Disclaimer

The Rail Freight Task Force Report has been prepared with funding and assistance from Mitcham Council. The Report is the result of collaboration between members of the Rail Freight Task Force and various community representatives and aims to provide an alternative perspective on rail freight through the Adelaide area.

The information provided in the Report provides a general overview of the issues surrounding rail freight transport in the Mitcham Council (and/or surrounding) area. The Report is not intended as a panacea for current rail transport problems but offers an informed perspective from the Rail Freight Task Force. Findings and recommendations made in the Report are based on the information sourced and considered by the Rail Freight Task Force during the period of review and should not be relied on without independent verification. Readers are encouraged to utilise all relevant sources of information and should make their own specific enquiries and take any necessary action as appropriate before acting on any information contained in this Report.

CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...... 3 1. BACKGROUND INFORMATION ...... 6 Importance of the Railway System...... 6

How Much Freight Moves Through the Adelaide Hills ...... 7

Historical Basis and Existing Patterns of Use ...... 7

Ownership and Control of Railways...... 7

Australian Government Rail Funding...... 7

AusLink ...... 8

AusLink Projects...... 8

Rail Infrastructure ...... 8

Rail Freight Operators ...... 8

2. CURRENT PROBLEMS AND OBJECTIONS EXPRESSED BY THE COMMUNITY ...... 10 3. RAILWAY NOISE ...... 11 Railway Noise – Contributing Factors ...... 12

Rail Noise Effects and Intrusion ...... 14

Health Effects of Railway Noise...... 16

Railway Noise Reduction Methods...... 16

Environmental Noise Regulation - Suggested Criteria ...... 17

Air Pollution ...... 18

4. RAILWAY SAFETY AND PROTECTION...... 19 Freight Trains Are Too Long and Too Heavy ...... 19

Curvature Too Sharp for Freight Trains with Long Wagons ...... 19

5. ACCIDENTS ...... 20 Inadequate Clearances ...... 20

Tunnels...... 20

Weak Structures ...... 20

Derailments...... 21

6. ROAD TRAFFIC DELAYS...... 23 Incident Reports ...... 23

Usual Level Crossing Delay Times...... 24

Blocking of Emergency Vehicle Access...... 25

7. OPTIONS FOR EXISTING RAIL CORRIDOR...... 26 Long-Term Future of Existing Track ...... 27

8. TRACK CORRIDOR UPGRADE - ALIGNMENT FOR FREIGHT TRAFFIC ...... 29

Page 1 9. ALTERNATIVE USES ...... 30 Suggested Future Use of the Existing Rail Corridor ...... 30

10. BYPASS ROUTE FEASIBILITY...... 31 Background ...... 31

Proposed Route...... 31

Economics ...... 33

Regional Considerations...... 34

Other Considerations...... 35

Inland Rail Proposal...... 36

CONCLUSIONS ...... 37 REFERENCES ...... 38 APPENDIX 1 ...... 39 Terms of Reference...... 39

APPENDIX 2 ...... 41 Timelines of South Australian Railways...... 41

APPENDIX 3 ...... 42 Australian Rail Track Corporation (ARTC) ...... 42

APPENDIX 4 ...... 43 Railway Noise ...... 43

APPENDIX 5 ...... 45 Ownership, Investors, Users, Stakeholders...... 45

APPENDIX 6 ...... 46 Track Modifications by Deviation Number taken from the Peregrine Report (SAR 1975):...... 46

Existing Railway Rectification Works by Deviation & Curve Number...... 48

APPENDIX 7a ...... 51 Freight Train Traffic Daily Survey 1, taken at Millswood Station ...... 51

APPENDIX 7b ...... 52 Freight Train Traffic Weekly Survey 2, 2006 – Millswood Station...... 52

APPENDIX 8 ...... 54 Running Costs...... 54

APPENDIX 9 ...... 55 Cant Deficiency ...... 55

APPENDIX 10 ...... 62 Rail Safety Act ...... 62

MEMBERSHIP OF THE RAIL FREIGHT TASK FORCE ...... 65 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS...... 66

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Rail Freight Task Force (RFTF) was initiated by the City of Mitcham in mid 2006, in response to growing concerns from residents affected adversely by the movement of freight trains along the Adelaide Hills Line. The group is comprised of elected members of Council and community representatives, a number of whom have professional expertise in the area of railway engineering and operations.

The RFTF determined to examine all relevant issues from a viable and constructive perspective. That is, wherever possible it would present all feasible solutions to current problems and identify those solutions which are in the best interests of not only the affected residents, but all parties associated with the rail freight industry.

Over the last ten years, rail freight has increased in length, weight and frequency. In a society which is looking to encourage rail freight over road freight, the wider community generally sees this expansion as a positive. However, the passage of heavy freight though a major city, a section of which includes tunnels, tight curves and steep gradients, naturally is accompanied by the very real problems of noise, health, safety and traffic delays.

In many cases it is suspected that rail track ‘cant’ elevations are falling outside of balanced speed ‘cants’, thus increasing rail head wear and noise at the interface. In addition, where there is rail wear there is also wheel wear. ‘Cant’ deficiencies which exceed 75 mm are not only a danger for derailment but force larger loads on to the outer wheels and flanges.

An upgrading of the Adelaide Hills Line would not only be a massive and ongoing expense (as identified in number of reports), but would only ever partially address the problems mentioned above.

With the broad and long-term picture in mind, the RFTF is proposing and has mapped a new freight train bypass to the north of Adelaide. The new corridor, running from Murray Bridge in the east to Mallala in the west, would travel though relatively unpopulated, much straighter and flatter country than the present route. It could also have the added advantage of allowing a parallel road freight carriageway, which could reduce both road and rail freight movements into the Adelaide metropolitan area.

The proposed bypass offers enormous long-lasting benefits to both residents of the wider community as well as to those in the rail freight industry.

Considering the importance of rail freight to both the South Australian and Federal Governments, it would seem reasonable for SA to see some real response to these issues.

For the residents of the Adelaide Hills and the city, a rail freight bypass will mean:

(1) An improved quality of life where freight train noise, most especially ‘wheel squeal’, will be no more than an unpleasant memory

(2) Peace of mind – eliminating the possibility of freight train derailments with potentially toxic spills in built-up areas

(3) Minimising major delays for commuters and emergency services at crucial railway crossings

(4) Cleaner air, especially in certain topography of the Adelaide Hills where toxic diesel fumes tend to collect

(5) The potential for the existing corridor to once more become a dual track passenger service, fast, efficient and reliable, extending from Adelaide to Belair. A service could also be extended to the rapidly expanding Mt Barker. Such a rail service has many spin-off benefits, including reducing the number of cars travelling to the city thereby reducing pollution and traffic congestion

(6) An opportunity to boost tourism to Strathalbyn and Victor Harbor by providing a rail link from Adelaide Station to the Steam Ranger Heritage Railway terminal at Mount Barker. (It is acknowledged that this would need to happen in conjunction with the long-term plan to standardise the Adelaide metropolitan rail system)

For the Australian Rail and Track Corporation (ARTC) and the owner-operators of the freight trains, it means:

(1) A time saving of approximately one and a half hours for those trains not needing to access Adelaide. The flatter, straighter track will allow for faster, safer train speeds

(2) A saving of fuel. Less energy would be required to haul loads over the flatter, straighter terrain

(3) Fewer locomotives will be needed to haul the loads

(4) Minimising rail crossing delays

(5) Minimising the chance of derailment with its attendant damage and clean up costs

(6) Less expensive on-going maintenance on the Adelaide Hills Line which was never originally built to take the weight and volume of modern freight services

(7) No more expensive noise-monitoring or noise reducing devices and strategies to reduce wheel squeal

(8) The potential for longer, heavier and higher stacking currently prohibited by the tight curves, steep gradients and tunnels of the Adelaide Hills Line (it is noted there is still a problem with the Footscray tunnel near Melbourne)

(9) An opportunity to create regional employment at a new national rail freight reconfiguration yard which could be developed near Mallala

Page 4 The RFTF believes that the likely costs for the proposed bypass are feasible and need not be prohibitive, and that the long-term benefits will soon outweigh the impact of the initial capital outlay. The RFTF needs the support of all interested parties if these proposed objectives are to be met.

It needs the goodwill and long-term vision of both Federal and State Governments, and welcomes constructive and positive comments from all members of the community.

At this point in time we are at the very least asking for a thorough and unbiased examination of the attached report. In particular the evaluation of the proposed bypass, as well as a realistic costing of the project, is imperative. We also believe there could be considerable economic benefits to the State and Federal economies, coupled with significant regional development opportunities for towns along the route.

A bygone era - Sleeps Hill Viaduct, circa 1890 - Courtesy National Railway Museum

Page 5

1. BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Importance of the Railway System

1.1 It should be recognised that the Australian Railway System is a very important part of the economy, due to Australia's reliance on exports and imports particularly to and from South East Asia. Consequently there is a growing need for an expanded and more adaptable rail system. Rail and sea freight are recognised as the most efficient way in which to move large loads quickly and efficiently over long distances. The Australian freight task is growing rapidly and is set to double by 2020 (Standing Committee on Transport and Regional Services 2007), including the rail freight sector (Fig. 1.1).

Figure 1.1

(Source: National Transport Commission 2004)

1.2 The Australian coastline does not have many deep-sea ports and this is especially so in areas other than the east coast of the continent. Ports near productive cities lack sufficient depth and capacity and cannot cater well for larger ships now in use (SCTRS 2007). The ports of Darwin and Perth (more correctly Fremantle) and their proximity to South East Asian Markets compared with East Coast cities, makes them increasingly important destinations for imports and for the export of Australian made goods and bulk commodities transported by rail.

1.3 The Adelaide Hills line is therefore an important link from the East Coast to the north and the west. Consequently most freight movements by rail to the Asian markets will travel though the Adelaide Hills rail corridor.

The proposed Inland Freight Line connecting Brisbane and Melbourne is set to increase rail connectivity between the eastern capitals (ARTC 2001c). This link will increase movements of freight throughout the national rail network including the Adelaide Hills line. Already, some 80% of all Melbourne-Perth freight is carried through the heart of Adelaide with no need to stop (ARTC 2001b, Auslink 2007). This raises the question – Is this intrusion absolutely necessary?

Page 6 How Much Freight Moves Through the Adelaide Hills

1.4 Estimates vary as to exactly how much freight is currently being transported through the Adelaide Hills. ARTC estimated a volume of about 4 million tonnes in 2003-4 (ARTC 2005a). Auslink refers to 5 million tonnes carried in 2004-5 (Auslink 2007). Data collected by the RFTF shows that this freight is carried by some 88 movements per week on the Hills freight line (See Appendix 7). Both freight tonnage and train numbers continue to grow each year.

1.5 The recently approved Penola Pulp Mill has signed a $70 million deal with Flinders Ports to transport 750,000 tonnes of pulp per year to Port Adelaide (The Advertiser, 5 Sept 2007). All of this will be carried on the Hills Freight Line - increasing tonnage on the line by between 15-19%.

Historical Basis and Existing Patterns of Use

1.6 The first attempts to build railways in Australia were by private companies, based in the extant colonies of New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia. The first line opened in South Australia in 1854 as a horse-drawn line, while the first steam-powered line opened in Victoria in 1854. The private companies, soon in financial difficulties, were taken over by the respective Governments, as railway development was in the public interest. Despite advice from London to adopt a uniform gauge, different gauges were adopted in different states and even within states, which has caused ongoing problems right up to the present day. (Refer Appendix 2, Timeline of SA Railways)

Ownership and Control of Railways

1.7 In the latter part of the nineteenth century, the establishment of an Australian Federation from the six colonies was debated. One of the points of discussion was the extent to which railways would become a federal responsibility. A vote to make it so was narrowly lost. Instead the new constitution allowed "the acquisition, with the consent of a State, of any railways of the State on terms arranged between the Commonwealth and the State" (Section 51 xxxiii) and "railway construction and extension in any State with the consent of that State" (Section 51 xxxiv). The Australian Government was, however, free to provide funding to the states for rail upgrading projects under Section 96 ("the Parliament may grant financial assistance to any State on such terms and conditions as the Parliament thinks fit").

1.8 Attempts to rectify the gauge inconsistencies are ongoing and by no means unified. Such problems have led to many lines being taken out of use. Governments and private interests continue to squabble about who should pay to remedy the problem.

Australian Government Rail Funding

1.9 While successive Australian Governments have provided substantial funding for the upgrading of roads, since the 1920s they have not regularly funded investment in railways except for its own railway, the Commonwealth Railways (later to become the Australian National Railways Commission and privatised in 1997). They have considered the funding of railways owned by State Government to be a State responsibility.

1.10 Australian Governments have, however, made loans to the States for gauge standardisation projects from the 1920s to the 1970s. From the 1970s to 1996, the Australian Government has provided grant funding to the States for various rail projects. The Keating Government's One Nation program, which was announced in 1992, was notable for the standardisation of the Adelaide to Melbourne line in 1995. Significant Australian Government funding was also made available for the Alice Springs to Darwin Railway, which was completed in 2004. It should be noted that this investment also involved ARTC being given (not sold) the single line freight route though the Adelaide Hills by the Government of South Australia.

Page 7 Funding is now being made available for rail freight though the Australian Rail Track Corporation and the AusLink land transport funding program.

AusLink

1.11 Under the AusLink program, introduced in July 2004, the Australian Government has provided the opportunity for rail freight to gain access to funds on a similar basis to that of roads. AusLink established a defined National Network (superseding the former National Highway system) of important road and rail infrastructure links and their internodal connections (Auslink 2007).

1.12 Australian Government land transport funding is focused on the National Network, including the following rail corridors, connecting at one or both ends to State Capital Cities such as:

• Sydney to Adelaide, via Cootamundra, Parkes, Broken Hill and Crystal Brook • Melbourne to Adelaide via Geelong • Adelaide to Perth - Trans-Australian Railway • Adelaide to Darwin - Port Augusta-Darwin line

AusLink Projects

1.13 Rail funding has been announced for the following projects in South Australia at this date:

• $2.5 million for the upgrading and strengthening of the Murray River Bridge at Murray Bridge • $8 million for crossing loop extensions at Jamestown and Mingary between Crystal Brook and Broken Hill at Yarrabandia, and Matakana between Broken Hill and Parkes

Rail Infrastructure

1.14 In the case of the interstate network and the non-urban railways of New South Wales (the Australian Government-owned Australian Rail Track Corporation ARTC) and Western Australia (WestNet Rail), construction and maintenance of network infrastructure is consolidated into non- profit government bodies. This is intended to provide access to new and existing players.

The ARTC is the prime mover of construction and maintenance of the track systems in South Australia. (Refer Appendix 3)

Rail Freight Operators

1.15 The major freight operators on the rail networks (excluding integrated mining railways) are:

• Pacific National - interstate network and branch lines in New South Wales, Victoria and Tasmania • Queensland Rail - Queensland • Australian Railroad Group (Queensland Rail) - Western Australian lines • Genesee & Wyoming (GWA – US) – South Australian lines

Page 8 1.16 Other rail freight operators include:

• Southern Shorthaul Railroad • South Spur Rail Services • Patrick Rail Operations • Specialised Container Transport • FreightLink • Silverton Rail

1.17 Licensing of personnel with nationally recognised credentials facilitates the transfer of those people from one state or operator to another, as traffic demands.

Freight train passing through Belair Station, 2006 – Courtesy R Marshall

Page 9 2. CURRENT PROBLEMS AND OBJECTIONS EXPRESSED BY THE COMMUNITY

2.1 The effects of this rail traffic on metropolitan Adelaide are the main concerns of this report. The following concerns are paramount to The Rail Freight Task Force research:

• Freight trains are extremely noisy • Freight Trains pass though heavily populated residential areas • Freight trains operate at any time of day or night, peak period or early mornings (Refer Appendix 7) • Freight trains are long and likely to get longer • Freight trains cause pollution problems • Large traffic delays at level crossings, the cost borne by the community • Level crossings frustrate future and current planning of suburban growth areas • Local public transport systems are affected adversely by freight traffic movements • Future growth of the suburban public transport system is prevented beyond Belair • Improvements to passenger services to Belair are limited by having only one track • Increasing heavier freight traffic will exacerbate all of the problems above

Freight train snaking through Eden Hills, 2007 - Courtesy S McCarthy-Linehan

Page 10

3. RAILWAY NOISE

3.1 It is acknowledged that rail freight is more efficient than road transport. Freight trains can carry the equivalent of 35 road trains though the Adelaide Hills. Almost all freight train traffic bound for the west or east currently travels though the Adelaide Hills Railway System Corridor and some of the most densely populated suburbs of Adelaide itself.

3.2 It was reported in 2003 that 25 freight trains per week would be achieved by 2013. However, over 80 trains per week were achieved by 2006 just 3 years later. By the end of 2006, there were up to 18 trains per day as surveyed by the RFTF, far beyond what was reasonably expected by the community.

3.3 This is a quality of life issue for at least 100,000 residents living in the vicinity of the tracks. These include workers, retirees, elderly citizens, hospital patients and young families. Trains move through residential areas at all hours of the night and day (Fig. 3.1), disrupting sleep and causing major loss of amenity.

3.4 Future train numbers will only increase as the advantages of the Darwin port facilities become available to industry and food transporters from South East Asia. The same will result from Perth’s close proximity to Singapore and Malaysia and will mean more rail traffic heading east to where the population is greatest.

3.5 The Adelaide Hills part of the railway corridor will become more densely populated as the search for a better quality of life attracts people to the hills zone and beyond, and as a consequence of the imposition of the urban growth boundary. Estimates of the numbers affected by noise and safety show that as many as 100,000 people are directly affected between Adelaide and Nairne.

3.6 The existing corridor cannot cope. Problems of noise, pollution and potentially unsafe movements will get worse with increased rail freight traffic. There will be rail corridor safety issues relating to the type of goods carried and the increased possibility of derailments.

3.7 Future upgrading of the existing line to cater for higher speeds, heavier loads and longer trains will become imperative. This is likely to be controversial due to the unavoidable impact upon significant remnant bushland of the Adelaide Hills Corridor.

3.8 The demands of a consumer driven society and consequent growth in rail freight traffic will necessitate a major upgrading of the Adelaide Hills line and corridor in the near future, which will affect road traffic and further residential developments nearby.

3.9 The primary sources of railway noise are wheel squeal, locomotive noise, horn sounding and vibration. The majority of complaints received by the SA Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) relate to wheel squeal (NTC 2004).

Page 11 Figure 3.1 - Total Number of Rail Movements through Goodwood Junction

8

7

6 k

e 5 e W

r

e 4 p

s n

i 3 a r T 2

1

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Hour of Day

(Source: RFTF Survey December, 2006)

Railway Noise – Contributing Factors

3.10 Wheel Squeal - Wheel squeal noise is attributed to the contact between the tapered wheel flanges and the rail head. This occurs mostly on curves but can occur along straight track sections.

The ‘problem’ of wheel squeal is caused by the interaction of the wheel/rail interface when rollingstock traverses the track. It gives rise to a loud high-pitched squeal.

The following elements, singularly or in combination, may affect the presence and level of wheel squeal:

• The wagon wheels • The railway track • Those parts of the train which control or are controlled by the movement of wheel over rail

ARTC initially assumed that the extreme curvatures found on the Hills track were the cause of the majority of wheel squeal problems. The high numbers of sharp curves through the Adelaide Hills are a result of historical engineering limitations and are present in few other parts of the Australian Rail Network.

Attempts to address the problem were made using ‘oiler system’ detection equipment. Trials commenced in 2000 (NTC 2004). Due to lack of effectiveness the trial has now been discontinued.

It has been reported that straight sections of rail track produced high pitched squeals and that not all wheels squeal. To better monitor wheel noises a system of electronic surveillance was set up by ARTC and acoustic monitoring consultants VIPAC at Heathfield.

The device installed at Heathfield is known as "RailSquad". It is a data logger and bar-code reader and consists of several microphone arrays for approach, passing and going directions to identify electronic tags on every wagon with other data. If a ‘squealer’ is noted, it is logged and flagged up

Page 12 to three trips before the system sends an email to the operator. A computer program can identify up to 30 bogie types and is capable of typing groups for later identification.

The data logger can also give information on:

• Wheel number • Owner • Weight carried • Speed • Temperature • Date and time

The South Australian Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) - Noise Branch is directly responsible for overseeing this operation. Once an irregularity is detected, the relevant operator is automatically contacted and advised. This enables that operator to rectify the problem. At an installation cost of $500,000, the success of this system has yet to be demonstrated. To this report date, monitoring data has not been sighted.

The EPA has also instigated a plan known as the Environmental Improvement Program (EIP), which requires all operators to put forward an operating plan for reducing the incidence of noise progressively from their equipment using this track.

Rail Gauge – Rail gauge has been tightened through the installation of concrete sleepers, which provide a more consistent gauge, less subject to swelling and movement of wooden sleepers. In addition, anecdotal evidence suggests that since recent derailments, insurers of the railway have asked for a reduction in rail gauge tolerances. The standard gauge width of 1435mm is slightly wider on curves to permit an easier path for wheel flanges to turn on sharper curves. In the past, wider tolerances were used on curves compared to the present. Hence increased noise from more frequent contact between wheel flange and rail head is now occurring. While this results in increased safety against derailment, it may also coincide with an increase in wheel noise.

Wheel Drag and ‘Slip-Stick’ Effects - Rail carriage axle sets consist of wheels left and right connected by a rigid axle with no differential movement possible. When traversing a curve, the outer wheel must travel a greater distance than the inner wheel and the wheel experiencing the lightest load, as affected by speed and cant, will drag along the rail.

On some of the sharper curves on the Hills railway, the lighter loaded wheels could actually ‘drag’ up to 2 metres in track length.

This ‘drag’ distance was addressed by early rail operators through the use of oilers, and by grinding rail line heads and wheel flanges to make them smoother to reduce friction and heat.

Cant Deficiency - Cant deficiency results when there is insufficient curve banking or tilt for the train speed. Balanced cant is achieved when the train mass balances centrifugal forces on curves (ARTC 2005b).

On some curves cant deficiencies will result in wheels not ‘tracking’ properly, causing high wear and loud squeals. On the straight there is no banking and therefore no cant deficiency.

Page 13

3.11 Locomotive Noise - Large freight trains moving through the Adelaide Hills may be pulled by up to 5 locomotives. Many freight locomotives still in use date from the 1950s and 60s, and as they power up to negotiate the steep inclines of the Adelaide Hills line, they produce high levels of low frequency noise. This noise can easily penetrate homes over distance and become increasingly obtrusive (NTC 2004).

Horn sounding by locomotives is a problem for residents living adjacent to tracks, particularly around level crossings. Horns are designed to be very loud and intrusive, but their use is considered to be primarily a safety issue as trains may need to announce their approach to level crossings and track maintenance crews.

Vibration caused by the movement of heavy locomotives and rolling stock along the track is not only an intrusive problem for residents, but it can also damage buildings. Many houses, particularly through Adelaide's inner southern suburbs, are built in very close proximity to the Hills freight line.

Problems may also occur with rolling stock noise and general haulage noises from draw-bar coupling, rail breaks, and loose equipment.

Some of these problems have been partially overcome by the installation of fully welded and tensioned track along with concrete sleeper and ballast arrangements and maintenance provided by the ARTC. Concrete sleepers however do not absorb as much vibration as wooden sleepers (NTC 2004).

Rail Noise Effects and Intrusion

3.12 There has always been noise associated with locomotives and carriages on the Adelaide Hills Railway Line. However the number of complaints has increased since the introduction of standard gauge (NTC 2004), and as freight volumes have increased, particularly over the last 10 years. Intrusive noise relates to high frequency, very loud squealing together with juddering and rumbling. The intensity of these noises may be such that no locomotive exhaust or engine sounds can be heard above them. These intrusive noises will drown out normal conversation within residences as far away as 700 metres from the track, while some individuals have to block their ears until it is safe again to listen.

3.13 The RFTF was informed by the EPA that sound levels up to 115 dB(A) are now recorded at Heathfield. This is well above acceptable Australian Standards of exposure for humans. The NSW government recommends railway noise levels in homes should not exceed 40dB(A) in daytime and 35dB(A) at night (STA 2003).

3.14 Earlier versions of diesel-electric freight locomotives, singly or in multiples hauling heavy loads on the extreme gradients found only on this section of Australian railroads, produce some deafening exhaust noise. Historically, freight trains hauling large loads across the Mount Lofty range (Adelaide Hills) produced only minor carriage wheel noise. In recent years there appears to have been a steady build-up of noise, some from the more powerful locomotives but by far the most noise emanating from wagon wheel squeal. The wagon wheel squeal has caused a major outcry from residents in the adjacent suburbs of Goodwood, Unley, Mitcham, Panorama, Eden Hills, Bellevue Heights, Coromandel Valley, Blackwood, Glenalta, Belair, Aldgate, Bridgewater, Heathfield and even Nairne.

This represents a distance of some 55km of rail corridor causing loss of amenity to residents.

Page 14 3.15 Despite frequent requests from residents, local politicians, business people, schools, hospitals and retirement establishments along the way, there has been no real outcome from rail operators, government transport authorities or rail regulators.

3.16 ARTC as the owner and maintainer of the Hills rail line, have been proactive in attempting to resolve the noise problem, but it continues to affect residents.

Track maintenance Shepherds Hill Tunnel, 2007 - Courtesy S McCarthy-Linehan

Page 15 Health Effects of Railway Noise

3.17 Loud noise damages hearing. People exposed to noise for extended periods either in the work place or other constant noise locations could accumulate progressive hearing loss. Noise sufficient to cause hearing loss is not often found in the environment while noise from discos, power equipment, power saws, edge trimmers, and sporting activities like shooting can result in accumulative hearing loss. People are unaware they are going deaf until they have profound deafness which may occur later in life.

3.18 Environmental noise may cause annoyance, sleep loss, difficulties in communicating and stress. It may lead to significant effects on quality of life, mental health, aggression, introversion, tiredness, accidents and poor work performance or increased consumption of medications. Further noise and sleep loss leads to heart disease, digestive system and circulation problems and other diseases associated with long term stress. The effects of noise can add to pre-existing levels of stress or other diseases.

3.19 The RFTF understands that no fixed criteria or regulations are currently in legislation in South Australia that provide a basis for measuring if rail track noise is in contravention of acceptable health levels.

Railway Noise Reduction Methods

3.20 There are many ways in which noise from railways can be minimised and reduced. A small reduction in decibels will significantly reduce the noise intensity. Some of the following can easily be trialled by laboratory research.

1) The Rail Track:

a) Experiment with different sleeper materials

b) Use thicker elastomeric / neoprene pads between rail and sleeper at problem locations

c) Provide more permanent noise barriers to an appropriate height from the track. This works on Melbourne freeways, Eastern and Western Ring Road Bypasses and several freeways in Sydney. It begs the question, “Why do roads require sound barriers when railways do not?”

d) Add a surface layer of finer size ballast. Raise ballast height to rail level on the shoulders

e) Lubrication of Rails - although this has proved unsuccessful in trials on the Hills Line (NTC 2004)

f) Reduce cant deficiency to appropriate levels. Where cant elevations fall outside of balanced speed cants, this leads to increased rail head wear and increased noise at the interface. In addition, if there is rail wear there is also wheel wear. (Refer Appendix 9)

2) The Wheels:

a) Provide sound attenuating barriers or skirt height barriers on each side of a wagon close to the wheel down to rail level. This relies upon the fact that wheel noise is translated horizontally outwards from the contact point of wheel and rail, at interface level

b) Experiment with different wheel materials, different hardness of rail or wheel rim

c) Ensure that both side wheels on each bogie are at least close in diameter

d) Experiment with rail head geometry and wheel contact surfaces applied to curves to affect/limit the slip-stick effects between inner and outer wheels

Page 16 3) Other Parts Controlling Wheel/Rail Interface:

a) Lubricate bogie pivots to allow free rotation

b) Apply load cell technology to each wagon to ensure that the centre of gravity is central when loaded, so that ‘skate boarding’ will not occur or is reduced (Refer Appendix 9)

c) Reduce wagon length of flat-top. Excessively long wagon length in combination with cant deficiencies may result in increased weight on the inner rail, thus causing a turning effect of front and rear bogies. The USA has at least 4 different flat top lengths. For a 22m bogie the centre of gravity is 320mm off the centre line of the track.

Further research may discover additional options.

Environmental Noise Regulation - Suggested Criteria

3.21 The Australian Standard relating to noise exposure is AS 1055 [1997].

3.22 The first standard specifically relating to railway noise was released in May 2002, AS 2377 - 'Acoustics - Methods for the measurement of railbound vehicles' (NTC 2004).

3.23 The Australian Standard for occupational exposure to noise states that levels above 85dB pose an unacceptable risk to hearing. Over long periods repeated exposure to noise between 75 and 85dB may be damaging to the hearing of some people (NOHSC 2000).

3.24 The NSW government recommends railway noise levels in homes should not exceed 40dB(A) in daytime and 35dB(A) at night (STA 2003).

3.25 The Environmental Protection Agency (USA) recommended that overall outdoor noise should be limited to an average of 55 dB(A) to prevent noise annoyance (Goodlee 1992).

3.26 Standards are even tighter in Europe. German and British laws state a maximum of 55 dB(A) for urban residential areas while suburban residential areas require some 5dB(A) less and rural, recreational and hospital areas should be 10 dB(A) less.

3.27 Whichever of the above parameters are decided upon, an over-riding SA EPA requirement must specify to which hours of each day of the week the criteria shall apply, and with express requirements for further reductions during night times.

3.28 Noise effects should also be considered cumulatively. Appropriate criteria could be based on the accumulated noise by hours per day at various noise levels. This would account for rail traffic numbers at appropriate times during the day or night.

3.29 An initiative by the SA EPA, Noise Abatement Section, intends to implement as part of the licensing agreement a requirement for rail operators to show how the operator intends to reduce rolling stock noise. An Environmental Improvement Program will be set up to enable noise from various sources on the train to be progressively reduced as part of the licence requirements.

Page 17 Air Pollution

3.30 Freight train traffic is polluting the corridor and adjacent suburbs with diesel exhaust fumes, wheel and brake dust.

3.31 At certain times of the night and day, especially during temperature inversions when layers of air are trapped at ground level, exhaust gases cannot disperse, causing choking fumes. This could pose a health risk, especially to those suffering respiratory conditions. It is also a significant amenity problem for nearby residents.

3.32 Confined topography in some areas of the Adelaide Hills exacerbates the problem.

3.33 Diesel powered locomotives produce a number of emissions, including nitrogen oxides (NOx), particulate matter, carbon monoxide (CO) and carbon dioxide (CO2).

3.34 At present no emission standards apply to locomotives in Australia and any measures undertaken are entirely voluntary (NTC 2004).

3.35 As far as the RFTF is aware, no air-borne particulate sampling has been carried out.

3.36 Conclusion: Freight train diesels are unhealthy and pose an increasing health hazard which is likely to get worse with faster, heavier and more frequent traffic unsuited to the Hills corridor.

Air pollution from freight train passing through Belair Station, 2006 – Courtesy R Marshall

Page 18 4. RAILWAY SAFETY AND PROTECTION

4.1 The SA EPA plans to monitor compliance with Environmental Improvement Programs amongst those operators who are signatories. Noise is a concern along with safety, air pollution and emergency threat situations, such as derailed wagons containing dangerous chemicals, as well as nuclear and other radioactive material and equipment destined for nuclear power plants in Australia or overseas.

Freight Trains Are Too Long and Too Heavy

4.2 The freight trains are too long for the existing Adelaide Hills track alignment. Currently train lengths of up to 1500 metres are permitted, with 23 tonne axles allowable and usually hauled by two or more diesel DC electric locomotives.

4.3 Auslink states that 5Mt of freight used the Hills rail corridor in 2004-5 (Auslink 2007).

4.4 Based on the RFTF traffic surveys, the average number of freight trains is approximately 75 per week (3900 per annum).

4.5 Some crossing loops (parking for bypassing) are presently too short to be adequate for this train length. There is also a shortage of loops so that when a train fails to reach the next waiting area all other trains in the system are held up (ARTC 2001a). Work needs to be done urgently to address this problem.

4.6 Conclusion: Within a short time there will be newer, larger AC-Diesel locomotives capable of hauling even heavier loads (more than 35% extra) and freight train lengths will increase to 1800 metres or more. This means the Adelaide Hills corridor will be even more inappropriate for freight trains.

Curvature Too Sharp for Freight Trains with Long Wagons

4.7 The 1500 metre long freight trains are also a problem for the Adelaide Hills Track system since most curves are banked with what is known as cant deficiency. This ‘cant’ is required for all railway curves and is simply stated as the amount of banking required for each curve radius to permit a balance of centrifugal force (due to speed) against the wagon’s weight.

4.8 An example of curvature deficiencies on the Hills line can be seen between Shepherds Hill Road and the exit at Belair National Park Tunnel where there are 28 curves. On 8 curves the radii are 200 metres or less, with two at 190 metres radii.

4.9 A balanced cant should be 203mm for the current posted speed of 60 km/h and 149mm for 50 km/h posted speed. However, the actual values used are 100mm and 60mm respectively. This results in a cant deficiency of 203-100=103mm and 149–60=89mm respectively.

4.10 Cant deficiencies should not exceed 75mm, although different criteria apply depending on the type of train (ARTC 2005b). High cant deficiencies throughout the Hills freight line results in excessively high rail and wheel wear (especially flanges). It is also possible that much of the wheel squeal could be attributed to this phenomenon. Cant deficiencies also create safety concerns where train weights are not evenly distributed on the track for a given speed.

4.11 Conclusion: The engineering envelopes are approaching or have potentially exceeded recognised limits of safety on this track. Alignment geometry and safety is a concern for potential derailment.

Page 19 5. ACCIDENTS

Inadequate Clearances

5.1 The height clearance required for normal operations is 4.9 - 6.1 m, and bridges and tunnels require this clearance to be negotiated safely especially when cargo items could come loose on a freight train.

5.2 Height clearance is also an important issue when double stacked wagons are the norm for freight arriving from Perth and Darwin. These lines permit this extra freight height to be used which exceeds structural clearances given above, until it arrives at the Adelaide terminal. Due to the Hills restriction reloading of freight must take place at Dry Creek, losing 32 hours of transit time. Consequently, because of the Adelaide Hills height restrictions, nearly twice as many trains are required to cross South Australia in both directions (SCTRS 2007).

5.3 Width clearances are also inadequate. Loose freight items can become dangerous when lateral width safety factors are jeopardised. A serious incident occurred in Eden Hills in 2005, when loose freight on a passing freight train collided with a passenger train (ATSB 2005).

Tunnels

5.4 Adelaide Hills line tunnels in their current form are incapable of taking high loads or double stacked vehicles.

5.5 It is not feasible to attempt enlargement of these tunnels without severe disruption to freight trains, local traffic and residents. Replacement or enlargement of these structures is a major and difficult engineering feat which would cause major economic upheaval both to operators, local business and road traffic generally. Due to their age and form of construction Hills tunnels do not have structural adequacy for enlargement which makes the job even more difficult.

Weak Structures

5.6 Since its conversion to standard gauge the Adelaide-Melbourne rail line, including the Hills line, is laid on concrete sleepers through to the border in order to cater for modern heavier and longer freight trains. Other infrastructure, however, has not been upgraded. A number of tunnels were built from the 1860’s onwards, usually of weak materials including locally made brick and early reinforced concrete. Many of these tunnels, as well as bridges and other structures, are overdue for replacement or upgrade.

5.7 Conclusion: Tunnels and bridges are inadequate for this corridor and would be prohibitively expensive to repair or replace.

Page 20 Derailments

5.8 There have been several derailments on the Hills Railway since 1990.

5.9 In June 1990 the Melbourne Express Passenger train was derailed near Belair Station. Damage costs were given as $50,000. Derailment was caused by steel plates laid on the track. This occurred before conversion of the rail line to standard gauge.

5.10 In October 2002, after standardisation of the rail gauge, a freight train derailed at Glenalta causing damage estimated at $300,000.

5.11 In November 2004, a freight train derailed at Glenalta near the suburban station. Eleven wagons left the line and plunged into residential properties nearby. The estimated damage was $2,000,000.

5.12 These derailments were investigated by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau Investigation Team (ATSB). However, anecdotal evidence confirms that another serious derailment occurred on the up track side of Eden Hills Station after standardisation. While the station platform was significantly damaged and was consequently demolished, the Willowie Street Bridge remarkably was not affected. The incident was made worse because the locomotive driver was unaware that a wagon at the rear of the train had derailed.

What can be learned from these derailments?

5.13 Most have been along the Glenalta stretch of standard gauge track. The track lies on the top of a ridge of relatively steep grading in the railway, with a nominal slope of 1 in 45.

5.14 Since speed is well known to cause instability it is worth looking at the Adelaide Hills Railway to see what speeds are posted. These are given on the ARTC web site (www.artc.com.au) as "posted speeds" of 60km/h dropping to 55km/h under the main road bridge at the Belair end. These are not considered high speeds. In fact these speeds are probably the maximum that can ever be used along this section. For balanced design the cant should be around 60mm. However the cants in this line are 35 - 45mm showing they are 25 - 15mm below the speed value used. This is not a cause for concern, since normal practice allows for cants to be deficient by up to 75mm below the balanced speed values. Concern would be justified when cant deficiencies exceeded 75mm as they do in other sections of this railway. (Refer Appendix 9, Tables for curves 6 and 28)

5.15 Alignment of tracks may be a source of danger when tight curves are present. In this section of track however curve radii of 600 metres or more are not considered sharp or dangerous at the above speeds. However, the danger comes when the curvature sharpens up after several gentle curves. The driver, who may not be familiar with the track or is not warned ahead of time, could run into trouble in this situation.

5.16 The Glenalta derailment was found to be the result of inappropriate loading of wagons. While the front and rear of the train was loaded, the centre wagons had no freight load, thus creating a major imbalance. The ATSB determined that the derailment was caused by dynamic braking of the locomotives on the down hill run. This was followed, apparently, by a delay in wheel braking in the rear wagons. The rear wagons carrying a large proportion of weight then tried to over-run the front of the train and succeeded in lifting the centre wagons off the track and derailed them.

5.17 Hence the apparent cause of the accident was due to poor loading practices by the operator. Elsewhere in this report the RFTF has identified that wheel squeal and similar noise can be produced by incorrect loading practices.

Page 21 5.18 Given the considerable length of trains currently used (and the longer freight trains anticipated in the future), it seems elementary to have appropriate electronic device to warn the driver of the conditions at the rear, perhaps not for every wagon bogie in the train, but at least for unladen ones. Train security is essential at all times, especially given that speeds, loads and lengths are likely to increase in the future.

5.19 While drivers control the speed of the trains, they have no control over the condition and engineering constraints of the track. The only safeguards to prevent derailments are well-designed railways with gentle curves and proper cant values which allow for balanced speeds.

5.20 Conclusion: Modern fast freight trains do not belong on a poorly designed antiquated track system. The track system should have sufficient safety margins to allow drivers a chance to recover from minor discrepancies in driving technique.

The RFTF believes that the existing Hills railway is outdated for rail freight and not upgradeable to safe and modern standards.

Freight train derailment between Coromandel and Eden Hills stations, 1988 – Courtesy P Hart

Page 22

6. ROAD TRAFFIC DELAYS

Incident Reports

6.1 The following list of level crossing delays (Table 6.1) is on public record. These are railway faults affecting road level crossings, and where Road Traffic gives way to Rail Traffic Controls. These are only for faults which are reported as a result of rail failures observed by and affecting the public. These do not include delays from regular maintenance operations.

Table 6.1 - LEVEL CROSSING DEVICE FAILURE Period Aug 2002 - Aug 2007

Crossing Location Number of call outs GOODWOOD / Leader St 10 GOODWOOD / Victoria St 14 UNLEY / Cross Rds 17 HAWTHORN / Hilda Tce 4 HAWTHORN / Angas Rd 3 HAWTHORN / Grange Rd 10 Lower MITCHAM / Wattlebury Ave 6 PANORAMA / Barretts Rd 5 BLACKWOOD / Main Rd 23 BLACKWOOD / Brighton Pde 12 GLENALTA / Main Rd 17 ALDGATE / Cricklewood Rd 8 ALDGATE / Yatina Ave 2 BRIDGEWATER / Kain Rd 2 BRIDGEWATER / Bridgewater Rd 4 BALHANNAH /Onkaparinga Valley Rd 3 BALHANNAH / Junction Rd 3 LITTLEHAMPTON / Hallett Rd 2 NAIRNE / North Railway Tce 3 NAIRNE / Lower Nixon St 3 NAIRNE / Bartley St 3 TOTAL 154

Average Call-out Rate = 30 per year

(Source: SA Government Traffic Management Centre August 2007)

The above shows that problems can occur with road traffic controls at level crossings. When device failures occur, road traffic delay times can be considerable, especially at peak road traffic times.

6.2 Some incident response times can be up to half a day. Most calls from the public seem to be made by mobile phone as ‘Incident Reports’ and typically describe boom gates stuck down; visible and audible signals flashing but no trains in sight, etc.

6.3 It should also be noted that The Railways Safety Act requires any train incident to be immediately attended to. This involves stopping the train within the shortest possible time. Due to the long length of freight trains they may need to stop across a level crossing for considerable periods of time. This happens often in the Adelaide Hills where alternative road routes are not possible. This can mean long delays for road traffic, including emergency vehicles.

Page 23 Usual Level Crossing Delay Times

6.4 It should be noted that this discussion about level crossing delays does not include regular railway maintenance and rebuilding which can cause considerable delays and re-routing of traffic on to often confusing Adelaide Hills back roads.

6.5 The RFTF has surveyed some Adelaide Hills crossings and found typical delay times for road traffic as follows. For example, the average delay described below is from signal operation start to stop, at Glenalta Level Crossing, Main Road (an arterial road and the only practical route for emergency services).

1. TransAdelaide single vehicle delay, about 50 seconds 2. Freight train, about 5 - 7 minutes

6.6 The effects on road traffic vary depending on time of day. At peak periods there can be road traffic volumes up to 1100 vehicles per hour both ways at the Glenalta Crossing. In a normal working day this swells to approximately 18,000 vehicles per day in both directions (Transport SA 2006).

6.7 An average figure for freight train traffic is 13 every twenty four hours. (Refer: RFTF Survey of weekly traffic Appendix 7)

Table 6.2 - Glenalta Level Crossing Time Delays

Peak Action Daily Hour Road Traffic through crossing 36,000 2200 Rail Traffic 13 1-2 Delay time (@ 7 min per train) 91 7 No. of road traffic vehicles delayed 2275 257 Accumulated Delay time in hours ( @ 7 mins closure ) 265 33

(Source: RFTF Survey Feb 2007)

Note: The above observations and calculations relate only to a single level crossing.

6.8 Clearly, the faster the gates operate the less delay times for road traffic. A similar time delay is likely to operate at the (arterial) Main Road Level Crossing in Blackwood, at Cross Road in Unley Park, and the other eight level crossings, with more or less time delay depending on location and train speed. It would be therefore quite reasonable to predict a cost to road traffic and the general public for the Hills Railway of $16-$32,000,000 per year (assuming a working year of 240 days), attributed to Rail Freight Traffic on this line.

6.9 For a city the size of Adelaide with level crossings at almost every rail traffic intersection, railway delays are costly.

6.10 Conclusion: Delays at level crossings cause the public considerable economic losses.

Page 24

Blocking of Emergency Vehicle Access

Emergency vehicles are blocked in much the same way as other vehicles at level crossings. It should be noted that when emergency services are similarly detained, the consequences are potentially very serious, especially in the Adelaide Hills where alternative routes are often unavailable. Emergency vehicles are held up not only by the level crossing gates, but also by the traffic congestion they create.

Freight train blocks Cross Road traffic, 2007 - Courtesy R Marshall

Page 25 7. OPTIONS FOR EXISTING RAIL CORRIDOR

7.1 The Hills corridor was surveyed in the late 1870's after considerable discussion and seeking the most feasible route though the Mount Lofty ranges from the Adelaide Plain. Early alternative plans included taking the line via ‘The Gap’ where Truro now sits, tunnelling though the ranges, or going south over the lower southern ranges.

7.2 The needs for a railway line are simple and basically unchanged. Grades not exceeding about 2- 3% (or 2 -3 metres rise in 100 metres) allow for steel wheels gripping steel rails most of the time without slip.

7.3 Similarly curves were considered sharp if they were less than 40 metres radius, provided wagons were 14 metres or less in length. Today’s wagons can be 29 metres long for which the absolute minimum curve radii should be 90 metres. These minimum radii presuppose very slow train speeds.

7.4 The Hills line has grades around 2% and curves as sharp as 190 metres with posted speeds of 50km/h. Between Adelaide and Murray Bridge there are about 30 curves with radii around 200 metres and posted speeds of 50km/h. In fact over this distance there are a total of 200 curves, making this one of the most curvilinear tracks in the world (See Fig. 7.1).

7.5 In addition, there are 19 bridges under or over the railway line, along with 7 tunnels of almost 2.5km of total length. The construction efforts in the 1880's must have been enormous.

All of this costly construction effort produced just 96km of railway.

Adelaide O’Bahn, circa 1984 – Courtesy R Hunt

Page 26 Long-Term Future of Existing Track

7.6 The advantages to industry and other commercial enterprises of rail are obvious. While road freight may offer some time advantages over rail, particularly for refrigerated freight, rail is considered far more efficient. When one considers that 40 large 200 tonne B-double trucks are needed to carry the equivalent load of a single freight train, it is easy to understand why railways have a competitive advantage.

7.7 Economics are also an important driving factor for commercial operations. If cost comparisons are made between truck and train for most bulk freight movements, road freight cannot compete on price per tonne. If the costs to the community of road damage are included there is no comparison.

7.8 The RFTF believes rail growth will continue well into the future. However, with growing haste for product delivered on time and to cost there will be a need for the Adelaide Hills Railway to perform over and above its current capability and at twice the speed. It appears that if the previous 3-4 years growth rate in rail freight is repeated, the need for a faster rail service will make the existing Adelaide Hills Railway obsolete in a short period of time.

7.9 The RFTF has examined an upgrade to the Adelaide Hills line which allows for track speeds to double the existing posted speeds. Information researched on locomotive power shows that hauling trains of much greater weight and length will soon be a possibility though the Hills using the latest AC powered engines. However, any upgrade completed in the next year will soon be out of date and out of step with continuing demands for greater speed and more powerful engines.

7.10 All this does not address the current issues of noise and amenity loss to the community. It does, however, invite careful consideration to the RFTF's proposed bypass alignment which aims to meet future rail needs longer term.

Freight train Sleeps Hill, circa 1950 - Courtesy National Railway Museum

Page 27

Figure 7.1

Page 28

8. TRACK CORRIDOR UPGRADE - ALIGNMENT FOR FREIGHT TRAFFIC

8.1 The following is a brief description of a proposed maximum possible upgrade on the existing track corridor between Adelaide and Murray Bridge.

8.2 When referring to the ‘maximum possible upgrade’ which allows posted speeds to be double the current speeds, it should be noted that with unlimited finances almost anything can be achieved. Within the bounds of serious consideration the RFTF believes the following will demonstrate the proposed engineering works needed for such an upgrade will cause major physical disruption and will be economically prohibitive.

8.3 As mentioned previously many of the existing structures are incapable of being upgraded to current freight standards. Their demolition or abandonment would be more appropriate to allow for a new deviated route on a better alignment. Since speed and low maintenance would be the main criteria for any new route, the next main consideration should surely be the overall cost of the upgrade compared with a new alternate route, such as the proposed RFTF Bypass.

8.4 The main object of the upgrade exercise is to provide a dedicated corridor for high speed freight train traffic, suited to future freight delivery demands. Speeds proposed are above 100 km/h, and although wheel squeal noise may be reduced, general noise will be significantly increased unless new developments are used to suppress noise from locomotives and wagons. It follows that the corridor would have its own exclusive right of way.

8.5 The main benefits would be to eliminate or reduce curve numbers, widen and increase the track clearances so that higher speeds than are now possible can be used with safety. Elimination of all level crossings is taken as a necessity.

8.6 It should be noted that the problems of noise or pollution are not solved by this scenario.

8.7 The RFTF recognise that the cost of the upgrade would largely need to be borne by the freight operators and consumers of rail-freighted products. This provides yet another reason why the proposed RFTF Bypass Route (discussed later) is the preferred option.

8.8 The RFTF is indebted to a previous study undertaken by South Australian Railways in 1975 - The Peregrine Report (SAR 1975). This study was commissioned for a proposed new city at Monarto near Murray Bridge. Upgrade issue are also discussed in the ARTC Operational and Engineering Studies Report (ARTC 2001a).

8.9 The main criteria carried into this freight study shows the size of the upgrade needed to comply with current and future standards for freight traffic with regard to speed and accessibility for crossing loops and other infrastructure.

8.10 In the opinion of the RFTF, the costs of this upgraded route alignment are likely to be as high as 400% greater than the costs of the RFTF Bypass alignment. (Refer: track modifications by deviation number, Appendix 6)

Page 29 9. ALTERNATIVE USES

Suggested Future Use of the Existing Rail Corridor

9.1 The relocation of rail freight movements away from the current Adelaide Hills route via the proposed northern bypass would create a number of exciting and very real opportunities for an expanded public transport service.

9.2 The current rail corridor from the City of Adelaide to Belair could be converted back to a twin track passenger line. It is considered that this would be most efficiently carried out when the proposed conversion of metropolitan rail system to standard gauge takes place, as to replace the existing standard gauge line with broad gauge would be a retrograde step.

9.3 A dual passenger line would once again allow TransAdelaide the opportunity to provide proper and appropriate scheduling of commuter trains, something which has not been possible in the current single line scenario.

9.4 Once a reliable and sustainable timetabling frequency could be established, it would then be feasible to reopen the current suburban stations which were made ‘redundant’ by the then State Government when the existing freight line was standardised some twelve years ago. These ‘redundant’ stations, namely Hawthorn, Clapham and Millswood could also be complimented by the construction of possible new stations along the route.

9.5 Associated expansion of “Park n Ride” facilities would encourage many more commuters to utilise passenger trains, an imperative for the future with rising fuel costs, climate change considerations, air pollution and an inadequate, congested, and rapidly deteriorating public road system.

9.6 The Adelaide Hills line from Belair to Mount Barker could then be upgraded to a passenger service which would facilitate the reopening all of the existing railway stations along the route as it once did. As part of a quickly growing Adelaide Hills town, Mount Barker residents would undoubtedly provide substantial patronage for such an expanded service.

9.7 It would then also be possible for tourists to catch a train at Adelaide Railway Station to link up with the Steam Ranger Heritage Railway at Mt Barker.

9.8 There may also be an opportunity to upgrade the current line from Mount Barker to Victor Harbor to a dual gauge line thereby allowing commuter trains to once more service the southern towns of Strathalbyn, Goolwa, Port Elliott and Victor Harbor, whilst still accommodating the Steam Ranger Heritage Railway.

9.9 The opportunities previously mentioned are not exhaustive. Another option could be the creation of an O’Bahn system. This would enable the purpose built vehicles to travel the track and then deviate from the route via public roads as the Adelaide O’Bahn currently does.

9.10 Electrification of the conventional rail system is another future option. This would bring South Australia into line with most other states in Australia. Electrification of selected Adelaide suburban lines was announced in the 2007 budget. Alternatively, this electrification could also be combined with purpose built O’Bahn vehicles, thereby eliminating exhaust pollution in built up areas. It is worth noting that electric buses are now widely used in many cities throughout the world where they operate efficiently and effectively.

9.11 Additionally, the opportunity to create public walking trails and bicycle tracks alongside any future public transport system should not be ignored.

Page 30 10. BYPASS ROUTE FEASIBILITY

Background

10.1 The option of constructing a permanent rail freight bypass for Adelaide is the only realistic long- term solution to the many problems posed by the existing Adelaide Hills Freight Line. Preceding sections detail these problems and conclude that while short term partial solutions may exist to some issues such as noise squeal, it seems clear that with ever-increasing freight tonnages in the future coupled with a lack of options for an engineering upgrade of the existing line mean that it is imperative that a bypass line be built. This would be a major infrastructure development for the State and would require substantial investment by the State and Federal Governments.

10.2 As well as resolving all of the current community and operator concerns over the existing line, a freight bypass line for Adelaide would bring with it many associated benefits. These include: higher track speeds and fewer delays resulting in improved transit times for freight; operator cost savings; substantially reduced fuel costs; reduced greenhouse gas emissions; the ability to double stack containers; longer train lengths; and benefits to the efficiency of the National freight network as a whole.

10.3 The idea of a rail freight bypass for Adelaide is not a new one and has been investigated and costed in several previous studies. It was first proposed by Australian National in 1983 as a means of improving passenger train speeds. Australian National prepared the first Barossa Valley Deviation Report in 1991 (ARTC 2001a).

10.4 The Rail Links Report (ERDC 1999) to the SA Parliament by the Environment, Resources and Development Committee investigated an alternative rail route around the Adelaide Hills. Transport SA representative Rooney stated a cost of $140-150 million in evidence presented to Parliament (ERDC 1999, p.27). Meyrick and Associates' (2006) report mentions a 180km bypass costing some $600 million, but provides few other details.

10.5 The Australian Rail Track Corporation (ARTC) Interstate Rail Network Audit (2001a) mentions a 180km bypass route for Adelaide passing though the northern Barossa, which could be built at an estimated cost of between $300-400 million. The Centre for Industrial and Applied Mathematics (CIAM) at the University of South Australia, as part of the Rail Cooperative Research Centre, is also investigating the issue.

10.6 The Auslink National Land Transport Plan operated by the Department of Transport and Regional Services commenced in 2004, and the corridor strategy for the Adelaide-Melbourne Corridor has recently been released. This draft strategy (Auslink 2007) predicts freight growth for the corridor of 2.6% per annum until 2025, and highlights the need to address safety, efficiency and amenity though the Adelaide Hills.

Proposed Route

10.7 While it is beyond the scope of this report to provide detailed estimates in relation to a proposed rail bypass route for Adelaide (as this has already been done in number of consultant reports), the RFTF has investigated possible options. For minimal transit times, reduced construction costs and high operating speeds, the route for any rail bypass should transit to the east of the Mount Lofty Ranges, departing from the current line at or near Murray Bridge and reconnecting with the current line at Mallala. A proposed route for this line is provided in Figure 10.1. The bypass would benefit from low gradients and favourable land acquisition costs along its route. It may also utilise some of the currently disused rail corridor between Murray Bridge and Sanderston (Cambrai).

Page 31

Figure 10.1

Page 32

10.8 The total length of corridor shown in Figure 10.1 is 151km, comprising a main Line length of 148km and an Adelaide off-take curve at Mallala junction of 2.6km. The bypass route would require no more than two crossing loops.

10.9 Land required for construction of the bypass, assuming a 20m wide corridor, is given in Table 10.1 below. Divided into five land divisions, it can be grouped according to likely similarities in acquisition cost.

Table 10.1 - Land Acquisition Requirements for Proposed Rail Bypass.

Land Divisions Location Land Required

1 East of MLR 310.564 ha

2 Vegetated foothills Eastern Barossa 24.007 ha

3 Northern Barossa 110.063 ha

4 Northern Plains 158.354 ha

Total All 602.990 ha

10.10 The advantages of the proposed route include that it would require only 9 small bridges and no tunnels. It transits though sparsely-populated areas, facilitates very large curve radii (and therefore high speeds), and could be constructed without level crossings. It requires minimal clearance of existing vegetation, and could be built without affecting the operation of the existing line. It could also operate as a dedicated freight line, with Adelaide-Melbourne passenger services remaining on the Adelaide Hills route. The only other option (upgrading the existing corridor though the Adelaide Hills) would require substantial acquisition of high value and environmentally sensitive land for track realignment, as well as requiring prohibitive construction costs for tunnelling and earthworks, clearance of significant remnant vegetation and habitat, and interruption of existing operations. In addition, the upgrade option does not address the main issues of amenity though the Adelaide Hills and the Adelaide Urban Area.

Economics

10.11 At a nominal track construction cost of $1.0 million per kilometre (the average construction costs of the Adelaide to Darwin route), the ‘track only’ component of the proposed rail bypass could be built at an estimated cost of just over $150 million. The 603ha of land required to build the bypass is primarily low value, low cost grazing country in all areas except the northern Barossa valley, where some higher value mixed-use land may need to be acquired. Train speeds could be maintained at maximum ARTC operating speeds of 115km/h along almost the entire length. As a new line utilising the latest track technology, potential speeds of over 150 km/h may be possible. (In Europe, current designs are allowing for freight train speeds of 240km/h).

Page 33

10.12 The existing rail corridor currently carries over 80% of the Melbourne-Perth land freight (BTRE 2006), and nearly two thirds of all trains moving though Adelaide are transiting between Melbourne-Perth or Melbourne-Darwin. The current average transit time from Murray Bridge to Mallala for freight trains is 4-5.5 hours, a significant proportion of the average rail transit time of 13 hours from Adelaide to Melbourne (ARTC 2001b). The bypass route would allow transiting trains to cover the same distance in under two hours.

Similarly, freight destined for Adelaide freight terminals, which are located at Port Adelaide and in northern Adelaide, would also benefit from reduced transit times and improved costs and efficiency, while avoiding the safety and capacity conflicts (Auslink 2007) on the already congested Adelaide urban rail network.

10.13 Although rail's share of the total freight task is predicted to decrease from 38.2% in 1999 to 23.4% in 2025 (Auslink 2007), this still represents a substantial future increase in freight carried along the existing rail corridor, with growth of 0.6% per annum. Between 2003-4 and 2004-5 alone, the rail freight increased from 4.5 million tonnes to 5 million tonnes, involving some 4,600 train movements (Meyrick and Associates, 2006). Substantial economic benefits would arise from having a bypass in place and it would make rail an attractive option in comparison to road freight transport.

10.14 As explained in Section 7 and Appendix 8, any investment in a rail bypass route would be a fraction of the cost of upgrading the existing route though the Adelaide Hills with its many curves, tunnels, and steep gradients.

10.15 A full feasibility study would be required by government to determine the exact costs of constructing the proposed rail bypass and any economic benefits to operators.

Regional Considerations

10.16 The proposed rail bypass route, aside from providing a long term, cost effective solution to the myriad problems affecting residents of Adelaide and the Adelaide Hills caused by the existing line, may also provide significant benefits to those regional areas though which it is built. It may provide opportunities for increased tourism revenue in the Barossa region, if passenger trains on the Melbourne-Adelaide or Melbourne-Perth route are using the route and stopping there. Similarly, it would also provide improved transport options for residents of the Barossa to both Melbourne and Adelaide. Bulk grain movements from South Australian agricultural regions in the mid-north, which are currently transported by road, could be carried on the freight network. Another option discussed by government has been the development of a complimentary highway to be built alongside a proposed rail bypass. This would, along with the rail line, facilitate regional development in the Barossa and South Australian mid-north generally though greatly improved transport options for movement of goods. Also, as much of the proposed route is though sparsely populated areas, any impact on town and rural resident amenity would be minimal.

10.17 Improved rail infrastructure will also help provide for South Australia's developing mining industry, which is currently hampered by poor infrastructure. A bypass would allow for raw materials to be shipped direct from regional areas to processing facilities and ports in Victoria without the need to move though the slow and congested Adelaide rail network. It would also remove significant road transport from our highways, as substantial quantities of materials are moved by road to and from mining areas in the State's north.

Page 34

10.18 A bypass may also lead to a requirement for a freight handling terminal at Mallala which could have significant ramifications for employment and economic growth in this regional area. The South Australian government is currently making substantial investments to upgrade water, electricity and communications infrastructure in the mining regions of the State. Therefore it would seem clear that complimentary investment in rail is also required.

10.19 South Australia's burgeoning Defence industry, particularly commencement of work on the $6 billion air warfare destroyer project and establishment of a new Army Brigade in Adelaide's north, will also require substantial movement of raw materials, equipment and technology from the Eastern States. A bypass would allow easy connectivity for these activities and avoid the need to use the existing freight line though Adelaide or the road network.

10.20 The bypass would facilitate alternative uses of the Adelaide Hills line, including improvement on the commuter line to Belair and development of possible passenger services to fast growing regional areas such as Mount Barker, thereby reducing traffic loads on the already congested Mount Barker freeway.

Other Considerations

10.21 Clearly, any investment in the rail freight network which improves rail's competitiveness against road transport will result in fewer trucks using our highways. By 2025, the volume of freight using the Melbourne-Adelaide Corridor is estimated to double to 18 million tonnes (BTRE 2006), and most of this growth will be taken up by road transport (Auslink 2007). The main reason for this is that road transport has a transit time of 9 hours compared to 13 hours by rail (ARTC 2001b). A rail bypass for Adelaide would reduce rail transit times to a competitive level.

10.22 Rail transport is over thee times more efficient per tonne compared to road transport. Moving more freight on to rail will result in significant fuel cost savings and reduced greenhouse gas emissions. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions from Australian transport form a major component of Government strategies to address climate change.

10.23 Any removal of trucks from the Melbourne-Adelaide corridor will have significant positive safety implications. Between 2001 and 2005, there were approximately 1170 casualty accidents on roads along the corridor (Auslink 2007). A rail bypass will produce a more efficient rail network, attracting freight from road and making our highways safer.

10.24 A rail bypass route for Adelaide will result in a number of amenity and safety improvements for the residents of Adelaide and the Adelaide Hills. It will remove the problems caused by deficiencies in the existing Hills line such as derailment risk, inadequate passing loops, noise and air pollution, traffic delays and blocking of emergency vehicle access at level crossings.

10.25 The bypass is also an advantageous option compared to upgrade of the existing single track as it can be constructed while the Hills freight line remains in use. An upgrade of the existing line will require that it be taken out of operation for an extended period, affecting the entire Australian freight network and the South Australian economy.

Page 35 Inland Rail Proposal

10.26 Significant State and Federal backing has recently been given to development of a 1700km inland rail route from Brisbane to Melbourne though Parkes. This option has been under serious consideration since the first detailed analyses were completed in 2001 (ARTC 2001c). It was then referred to as the A2M line and was costed at between $1.2 - 1.4 billion in 2001 and was designed to achieve transit times of 27 hours between Brisbane and Melbourne. The Federal Government announced a $20 million feasibility study in 2005, and this was completed in 2006. Current cost estimates are around $3 billion, and the project is attracting widespread support from business (The Australian, Aug 11, 2007).

10.27 This inland rail proposal can be seen as a similar bypass (at a much larger scale) to the proposed Adelaide Bypass with a number of variations. The major effect on freight would be to bypass the Sydney rail network and heavily populated eastern seaboard and speed freight movements between Melbourne and Brisbane.

10.28 Another advantage of the Brisbane-Melbourne inland line is that it will bring Brisbane traffic approximately 1200km to Parkes and provide better access to/from Melbourne or Adelaide.

10.29 The line west from Parkes would go 730km though Broken Hill then 350km to Crystal Brook, but does not serve any significant towns along the way. The existing route south to Adelaide is approximately 200km from Crystal Brook.

10.30 The new distance from Melbourne to Crystal Brook would be approximately 1800km compared with the existing route of 1100km via the Adelaide Hills. The extra 700km to avoid the Adelaide Hills line would be quite a cost penalty to operators from Melbourne. Transit times for the run Melbourne to Crystal Brook via Parkes would be about 26 hours or 7-8 hours greater than at present.

10.31 Conclusion: The inland rail proposal is unlikely to remove the need for a rail bypass for Adelaide. It would need to be substantially expanded before it would have any diversionary affect on Melbourne-Adelaide or Melbourne-Perth freight movements which currently utilise the Adelaide Hills freight line via the Adelaide metropolitan area.

Page 36

CONCLUSIONS

Rail freight is an efficient means of transporting goods and materials throughout Australia. As our society grows & progresses rail freight is increasing in length, weight and frequency. However, the passage of heavy freight trains along the existing line through the Adelaide Hills & suburbs with its tunnels, tight curves, steep gradients and road crossings naturally presents the very real problems of noise, health, safety and traffic delays. An upgrade of the currently used Hills line would only ever partially address these problems and would be cost prohibitive.

The Rail Freight Task Force recommends a new freight train bypass to the north of Adelaide. The new corridor, running from Murray Bridge in the east to Mallala in the west, would be much straighter and would travel through relatively unpopulated and much flatter country than the present route. It also has the added advantage of possibly allowing a parallel road freight carriageway, which would reduce both road and rail freight movements through the Adelaide metropolitan area.

The proposed bypass offers long-lasting benefits to both residents of the wider community as well as to those in the rail freight industry. It increases the efficiency and carrying capacity of the rail freight industry in order to accommodate the inevitable increase in freight volume in the coming years.

At the same time it allows the Adelaide Hills line to fulfil its potential in becoming a dedicated public transport corridor which could more effectively serve metropolitan Adelaide as well as the rapidly expanding communities of the Adelaide Hills such as Mt Barker and beyond.

The Rail Freight Task Force believes it is time to act upon the vision and move from the past into the future.

Page 37

REFERENCES

Australian Rail Track Corporation, 2001a, Interstate Rail Network Audit - Operational and Engineering Studies East-West Corridor, Draft Report, Jan 2001, Adelaide

Australian Rail Track Corporation, 2001b, Interstate Rail Network Audit - Final Report, July 2001, Adelaide

Australian Rail Track Corporation, 2001c, Audit of the Inland Rail Proposal - Parkes-Brisbane - Report, February 2001, Adelaide

Australian Rail Track Corporation, 2005a, Annual Report 2004-5, ARTC Adelaide

Australian Rail Track Corporation, 2005b, North-South Corridor Strategy, ARTC Adelaide

Australian Transport Safety Bureau, 2005, Collision between Shifted Freight Load on Freight Train and Passenger Train Eden Hills, ATBS 2005/006, Canberra

Bureau of Transport and Regional Economics, 2006, Freight Measurement and Modelling in Australia, Report 112, Canberra

Environment, Resources and Development Committee (SA) 1999, Rail Links with the Eastern States, SA Parliament Hansard 1999-04-28, Transport SA

Goodlee, F., 1992, Health & the Environment Noise - breaking the silence, British Medical Journal. 304(6819):110-3

Meyrick and Associates, 2006, Melbourne-Adelaide Corridor Study, Final report, Wollongong

National Occupational Health and Safety Commission, 2000, National Standard for Occupational Noise (NOHSC 1007), 2nd Edition, Canberra

National Transport Commission, 2004, Scoping Rail Environment Issues, Land Transport Environment Committee, Canberra

South Australian Railways, 1975, The Peregrine Report - an analysis of required upgrades to the Adelaide Hills Line, Adelaide

Standing Committee on Transport and Regional Services (2007) The Great Freight Task: Is Australia’s transport network up to the challenge?, House of Representative, Parliament of Australia, Canberra, Available: http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/trs/networks/report.htm

State Rail Authority 2003, Interim Guidelines for Councils - Consideration of rail noise and vibration in the planning process, Rail Infrastructure Corporation, Sydney

The Advertiser, 2007, $70m pulp deal signed for Port, September 5, 2007

The Australian, 2007, 'top priority': business backs inland rail plan, August 11, 2007

Transport SA, 2006, Main Road and Shepherds Hill Road Draft Road Management Plan, July 2006, Adelaide

Page 38

APPENDIX 1

Terms of Reference 1 Establishment of the City of Mitcham Rail Freight Task Force

Pursuant to Section 41 of the Local Government Act 1999 the City of Mitcham establishes a Task Force to be known as the City of Mitcham Rail Freight Task Force (“the Task Force”) for the purpose of further exploring ideas and issues raised at the Freight Rail Line Community Meeting held on 12 April 2006.

2 Membership

Membership of the Task Force shall consist of:

• Pro-active members of the community with knowledge of the engineering and working operations of railway systems

• Representatives from the rail transport industry

• Elected Members of the City of Mitcham

• Others who may contribute to the success of the Task Force; preferably with specialist knowledge in some, or all, of the topics under investigation

The Task Force members will appoint a City of Mitcham Elected Member as the Presiding Member of the Task Force in accordance with clause 5 of these Terms of Reference

The Task Force members will appoint a Deputy Presiding Member of the Task Force in accordance with clause 5 of these Terms of Reference

3 Terms of Reference

The Terms of Reference for the Task Force are as follows:

3.1 The Task Force does not enjoy the delegation of any powers, functions and duties of the Council or the Committees of Council.

3.2 The Task Force shall hold its first meeting at a date and time to be advised and shall meet thereafter at such other times and on such other days as the Task Force may from time to time determine.

3.3 Ordinary meetings of the Task Force will be held in the Council Offices or at such other places as the Task Force may, from time to time, determine.

3.4 The Presiding Member will report progress and findings of the Task Force to the Engineering and Environmental Committee under "Other Business".

3.5 Public announcements, including press releases, are not to be given by Task Force members unless the prior agreement of Council has been obtained, and then in accordance with normal Council policy.

Note: The role of the City of Mitcham is restricted to that of a facilitator to assist the Rail Freight Task Force in carrying out its functions.

Page 39

4 Task Force

The Task Force is charged with:

• Facilitating positive discussion and ideas regarding improvements to the currently unsatisfactory situation in relation to excessive noise and safety issues of freight and other trains within the City of Mitcham.

• Exploring other ideas such as the re-routing of the freight line and its impact on communities, possible expansion of the current passenger service, environmental impacts and possible opportunities which may benefit the State's economy.

• Delivering its outcomes and suggestions to Council for consideration and possible referral to State and Federal Governments, or the rail transport industry, with a request for action. Such outcomes will address, but not be restricted to, the following issue :

o Identifying further measures to reduce noise problems.

o Identifying further measures to prevent or minimise future derailment.

o Identifying alternative rail routes that higher levels of government could be encouraged to consider subject to more detailed economic analysis – by other levels of government.

o Performing preliminary work within the community in order to present a case for change to the appropriate levels of government, be that State or Federal.

5 Life of the Task Force

The Task Force will cease to function upon completing a final report of its findings to the Committee, or within 12 months, whichever occurs first. Any extension of time beyond 12 months will be determined by Council.

Page 40

APPENDIX 2

Timelines of South Australian Railways

• 1856 South Australia - Adelaide to Port Adelaide railway opened - gauge 1600mm

• 1887 Railways of Victoria and South Australia meet at Serviceton - gauge 1600mm

• 1889 Northern Territory - Darwin to Pine Creek railway opened - gauge 1067mm

• 1917 Standard gauge Trans-Australian Railway completed between Kalgoorlie, Western Australia and Port Augusta, South Australia - gauge 1435mm

• 1919 Railways of South Australia and New South Wales meet at Broken Hill, NSW with break-of-gauge-1067mm/1435mm

• 1937 Trans-Australian Railway extended to Port Pirie and the broad gauge railway from Adelaide to Redhill extended to Port Pirie - gauge 1600mm

• 1970 Broken Hill to Port Pirie standard gauge railway opened, completing Sydney - Perth link - gauge 1435mm

• 1980 Tarcoola, South Australia to Alice Springs standard gauge railway opened - gauge 1435mm

• 1982 Adelaide to Crystal Brook, South Australia standard gauge opened - gauge 1435mm

• 1995 Adelaide to Melbourne standard gauge railway opened - gauge 1435mm

• 2004 Alice Springs to Darwin Railway standard gauge railway opened - gauge 1435mm

Page 41 APPENDIX 3

Australian Rail Track Corporation (ARTC)

The interstate rail network excludes the line from Perth to Kalgoorlie and between Brisbane and the New South Wales border. Nevertheless, ARTC has rights to sell access between Kalgoorlie and Kwinana to interstate rail operators under a wholesale access agreement with the Western Australian track owner and operator, WestNet Rail. It also has a working relationship with Queensland Rail about the use of the 127 kilometres of standard gauge line between the Queensland border and Fisherman Island. ARTC intends to start discussions with Queensland about leasing this track once the NSW arrangements are bedded down. ARTC also maintains the NSW rural branch lines under contract.

Freight train passing through Belair Station, 2006 – Courtesy R Marshall

Page 42 APPENDIX 4

Railway Noise o Noise Definitions - Noise is usually defined as unwanted sound. A sound such as music that is enjoyable to one person may be a noise to another. Factors which change sound into a noise are loudness, character or frequency (e.g. tones, impulses, modulation). Loudness is the amount the sound pressure wave varies above atmospheric pressure and is measured in decibels (dB). Character describes whether it is pure sound or a jumble of discordant sounds or noise, and frequency is the number of pressure fluctuations or cycles per second (Hertz - hz).

The human ear can hear sounds in the range between 20 and 20,000hz frequencies, but is more sensitive to frequencies in the mid ranges 100 to 4000hz corresponding to sound pressures of 20 to 120 dB(A).

Sound reaches the ear at varying frequencies, some high (screeching) and some low (rumbling) but not all frequencies are heard by all human ears, e.g. some people are sensitive to high frequency noises above say 2000hz while others are sensitive to low frequency noise, say below 1000hz. The converse can also be true that some who are sensitive to high frequency noise may not be affected so much by low frequencies and the low frequency sufferers may not be so sensitive to high frequencies. (Refer: Auditory Field Graph)

Listeners can be more or less sensitive to noise depending on their existing levels of stress; their particular needs, such as sleeping and watching television. To more accurately adapt to the human perception of sound levels, meters are designed to modify the metered response to a sound which approximates the human perception by using Decibels A scale or dB(A), where the ‘A’ represents the particular modification to the incoming sound pressure. o Measurement of Noise - Noise is usually varying and is therefore sampled over a period of time. Two principles are used, Leq and Ln.

Leq is the noise level of a steady sound that would have the same energy over the same time period and is the unit used by a Noise Abatement Authority to assess noise from Industry.

Ln is the noise that is exceeded for n% of the measured period. The most common units are L10 (the noise exceeded for 10% of the measured period - often known as the average of the maximum noise levels) and L90 (the noise exceeded for 90% of the measurement period-often known as the average of the minimum noise levels or background noise level).

When measuring noise it is important to consider reflections and background noise, so that the source of the noise is correctly measured. Most noise is not continuous and care is to be exercised due to extraneous effects near the source.

The effect of noise will depend on issues such as loudness (dB(A)), the frequency or character (tones, impulses, modulations) and the background noise. o Vehicle Steering - Railway vehicles, locomotives and carriages are steered by the track. There is no steering mechanism within the train or its systems which steer the axles on freight vehicles. All is achieved by the railhead sides on top of the rail which guides the wheel flanges. Wheel sets usually occur in groups of 4 wheels on two axles all fixed rigidly together with a turning pivot plate which allows the whole wheel set to rotate left or right as needed. The turning pivot plate is fixed to the carriage by a central pin allowing rotation.

Under normal dynamic conditions all carriages follow the draw pin linkage at the front and dutifully follow the rail track alignment as required by the wheel flange contacts with the rail.

Page 43 o Track Oilers - It is understood that not all curves in the track required this treatment, but only some, usually the sharper curves were oiled. The reasons for the lubrication were not always apparent but the assumption was that wheel flange maintenance is reduced, and less drag from frictional forces would be an advantage. Careful aiming of the oiler was set so that over- oiling of the rail did not occur, thus reducing wheel grip essential on steep grades abounding only on this railway.

A simpler method, put into practice in 2000 by Australian Rail Track Corporation and serviced by Transfield, was attached to the rail sides and actuated when wheels approached. It was located west of the Coromandel Station area.

This system has not proven reliable or effective enough to stop wheel squeal at this report date.

Freight train passing through Belair Station 2006 - Courtesy R Marshall

Page 44 APPENDIX 5

Ownership, Investors, Users, Stakeholders

o Australian Rail Track Corporation Ltd o Australian Railroad Group

O Genesee & Wyoming Railroad USA

O Freight Link Murray Utah, USA, Asia Pacific

O Toll Holdings Ltd

O Northern Territory Freight - Allan Scott. Mt Gambier SA

O Queensland Rail - Qld Aust.

O Macquarie Bank, Ltd

O Babcock & Brown

O Patrick Corporation o Serco - UK Great Southern Railway o Halliburton Co, Kellogg, Brown, Root, USA o Carillion PLC's UK o Barclay Mowlem, UK o Leighton Holdings, Aus o Macmahon Holdings, Aus o NT Government, Aus o 2 Aboriginal Corporations

Page 45 APPENDIX 6

Track Modifications by Deviation Number taken from the Peregrine Report (SAR 1975):

1) Mile End to Goodwood; Leadworks, switch mods; Road & Rail Overpasses replace level xings & close off minor streets.

2) All level crossings to be eliminated from Leader, Victoria St to Millswood, Cross Roads, Hilda, Angas, Grange and Wattlebury Rd. build road overpasses 3 span x 330m long x 2 x 2 or 4 lanes, close local streets; close Angas and Wattlebury except for pedestrians; cut rail 3 m x 800 m rebuild station @ Unley Park. This makes railway in a dedicated corridor.

3) Mitcham Station; Realign to one curve if required.

4) Torrens Park Station & Springbank Road bridge; rebuild station raise or lower tracks under bridge for clearances and width.

5) Eden Hills, 3.5km bypass deviation. Bypass Sleeps Hill tunnel with open cut on west side, keep grades @ 2.16%.

6) Willowie Street - Shepherds Hill Tunnel, 1.8km in length, Daylight tunnel, build twin 2 lane bridges over on Shepherds Hill Road.

7) Karinya Res/Roseberry Ave, length of 600m, Rebuild curves /shut /rebuild Coromandel Station to west; delete Brighton Parade level crossing.

8) Blackwood (18.1) from Fern to Carr Street, build tunnel. Bypass pedestrian overpass @ 17.7km, and Coromandel Parade Overpass; close Main Road level crossing with bored tunnel under shopping centre and access to shops etc.

9a) Prior to Glenalta Station, 550m length, cant adjustment to 150mm.

9b) After Glenalta Station, 700m length, curve adjustments just north of Station from TP use 800L & 600R to finish at Pinera Station. Delete & rebuild Main Road bridge.

10) Belair Station. Replaces 3 sharp curves, 2 road bridges remain, Upper Sturt & Sir Edwin Smith into National Park. Rebuild station.

11) Sheoak Road - National Park tunnel, 17km length, Single track works from here to Murray Bridge unless suburban upgraded also. (NP station closed) Bypass National Park tunnel with cutting using small straights between curves.

12) National Park tunnel to Upper Sturt Road, 4.3km, rejoins at Long Gully Station. Bypass Long Gully Tunnel. Provides for crossing loop 1800m length.

13) Upper Sturt Tunnel to Mount Lofty Station 2km, Upper Sturt Tunnel replaced by upgrade 260m long. Rebuild Mt Lofty Station, if required, lower track for Avenue Road bridge clearance & underpin/rebuild at 31.030.

14) Mt Lofty – Cricklewood Road, 2.6km. Extend deviation 13 - 530R under Avenue Rd bridge & tangent 600R at 33.35km. Rebuild Heathfield Station.

15) Aldgate Overpass – Bridgewater Stn 2.75km, Rebuild Mt Barker road overpass to improve alignment. New alignment tangents into existing Bridgewater Stn.

Page 46

16) Bridgewater Balhannah from 37.3-46.0, 8.7km, Crossing Loop starts 43.10. 37.650 Start 1000L finish @38.42.w/-200m straight under Onkaparinga Rd & SE freeway. Use 900R&900L, to 2150m straight & 850 R into Balhannah Stn south of Main Rd. New bridge over river. Delete Ambleside tunnel & and bridges @ 41.2 &42.7 & 4 level Xings.

17) Mattners Rd Intersection 100m, Replaces existing curve. Realign road slightly.

18) Altmanns Rd intersection 470m, Replace curves, realign level Xing.

19) Mt Barker Jn to Nairne 5.3 km Nairne Creek crossing. Nom 2.2km str ytrack w/- 1600 curves each end.

20) Nairne to Bremer River, 16.8km, Rebuild all corridor & track.

21) 22 Bremer River to Monarto South Bremer River bridge preserved 6.24km.

22) Monarto South to Murray Bridge 9.3km, Rebuild curves & delete all level xings or signalize.

23) Murray Bridge 1.7km, Rebuild 300 L curve with extra cant.

Page 47

Existing Railway Rectification Works by Deviation & Curve Number

Radius w/- R = right L= left hand.

LOCATION & DISTANCE Max Current Proposed Height Modiify ADELAIDE Dev No Track Curve speed speed cant ASL Radius Km to km (2) (3) no km/h km/h mm m m (1) (4) (5) (6) (7) Mile End to Goodwood 55 to 1 2 0 520 100 150 - 0.66 - 1.92 65

Leader St level Xing 2 2 0 0 100 90 - - 4.7

Victoria St level Xing 2 2 0 0 100 55 - - 5.3

Millswood 2 3 0 0 90 55 - - MG Diamonds 5.4

Cross Rds level Xing 2 2 0 0 100 90 - - 6.9

Hilda /Sussex St Level 2 2 0 0 100 90 - - Xing - 7.2

Angas Rd Level Xing 2 2 0 0 100 90 - - 8.0

Grange Rd level xing 2 2 0 0 100 60 - - 8.4

Mitcham Stn 3 2 1 1000R 100 50 72 70 8.5

Wattlebury Rd Level xing 2 2 - 1000R 100 50 72 80 8.8

Torrens Park Stn 4 2 2 1000R 120 90 100 90 9.3

Springbank Rd bridge 4 2 - - 150 90 - 100 9.8

3 1600 Eden Hills 5 2 4 1600 160 60-70 140 105-175 10.56 - 14.10 5 1600

Willowie St - Shepherds 6 900R 130 Hill Tunnel 6 2 60 150 190 7 600L 105 14.10 - 15.90

Page 48 LOCATION & DISTANCE Max Current Proposed Height Modiify ADELAIDE Dev No Track Curve speed speed cant ASL Radius Km to km (2) (3) no km/h km/h mm m m (1) (4) (5) (6) (7) Karinya Res/Roseberry Av 7 2 8 700L 110 60 150 205 15.9 - 16.5

Blackwood (18.1)Fern – 8 2 str - 120 60 - 245 Carr, Tunnel 16.5-18.4

Prior to Glenalta Stn 660L 9a 2 9 110 60 150 250 18.78 - 19.33 unmod

After Glenalta Stn 10 800L 120 9b 2 55-60 150 260 19.4 - 20.15 11 600R 105

Belair Stn (9) 10 2 12 1000L 130 55 150 310 21.2 - 21.80

Sheoak Rd-Natl Pk tunnel 13 530R 11 1 100 50 150 380 22.90 - 24.600 14 530L

15 1600R 110 NPk tunnel-Upper Sturt Rd 12 1 16 530L 100 50 150 450 24.600 - 28.90 17 530R 100

Upper Sturt Tunnel-Mt 18 530L Lofty Stn 13 3 100 50 150 500-510 19 530R 29.25 - 31.20

Mt Lofty –Cricklewood Rd 14 1 20 600R 105 55 150 445 31.2 - 33.80

21 125 140 Aldgate Overpass – 1000R Bridgewater Stn 15 1 22 1600L 125 55 110 400 1600R 34.450 - 37.30 23 135 130

24 1000L 135 Bridgewater Balhannah 25 900R 130 37.3 - 46.010 16 1 50-60 150 350 26 900L 130 Crossing Loop starts 43.10 27 850R 125

Mattners Rd Intersection 17 1 28 1600R 135 75 130 360 47.197 - 47.300

Altmanns Rd Intersection 29 1000L 18 1 135 75 150 380 49.269 - 49.735 30 1000R

Mt Barker Jn to Nairne 31 1600L 160 19 1 50-65 150 380 50.002 - 55.305 32 1600L 160

Page 49 LOCATION & DISTANCE Max Current Proposed Height Modiify ADELAIDE Dev No Track Curve speed speed cant ASL Radius Km to km (2) (3) no km/h km/h mm m m (1) (4) (5) (6) (7) 33 8000R 160 36 Nairne to Bremer River 20 1 34 1600R 160 60-75 150 100 55.305 - 72.153 35 8000L 160 36

Bremer River to Monarto 36 2750L 160 105 21& 100- South 1 37 1400R 160 150 unknown 22 115 72.153 - 78.39 38 1400L 160 150

Monarto South to Murray Bridge 23 1 39 8000L 160 60-105 36 unknown 85.33 - 94.664

Murray Bridge & Over 40 893R 60 45 24 1 50-60 unknown 96.215 - 97.900 41 300L 60 135

(1) Locations are approximate chainages using the Nov 2006 ARTC code of Practice for Operations and Safe Working tables.

(2) Deviation No. refers approximately to the 1975 Project Peregrine Scheme 1 realignments. See text.

(3) Track refers to number of tracks affected, which would include current suburban tracks parallel to this line .i.e. up to Belair only.

(4) In general the proposed speeds allow about 100% increase over existing speeds without exceeding cant deficiencies up to about 70 mm.

(5) Current speeds are taken from ARTC Code of Practice for operations and safe working Tables.

(6) Proposed cants are based on balanced cants (no unbalanced centrifugal forces) with some cant deficiencies up to 70 mm.

(7) Height refers to Datum levels at the end chainage to Australian Height Datum above sea level. (ASL)

(8) These are only the main highlighted construction items. More details will be found on final design

(9) This is current end of the suburban system, requiring 2 tracks.

Page 50

APPENDIX 7a

Freight Train Traffic Daily Survey1, taken at Millswood Station

Date: 7 December 2006

To Adelaide 7 December Thursday From Adelaide7 December Thursday

Train Owner Time Length Train Owner Time Length No. m No. m

5MP4 Pacific National 2.06am 1300 3PW4 Pacific National 2.36am 1300

4PW4 Pacific National 3.22am 1280 6AM8 Great Southern 7.38am 400

MA6 Queensland Rail 8.25am 800 3MP6 Pacific National 9.28am 1200

MA5 Pacific National 8.54am 1350 6PM3 Aust Rail Track 6.17pm 1400 Cpn

MA3 Pacific National 9.17am 1460 6MP5 Aust Rail Track 8.20pm 1400 Cpn

5MP9 Specialised 12.08pm 1480 6AM6 Queensland 9.20pm 800 Container Rail Transport

5MP5 Pacific National 1.00pm 1400 6AB6 Pacific National 10.10pm 1100

6MR1 Aust Rail Track 3.37pm 300 4AM3 Patrick Cpn 12.01am 1400 Cpn

WP2 Pacific National 11.41pm 1400 6PM9 Specialised 12.30am 1480 Container Transport

2SP2 Not recorded Not 900 recorded

Pacific National = 9 Specialised Container Transport = 3

ARTC = 3 Patrick = 1

Great Southern = 1 Queensland Rail = 1

Page 51 APPENDIX 7b

Freight Train Traffic Weekly Survey 2, 2006 – Millswood Station

Train Train Train Train Train Train North Time South Time North Time South Time North Time South Time bound bound bound bound bound bound

Sunday 15 October Wednesday 18 October Friday 20 October

3PW MA6 5.52 5PM5 7.35 3MA6 4.54 #AM8 7.38 5MP4 2.06 2.36 am am am am am 4 am #6A MA5 4.23 1AM5 12.04 3MA5 7.03 1PM5 9.37 4PW4 3.22 7.38 pm pm am am am M8 am 3MP 1MR2 4.07 1AM6 6.38 3MA3 8.57 1DM9 11.22 MA6 8.25 9.28 pm pm am am am 6 am 6MR 6BA6 7.38 2KI1 12.08 3MA9 9.24 6PM6 7.04 MA5 8.54 6.17 pm am am pm am 3 pm 6MR Monday 16 October 3MP5 10.54 4AM5 8.16 MA3 9.17 8.20 am pm am 5 pm 6AM 7WP2 2.53 5PW4 2.06 4MR2 4.53 4AM6 8.45 5MP9 12.08 9.20 am am pm pm pm 6 pm

7MP9 9.55 #AM8 7.30 2BA6 11.17 4AM3 9.50 5MP5 1.00 6AB6 10.10 am am pm pm pm pm

4PM 2KI2 4.42 7714 10.22 4AB6 11.45 6MR1 3.37 12.01 pm am pm pm 3 am 6PM 1SP2 1.41 AM6 6.24 4K41 12.08 WP2 11.41 12.30 am pm am pm 9 am

AM5 7.45 Thursday 19 October Saturday 21 October pm 4PM AM3 9.31 3WP2 4.44 7PM5 10.55 MP4 5.40 12.46 pm am am am 6 pm

5MR1 7AM AB6 9.54 4MA6 6.10 12.58 6MA6 5.57 8.05p pm am LE pm am 5 m

5PM 6RO04 1.52 4MA5 6.25 2MA6 6.15 6MP9 8.35 11.14 am am pm am 9 pm

4MA3 7.25 5AM5 7.28 6MA3 9.46 Tuesday 17 October am pm am

5.50 8.42 8.06 11.48 2MA5 3MR1 8.08 MP5 5AM6 6MA5 am am pm am am

Table Continues next Page

Page 52

Train Train Train Train Train Train North Time South Time North Time South Time North Time South Time bound bound bound bound bound bound

6.50 6PM7 7.00 #5MA8 7.00 3PM7 8.48 MP7 12.06 MA6 am pm pm pm pm

MA3 7.46 3AM5 7.48 3BA6 10.56 6MP5 2.00 am pm pm pm

MP5 10.38 3AM6 8.30 4K42 12.45 #7MA8 6.03 am pm am pm

#MA8 5.35 3AB6 9.55 5BA6 12.32 pm pm am

3BA6 12.52 3AM3 10.23 am pm

Approx equal both 1SP2 1.34 3PM6 11.30 am pm directions

7PW4 1.45 Maximum for day am = 18

Total for week = 88

Note: Numbers of trains as well as operator schedules will vary from week to week.

Page 53 APPENDIX 8

Running Costs The University of SA Centre for Industrial and Applied Mathematics (CIAM), in a 2000 study carried out for the National Rail Corporation, compared freight haul costs between AC & DC powered locomotives from Melbourne to Brisbane.

Costs were as follows:

Haul Cost per Number of Travel times Trip Costs Hourly rates Mass tonne locos hours $ $/h tonnes $

2 x AC locos 3500 31.3 12.46 43610 1393

2 x DC locos 2600 28.2 13.52 35150 1246

2 x DC 13.02 + 1/3DC part 2600 n/g Best DC 33850 1399 trip result

The following calculations present a cost analysis based on the trip from Melbourne to Brisbane of 1912km (on similar gradients to Adelaide Hills for the part of the trip near Junee and Taree, in NSW):

$12.46 x 3500 = $43610, for two AC locos

$13.52 x 2600= $35150 for two DC locos

Using a conservative average of these two costs of $36,000:

2 Loco’s @ $36000/1912km = $18.83 per km

2 Loco’s @ $36000/28.2hr = $1277 per hour

(These rates may need to be updated to current values based on inflation.)

A single trip from Adelaide to Melbourne is 832km, with a comparative cost of:

832 x $18.83 = $15667

Using the same approximate rates means that if a time saving though a new Adelaide Bypass were 2.0 hours it would produce a saving of about:

$1277 x 2.0 hr = $2554 or about 16% of the trip cost

Apart from extra fuel costs or other sundries to be added for the Hills section of the existing route, this shows that the bypass would be economical from a running point of view.

Page 54

APPENDIX 9

Cant Deficiency It is proposed that excessive noises produced by freight train wheels and rail track interface known as ‘wheel squeal’ and ‘flanging noise’ is possibly due to excessive cant deficiency over many of the curves between Adelaide and Murray Bridge. The definition of ‘cant’ is given below.

Wheel squeal and flanging noise are also addressed in the Current Railway Problems of this report. There are some 204 curves along this section of track maintained by Australian Rail Track Corporation (ARTC). Some 30 of these curves may have excessive cant deficiencies, where most curves are around the 200 metre radius. The following discussion is offered by this report.

Definitions Used

1. Cant

a. The amount of ‘banking’ on curves where the outer rail is set above the inner rail. It is measured in millimetres. Sometimes called superelevation in highway design.

b. For a track gauge of 1435mm (standard gauge) it is shown that to achieve this cant (banking), the sleeper supporting the rails has to be elevated at its outer end, being the outer side of the curve. Smaller curves require more cant than large radii curves and higher speeds require more cant than slower speeds. This is due to centrifugal forces acting on the train though its centre of gravity tending to roll the wagons outwards on each curve.

c. The wagon mass has no bearing on the amount of cant but does play a part in the overturning forces due to centrifugal action as well as causing righting forces against the overturning effects. The interplay of forces is in equilibrium provided the cant is sufficient. However the train is not always moving and could be stopped on a curve. 2. Equilibrium Speed

a. Whenever the cant is sufficient for the horizontal forces to be exactly balanced against the wagon mass the term used is that ‘equilibrium speed has been reached’.

b. Since cant cannot vary with the train speed, any excess speed generates centrifugal force which has to be taken on the outer wheel flanges only. At this point the outer wheel bears both the excess horizontal forces as well as a dramatic increase in vertical wheel load.

c. Wheel loads are normally 50% on each side on flat track. When the train is stationary on a curve or moving around a curve the “50%” changes dramatically. Excess horizontal wheel load is only taken by the outer wheel flanges which normally do most of the steering. They do this by bearing against the sides of the rail head. Hence the rail line itself sustains excess wear due to wheel flanging forces. 3. Cant Deficiency

a. For economy reasons the amount of cant does not normally exceed 150mm, since it is also thought that with a high centre of gravity stationary loads on a curve may derail if jolted into motion. The equilibrium cant value is quite often in excess of 150mm, so that deducting the actual cant from the equilibrium or balanced cant leaves a deficit cant. This is known as cant deficiency.

b. Rail experts advised that cant deficits should not exceed 75mm and should be less with high loads of the order of 2440mm. Such loads travel the Hills line frequently.

Page 55 Adjusted Curve Data Table for Curves 6 & 28 at Various Speeds and Cants

Inner Balanced Actual Cant Flange % % Length Radius Posted Outer Wheel Curve Cant Cant Deficit Force Speed Wheel Comments no. Axle Axle metres metres km/h LoadkN Load mm mm mm kN Load Load kN

6 390 206 stopped n/a 100 n/a -16 86 38 140 62 Stationary

6 390 206 40 88 100 -12 -2 110 49 116 52 Low speed

Existing 6 390 206 60 197 100 97 15 139 62 87 39 track

Proposed 6 390 206 65 232 150 81 13 135 60 92 41 track

Dramatic 6 390 206 80 351 130 221 35 172 76 54 24 increase

Existing 28 420 282 65 169 70 99 15 139 62 86 38 track

Proposed 28 420 282 75 225 150 75 12 133 59 93 41 track

c. This table is developed to show that excessively high cant deficiency rates could cause high rail wear rates due to the large horizontal forces on curves caused by heavy loads, speed and tight curves. The data was based on the ARTC website for information, of Operations and Safe Working, Code of Practice which may or may not be correct at the time. Not all cant deficient curves are shown in the table.

d. This premise probably arises from a significant number of curves along the existing railway, which show an erratic variation of cants. This may be how recent track builders found the site after the earlier broad gauge system was removed. There are currently 204 curves between Adelaide and Murray Bridge most of which exhibit cant deficiency, but a selection of 31 curves has been chosen to illustrate what results from excessive cant deficiency on such a tight winding alignment.

e. Alignment data was obtained from Australian Rail Track Corporation web site, ARTC Code of Practice for ‘Operations & Safe’ working tabulations, dated Nov-06. The second and third columns of the Adjusted Curve Data Table refer to the precise track running distance/chainage from Adelaide Central. [3.440km South Line is 0km Crystal Brook Line].

f. This data shows a more or less complete picture of all curves, existing cants, posted speeds, cant deficiencies, and Rated Speeds. Locations along the track for interest were obtained from tabulation at the ARTC web site.

4. Deductions Relating To Cant Deficiency

a. Most curves in excess of 75mm cant deficiency are around 200m radius. These are the sharpest values along the entire route. Therefore their sensitivity to speed and cant is dramatic.

b. It is assumed most train drivers adhere to posted speeds, since even small increases in speed have dramatic effects on flange forces and cant deficiencies. It is also known that curve 6 is one of the noisiest in respect to wheel squeal. Probably the next noisiest would be curve 28 which has the highest cant deficiency between Adelaide and Murray Bridge.

Page 56

c. For example: Based on an average flange force of say 14 kN (approx 1.4 tonne–force) for an average 80 wagon or (1.5 km long train) with 4 axle sets per wagon gives a force = 14 x 80 x4 / 9.8 = 457 tonnes lateral load on the outer rail caused by the outer wheel flanges experiencing cant deficiency. For 1800m trains (proposed) this would approximate to 550 tonne lateral load on track and with high daily/weekly usage, must cause very high wear rates on both wheel flanges and rail lines.

d. In contrast for a nominal required wear saving of 30%, the lateral rail loads need to be reduced to 365 tonne for 1800 m train set or 305 tonne for 1500 m train set. This is shown in the table column [13]. These values were found from a computer program which calculates balanced cant and flange forces for various cant deficiencies. 5. Selection of Two Worst Curves with Highest Cant Deficiency

a. A computer program was devised to calculate the wheel reactions and flange forces under any set of circumstances. This allows for varying centre of gravity, rail gauge, axle loads, cant deficiency, speed and curve radius.

b. This was applied to the two worst curves numbers 6 and 28. These were selected due to their high cant deficiency values. Several tests were run on the existing conditions given by ARTC and the theoretical conditions of increased posted speeds, and increased installed cants. By varying these multi-values it is possible to estimate possible speed increases, and the amount of extra cant required to arrive at the same wheel forces that existing values show.

c. One aspect of this research is clear in that the combined forces on the outer wheel and flange would dictate it is the driving wheel, and therefore the inner wheel is being spun at a higher speed than its rail allows on curves. Thus a mathematical model shows that the “slip-stick” phenomenon is operating on the wagon wheel system. The observation that shows inner rail head mottling patterns would seem to confirm this.

d. The possibility of this being a cause of high pitched wheel squeal is highly probable on this rail track. High wear rates "reported" by ARTC lead to an “old mechanical tradesman’s” conclusion that lots of noise means lots of wear. It is suggested that a section of track could be set aside for increased cant trials to test the validity of the above proposals.

6. Improved Route Efficiency

a. It is suggested that a way to improve the existing hills track efficiency would be to increase all cants to their maximum or 150mm such that balanced cant less actual cant (after rebuild) be less than or equal to 75mm. Even an increase in actual cant of 30mm are likely to reduce wear rates to approximately 70% of existing, and possibly reduce or eliminate noise from wheel squeal and flanging noises. At bare minimum the existing track if upgraded should have cants up to 150mm and speeds appropriate. It is possible to then achieve actual high speeds over some parts of the system. 7. Computer Programs

a. Two programs were written in order to compile this report. One was for flange forces, the other for the same output plus wheel reaction forces on outer and inner rails. All factors may be varied. Values may be adjusted to suit operator train speed or degree of wear reduction desired.

Page 57

8. Cant Deficiency Related to Noise, Safety and Wear Problems

a. It is now progressively understood that the wheels do not actually drag but in fact by a series of very minor slip-stick vibrations the inner wheels are driven by the outer wheels on curves. Or more correctly when the axle rotates horizontally. This can arise due to ‘cant deficiency’ in the rail track alignment. (Refer Appendix 12)

This phenomenon increases side thrust on the outer wheel flanges and due to unbalanced centrifugal forces on the load, the outer wheels carry a greater proportion of the total wagon load. Thus the outer wheels maintain a firmer grip to the outer rail, which being longer than the inner rail means the inner wheels have to spin faster than they are moving on their rail – hence slip-stick action is the name given to this phenomenon.

b. The result is that the outer railhead sides wear rapidly and the inner rail contact (upper) surface exhibits small, sometimes wriggly wear patterns at right angles to the rail length. At speed this phenomenon of slip-stick occurs almost instantaneously. It could be seen as a similar action to that of a violin bow (with rippled surface) being dragged along the violin’s strings to produce a constant sound level of uniform frequency and loudness. Like the wine glass and wet finger example, sliding wheels on highly tempered tensioned steel rails will result in screeching noises at a constant frequency which is observed on this track alignment.

c. Why the outer wheels drive the inner is evident in that the large lateral forces set up in each bogie result from unbalanced cant angles in the track itself. Combined with these large centrifugal forces adding more force to outer wheels and flanges, they are forced against the outer railhead. Thus there is more contact area on the outer rail enabling the primary driving force to the axle set from the outer wheels.

d. See the adjusted curve table data for Mile End to Murray Bridge for lateral flange forces existing and compare with reduced flange forces by increasing cant closer to the balanced cant figures. United States railway authorities recommend that cant values should not exceed 150mm for stability, but cant deficiency should not exceed 70mm unless high wear rates are tolerated.

e. It is proposed that the existing track cant deficiencies be reduced so that a closer balanced wheel loading will do two things:

1 reduce wear rates on rail and wheels, and

2 reduce noise emissions by sharing more equally the slip-stick action between outer and inner wheels, with less flanging noise as a bonus. Where there is excessive noise there are high wear rates – a mechanical axiom!

Page 58

9. The Future of Wheel Squeal Problems

a. The above descriptions of causes of wheel squeal seem to point to the wheel flange interface contact with the railhead as the main cause of the problem. In discussions with other people who live alongside the railway closer to the city of Adelaide a slightly different picture appears. When the railway leaves the Mount Lofty ranges it heads towards Adelaide city centre roughly north of the Mitcham area along a stretch of track which is straight and approximately 3.5km long. However, wheel squeal is just as strong along parts of this track as it is in the Hills high curvature regions. This may be for different reasons.

b. From a pure physics appraisal this noise could be caused by ‘a skateboard effect’, if the load on that particular wagon was not centrally placed in a lateral aspect. This is to say (for the benefit of skateboarders) that to turn the board left one must place their weight off centre laterally to the left and vice versa. The physics in doing this shows that the front axle pivots anti clockwise and the rear axle pivots clockwise. The angle change will be small but proportional to the size of the unbalanced lateral load. Thus the angle of attack of the wheel flanges will not be tangential to the rail and wheel squeal will result. This would explain wheel squeal on an otherwise straight track.

c. It should be noted that a load unbalanced to the left is less likely to produce wheel squeal on a left hand curve, but more likely to produce considerably more squeal and perhaps wheel judder on a right hand curve.

Freight train Eden Hills, 2007 - Courtesy S McCarthy-Linehan

Page 59

Page 60

Page 61

APPENDIX 10

Rail Safety Act

South Australia

Rail Safety Act 1996

Version: 1.6.2000

37—Notifiable occurrences

(1) An accredited owner or operator must report to the Administrating Authority within the time prescribed by the regulations an occurrence that happens on or in relation to a railway owned or operated by the person, or in relation to rolling stock operated by the person, and that is of a kind specified in Schedule 1 (a notifiable occurrence).

(2) Accredited persons may make a joint report with respect to a notifiable occurrence.

(3) In addition to the matters specified in Schedule 1, the Administrating Authority may, by notice in writing, require an accredited person to report to the Administrating Authority any other incident which endangers or could endanger the safe construction, maintenance or operation of a railway.

(4) A report under this section must be made in the prescribed manner and form and the Administrating Authority may require information supplied in a report to be verified by statutory declaration.

(5) The Governor may, by regulation, amend Schedule 1 from time to time.

Schedule 1—Notifiable occurrences

1 An accident or incident involving the death of a person. The requirement to notify applies in respect of the death of any person (including a passenger, other member of the public, railway employee or trespasser) and in respect of any cause of death (including accident, suicide or ill health).

2 An accident or incident involving serious personal injury to a person (including a passenger, other member of the public, railway employee or trespasser) that results in admission to hospital.

3 An occurrence in which a person —

(a) falls off a railway platform, bridge or structure; or

(b) falls between a train and platform; or

(c) falls from a train during the running, starting or stopping of a train; or

(d) is struck by a train or a unit of rolling stock; or

(e) is struck by an object thrown at or from a train; or

(f) is struck or affected by dangerous goods, or affected by gases or fumes, on a railway or rolling stock; or

(g) is struck by, or receives a shock from electricity on a railway or on railway premises.

4 A derailment of a train or rolling stock.

Page 62

5 A collision, including —

(a) a collision between trains, other rolling stock, vehicles or obstructions or buffer stops on running lines (including a collision as a result of a vehicle loading irregularity or an unsecured door);

(b) a collision involving a train with either a road vehicle or a person at a level crossing, including a pedestrian crossing;

(c) any other collision that causes damage (eg a collision in a depot or shunting yard).

6 An unauthorised passing of a signal displaying a stop indication.

7 A significant unauthorised departure from safe working procedures that could compromise safety.

8 A failure of items of signalling or other safe working equipment in a way that endangers or could endanger the safe operation of a railway.

9 An incident at or in the immediate vicinity of a level crossing that compromises safe operation of railway traffic or the safety of the public.

10 A failure of a tunnel, bridge or elevated structure (or a part of a tunnel, bridge or elevated structure) that endangers or could endanger the safe operation of a railway.

11 Rolling stock runaway.

12 An incident that could result in explosion, fire or pollution caused by dangerous goods.

13 An incident involving rolling stock as follows:

(a) hot box (i.e. overheated axle bearings which can cause catastrophic axle failure);

(b) dragging equipment;

(c) a wagon loading defect or out of gauge fouling;

(d) a door defect or an accidental opening of doors;

(e) train parting;

(f) a pantograph defect likely to cause dewirement;

(g) a wheel or axle failure;

(h) a major braking system failure;

(i) any other rolling stock failure that has the potential to cause a serious accident.

14 An incident where an animal large enough to damage a vehicle is —

(a) struck by a train; or

(b) on a track or in the vicinity of a track.

15 A fire affecting rail infrastructure or rolling stock that endangers or could endanger the safe operation of a railway.

16 An explosion affecting rail infrastructure or rolling stock.

17 A track defect that has the potential to cause derailment, including —

(a) a track defect involving horizontal misalignment;

(b) a track defect involving vertical misalignment;

(c) a broken rail (including a rail joint).

18 The appearance or occurrence of —

Page 63 (a) a defect in a civil or electrical infrastructure item that has the potential to cause an accident unless urgent corrective action is taken;

(b) a defect in electrical supply or overhead wiring sufficient to cause an electrical fault or dewirement;

(c) any other defect with the potential to cause an accident unless urgent corrective action is taken.

19 A case where a railway employee is found to be carrying out railway safety work—

(a) while there is present in his or her blood a concentration of alcohol of .02 grams or more of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood; or

(b) while under the influence of a drug.

Page 64 MEMBERSHIP OF THE RAIL FREIGHT TASK FORCE

NAME INTEREST/BACKGROUND

Geoff Bartlett Long-term resident of the Hills; local activist for the Hills community

Spatial Scientist, PhD - ANU Lecturer in Spatial Information Systems Simon Benger School of Geography, Population and Environmental Management Flinders University

Councillor Colin Campbell Bachelor of Technology - Adelaide University Regional Manager and Project Manager in the Communication Industry in SA - retired.

Background in science and statistics Has conducted large scale transport studies in London Keith Crawford Worked on road freight market in Europe Worked on strategic infrastructure improvement (road and rail)

Councillor, Dip T- Adelaide Teachers College BA -University of Adelaide Dip Ed - University of Adelaide M Ed (Spec. Ed) - Rutgers, the State Univ. Of N.J.,USA Elaine Grimm Lobbyist for public transport Founding member of ‘Friends of the Belair Line’; LGA rep. to the Passenger Transport Board's Passenger Transport User/Advisory Committee; Current Council's rep. to the Southern Adelaide Regional Transport Advisory Group

Phil Hart Hills resident, former Transport Industry employee, technical interest

Grant Hudson BSc(Hons), MSc, Deputy Mayor

Retired - Transportation, Traffic Engineer, University Of Adelaide and SA Institute Consultant Wilbur Smith & Associates; USA PG of Technology Pak Poy & Kneebone P/L; S Aust. Structural, Bridges, Roads, Rapid Transit; Bachelor of Technology Western Mining Corporation, Dam Leakage Robert Hunt Civil Engineering, Past Member Coordinator Chartered Engineer Manager; Structural & Civil Designer, Member, Institution of Engineers HalliburtonKBR; Australia. Civil/Structural Designer Sinclair, Knight, Merz: Civil/Structural Designer.

Page 65

NAME INTEREST/BACKGROUND

o Train Controller o Train Derailment o Train Control Procedures o Maintaining of Services o Train Describer System o Operational Work Procedures o Area Control Procedures o Train Safe Working Trans Adelaide – Multiskilled Operations Kon Jankovski o OH&S for Managers Controller o Traffic Interpersonal Skills o Management Support – Transit A o Defective Vehicle Mobile o Interface Procedures Reassessment Current OHS&W Chair for TransAdelaide

Stephanie Hills Resident; BA (Hons); Dip Ed Flinders University; Writer; Copywriter; Editor; Tutor McCarthy Linehan Diploma in Environmental Management, Former Vice President; Conservation Council of Bob Marshall South Australia; Former elected member of Mitcham Council for 11.5 years, including four years as Deputy Mayor, Inaugural Chairman, RFTF

Mark Ward Chair Of The RFTF, Councillor, BEd

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The residents of the City of Mitcham through the community’s Rail Freight Task Force, gratefully acknowledge the following individuals and organisations for their efforts in the production of this report:

The City of Mitcham, South Australia, for providing a venue for the Rail Freight Task Force to meet and compile this report

Des Egan, Manager National Railway Museum for his support and for providing historical photographs for use in the Report

Lena Jankovski for her tireless efforts and many hours of work in formatting and editing the finished document

Maurice Linehan of ML Design for his significant graphic design work and support

Dr Derek Scrafton, former Director General of TransportSA

Fellow members of Rail Freight Task Force who worked together as a great team and all of whom have made a significant contribution

Page 66 Page 67

Page 68