Rail Freight Task Force - Final Report (7737 kb) - City of Mitcham

DisclaimerThe Rail Freight Task Force Report has been prepared with funding and assistance from MitchamCouncil. The Report is the result of collaboration between members of the Rail Freight Task Forceand various community representatives and aims to provide an alternative perspective on railfreight through the Adelaide area.The information provided in the Report provides a general overview of the issues surrounding railfreight transport in the Mitcham Council (and/or surrounding) area. The Report is not intended as apanacea for current rail transport problems but offers an informed perspective from the Rail FreightTask Force. Findings and recommendations made in the Report are based on the informationsourced and considered by the Rail Freight Task Force during the period of review and should notbe relied on without independent verification. Readers are encouraged to utilise all relevantsources of information and should make their own specific enquiries and take any necessary actionas appropriate before acting on any information contained in this Report.

CONTENTSEXECUTIVE SUMMARY....................................................................................................................................31. BACKGROUND INFORMATION ............................................................................................................6Importance of the Railway System.......................................................................................................6How Much Freight Moves Through the Adelaide Hills.......................................................................7Historical Basis and Existing Patterns of Use ....................................................................................7Ownership and Control of Railways.....................................................................................................7Australian Government Rail Funding...................................................................................................7AusLink ...................................................................................................................................................8AusLink Projects....................................................................................................................................8Rail Infrastructure ..................................................................................................................................8Rail Freight Operators ...........................................................................................................................82. CURRENT PROBLEMS AND OBJECTIONS EXPRESSED BY THE COMMUNITY ..........................103. RAILWAY NOISE ..................................................................................................................................11Railway Noise – Contributing Factors ...............................................................................................12Rail Noise Effects and Intrusion .........................................................................................................14Health Effects of Railway Noise..........................................................................................................16Railway Noise Reduction Methods.....................................................................................................16Environmental Noise Regulation - Suggested Criteria ....................................................................17Air Pollution ..........................................................................................................................................184. RAILWAY SAFETY AND PROTECTION..............................................................................................19Freight Trains Are Too Long and Too Heavy ....................................................................................19Curvature Too Sharp for Freight Trains with Long Wagons ...........................................................195. ACCIDENTS ..........................................................................................................................................20Inadequate Clearances ........................................................................................................................20Tunnels..................................................................................................................................................20Weak Structures...................................................................................................................................20Derailments...........................................................................................................................................216. ROAD TRAFFIC DELAYS.....................................................................................................................23Incident Reports...................................................................................................................................23Usual Level Crossing Delay Times.....................................................................................................24Blocking of Emergency Vehicle Access............................................................................................257. OPTIONS FOR EXISTING RAIL CORRIDOR.......................................................................................26Long-Term Future of Existing Track ..................................................................................................278. TRACK CORRIDOR UPGRADE - ALIGNMENT FOR FREIGHT TRAFFIC ........................................29Page 1

9. ALTERNATIVE USES ...........................................................................................................................30Suggested Future Use of the Existing Rail Corridor ........................................................................3010. BYPASS ROUTE FEASIBILITY............................................................................................................31Background ..........................................................................................................................................31Proposed Route....................................................................................................................................31Economics ............................................................................................................................................33Regional Considerations.....................................................................................................................34Other Considerations...........................................................................................................................35Inland Rail Proposal.............................................................................................................................36CONCLUSIONS ...............................................................................................................................................37REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................................38APPENDIX 1 ....................................................................................................................................................39Terms of Reference..............................................................................................................................39APPENDIX 2 ....................................................................................................................................................41Timelines of South Australian Railways............................................................................................41APPENDIX 3 ....................................................................................................................................................42Australian Rail Track Corporation (ARTC) ........................................................................................42APPENDIX 4 ....................................................................................................................................................43Railway Noise .......................................................................................................................................43APPENDIX 5 ....................................................................................................................................................45Ownership, Investors, Users, Stakeholders......................................................................................45APPENDIX 6 ....................................................................................................................................................46Track Modifications by Deviation Number taken from the Peregrine Report (SAR 1975):...........46Existing Railway Rectification Works by Deviation & Curve Number............................................48APPENDIX 7a ..................................................................................................................................................51Freight Train Traffic Daily Survey 1, taken at Millswood Station ....................................................51APPENDIX 7b ..................................................................................................................................................52Freight Train Traffic Weekly Survey 2, 2006 – Millswood Station...................................................52APPENDIX 8 ....................................................................................................................................................54Running Costs......................................................................................................................................54APPENDIX 9 ....................................................................................................................................................55Cant Deficiency ....................................................................................................................................55APPENDIX 10 ..................................................................................................................................................62Rail Safety Act ......................................................................................................................................62MEMBERSHIP OF THE RAIL FREIGHT TASK FORCE ................................................................................65ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS................................................................................................................................66

EXECUTIVE SUMMARYThe Rail Freight Task Force (RFTF) was initiated by the City of Mitcham in mid 2006, in responseto growing concerns from residents affected adversely by the movement of freight trains along theAdelaide Hills Line. The group is comprised of elected members of Council and communityrepresentatives, a number of whom have professional expertise in the area of railway engineeringand 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 identifythose solutions which are in the best interests of not only the affected residents, but all partiesassociated with the rail freight industry.Over the last ten years, rail freight has increased in length, weight and frequency. In a societywhich is looking to encourage rail freight over road freight, the wider community generally sees thisexpansion as a positive. However, the passage of heavy freight though a major city, a section ofwhich includes tunnels, tight curves and steep gradients, naturally is accompanied by the very realproblems 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 railwear there is also wheel wear. ‘Cant’ deficiencies which exceed 75 mm are not only a danger forderailment 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 (asidentified in number of reports), but would only ever partially address the problems mentionedabove.With the broad and long-term picture in mind, the RFTF is proposing and has mapped a newfreight train bypass to the north of Adelaide. The new corridor, running from Murray Bridge in theeast to Mallala in the west, would travel though relatively unpopulated, much straighter and flattercountry than the present route. It could also have the added advantage of allowing a parallel roadfreight carriageway, which could reduce both road and rail freight movements into the Adelaidemetropolitan area.The proposed bypass offers enormous long-lasting benefits to both residents of the widercommunity as well as to those in the rail freight industry.Considering the importance of rail freight to both the South Australian and Federal Governments, itwould 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 nomore than an unpleasant memory(2) Peace of mind – eliminating the possibility of freight train derailments with potentially toxicspills 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 fumestend 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 beextended 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 andtraffic congestion(6) An opportunity to boost tourism to Strathalbyn and Victor Harbor by providing a rail link fromAdelaide Station to the Steam Ranger Heritage Railway terminal at Mount Barker. (It isacknowledged that this would need to happen in conjunction with the long-term plan tostandardise 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 accessAdelaide. 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, straighterterrain(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 originallybuilt to take the weight and volume of modern freight services(7) No more expensive noise-monitoring or noise reducing devices and strategies to reducewheel 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 withthe Footscray tunnel near Melbourne)(9) An opportunity to create regional employment at a new national rail freight reconfigurationyard which could be developed near MallalaPage 4

The RFTF believes that the likely costs for the proposed bypass are feasible and need not beprohibitive, 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 welcomesconstructive 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 theattached report. In particular the evaluation of the proposed bypass, as well as a realistic costing ofthe project, is imperative. We also believe there could be considerable economic benefits to theState and Federal economies, coupled with significant regional development opportunities fortowns along the route.A bygone era - Sleeps Hill Viaduct, circa 1890 - Courtesy National Railway MuseumPage 5

1. BACKGROUND INFORMATIONImportance of the Railway System1.1 It should be recognised that the Australian Railway System is a very important part of theeconomy, due to Australia's reliance on exports and imports particularly to and from South EastAsia. Consequently there is a growing need for an expanded and more adaptable rail system. Railand sea freight are recognised as the most efficient way in which to move large loads quickly andefficiently over long distances. The Australian freight task is growing rapidly and is set to double by2020 (Standing Committee on Transport and Regional Services 2007), including the rail freightsector (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 areasother than the east coast of the continent. Ports near productive cities lack sufficient depth andcapacity and cannot cater well for larger ships now in use (SCTRS 2007). The ports of Darwin andPerth (more correctly Fremantle) and their proximity to South East Asian Markets compared withEast Coast cities, makes them increasingly important destinations for imports and for the export ofAustralian 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 AdelaideHills rail corridor.The proposed Inland Freight Line connecting Brisbane and Melbourne is set to increase railconnectivity between the eastern capitals (ARTC 2001c). This link will increase movements offreight throughout the national rail network including the Adelaide Hills line. Already, some 80% ofall Melbourne-Perth freight is carried through the heart of Adelaide with no need to stop (ARTC2001b, Auslink 2007). This raises the question – Is this intrusion absolutely necessary?Page 6

How Much Freight Moves Through the Adelaide Hills1.4 Estimates vary as to exactly how much freight is currently being transported through the AdelaideHills. ARTC estimated a volume of about 4 million tonnes in 2003-4 (ARTC 2005a). Auslink refersto 5 million tonnes carried in 2004-5 (Auslink 2007). Data collected by the RFTF shows that thisfreight is carried by some 88 movements per week on the Hills freight line (See Appendix 7). Bothfreight 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 totransport 750,000 tonnes of pulp per year to Port Adelaide (The Advertiser, 5 Sept 2007). All ofthis will be carried on the Hills Freight Line - increasing tonnage on the line by between 15-19%.Historical Basis and Existing Patterns of Use1.6 The first attempts to build railways in Australia were by private companies, based in the extantcolonies of New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia. The first line opened in South Australiain 1854 as a horse-drawn line, while the first steam-powered line opened in Victoria in 1854. Theprivate 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 uniformgauge, different gauges were adopted in different states and even within states, which has causedongoing problems right up to the present day. (Refer Appendix 2, Timeline of SA Railways)Ownership and Control of Railways1.7 In the latter part of the nineteenth century, the establishment of an Australian Federation from thesix colonies was debated. One of the points of discussion was the extent to which railways wouldbecome a federal responsibility. A vote to make it so was narrowly lost. Instead the newconstitution allowed "the acquisition, with the consent of a State, of any railways of the State onterms arranged between the Commonwealth and the State" (Section 51 xxxiii) and "railwayconstruction and extension in any State with the consent of that State" (Section 51 xxxiv). TheAustralian Government was, however, free to provide funding to the states for rail upgradingprojects under Section 96 ("the Parliament may grant financial assistance to any State on suchterms and conditions as the Parliament thinks fit").1.8 Attempts to rectify the gauge inconsistencies are ongoing and by no means unified. Such problemshave led to many lines being taken out of use. Governments and private interests continue tosquabble about who should pay to remedy the problem.Australian Government Rail Funding1.9 While successive Australian Governments have provided substantial funding for the upgrading ofroads, since the 1920s they have not regularly funded investment in railways except for its ownrailway, the Commonwealth Railways (later to become the Australian National RailwaysCommission and privatised in 1997). They have considered the funding of railways owned by StateGovernment to be a State responsibility.1.10 Australian Governments have, however, made loans to the States for gauge standardisationprojects from the 1920s to the 1970s. From the 1970s to 1996, the Australian Government hasprovided grant funding to the States for various rail projects. The Keating Government's OneNation program, which was announced in 1992, was notable for the standardisation of theAdelaide to Melbourne line in 1995. Significant Australian Government funding was also madeavailable for the Alice Springs to Darwin Railway, which was completed in 2004. It should be notedthat this investment also involved ARTC being given (not sold) the single line freight route thoughthe Adelaide Hills by the Government of South Australia.Page 7

Funding is now being made available for rail freight though the Australian Rail Track Corporationand the AusLink land transport funding program.AusLink1.11 Under the AusLink program, introduced in July 2004, the Australian Government has provided theopportunity for rail freight to gain access to funds on a similar basis to that of roads. AusLinkestablished a defined National Network (superseding the former National Highway system) ofimportant 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 thefollowing 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 lineAusLink Projects1.13 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 Brookand Broken Hill at Yarrabandia, and Matakana between Broken Hill and ParkesRail Infrastructure1.14 In the case of the interstate network and the non-urban railways of New South Wales (theAustralian Government-owned Australian Rail Track Corporation ARTC) and Western Australia(WestNet Rail), construction and maintenance of network infrastructure is consolidated into nonprofitgovernment 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 SouthAustralia. (Refer Appendix 3)Rail Freight Operators1.15 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 andTasmania• Queensland Rail - Queensland• Australian Railroad Group (Queensland Rail) - Western Australian lines• Genesee & Wyoming (GWA – US) – South Australian linesPage 8

1.16 Other rail freight operators include:• Southern Shorthaul Railroad• South Spur Rail Services• Patrick Rail Operations• Specialised Container Transport• FreightLink• Silverton Rail1.17 Licensing of personnel with nationally recognised credentials facilitates the transfer of those peoplefrom one state or operator to another, as traffic demands.Freight train passing through Belair Station, 2006 – Courtesy R MarshallPage 9

2. CURRENT PROBLEMS AND OBJECTIONS EXPRESSED BY THE COMMUNITY2.1 The effects of this rail traffic on metropolitan Adelaide are the main concerns of this report. Thefollowing 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 aboveFreight train snaking through Eden Hills, 2007 - Courtesy S McCarthy-LinehanPage 10

3. RAILWAY NOISE3.1 It is acknowledged that rail freight is more efficient than road transport. Freight trains can carry theequivalent of 35 road trains though the Adelaide Hills. Almost all freight train traffic bound for thewest or east currently travels though the Adelaide Hills Railway System Corridor and some of themost 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, over80 trains per week were achieved by 2006 just 3 years later. By the end of 2006, there were up to18 trains per day as surveyed by the RFTF, far beyond what was reasonably expected by thecommunity.3.3 This is a quality of life issue for at least 100,000 residents living in the vicinity of the tracks. Theseinclude workers, retirees, elderly citizens, hospital patients and young families. Trains movethrough residential areas at all hours of the night and day (Fig. 3.1), disrupting sleep and causingmajor loss of amenity.3.4 Future train numbers will only increase as the advantages of the Darwin port facilities becomeavailable to industry and food transporters from South East Asia. The same will result from Perth’sclose proximity to Singapore and Malaysia and will mean more rail traffic heading east to where thepopulation is greatest.3.5 The Adelaide Hills part of the railway corridor will become more densely populated as the searchfor a better quality of life attracts people to the hills zone and beyond, and as a consequence of theimposition of the urban growth boundary. Estimates of the numbers affected by noise and safetyshow 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 movementswill get worse with increased rail freight traffic. There will be rail corridor safety issues relating tothe 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 willbecome imperative. This is likely to be controversial due to the unavoidable impact upon significantremnant bushland of the Adelaide Hills Corridor.3.8 The demands of a consumer driven society and consequent growth in rail freight traffic willnecessitate a major upgrading of the Adelaide Hills line and corridor in the near future, which willaffect road traffic and further residential developments nearby.3.9 The primary sources of railway noise are wheel squeal, locomotive noise, horn sounding andvibration. 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 throughGoodwood Junction876Trains per Week5432101 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24Hour of Day(Source: RFTF Survey December, 2006)Railway Noise – Contributing Factors3.10 Wheel Squeal - Wheel squeal noise is attributed to the contact between the tapered wheel flangesand 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 whenrollingstock 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 wheelsqueal:• The wagon wheels• The railway track• Those parts of the train which control or are controlled by the movement of wheel over railARTC initially assumed that the extreme curvatures found on the Hills track were the cause of themajority of wheel squeal problems. The high numbers of sharp curves through the Adelaide Hillsare a result of historical engineering limitations and are present in few other parts of the AustralianRail Network.Attempts to address the problem were made using ‘oiler system’ detection equipment. Trialscommenced 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 notall wheels squeal. To better monitor wheel noises a system of electronic surveillance was set up byARTC and acoustic monitoring consultants VIPAC at Heathfield.The device installed at Heathfield is known as "RailSquad". It is a data logger and bar-code readerand consists of several microphone arrays for approach, passing and going directions to identifyelectronic tags on every wagon with other data. If a ‘squealer’ is noted, it is logged and flagged upPage 12

to three trips before the system sends an email to the operator. A computer program can identifyup 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 timeThe South Australian Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) - Noise Branch is directlyresponsible for overseeing this operation. Once an irregularity is detected, the relevant operator isautomatically contacted and advised. This enables that operator to rectify the problem. At aninstallation cost of $500,000, the success of this system has yet to be demonstrated. To this reportdate, 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 noiseprogressively from their equipment using this track.Rail Gauge – Rail gauge has been tightened through the installation of concrete sleepers, whichprovide a more consistent gauge, less subject to swelling and movement of wooden sleepers. Inaddition, anecdotal evidence suggests that since recent derailments, insurers of the railway haveasked for a reduction in rail gauge tolerances. The standard gauge width of 1435mm is slightlywider 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 morefrequent contact between wheel flange and rail head is now occurring. While this results inincreased 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 rightconnected by a rigid axle with no differential movement possible. When traversing a curve, theouter wheel must travel a greater distance than the inner wheel and the wheel experiencing thelightest 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 bygrinding 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 trainspeed. 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 wearand 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 5locomotives. Many freight locomotives still in use date from the 1950s and 60s, and as they powerup to negotiate the steep inclines of the Adelaide Hills line, they produce high levels of lowfrequency noise. This noise can easily penetrate homes over distance and become increasinglyobtrusive (NTC 2004).Horn sounding by locomotives is a problem for residents living adjacent to tracks, particularlyaround level crossings. Horns are designed to be very loud and intrusive, but their use isconsidered to be primarily a safety issue as trains may need to announce their approach to levelcrossings and track maintenance crews.Vibration caused by the movement of heavy locomotives and rolling stock along the track is notonly 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 Hillsfreight line.Problems may also occur with rolling stock noise and general haulage noises from draw-barcoupling, rail breaks, and loose equipment.Some of these problems have been partially overcome by the installation of fully welded andtensioned track along with concrete sleeper and ballast arrangements and maintenance providedby the ARTC. Concrete sleepers however do not absorb as much vibration as wooden sleepers(NTC 2004).Rail Noise Effects and Intrusion3.12 There has always been noise associated with locomotives and carriages on the Adelaide HillsRailway Line. However the number of complaints has increased since the introduction of standardgauge (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 beheard above them. These intrusive noises will drown out normal conversation within residences asfar away as 700 metres from the track, while some individuals have to block their ears until it issafe again to listen.3.13 The RFTF was informed by the EPA that sound levels up to 115 dB(A) are now recorded atHeathfield. This is well above acceptable Australian Standards of exposure for humans. TheNSW government recommends railway noise levels in homes should not exceed 40dB(A) indaytime and 35dB(A) at night (STA 2003).3.14 Earlier versions of diesel-electric freight locomotives, singly or in multiples hauling heavy loads onthe extreme gradients found only on this section of Australian railroads, produce some deafeningexhaust 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 havebeen a steady build-up of noise, some from the more powerful locomotives but by far the mostnoise emanating from wagon wheel squeal. The wagon wheel squeal has caused a major outcryfrom 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 andretirement 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 toresolve the noise problem, but it continues to affect residents.Track maintenance Shepherds Hill Tunnel, 2007 - Courtesy S McCarthy-LinehanPage 15

Health Effects of Railway Noise3.17 Loud noise damages hearing. People exposed to noise for extended periods either in the workplace or other constant noise locations could accumulate progressive hearing loss. Noise sufficientto cause hearing loss is not often found in the environment while noise from discos, powerequipment, power saws, edge trimmers, and sporting activities like shooting can result inaccumulative hearing loss. People are unaware they are going deaf until they have profounddeafness which may occur later in life.3.18 Environmental noise may cause annoyance, sleep loss, difficulties in communicating and stress. Itmay 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 andsleep loss leads to heart disease, digestive system and circulation problems and other diseasesassociated with long term stress. The effects of noise can add to pre-existing levels of stress orother diseases.3.19 The RFTF understands that no fixed criteria or regulations are currently in legislation in SouthAustralia that provide a basis for measuring if rail track noise is in contravention of acceptablehealth levels.Railway Noise Reduction Methods3.20 There are many ways in which noise from railways can be minimised and reduced. A smallreduction in decibels will significantly reduce the noise intensity. Some of the following can easilybe trialled by laboratory research.1) The Rail Track:a) Experiment with different sleeper materialsb) Use thicker elastomeric / neoprene pads between rail and sleeper at problem locationsc) Provide more permanent noise barriers to an appropriate height from the track. This workson Melbourne freeways, Eastern and Western Ring Road Bypasses and several freewaysin Sydney. It begs the question, “Why do roads require sound barriers when railways donot?”d) Add a surface layer of finer size ballast. Raise ballast height to rail level on the shoulderse) Lubrication of Rails - although this has proved unsuccessful in trials on the Hills Line (NTC2004)f) Reduce cant deficiency to appropriate levels. Where cant elevations fall outside ofbalanced speed cants, this leads to increased rail head wear and increased noise at theinterface. 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 tothe wheel down to rail level. This relies upon the fact that wheel noise is translatedhorizontally outwards from the contact point of wheel and rail, at interface levelb) Experiment with different wheel materials, different hardness of rail or wheel rimc) Ensure that both side wheels on each bogie are at least close in diameterd) Experiment with rail head geometry and wheel contact surfaces applied to curves toaffect/limit the slip-stick effects between inner and outer wheelsPage 16

3) Other Parts Controlling Wheel/Rail Interface:a) Lubricate bogie pivots to allow free rotationb) Apply load cell technology to each wagon to ensure that the centre of gravity is centralwhen 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 cantdeficiencies may result in increased weight on the inner rail, thus causing a turning effect offront and rear bogies. The USA has at least 4 different flat top lengths. For a 22m bogie thecentre of gravity is 320mm off the centre line of the track.Further research may discover additional options.Environmental Noise Regulation - Suggested Criteria3.21 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 anunacceptable risk to hearing. Over long periods repeated exposure to noise between 75 and 85dBmay 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) indaytime and 35dB(A) at night (STA 2003).3.25 The Environmental Protection Agency (USA) recommended that overall outdoor noise should belimited 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) forurban 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 mustspecify to which hours of each day of the week the criteria shall apply, and with expressrequirements for further reductions during night times.3.28 Noise effects should also be considered cumulatively. Appropriate criteria could be based on theaccumulated noise by hours per day at various noise levels. This would account for rail trafficnumbers 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 thelicensing agreement a requirement for rail operators to show how the operator intends to reducerolling stock noise. An Environmental Improvement Program will be set up to enable noise fromvarious sources on the train to be progressively reduced as part of the licence requirements.Page 17

Air Pollution3.30 Freight train traffic is polluting the corridor and adjacent suburbs with diesel exhaust fumes, wheeland brake dust.3.31 At certain times of the night and day, especially during temperature inversions when layers of airare trapped at ground level, exhaust gases cannot disperse, causing choking fumes. This couldpose a health risk, especially to those suffering respiratory conditions. It is also a significantamenity 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 (CO 2 ).3.34 At present no emission standards apply to locomotives in Australia and any measures undertakenare 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 islikely 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 MarshallPage 18

4. RAILWAY SAFETY AND PROTECTION4.1 The SA EPA plans to monitor compliance with Environmental Improvement Programs amongstthose operators who are signatories. Noise is a concern along with safety, air pollution andemergency threat situations, such as derailed wagons containing dangerous chemicals, as well asnuclear and other radioactive material and equipment destined for nuclear power plants inAustralia or overseas.Freight Trains Are Too Long and Too Heavy4.2 The freight trains are too long for the existing Adelaide Hills track alignment. Currently trainlengths of up to 1500 metres are permitted, with 23 tonne axles allowable and usually hauled bytwo 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 perweek (3900 per annum).4.5 Some crossing loops (parking for bypassing) are presently too short to be adequate for this trainlength. There is also a shortage of loops so that when a train fails to reach the next waiting area allother trains in the system are held up (ARTC 2001a). Work needs to be done urgently to addressthis problem.4.6 Conclusion: Within a short time there will be newer, larger AC-Diesel locomotives capable ofhauling even heavier loads (more than 35% extra) and freight train lengths will increase to 1800metres or more. This means the Adelaide Hills corridor will be even more inappropriate for freighttrains.Curvature Too Sharp for Freight Trains with Long Wagons4.7 The 1500 metre long freight trains are also a problem for the Adelaide Hills Track system sincemost curves are banked with what is known as cant deficiency. This ‘cant’ is required for all railwaycurves and is simply stated as the amount of banking required for each curve radius to permit abalance 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 Roadand the exit at Belair National Park Tunnel where there are 28 curves. On 8 curves the radii are200 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 50km/h posted speed. However, the actual values used are 100mm and 60mm respectively. Thisresults 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 typeof train (ARTC 2005b). High cant deficiencies throughout the Hills freight line results in excessivelyhigh rail and wheel wear (especially flanges). It is also possible that much of the wheel squealcould be attributed to this phenomenon. Cant deficiencies also create safety concerns where trainweights are not evenly distributed on the track for a given speed.4.11 Conclusion: The engineering envelopes are approaching or have potentially exceeded recognisedlimits of safety on this track. Alignment geometry and safety is a concern for potential derailment.Page 19

5. ACCIDENTSInadequate Clearances5.1 The height clearance required for normal operations is 4.9 - 6.1 m, and bridges and tunnels requirethis clearance to be negotiated safely especially when cargo items could come loose on a freighttrain.5.2 Height clearance is also an important issue when double stacked wagons are the norm for freightarriving from Perth and Darwin. These lines permit this extra freight height to be used whichexceeds structural clearances given above, until it arrives at the Adelaide terminal. Due to the Hillsrestriction 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 arerequired to cross South Australia in both directions (SCTRS 2007).5.3 Width clearances are also inadequate. Loose freight items can become dangerous when lateralwidth safety factors are jeopardised. A serious incident occurred in Eden Hills in 2005, when loosefreight on a passing freight train collided with a passenger train (ATSB 2005).Tunnels5.4 Adelaide Hills line tunnels in their current form are incapable of taking high loads or double stackedvehicles.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 difficultengineering feat which would cause major economic upheaval both to operators, local businessand road traffic generally. Due to their age and form of construction Hills tunnels do not havestructural adequacy for enlargement which makes the job even more difficult.Weak Structures5.6 Since its conversion to standard gauge the Adelaide-Melbourne rail line, including the Hills line, islaid on concrete sleepers through to the border in order to cater for modern heavier and longerfreight trains. Other infrastructure, however, has not been upgraded. A number of tunnels werebuilt from the 1860’s onwards, usually of weak materials including locally made brick and earlyreinforced concrete. Many of these tunnels, as well as bridges and other structures, are overduefor replacement or upgrade.5.7 Conclusion: Tunnels and bridges are inadequate for this corridor and would be prohibitivelyexpensive to repair or replace.Page 20

Derailments5.8 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. Damagecosts were given as $50,000. Derailment was caused by steel plates laid on the track. Thisoccurred 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 causingdamage estimated at $300,000.5.11 In November 2004, a freight train derailed at Glenalta near the suburban station. Eleven wagonsleft 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 InvestigationTeam (ATSB). However, anecdotal evidence confirms that another serious derailment occurred onthe up track side of Eden Hills Station after standardisation. While the station platform wassignificantly damaged and was consequently demolished, the Willowie Street Bridge remarkablywas not affected. The incident was made worse because the locomotive driver was unaware that awagon 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 aridge 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 tosee 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 canever be used along this section. For balanced design the cant should be around 60mm. Howeverthe cants in this line are 35 - 45mm showing they are 25 - 15mm below the speed value used. Thisis not a cause for concern, since normal practice allows for cants to be deficient by up to 75mmbelow the balanced speed values. Concern would be justified when cant deficiencies exceeded75mm 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 oftrack however curve radii of 600 metres or more are not considered sharp or dangerous at theabove speeds. However, the danger comes when the curvature sharpens up after several gentlecurves. The driver, who may not be familiar with the track or is not warned ahead of time, could runinto trouble in this situation.5.16 The Glenalta derailment was found to be the result of inappropriate loading of wagons. While thefront and rear of the train was loaded, the centre wagons had no freight load, thus creating a majorimbalance. The ATSB determined that the derailment was caused by dynamic braking of thelocomotives on the down hill run. This was followed, apparently, by a delay in wheel braking in therear wagons. The rear wagons carrying a large proportion of weight then tried to over-run the frontof 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 beproduced by incorrect loading practices.Page 21

5.18 Given the considerable length of trains currently used (and the longer freight trains anticipated inthe future), it seems elementary to have appropriate electronic device to warn the driver of theconditions 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 toincrease in the future.5.19 While drivers control the speed of the trains, they have no control over the condition andengineering constraints of the track. The only safeguards to prevent derailments are well-designedrailways 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 fromminor discrepancies in driving technique.The RFTF believes that the existing Hills railway is outdated for rail freight and not upgradeable tosafe and modern standards.Freight train derailment between Coromandel and Eden Hills stations, 1988 – Courtesy P HartPage 22

6. ROAD TRAFFIC DELAYSIncident Reports6.1 The following list of level crossing delays (Table 6.1) is on public record. These are railway faultsaffecting road level crossings, and where Road Traffic gives way to Rail Traffic Controls. These areonly 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 FAILUREPeriod Aug 2002 - Aug 2007Crossing LocationNumber of call outsGOODWOOD / Leader St 10GOODWOOD / Victoria St 14UNLEY / Cross Rds 17HAWTHORN / Hilda Tce 4HAWTHORN / Angas Rd 3HAWTHORN / Grange Rd 10Lower MITCHAM / Wattlebury Ave 6PANORAMA / Barretts Rd 5BLACKWOOD / Main Rd 23BLACKWOOD / Brighton Pde 12GLENALTA / Main Rd 17ALDGATE / Cricklewood Rd 8ALDGATE / Yatina Ave 2BRIDGEWATER / Kain Rd 2BRIDGEWATER / Bridgewater Rd 4BALHANNAH /Onkaparinga Valley Rd 3BALHANNAH / Junction Rd 3LITTLEHAMPTON / Hallett Rd 2NAIRNE / North Railway Tce 3NAIRNE / Lower Nixon St 3NAIRNE / Bartley St 3TOTAL 154Average 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. Whendevice failures occur, road traffic delay times can be considerable, especially at peak road traffictimes.6.2 Some incident response times can be up to half a day. Most calls from the public seem to be madeby mobile phone as ‘Incident Reports’ and typically describe boom gates stuck down; visible andaudible 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 immediatelyattended to. This involves stopping the train within the shortest possible time. Due to the longlength of freight trains they may need to stop across a level crossing for considerable periods oftime. This happens often in the Adelaide Hills where alternative road routes are not possible. Thiscan mean long delays for road traffic, including emergency vehicles.Page 23

Usual Level Crossing Delay Times6.4 It should be noted that this discussion about level crossing delays does not include regular railwaymaintenance and rebuilding which can cause considerable delays and re-routing of traffic on tooften confusing Adelaide Hills back roads.6.5 The RFTF has surveyed some Adelaide Hills crossings and found typical delay times for roadtraffic as follows. For example, the average delay described below is from signal operation start tostop, at Glenalta Level Crossing, Main Road (an arterial road and the only practical route foremergency services).1. TransAdelaide single vehicle delay, about 50 seconds2. Freight train, about 5 - 7 minutes6.6 The effects on road traffic vary depending on time of day. At peak periods there can be road trafficvolumes up to 1100 vehicles per hour both ways at the Glenalta Crossing. In a normal working daythis 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 DelaysActionDailyPeakHourRoad Traffic through crossing 36,000 2200Rail Traffic 13 1-2Delay time (@ 7 min per train) 91 7No. of road traffic vehicles delayed 2275 257Accumulated 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 islikely to operate at the (arterial) Main Road Level Crossing in Blackwood, at Cross Road in UnleyPark, and the other eight level crossings, with more or less time delay depending on location andtrain speed. It would be therefore quite reasonable to predict a cost to road traffic and the generalpublic 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, railwaydelays are costly.6.10 Conclusion: Delays at level crossings cause the public considerable economic losses.Page 24

Blocking of Emergency Vehicle AccessEmergency vehicles are blocked in much the same way as other vehicles at level crossings. Itshould be noted that when emergency services are similarly detained, the consequences arepotentially very serious, especially in the Adelaide Hills where alternative routes are oftenunavailable. Emergency vehicles are held up not only by the level crossing gates, but also by thetraffic congestion they create.Freight train blocks Cross Road traffic, 2007 - Courtesy R MarshallPage 25

7. OPTIONS FOR EXISTING RAIL CORRIDOR7.1 The Hills corridor was surveyed in the late 1870's after considerable discussion and seeking themost feasible route though the Mount Lofty ranges from the Adelaide Plain. Early alternative plansincluded taking the line via ‘The Gap’ where Truro now sits, tunnelling though the ranges, or goingsouth 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 timewithout slip.7.3 Similarly curves were considered sharp if they were less than 40 metres radius, provided wagonswere 14 metres or less in length. Today’s wagons can be 29 metres long for which the absoluteminimum curve radii should be 90 metres. These minimum radii presuppose very slow trainspeeds.7.4 The Hills line has grades around 2% and curves as sharp as 190 metres with posted speeds of50km/h. Between Adelaide and Murray Bridge there are about 30 curves with radii around 200metres 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 almost2.5km 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 HuntPage 26

Long-Term Future of Existing Track7.6 The advantages to industry and other commercial enterprises of rail are obvious. While road freightmay offer some time advantages over rail, particularly for refrigerated freight, rail is considered farmore efficient. When one considers that 40 large 200 tonne B-double trucks are needed to carrythe equivalent load of a single freight train, it is easy to understand why railways have acompetitive advantage.7.7 Economics are also an important driving factor for commercial operations. If cost comparisons aremade between truck and train for most bulk freight movements, road freight cannot compete onprice 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 forproduct delivered on time and to cost there will be a need for the Adelaide Hills Railway to performover and above its current capability and at twice the speed. It appears that if the previous 3-4years growth rate in rail freight is repeated, the need for a faster rail service will make the existingAdelaide 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 todouble the existing posted speeds. Information researched on locomotive power shows thathauling trains of much greater weight and length will soon be a possibility though the Hills using thelatest AC powered engines. However, any upgrade completed in the next year will soon be out ofdate 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 tomeet future rail needs longer term.Freight train Sleeps Hill, circa 1950 - Courtesy National Railway MuseumPage 27

Figure 7.1Page 28

8. TRACK CORRIDOR UPGRADE - ALIGNMENT FOR FREIGHT TRAFFIC8.1 The following is a brief description of a proposed maximum possible upgrade on the existing trackcorridor between Adelaide and Murray Bridge.8.2 When referring to the ‘maximum possible upgrade’ which allows posted speeds to be double thecurrent 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 theproposed engineering works needed for such an upgrade will cause major physical disruption andwill be economically prohibitive.8.3 As mentioned previously many of the existing structures are incapable of being upgraded tocurrent freight standards. Their demolition or abandonment would be more appropriate to allow fora new deviated route on a better alignment. Since speed and low maintenance would be the maincriteria for any new route, the next main consideration should surely be the overall cost of theupgrade 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 freighttrain traffic, suited to future freight delivery demands. Speeds proposed are above 100 km/h, andalthough wheel squeal noise may be reduced, general noise will be significantly increased unlessnew developments are used to suppress noise from locomotives and wagons. It follows that thecorridor 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 trackclearances so that higher speeds than are now possible can be used with safety. Elimination of alllevel 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 freightoperators and consumers of rail-freighted products. This provides yet another reason why theproposed 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 - ThePeregrine Report (SAR 1975). This study was commissioned for a proposed new city at Monartonear Murray Bridge. Upgrade issue are also discussed in the ARTC Operational and EngineeringStudies Report (ARTC 2001a).8.9 The main criteria carried into this freight study shows the size of the upgrade needed to complywith current and future standards for freight traffic with regard to speed and accessibility forcrossing 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 as400% greater than the costs of the RFTF Bypass alignment.(Refer: track modifications by deviation number, Appendix 6)Page 29

9. ALTERNATIVE USESSuggested Future Use of the Existing Rail Corridor9.1 The relocation of rail freight movements away from the current Adelaide Hills route via theproposed northern bypass would create a number of exciting and very real opportunities for anexpanded public transport service.9.2 The current rail corridor from the City of Adelaide to Belair could be converted back to a twin trackpassenger line. It is considered that this would be most efficiently carried out when the proposedconversion of metropolitan rail system to standard gauge takes place, as to replace the existingstandard 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 andappropriate scheduling of commuter trains, something which has not been possible in the currentsingle line scenario.9.4 Once a reliable and sustainable timetabling frequency could be established, it would then befeasible to reopen the current suburban stations which were made ‘redundant’ by the then StateGovernment when the existing freight line was standardised some twelve years ago. These‘redundant’ stations, namely Hawthorn, Clapham and Millswood could also be complimented bythe construction of possible new stations along the route.9.5 Associated expansion of “Park n Ride” facilities would encourage many more commuters to utilisepassenger 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 servicewhich would facilitate the reopening all of the existing railway stations along the route as it oncedid. As part of a quickly growing Adelaide Hills town, Mount Barker residents would undoubtedlyprovide 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 withthe 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 toa dual gauge line thereby allowing commuter trains to once more service the southern towns ofStrathalbyn, Goolwa, Port Elliott and Victor Harbor, whilst still accommodating the Steam RangerHeritage Railway.9.9 The opportunities previously mentioned are not exhaustive. Another option could be the creation ofan O’Bahn system. This would enable the purpose built vehicles to travel the track and thendeviate 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 SouthAustralia into line with most other states in Australia. Electrification of selected Adelaide suburbanlines was announced in the 2007 budget. Alternatively, this electrification could also be combinedwith purpose built O’Bahn vehicles, thereby eliminating exhaust pollution in built up areas. It isworth noting that electric buses are now widely used in many cities throughout the world wherethey operate efficiently and effectively.9.11 Additionally, the opportunity to create public walking trails and bicycle tracks alongside any futurepublic transport system should not be ignored.Page 30

10. BYPASS ROUTE FEASIBILITYBackground10.1 The option of constructing a permanent rail freight bypass for Adelaide is the only realistic longtermsolution to the many problems posed by the existing Adelaide Hills Freight Line. Precedingsections detail these problems and conclude that while short term partial solutions may exist tosome issues such as noise squeal, it seems clear that with ever-increasing freight tonnages in thefuture coupled with a lack of options for an engineering upgrade of the existing line mean that it isimperative that a bypass line be built. This would be a major infrastructure development for theState 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, afreight bypass line for Adelaide would bring with it many associated benefits. These include: highertrack 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 stackcontainers; longer train lengths; and benefits to the efficiency of the National freight network as awhole.10.3 The idea of a rail freight bypass for Adelaide is not a new one and has been investigated andcosted in several previous studies. It was first proposed by Australian National in 1983 as a meansof improving passenger train speeds. Australian National prepared the first Barossa ValleyDeviation Report in 1991 (ARTC 2001a).10.4 The Rail Links Report (ERDC 1999) to the SA Parliament by the Environment, Resources andDevelopment Committee investigated an alternative rail route around the Adelaide Hills. TransportSA 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 costingsome $600 million, but provides few other details.10.5 The Australian Rail Track Corporation (ARTC) Interstate Rail Network Audit (2001a) mentions a180km bypass route for Adelaide passing though the northern Barossa, which could be built at anestimated 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, isalso investigating the issue.10.6 The Auslink National Land Transport Plan operated by the Department of Transport and RegionalServices commenced in 2004, and the corridor strategy for the Adelaide-Melbourne Corridor hasrecently been released. This draft strategy (Auslink 2007) predicts freight growth for the corridor of2.6% per annum until 2025, and highlights the need to address safety, efficiency and amenitythough the Adelaide Hills.Proposed Route10.7 While it is beyond the scope of this report to provide detailed estimates in relation to a proposedrail bypass route for Adelaide (as this has already been done in number of consultant reports), theRFTF has investigated possible options. For minimal transit times, reduced construction costs andhigh operating speeds, the route for any rail bypass should transit to the east of the Mount LoftyRanges, departing from the current line at or near Murray Bridge and reconnecting with the currentline at Mallala. A proposed route for this line is provided in Figure 10.1. The bypass would benefitfrom low gradients and favourable land acquisition costs along its route. It may also utilise some ofthe currently disused rail corridor between Murray Bridge and Sanderston (Cambrai).Page 31

Figure 10.1Page 32

10.8 The total length of corridor shown in Figure 10.1 is 151km, comprising a main Line length of 148kmand an Adelaide off-take curve at Mallala junction of 2.6km. The bypass route would require nomore than two crossing loops.10.9 Land required for construction of the bypass, assuming a 20m wide corridor, is given in Table 10.1below. Divided into five land divisions, it can be grouped according to likely similarities inacquisition cost.Table 10.1 - Land Acquisition Requirements for Proposed Rail Bypass.Land Divisions Location Land Required1 East of MLR 310.564 ha2 Vegetated foothills Eastern Barossa 24.007 ha3 Northern Barossa 110.063 ha4 Northern Plains 158.354 haTotal All 602.990 ha10.10 The advantages of the proposed route include that it would require only 9 small bridges and notunnels. It transits though sparsely-populated areas, facilitates very large curve radii (and thereforehigh speeds), and could be constructed without level crossings. It requires minimal clearance ofexisting vegetation, and could be built without affecting the operation of the existing line. It couldalso operate as a dedicated freight line, with Adelaide-Melbourne passenger services remaining onthe Adelaide Hills route. The only other option (upgrading the existing corridor though the AdelaideHills) would require substantial acquisition of high value and environmentally sensitive land fortrack realignment, as well as requiring prohibitive construction costs for tunnelling and earthworks,clearance of significant remnant vegetation and habitat, and interruption of existing operations. Inaddition, the upgrade option does not address the main issues of amenity though the Adelaide Hillsand the Adelaide Urban Area.Economics10.11 At a nominal track construction cost of $1.0 million per kilometre (the average construction costs ofthe Adelaide to Darwin route), the ‘track only’ component of the proposed rail bypass could be builtat an estimated cost of just over $150 million. The 603ha of land required to build the bypass isprimarily low value, low cost grazing country in all areas except the northern Barossa valley, wheresome higher value mixed-use land may need to be acquired. Train speeds could be maintained atmaximum ARTC operating speeds of 115km/h along almost the entire length. As a new lineutilising 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 (BTRE2006), and nearly two thirds of all trains moving though Adelaide are transiting betweenMelbourne-Perth or Melbourne-Darwin. The current average transit time from Murray Bridge toMallala for freight trains is 4-5.5 hours, a significant proportion of the average rail transit time of 13hours from Adelaide to Melbourne (ARTC 2001b). The bypass route would allow transiting trains tocover the same distance in under two hours.Similarly, freight destined for Adelaide freight terminals, which are located at Port Adelaide and innorthern Adelaide, would also benefit from reduced transit times and improved costs andefficiency, while avoiding the safety and capacity conflicts (Auslink 2007) on the already congestedAdelaide 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 theexisting rail corridor, with growth of 0.6% per annum. Between 2003-4 and 2004-5 alone, the railfreight 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 bypassin 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 afraction 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 ofconstructing the proposed rail bypass and any economic benefits to operators.Regional Considerations10.16 The proposed rail bypass route, aside from providing a long term, cost effective solution to themyriad 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 provideopportunities for increased tourism revenue in the Barossa region, if passenger trains on theMelbourne-Adelaide or Melbourne-Perth route are using the route and stopping there. Similarly, itwould also provide improved transport options for residents of the Barossa to both Melbourne andAdelaide. Bulk grain movements from South Australian agricultural regions in the mid-north, whichare currently transported by road, could be carried on the freight network. Another optiondiscussed by government has been the development of a complimentary highway to be builtalongside a proposed rail bypass. This would, along with the rail line, facilitate regionaldevelopment in the Barossa and South Australian mid-north generally though greatly improvedtransport options for movement of goods. Also, as much of the proposed route is though sparselypopulated 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 beshipped direct from regional areas to processing facilities and ports in Victoria without the need tomove though the slow and congested Adelaide rail network. It would also remove significant roadtransport from our highways, as substantial quantities of materials are moved by road to and frommining 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 couldhave significant ramifications for employment and economic growth in this regional area. TheSouth Australian government is currently making substantial investments to upgrade water,electricity and communications infrastructure in the mining regions of the State. Therefore it wouldseem clear that complimentary investment in rail is also required.10.19 South Australia's burgeoning Defence industry, particularly commencement of work on the $6billion 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 theEastern States. A bypass would allow easy connectivity for these activities and avoid the need touse 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 onthe commuter line to Belair and development of possible passenger services to fast growingregional areas such as Mount Barker, thereby reducing traffic loads on the already congestedMount Barker freeway.Other Considerations10.21 Clearly, any investment in the rail freight network which improves rail's competitiveness againstroad transport will result in fewer trucks using our highways. By 2025, the volume of freight usingthe Melbourne-Adelaide Corridor is estimated to double to 18 million tonnes (BTRE 2006), andmost of this growth will be taken up by road transport (Auslink 2007). The main reason for this isthat road transport has a transit time of 9 hours compared to 13 hours by rail (ARTC 2001b). A railbypass 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 morefreight 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 ofGovernment strategies to address climate change.10.23 Any removal of trucks from the Melbourne-Adelaide corridor will have significant positive safetyimplications. Between 2001 and 2005, there were approximately 1170 casualty accidents on roadsalong the corridor (Auslink 2007). A rail bypass will produce a more efficient rail network, attractingfreight 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 theresidents of Adelaide and the Adelaide Hills. It will remove the problems caused by deficiencies inthe 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 itcan be constructed while the Hills freight line remains in use. An upgrade of the existing line willrequire that it be taken out of operation for an extended period, affecting the entire Australianfreight network and the South Australian economy.Page 35

Inland Rail Proposal10.26 Significant State and Federal backing has recently been given to development of a 1700km inlandrail route from Brisbane to Melbourne though Parkes. This option has been under seriousconsideration since the first detailed analyses were completed in 2001 (ARTC 2001c). It was thenreferred to as the A2M line and was costed at between $1.2 - 1.4 billion in 2001 and was designedto achieve transit times of 27 hours between Brisbane and Melbourne. The Federal Governmentannounced a $20 million feasibility study in 2005, and this was completed in 2006. Current costestimates 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 proposedAdelaide Bypass with a number of variations. The major effect on freight would be to bypass theSydney rail network and heavily populated eastern seaboard and speed freight movementsbetween Melbourne and Brisbane.10.28 Another advantage of the Brisbane-Melbourne inland line is that it will bring Brisbane trafficapproximately 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, butdoes not serve any significant towns along the way. The existing route south to Adelaide isapproximately 200km from Crystal Brook.10.30 The new distance from Melbourne to Crystal Brook would be approximately 1800km comparedwith the existing route of 1100km via the Adelaide Hills. The extra 700km to avoid the AdelaideHills line would be quite a cost penalty to operators from Melbourne. Transit times for the runMelbourne to Crystal Brook via Parkes would be about 26 hours or 7-8 hours greater than atpresent.10.31 Conclusion: The inland rail proposal is unlikely to remove the need for a rail bypass for Adelaide. Itwould need to be substantially expanded before it would have any diversionary affect onMelbourne-Adelaide or Melbourne-Perth freight movements which currently utilise the AdelaideHills freight line via the Adelaide metropolitan area.Page 36

CONCLUSIONSRail freight is an efficient means of transporting goods and materials throughout Australia. As oursociety grows & progresses rail freight is increasing in length, weight and frequency. However, thepassage of heavy freight trains along the existing line through the Adelaide Hills & suburbs with itstunnels, tight curves, steep gradients and road crossings naturally presents the very real problemsof noise, health, safety and traffic delays. An upgrade of the currently used Hills line would onlyever 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. Thenew corridor, running from Murray Bridge in the east to Mallala in the west, would be muchstraighter and would travel through relatively unpopulated and much flatter country than thepresent route. It also has the added advantage of possibly allowing a parallel road freightcarriageway, which would reduce both road and rail freight movements through the Adelaidemetropolitan area.The proposed bypass offers long-lasting benefits to both residents of the wider community as wellas to those in the rail freight industry. It increases the efficiency and carrying capacity of the railfreight industry in order to accommodate the inevitable increase in freight volume in the comingyears.At the same time it allows the Adelaide Hills line to fulfil its potential in becoming a dedicated publictransport corridor which could more effectively serve metropolitan Adelaide as well as the rapidlyexpanding 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 intothe future.Page 37

REFERENCESAustralian Rail Track Corporation, 2001a, Interstate Rail Network Audit - Operational andEngineering Studies East-West Corridor, Draft Report, Jan 2001, AdelaideAustralian Rail Track Corporation, 2001b, Interstate Rail Network Audit - Final Report, July 2001,AdelaideAustralian Rail Track Corporation, 2001c, Audit of the Inland Rail Proposal - Parkes-Brisbane -Report, February 2001, AdelaideAustralian Rail Track Corporation, 2005a, Annual Report 2004-5, ARTC AdelaideAustralian Rail Track Corporation, 2005b, North-South Corridor Strategy, ARTC AdelaideAustralian Transport Safety Bureau, 2005, Collision between Shifted Freight Load on Freight Trainand Passenger Train Eden Hills, ATBS 2005/006, CanberraBureau of Transport and Regional Economics, 2006, Freight Measurement and Modelling inAustralia, Report 112, CanberraEnvironment, Resources and Development Committee (SA) 1999, Rail Links with the EasternStates, SA Parliament Hansard 1999-04-28, Transport SAGoodlee, F., 1992, Health & the Environment Noise - breaking the silence, British Medical Journal.304(6819):110-3Meyrick and Associates, 2006, Melbourne-Adelaide Corridor Study, Final report, WollongongNational Occupational Health and Safety Commission, 2000, National Standard for OccupationalNoise (NOHSC 1007), 2nd Edition, CanberraNational Transport Commission, 2004, Scoping Rail Environment Issues, Land TransportEnvironment Committee, CanberraSouth Australian Railways, 1975, The Peregrine Report - an analysis of required upgrades to theAdelaide Hills Line, AdelaideStanding Committee on Transport and Regional Services (2007) The Great Freight Task: IsAustralia’s transport network up to the challenge?, House of Representative, Parliament ofAustralia, Canberra, Available: http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/trs/networks/report.htmState Rail Authority 2003, Interim Guidelines for Councils - Consideration of rail noise and vibrationin the planning process, Rail Infrastructure Corporation, SydneyThe Advertiser, 2007, $70m pulp deal signed for Port, September 5, 2007The Australian, 2007, 'top priority': business backs inland rail plan, August 11, 2007Transport SA, 2006, Main Road and Shepherds Hill Road Draft Road Management Plan, July2006, AdelaidePage 38

APPENDIX 1Terms of Reference1 Establishment of the City of Mitcham Rail Freight Task ForcePursuant to Section 41 of the Local Government Act 1999 the City of Mitcham establishes aTask Force to be known as the City of Mitcham Rail Freight Task Force (“the Task Force”) forthe purpose of further exploring ideas and issues raised at the Freight Rail Line CommunityMeeting held on 12 April 2006.2 MembershipMembership of the Task Force shall consist of:• Pro-active members of the community with knowledge of the engineering and workingoperations 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 specialistknowledge in some, or all, of the topics under investigationThe Task Force members will appoint a City of Mitcham Elected Member as the PresidingMember of the Task Force in accordance with clause 5 of these Terms of ReferenceThe Task Force members will appoint a Deputy Presiding Member of the Task Force inaccordance with clause 5 of these Terms of Reference3 Terms of ReferenceThe 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 theCouncil 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 meetthereafter at such other times and on such other days as the Task Force may from time totime determine.3.3 Ordinary meetings of the Task Force will be held in the Council Offices or at such otherplaces 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 theEngineering and Environmental Committee under "Other Business".3.5 Public announcements, including press releases, are not to be given by Task Forcemembers unless the prior agreement of Council has been obtained, and then inaccordance with normal Council policy.Note: The role of the City of Mitcham is restricted to that of a facilitator to assist the Rail FreightTask Force in carrying out its functions.Page 39

4 Task ForceThe Task Force is charged with:• Facilitating positive discussion and ideas regarding improvements to the currentlyunsatisfactory situation in relation to excessive noise and safety issues of freight and othertrains within the City of Mitcham.• Exploring other ideas such as the re-routing of the freight line and its impact oncommunities, possible expansion of the current passenger service, environmental impactsand possible opportunities which may benefit the State's economy.• Delivering its outcomes and suggestions to Council for consideration and possible referralto 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 :ooooIdentifying further measures to reduce noise problems.Identifying further measures to prevent or minimise future derailment.Identifying alternative rail routes that higher levels of government could beencouraged to consider subject to more detailed economic analysis – by otherlevels of government.Performing preliminary work within the community in order to present a case forchange to the appropriate levels of government, be that State or Federal.5 Life of the Task ForceThe Task Force will cease to function upon completing a final report of its findings to theCommittee, or within 12 months, whichever occurs first. Any extension of time beyond 12months will be determined by Council.Page 40

APPENDIX 2Timelines 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 withbreak-of-gauge-1067mm/1435mm• 1937 Trans-Australian Railway extended to Port Pirie and the broad gauge railwayfrom 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 - gauge1435mm• 1995 Adelaide to Melbourne standard gauge railway opened - gauge 1435mm• 2004 Alice Springs to Darwin Railway standard gauge railway opened - gauge1435mmPage 41

APPENDIX 3Australian Rail Track Corporation (ARTC)The interstate rail network excludes the line from Perth to Kalgoorlie and between Brisbane andthe New South Wales border. Nevertheless, ARTC has rights to sell access between Kalgoorlieand Kwinana to interstate rail operators under a wholesale access agreement with the WesternAustralian track owner and operator, WestNet Rail. It also has a working relationship withQueensland Rail about the use of the 127 kilometres of standard gauge line between theQueensland border and Fisherman Island. ARTC intends to start discussions with Queenslandabout leasing this track once the NSW arrangements are bedded down. ARTC also maintains theNSW rural branch lines under contract.Freight train passing through Belair Station, 2006 – Courtesy R MarshallPage 42

APPENDIX 4Railway NoiseoNoise Definitions - Noise is usually defined as unwanted sound. A sound such as music that isenjoyable to one person may be a noise to another. Factors which change sound into a noiseare loudness, character or frequency (e.g. tones, impulses, modulation). Loudness is theamount the sound pressure wave varies above atmospheric pressure and is measured indecibels (dB). Character describes whether it is pure sound or a jumble of discordant soundsor 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 ismore sensitive to frequencies in the mid ranges 100 to 4000hz corresponding to soundpressures 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 sensitiveto 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 highfrequency noise may not be affected so much by low frequencies and the low frequencysufferers 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 tothe human perception of sound levels, meters are designed to modify the metered response toa sound which approximates the human perception by using Decibels A scale or dB(A), wherethe ‘A’ represents the particular modification to the incoming sound pressure.oMeasurement of Noise - Noise is usually varying and is therefore sampled over a period oftime. 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 timeperiod 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 areL10 (the noise exceeded for 10% of the measured period - often known as the average of themaximum noise levels) and L90 (the noise exceeded for 90% of the measurement period-oftenknown 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 thesource of the noise is correctly measured. Most noise is not continuous and care is to beexercised 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.oVehicle Steering - Railway vehicles, locomotives and carriages are steered by the track. Thereis no steering mechanism within the train or its systems which steer the axles on freightvehicles. 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 aturning pivot plate which allows the whole wheel set to rotate left or right as needed. Theturning 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 anddutifully follow the rail track alignment as required by the wheel flange contacts with the rail.Page 43

oTrack Oilers - It is understood that not all curves in the track required this treatment, but onlysome, usually the sharper curves were oiled. The reasons for the lubrication were not alwaysapparent but the assumption was that wheel flange maintenance is reduced, and less dragfrom frictional forces would be an advantage. Careful aiming of the oiler was set so that overoilingof the rail did not occur, thus reducing wheel grip essential on steep grades aboundingonly on this railway.A simpler method, put into practice in 2000 by Australian Rail Track Corporation and servicedby Transfield, was attached to the rail sides and actuated when wheels approached. It waslocated west of the Coromandel Station area.This system has not proven reliable or effective enough to stop wheel squeal at this reportdate.Freight train passing through Belair Station 2006 - Courtesy R MarshallPage 44

o Australian Rail Track Corporation Ltdo Australian Railroad GroupO Genesee & Wyoming Railroad USAAPPENDIX 5Ownership, Investors, Users, StakeholdersO Freight Link Murray Utah, USA, Asia PacificO Toll Holdings LtdO Northern Territory Freight - Allan Scott. Mt Gambier SAO Queensland Rail - Qld Aust.O Macquarie Bank, LtdO Babcock & BrownO Patrick Corporationo Serco - UK Great Southern Railwayo Halliburton Co, Kellogg, Brown, Root, USAo Carillion PLC's UKo Barclay Mowlem, UKo Leighton Holdings, Auso Macmahon Holdings, Auso NT Government, Auso 2 Aboriginal CorporationsPage 45

APPENDIX 6Track 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 4lanes, close local streets; close Angas and Wattlebury except for pedestrians; cut rail 3 m x800 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 underbridge 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 lanebridges over on Shepherds Hill Road.7) Karinya Res/Roseberry Ave, length of 600m, Rebuild curves /shut /rebuild Coromandel Stationto 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 tunnelunder 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 Smithinto National Park. Rebuild station.11) Sheoak Road - National Park tunnel, 17km length, Single track works from here to MurrayBridge unless suburban upgraded also. (NP station closed) Bypass National Park tunnel withcutting using small straights between curves.12) National Park tunnel to Upper Sturt Road, 4.3km, rejoins at Long Gully Station. Bypass LongGully Tunnel. Provides for crossing loop 1800m length.13) Upper Sturt Tunnel to Mount Lofty Station 2km, Upper Sturt Tunnel replaced by upgrade 260mlong. 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 improvealignment. 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 Start1000L 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. DeleteAmbleside 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 curveseach 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 NumberRadius w/- R = right L= left hand.LOCATION & DISTANCEADELAIDEKm to km(1)Mile End to Goodwood0.66 - 1.92Dev No(2)Track(3)CurvenoModiifyRadiusmMaxspeedkm/h(4)1 2 0 520 100Currentspeedkm/h(5)55 to65Proposedcantmm(6)HeightASLm(7)150 -Leader St level Xing4.7Victoria St level Xing5.3MillswoodMG Diamonds 5.4Cross Rds level Xing6.9Hilda /Sussex St LevelXing - 7.2Angas Rd Level Xing8.0Grange Rd level xing8.4Mitcham Stn8.5Wattlebury Rd Level xing8.8Torrens Park Stn9.3Springbank Rd bridge9.82 2 0 0 100 90 - -2 2 0 0 100 55 - -2 3 0 0 90 55 - -2 2 0 0 100 90 - -2 2 0 0 100 90 - -2 2 0 0 100 90 - -2 2 0 0 100 60 - -3 2 1 1000R 100 50 72 702 2 - 1000R 100 50 72 804 2 2 1000R 120 90 100 904 2 - - 150 90 - 100Eden Hills10.56 - 14.105 2345160016001600160 60-70 140 105-175Willowie St - ShepherdsHill Tunnel14.10 - 15.906 267900R600L13010560 150 190Page 48

LOCATION & DISTANCEADELAIDEKm to km(1)Karinya Res/Roseberry Av15.9 - 16.5Blackwood (18.1)Fern –Carr, Tunnel 16.5-18.4Dev No(2)Track(3)CurvenoModiifyRadiusmMaxspeedkm/h(4)Currentspeedkm/h(5)Proposedcantmm(6)HeightASLm(7)7 2 8 700L 110 60 150 2058 2 str - 120 60 - 245Prior to Glenalta Stn18.78 - 19.339a 2 9660Lunmod110 60 150 250After Glenalta Stn19.4 - 20.159b 21011800L600R12010555-60 150 260Belair Stn (9)21.2 - 21.8010 2 12 1000L 130 55 150 310Sheoak Rd-Natl Pk tunnel22.90 - 24.60011 11314530R530L100 50 150 380NPk tunnel-Upper Sturt Rd24.600 - 28.9012 11516171600R530L530R11010010050 150 450Upper Sturt Tunnel-MtLofty Stn29.25 - 31.2013 31819530L530R100 50 150 500-510Mt Lofty –Cricklewood Rd31.2 - 33.8014 1 20 600R 105 55 150 445Aldgate Overpass –Bridgewater Stn34.450 - 37.3015 12122231000R1600L1600R12512513555140110130400Bridgewater Balhannah37.3 - 46.010Crossing Loop starts 43.1016 1242526271000L900R900L850R13513013012550-60 150 350Mattners Rd Intersection47.197 - 47.30017 1 28 1600R 135 75 130 360Altmanns Rd Intersection49.269 - 49.73518 129301000L1000R135 75 150 380Mt Barker Jn to Nairne50.002 - 55.30519 131321600L1600L16016050-65 150 380Page 49

LOCATION & DISTANCEADELAIDEKm to km(1)Nairne to Bremer River55.305 - 72.153Dev No(2)Track(3)20 1Curveno333435ModiifyRadiusm8000R1600R8000LMaxspeedkm/h(4)160160160Currentspeedkm/h(5)60-75Proposedcantmm(6)3615036HeightASLm(7)100Bremer River to MonartoSouth72.153 - 78.3921&2213637382750L1400R1400L160160160100-115105150150unknownMonarto South to MurrayBridge85.33 - 94.66423 1 39 8000L 160 60-105 36 unknownMurray Bridge & Over96.215 - 97.90024 14041893R300L606050-6045135unknown(1) Locations are approximate chainages using the Nov 2006 ARTC code of Practice forOperations and Safe Working tables.(2) Deviation No. refers approximately to the 1975 Project Peregrine Scheme 1 realignments. Seetext.(3) Track refers to number of tracks affected, which would include current suburban tracks parallelto this line .i.e. up to Belair only.(4) In general the proposed speeds allow about 100% increase over existing speeds withoutexceeding cant deficiencies up to about 70 mm.(5) Current speeds are taken from ARTC Code of Practice for operations and safe workingTables.(6) Proposed cants are based on balanced cants (no unbalanced centrifugal forces) with somecant 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 finaldesign(9) This is current end of the suburban system, requiring 2 tracks.Page 50

APPENDIX 7aFreight Train Traffic Daily Survey1, taken at Millswood StationDate: 7 December 2006To Adelaide 7 December ThursdayFrom Adelaide7 December ThursdayTrainNo.Owner Time LengthmTrainNo.Owner Time Lengthm5MP4 Pacific National 2.06am 1300 3PW4 Pacific National 2.36am 13004PW4 Pacific National 3.22am 1280 6AM8 Great Southern 7.38am 400MA6 Queensland Rail 8.25am 800 3MP6 Pacific National 9.28am 1200MA5 Pacific National 8.54am 1350 6PM3 Aust Rail TrackCpnMA3 Pacific National 9.17am 1460 6MP5 Aust Rail TrackCpn6.17pm 14008.20pm 14005MP9SpecialisedContainerTransport12.08pm 1480 6AM6 QueenslandRail9.20pm 8005MP5 Pacific National 1.00pm 1400 6AB6 Pacific National 10.10pm 11006MR1Aust Rail TrackCpn3.37pm 300 4AM3 Patrick Cpn 12.01am 1400WP2 Pacific National 11.41pm 1400 6PM9 SpecialisedContainerTransport12.30am 14802SP2 Not recorded Notrecorded900Pacific National = 9Specialised ContainerTransport = 3ARTC = 3 Patrick = 1Great Southern = 1 Queensland Rail = 1Page 51

APPENDIX 7bFreight Train Traffic Weekly Survey 2, 2006 – Millswood StationTrainNorthboundTimeTrainSouthboundTimeTrainNorthboundTimeTrainSouthboundTimeTrainNorthboundTimeTrainSouthboundTimeSunday 15 October Wednesday 18 October Friday 20 OctoberMA6 5.52am5PM5 7.35am3MA6 4.54am#AM8 7.38am5MP4 2.06am3PW42.36amMA5 4.23pm1AM5 12.04pm3MA5 7.03am1PM5 9.37am4PW4 3.22am#6AM87.38am1MR2 4.07pm1AM6 6.38pm3MA3 8.57am1DM9 11.22amMA6 8.25am3MP69.28am6BA6 7.38pm2KI1 12.08am3MA9 9.24am6PM6 7.04pmMA5 8.54am6MR36.17pmMonday 16 October 3MP5 10.54am4AM5 8.16pmMA3 9.17am6MR58.20pm7WP2 2.53am5PW4 2.06am4MR2 4.53pm4AM6 8.45pm5MP9 12.08pm6AM69.20pm7MP9 9.55am#AM8 7.30am2BA6 11.17pm4AM3 9.50pm5MP5 1.00pm6AB6 10.10pm2KI2 4.42pm7714 10.22am4AB6 11.45pm6MR1 3.37pm4PM312.01am1SP2 1.41amAM6 6.24pm4K41 12.08amWP2 11.41pm6PM912.30amAM57.45pmAM3 9.31pmThursday 19 October3WP2 4.44am7PM5 10.55amSaturday 21 OctoberMP4 5.40am4PM612.46pmAB6 9.54pm4MA6 6.10am5MR1LE12.58pm6MA6 5.57am7AM58.05pm6RO04 1.52am4MA5 6.25am2MA6 6.15pm6MP9 8.35am5PM911.14pmTuesday 17 October4MA3 7.25am5AM5 7.28pm6MA3 9.46am2MA5 5.50am3MR18.08amMP5 8.42am5AM6 8.06pm6MA5 11.48amTable Continues next PagePage 52

TrainNorthboundTimeTrainSouthboundTimeTrainNorthboundTimeTrainSouthboundTimeTrainNorthboundTimeTrainSouthboundTimeMA66.50am6PM7 7.00pm#5MA8 7.00pm3PM7 8.48pmMP7 12.06pmMA3 7.46am3AM5 7.48pm3BA6 10.56pm6MP5 2.00pmMP5 10.38am3AM6 8.30pm4K42 12.45am#7MA8 6.03pm#MA8 5.35pm3AB6 9.55pm5BA6 12.32am3BA6 12.52am3AM3 10.23pm1SP2 1.34am3PM6 11.30pmApprox equal bothdirections7PW4 1.45amMaximum for day= 18Total for week= 88Note: Numbers of trains as well as operator schedules will vary from week to week.Page 53

APPENDIX 8Running CostsThe University of SA Centre for Industrial and Applied Mathematics (CIAM), in a 2000 study carriedout for the National Rail Corporation, compared freight haul costs between AC & DC poweredlocomotives from Melbourne to Brisbane.Costs were as follows:Number oflocosHaulMasstonnesTravel timeshoursCost pertonne$Trip Costs$Hourly rates$/h2 x AC locos 3500 31.3 12.46 43610 13932 x DC locos 2600 28.2 13.52 35150 12462 x DC+ 1/3DC parttrip2600 n/g13.02Best DCresult33850 1399The following calculations present a cost analysis based on the trip from Melbourne to Brisbane of1912km (on similar gradients to Adelaide Hills for the part of the trip near Junee and Taree, inNSW):$12.46 x 3500 = $43610, for two AC locos$13.52 x 2600= $35150 for two DC locosUsing a conservative average of these two costs of $36,000:2 Loco’s @ $36000/1912km = $18.83 per km2 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 = $15667Using the same approximate rates means that if a time saving though a new Adelaide Bypasswere 2.0 hours it would produce a saving of about:$1277 x 2.0 hr = $2554 or about 16% of the trip costApart 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 9Cant DeficiencyIt is proposed that excessive noises produced by freight train wheels and rail track interface knownas ‘wheel squeal’ and ‘flanging noise’ is possibly due to excessive cant deficiency over many of thecurves 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 thisreport. There are some 204 curves along this section of track maintained by Australian Rail TrackCorporation (ARTC). Some 30 of these curves may have excessive cant deficiencies, where mostcurves are around the 200 metre radius. The following discussion is offered by this report.Definitions Used1. Canta. The amount of ‘banking’ on curves where the outer rail is set above the inner rail. It ismeasured 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 theouter side of the curve. Smaller curves require more cant than large radii curves andhigher speeds require more cant than slower speeds. This is due to centrifugal forcesacting on the train though its centre of gravity tending to roll the wagons outwards oneach curve.c. The wagon mass has no bearing on the amount of cant but does play a part in theoverturning forces due to centrifugal action as well as causing righting forces againstthe overturning effects. The interplay of forces is in equilibrium provided the cant issufficient. However the train is not always moving and could be stopped on a curve.2. Equilibrium Speeda. Whenever the cant is sufficient for the horizontal forces to be exactly balanced againstthe 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 centrifugalforce which has to be taken on the outer wheel flanges only. At this point the outerwheel bears both the excess horizontal forces as well as a dramatic increase in verticalwheel load.c. Wheel loads are normally 50% on each side on flat track. When the train is stationaryon a curve or moving around a curve the “50%” changes dramatically. Excesshorizontal wheel load is only taken by the outer wheel flanges which normally do mostof the steering. They do this by bearing against the sides of the rail head. Hence therail line itself sustains excess wear due to wheel flanging forces.3. Cant Deficiencya. For economy reasons the amount of cant does not normally exceed 150mm, since it isalso thought that with a high centre of gravity stationary loads on a curve may derail ifjolted into motion. The equilibrium cant value is quite often in excess of 150mm, so thatdeducting 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 withhigh 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 CantsCurveno.LengthmetresRadiusmetresPostedSpeedkm/hBalancedCantmmActualCantmmCantDeficitmmFlangeForcekNOuterWheelLoadkN%AxleLoadInnerWheelLoadkN%AxleLoadComments6 390 206 stopped n/a 100 n/a -16 86 38 140 62 Stationary6 390 206 40 88 100 -12 -2 110 49 116 52 Low speed6 390 206 60 197 100 97 15 139 62 87 396 390 206 65 232 150 81 13 135 60 92 416 390 206 80 351 130 221 35 172 76 54 2428 420 282 65 169 70 99 15 139 62 86 3828 420 282 75 225 150 75 12 133 59 93 41ExistingtrackProposedtrackDramaticincreaseExistingtrackProposedtrackc. This table is developed to show that excessively high cant deficiency rates could causehigh 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, ofOperations and Safe Working, Code of Practice which may or may not be correct at thetime. Not all cant deficient curves are shown in the table.d. This premise probably arises from a significant number of curves along the existingrailway, which show an erratic variation of cants. This may be how recent track buildersfound the site after the earlier broad gauge system was removed. There are currently204 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 excessivecant deficiency on such a tight winding alignment.e. Alignment data was obtained from Australian Rail Track Corporation web site, ARTCCode of Practice for ‘Operations & Safe’ working tabulations, dated Nov-06. Thesecond and third columns of the Adjusted Curve Data Table refer to the precise trackrunning distance/chainage from Adelaide Central. [3.440km South Line is 0km CrystalBrook Line].f. This data shows a more or less complete picture of all curves, existing cants, postedspeeds, cant deficiencies, and Rated Speeds. Locations along the track for interestwere obtained from tabulation at the ARTC web site.4. Deductions Relating To Cant Deficiencya. Most curves in excess of 75mm cant deficiency are around 200m radius. These are thesharpest values along the entire route. Therefore their sensitivity to speed and cant isdramatic.b. It is assumed most train drivers adhere to posted speeds, since even small increasesin speed have dramatic effects on flange forces and cant deficiencies. It is also knownthat curve 6 is one of the noisiest in respect to wheel squeal. Probably the next noisiestwould be curve 28 which has the highest cant deficiency between Adelaide and MurrayBridge.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 wheelflanges experiencing cant deficiency. For 1800m trains (proposed) this wouldapproximate to 550 tonne lateral load on track and with high daily/weekly usage, mustcause 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 bereduced to 365 tonne for 1800 m train set or 305 tonne for 1500 m train set. This isshown in the table column [13]. These values were found from a computer programwhich calculates balanced cant and flange forces for various cant deficiencies.5. Selection of Two Worst Curves with Highest Cant Deficiencya. A computer program was devised to calculate the wheel reactions and flange forcesunder 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 dueto their high cant deficiency values. Several tests were run on the existing conditionsgiven by ARTC and the theoretical conditions of increased posted speeds, andincreased installed cants. By varying these multi-values it is possible to estimatepossible speed increases, and the amount of extra cant required to arrive at the samewheel forces that existing values show.c. One aspect of this research is clear in that the combined forces on the outer wheel andflange would dictate it is the driving wheel, and therefore the inner wheel is being spunat a higher speed than its rail allows on curves. Thus a mathematical model shows thatthe “slip-stick” phenomenon is operating on the wagon wheel system. The observationthat 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 onthis rail track. High wear rates "reported" by ARTC lead to an “old mechanicaltradesman’s” conclusion that lots of noise means lots of wear. It is suggested that asection of track could be set aside for increased cant trials to test the validity of theabove proposals.6. Improved Route Efficiencya. It is suggested that a way to improve the existing hills track efficiency would be toincrease 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 30mmare likely to reduce wear rates to approximately 70% of existing, and possibly reduce oreliminate noise from wheel squeal and flanging noises. At bare minimum the existingtrack if upgraded should have cants up to 150mm and speeds appropriate. It ispossible to then achieve actual high speeds over some parts of the system.7. Computer Programsa. 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. Allfactors may be varied. Values may be adjusted to suit operator train speed or degree ofwear reduction desired.Page 57

8. Cant Deficiency Related to Noise, Safety and Wear Problemsa. It is now progressively understood that the wheels do not actually drag but in fact by aseries of very minor slip-stick vibrations the inner wheels are driven by the outer wheelson 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 tounbalanced centrifugal forces on the load, the outer wheels carry a greater proportionof 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 thanthey are moving on their rail – hence slip-stick action is the name given to thisphenomenon.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 raillength. At speed this phenomenon of slip-stick occurs almost instantaneously. It couldbe seen as a similar action to that of a violin bow (with rippled surface) being draggedalong the violin’s strings to produce a constant sound level of uniform frequency andloudness. Like the wine glass and wet finger example, sliding wheels on highlytempered tensioned steel rails will result in screeching noises at a constant frequencywhich is observed on this track alignment.c. Why the outer wheels drive the inner is evident in that the large lateral forces set up ineach bogie result from unbalanced cant angles in the track itself. Combined with theselarge centrifugal forces adding more force to outer wheels and flanges, they are forcedagainst the outer railhead. Thus there is more contact area on the outer rail enablingthe 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 forcesexisting and compare with reduced flange forces by increasing cant closer to thebalanced cant figures. United States railway authorities recommend that cant valuesshould not exceed 150mm for stability, but cant deficiency should not exceed 70mmunless high wear rates are tolerated.e. It is proposed that the existing track cant deficiencies be reduced so that a closerbalanced wheel loading will do two things:1 reduce wear rates on rail and wheels, and2 reduce noise emissions by sharing more equally the slip-stick action between outerand inner wheels, with less flanging noise as a bonus. Where there is excessivenoise there are high wear rates – a mechanical axiom!Page 58

9. The Future of Wheel Squeal Problemsa. The above descriptions of causes of wheel squeal seem to point to the wheel flangeinterface contact with the railhead as the main cause of the problem. In discussionswith other people who live alongside the railway closer to the city of Adelaide a slightlydifferent picture appears. When the railway leaves the Mount Lofty ranges it headstowards Adelaide city centre roughly north of the Mitcham area along a stretch of trackwhich is straight and approximately 3.5km long. However, wheel squeal is just asstrong along parts of this track as it is in the Hills high curvature regions. This may befor different reasons.b. From a pure physics appraisal this noise could be caused by ‘a skateboard effect’, ifthe load on that particular wagon was not centrally placed in a lateral aspect. This is tosay (for the benefit of skateboarders) that to turn the board left one must place theirweight off centre laterally to the left and vice versa. The physics in doing this showsthat the front axle pivots anti clockwise and the rear axle pivots clockwise. The anglechange will be small but proportional to the size of the unbalanced lateral load. Thusthe angle of attack of the wheel flanges will not be tangential to the rail and wheelsqueal 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 wheelsqueal on a left hand curve, but more likely to produce considerably more squeal andperhaps wheel judder on a right hand curve.Freight train Eden Hills, 2007 - Courtesy S McCarthy-LinehanPage 59

Page 60

Page 61

South AustraliaAPPENDIX 10Rail Safety ActRail Safety Act 1996Version: 1.6.200037—Notifiable occurrences(1) An accredited owner or operator must report to the Administrating Authority within thetime prescribed by the regulations an occurrence that happens on or in relation to arailway owned or operated by the person, or in relation to rolling stock operated by theperson, 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, bynotice in writing, require an accredited person to report to the Administrating Authority anyother incident which endangers or could endanger the safe construction, maintenance oroperation of a railway.(4) A report under this section must be made in the prescribed manner and form and theAdministrating Authority may require information supplied in a report to be verified bystatutory declaration.(5) The Governor may, by regulation, amend Schedule 1 from time to time.Schedule 1—Notifiable occurrences1 An accident or incident involving the death of a person. The requirement to notify appliesin 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 apassenger, other member of the public, railway employee or trespasser) that results inadmission 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 orrolling 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 onrunning lines (including a collision as a result of a vehicle loading irregularity or anunsecured 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 couldcompromise safety.8 A failure of items of signalling or other safe working equipment in a way that endangersor could endanger the safe operation of a railway.9 An incident at or in the immediate vicinity of a level crossing that compromises safeoperation 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 orelevated 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 seriousaccident.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 thesafe 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 anaccident unless urgent corrective action is taken;(b) a defect in electrical supply or overhead wiring sufficient to cause an electrical fault ordewirement;(c) any other defect with the potential to cause an accident unless urgent corrective actionis 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 ormore of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood; or(b) while under the influence of a drug.Page 64

MEMBERSHIP OF THE RAIL FREIGHT TASK FORCENAMEGeoff BartlettSimon BengerINTEREST/BACKGROUNDLong-term resident of the Hills; local activist for the Hills communitySpatial Scientist, PhD - ANULecturer in Spatial Information SystemsSchool of Geography, Population and Environmental ManagementFlinders UniversityColin CampbellCouncillorBachelor of Technology - Adelaide UniversityRegional Manager and Project Manager in the Communication Industry in SA - retired.Keith CrawfordElaine GrimmBackground in science and statisticsHas conducted large scale transport studies in LondonWorked on road freight market in EuropeWorked on strategic infrastructure improvement (road and rail)Councillor, Dip T- Adelaide Teachers CollegeBA -University of AdelaideDip Ed - University of AdelaideM Ed (Spec. Ed) - Rutgers, the State Univ. Of N.J.,USALobbyist for public transportFounding member of ‘Friends of the Belair Line’; LGA rep. to the Passenger TransportBoard's Passenger Transport User/Advisory Committee;Current Council's rep. to the Southern Adelaide Regional Transport Advisory GroupPhil HartHills resident, former Transport Industry employee, technical interestGrant HudsonBSc(Hons), MSc, Deputy MayorRobert HuntUniversity Of Adelaide and SA Instituteof TechnologyBachelor of TechnologyCivil Engineering, Past MemberChartered EngineerMember, Institution of EngineersAustralia.Retired - Transportation, Traffic Engineer,Consultant Wilbur Smith & Associates; USA PGPak Poy & Kneebone P/L; S Aust.Structural, Bridges, Roads, Rapid Transit;Western Mining Corporation, Dam LeakageCoordinatorManager; Structural & Civil Designer,HalliburtonKBR;Civil/Structural DesignerSinclair, Knight, Merz: Civil/Structural Designer.Page 65

NAMEKon JankovskiINTEREST/BACKGROUNDo Train Controllero Train Derailmento Train Control Procedureso Maintaining of Serviceso Train Describer Systemo Operational Work Procedureso Area Control Procedureso Train Safe Workingo OH&S for Managerso Traffic Interpersonal Skillso Management Support – Transit Ao Defective Vehicle Mobileo Interface ProceduresReassessmentCurrent OHS&W Chair forTransAdelaideTrans Adelaide – Multiskilled OperationsControllerStephanieMcCarthy LinehanBob MarshallMark WardHills Resident; BA (Hons); Dip Ed Flinders University; Writer; Copywriter; Editor; TutorDiploma in Environmental Management, Former Vice President; Conservation Council ofSouth Australia; Former elected member of Mitcham Council for 11.5 years, including fouryears as Deputy Mayor, Inaugural Chairman, RFTFChair Of The RFTF, Councillor, BEdACKNOWLEDGEMENTSThe residents of the City of Mitcham through the community’s Rail Freight Task Force, gratefullyacknowledge the following individuals and organisations for their efforts in the production of thisreport:The City of Mitcham, South Australia, for providing a venue for the Rail Freight Task Force tomeet and compile this reportDes Egan, Manager National Railway Museum for his support and for providing historicalphotographs for use in the ReportLena Jankovski for her tireless efforts and many hours of work in formatting and editing thefinished documentMaurice Linehan of ML Design for his significant graphic design work and supportDr Derek Scrafton, former Director General of TransportSAFellow members of Rail Freight Task Force who worked together as a great team and all ofwhom have made a significant contributionPage 66

Page 67

Page 68