through
Darwin, ....NT Government politicians excepted. ;)

The issue was fairly well trolled through in this group
sometime ago.  Every mainland state has spent a fortune
on container facilities which are well above anything
likely to be offered at Darwin.  
The states are not likely to surrender this investment
too easily, neither is the MUA.

One thing we all know, allowing for cyclones up there,
if Darwin is unable to attract a hefty share of the
container traffic, then the Alice Springs to Darwin
railway will be a burden around the tax payers necks. 

....Tell


>"T & J Jones" <jonest@senet.com.au> wrote:
>
> All this land bridging is pie in the sky.  The simple laws of physics show
> that it takes less energy to push a ship through water than it takes for a
> truck or train to travel over uneven land.  The only time shipper will use
> land bridging is when they have less than a ship load of freight and
> therefore land briding is more economic.  So there is never going to be the
> equivalent of shiploads of freight being land bridged from Darwin
> 
> 
> Maurie Daly <mauried@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
> mauried.434.01A180EA@tpg.com.au">news:mauried.434.01A180EA@tpg.com.au...
> > In article <ff0ahsk77a09p15n9tct8mi5j24ul51ntr@4ax.com> "< Tell >"
> <telljb@netozemail.com.au> writes:
> > >From: "< Tell >" <telljb@netozemail.com.au>
> > >Subject: Re: Darwin Gateway to Australia: was.... (OT)Re: Darwin port to
> be expanded.
> > >Date: Sun, 07 May 2000 15:13:11 +0930
> >
> > >It certainly is the point, and will work if the right
> > >people are involved with it.
> >
> > >Double stack is "standard" on the TAS & TAR lines.
> > >From Darwin to Tarcoola they can go either West or
> > >South, but unfortunately for the foreseeable future
> > >will have to be singled to go from either Adelaide to
> > >Melbourne, or Parkes to Sydney.
> >
> > >Forget the VFT Melbourne to Darwin folks, rail in Oz
> > >can do the job right now for a fraction of the cost and
> > >road transport will NEVER compete with 1.8 km (or
> > >longer) double stack conventional freights.
> >
> > >.....Tell
> >
> >
> > One has to be extremely optimistic to see how the AP to darwin line is
> going
> > to be viable if the private crowd have to pay and recover the reported
> $700 M
> > to build it.
> > The concept of land bridging containers from darwin to the other
> > major capitals is an excellent one ,but in order to stop any freight from
> > going by truck which it currently will do ,rail track access charges must
> be
> > drastically reduced / abolished alltogether ,or road users must be forced
> into
> > paying a mass / distance charge ,(no chance in hell of this happening.)
> > The other problems that face this sort of idea are
> > 1/ Adelaide hills are a major obstacle to 1800 M freights ,(too expensive
> to
> > drag trains thru them,and no double stacking capability.)
> > 2/ To get to any capital city from darwin will involve access agreements
> with
> > at least two track access providers.
> > 3/ Sydney,Brisbane and Perth will require agreements with three access
> > providers.
> >  In short , if there isnt any substantial rail reform in the next few
> years
> > ,then AP to darwin will turn out to be a colossal white elephant.
> >
> > There are some other non rail related problems too.
> > Can you see the MUA of Australia simply accepting that all the shipping
> coming
> > into the current mainland capital ports simply stops and all goes via
> Darwin.
> > Just how many of their members would be put out of work.
> > Also ,its not in the interests of any of the State Govts to see their
> ports
> > not being used in favor of Darwin.
> > ie the worst problems of federation will surface , when the good of the
> > country as a whole ,isnt in the best interests of the major States.
> > Dont hold your breath.
> >
> > MD
> >
>