Re: Lets Standardise instead!

[mauried@commslab.gov.au (Maurie Daly)]

In article <k3lG2.8$eB6.385687@news0.optus.net.au> dbromage@fang.omni.com.au (David Bromage) writes:
>From: dbromage@fang.omni.com.au (David Bromage)
>Subject: Re: Lets Standardise instead!
>Date: Sat, 13 Mar 1999 03:36:48 GMT

>Maurie Daly (mauried@commslab.gov.au) wrote:
>> Closing completely the BG track is possible , but not practical for a number 
>> of reasons.
>> 1/ Too many BG platforms where there arnt SG platforms.

>I had some thoughts about that. Remember that you have parallel lines,
>both allowing bidirectional running. If you regauge the bg line, suitable
>crossovers will allow sg passenger trains to use the existing facilities.

><- Wodonga                                            Seymour ->

>---------------------------------------------------------------- 1962 sg line
>      \                                          /
>       \              Platform                  /
>        \            ############              /
>---------------------------------------------------------------- regauged bg

>Places such as Benalla can then lose their poorly maintained sg platforms.

>> 3/ Too may stopping all stations pass trains which would have to be intermixed 
>> with the SG freights , difficult to path with the existing crossing loop 
>> spacing.

>That's only 3 passenger trains per day, running at 115km/h. The above
>arrangement solves this.

>Cheers
>David

Yes, the above is true, I was talking about the double BG track south of 
Seymour.
North of Seymour , its easy to simply close the BG line completely.
The only real issue is a platform for Euroa, and possibly Wodonga , 
The platform at Seymour would need to either be extended, or dual guageing one 
of the existing BG tracks to handle both BG and SG trains.
An economic analysis would have to be done regarding Benalla to Oaklands to 
figure out whether it should be converted or closed.
I have no knowledge of how much grain comes off this line per year.
It makes no sense to create double track SG lines north of Seymour , whilst 
its single track south of Seymour, there simply isnt enough trafiic to warrant 
it.
What would be needed though is an additional SG crossing loop about half way 
between Alummata Loop and Chiltern Loop.
This section is too long currently for the existing train patterns.
With all VLP trains running on SG , and a total track upgrade to 60 kg/M rail 
,then pass trains could run at 160 KM/h, the whole lot of them .
Can sprinters run at 160 km/h ?
Regearing a few Ns would be needed to handle the higher speeds .
There is also no reason why freight trains should still be limited to 100 km/H 
either,even currently on the relaid bits .
AN used to allow 130 km/H running for freights on the TAR provided they were 
hauled by ELs, and the TAR is only 47 kg/M , on concrete which helps a 
bit.
An X weighs only 112 tonnes (axle load 18.5 tonnes ) so its lighter than an 
EL,and geared for 130 km/h running,so freights hauled by Xs and even 48s
for that matter could handle the higher speeds.

On a similar subject , Newport to Geelong C on SG is 60KG/M on concrete CWR 
rail,so why arnt trains right now running at 130 km/h ?
Conservative Victrack speed limits I suspect

MD