CARP10026 - REP - G - 001 - BRL Marillana Project - PFS Report - Rev - 0

Calibre Rail Pty Ltd
Brockman Resources Marillana Project

Preliminary Feasibility Study Report
Marillana Loadout Siding to FMG Tie-in
CARP10026-REP-G-001
0 Issued for use BV PC PC 17 Sep 2010

B Issued for Client Review AHH BV PC July 2010
A Preliminary AHH BV PC June 2010
Rev Description Author Checked Approved Authorised Date
Calibre Rail Document No: CARP10026-REP-G-001
Brockman Resources – Marillana Iron Ore Project Revision No: 0
Preliminary Feasibility Study Report Issue Date: Sep 2010
Page No: i
CONTENTS
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................. 1

1.1 Overview and Background ........................................................................................ 1
1.1.1 Work Scope ................................................................................................ 1
1.1.2 Work Excluded............................................................................................ 2
1.2 Alignment Options .................................................................................................... 3
1.3 Engineering .............................................................................................................. 8
1.3.1 Design Criteria ............................................................................................ 8
1.3.2 Earthworks.................................................................................................. 8
1.3.3 Hydrology and Drainage Structures ............................................................ 9
1.3.4 Track Structure ........................................................................................... 9
1.3.5 Train Control, Signalling and Asset Protection........................................... 10
1.3.6 Voice and Data Communication ................................................................ 11
1.3.7 Construction Camps .................................................................................. 11
1.4 Railway Operations................................................................................................. 12
1.4.1 Train Performance Modelling .................................................................... 13
1.5 Track Maintenance ................................................................................................. 13
1.6 Project Schedule..................................................................................................... 14
1.7 Cost Estimates........................................................................................................ 15
1.8 Safety and Environmental Management ................................................................. 15
1.9 Project Risks and Mitigations .................................................................................. 15
1.10 Path Forward.......................................................................................................... 15
1.11 Qualifications and Assumptions .............................................................................. 16
2.0 ENGINEERING DESIGN............................................................................................... 18
2.1 Railway................................................................................................................... 18
2.2 Design Life and Characteristics ............................................................................... 19
2.3 Site Conditions........................................................................................................ 19
2.4 Modular Design....................................................................................................... 19
2.5 Interoperability Requirements ................................................................................ 19
2.6 Topography and Digital Terrain Map....................................................................... 20
2.7 Geotechnical Assessment ....................................................................................... 20
2.8 Construction Water................................................................................................. 21
2.9 Earthworks ............................................................................................................. 22
2.9.1 Cut and Fill Volumes ................................................................................. 22
\\perfps01\CEJV$\PRO-Projects\2010\CARP10026 BR-Marillana Study\02 - PFS Study\06 Engineering\6.12 Reports\BRL Marillana Rail

Project PFS Rev 0\CARP10026 - REP - G - 001- Brockman Resources Marillana Project - Pre-Feasibility Study Report - Rev_0.doc
Page No: ii
2.9.2 Mass Haul Analysis.................................................................................... 23

2.10 Hydrology and Drainage ......................................................................................... 23
2.10.1 Railway ..................................................................................................... 23
2.10.2 Access Roads ............................................................................................ 24
2.11 Level Crossings....................................................................................................... 24
2.12 Construction Camps................................................................................................ 25
2.12.1 Construction Camp Facilities ..................................................................... 26
2.13 Control, Signalling and Asset Protection System ..................................................... 27
2.13.1 Turnout Point Control................................................................................ 28
2.13.2 Track Circuits ............................................................................................ 29
2.13.3 Interlocking Equipment............................................................................. 30
2.13.4 Power Supply ............................................................................................ 30
2.13.5 Level Crossing Protection .......................................................................... 30
2.13.6 Broken Rail Detection (BRD) ..................................................................... 31
2.13.7 Dragging Equipment Detectors (DED)....................................................... 31
2.13.8 Hot Wheel/Hot Bearing Detectors (HBWD) ............................................... 31
2.13.9 Stream Flow Detectors (SFD).................................................................... 32
2.14 Voice and Data Communication .............................................................................. 32
2.14.1 Camp Communications ............................................................................. 33
3.0 OPTIONS ....................................................................................................................... 36
3.1 Railway Route Options............................................................................................ 36
3.2 OPT1 HA2 VA2 ....................................................................................................... 42
3.2.1 Route Description ..................................................................................... 42
3.2.2 Railway Operations and Train Performance Modelling............................... 42
3.2.3 Passing Sidings and Refuge siding ............................................................ 43
3.2.4 Geotechnical Desktop Assessment ............................................................ 43
3.2.5 Earthworks................................................................................................ 43
3.2.6 Bridges and Culverts ................................................................................. 44
3.2.8 Construction Water Requirement Assessment........................................... 45
3.3 OPT2 HA1 VA1 ....................................................................................................... 46
3.3.1 Route Description ..................................................................................... 46
3.3.2 Railway Operations and Train Performance Modelling............................... 46
3.3.3 Passing Sidings and Refuge siding ............................................................ 47
\\perfps01\CEJV$\PRO-Projects\2010\CARP10026 BR-Marillana Study\02 - PFS Study\06 Engineering\6.12 Reports\BRL Marillana Rail Project PFS Rev 0\CARP10026 - REP - G - 001-
Brockman Resources Marillana Project - Pre-Feasibility Study Report - Rev_0.doc
Page No: iii
3.3.4 Geotechnical Desktop Assessment ............................................................ 47

3.3.5 Earthworks................................................................................................ 47
3.3.6 Bridges and Culverts ................................................................................. 48
3.3.8 Construction Water Requirement Assessment........................................... 49
3.4 Comparison Matrix.................................................................................................. 49
4.0 RAILWAY OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE ......................................................... 51
4.1 Operations.............................................................................................................. 51
4.1.1 Preliminary Operations Assessment .......................................................... 51
4.1.2 Train Performance Modelling .................................................................... 53
4.1.3 Passing Sidings and Tracks ....................................................................... 54
4.1.4 Scheduling ................................................................................................ 55
4.2 Maintenance ........................................................................................................... 55
4.2.1 Track Maintenance.................................................................................... 55
4.2.2 BRL Track Maintenance Equipment........................................................... 56
5.0 CONSTRUCTION METHOD .......................................................................................... 58
5.1 Earthworks ............................................................................................................. 58
5.1.1 Clearing and grubbing............................................................................... 58
5.1.2 Excavation for Cuttings ............................................................................. 58
5.1.3 Embankment and Compaction .................................................................. 58
5.2 Bridges and Culverts............................................................................................... 58
5.3 Track ...................................................................................................................... 59
5.3.1 Rails.......................................................................................................... 59
5.3.2 Sleepers .................................................................................................... 59
5.3.3 Tracklaying ............................................................................................... 59
5.3.4 Ballast ....................................................................................................... 59
6.0 SCHEDULE..................................................................................................................... 60
7.0 COST ESTIMATES......................................................................................................... 62
7.1 CAPITAL COSTS...................................................................................................... 62
7.1.1 Estimate Basis........................................................................................... 62
7.1.2 Indirect Cost Estimate............................................................................... 63
7.2 Capital Estimate Set-Out......................................................................................... 64
7.2.1 Man-hours................................................................................................. 64
7.2.2 Direct Labour Cost .................................................................................... 64
Page No: iv
7.2.3 Construction Equipment Cost .................................................................... 65

7.2.4 Plant/Equipment Cost ............................................................................... 66
7.2.5 Bulk Materials Cost.................................................................................... 66
7.2.6 Freight ...................................................................................................... 66
7.2.7 Subcontract Indirects................................................................................ 66
7.2.8 Total Cost ................................................................................................. 67
7.2.9 Rail Facilities Capital Cost.......................................................................... 67
7.2.10 Engineering Costs ..................................................................................... 67
7.3 Insurances.............................................................................................................. 67
7.4 Scope Exclusion...................................................................................................... 68
7.5 Operating costs ...................................................................................................... 68
7.6 Comparison with OoM Estimate .............................................................................. 69
8.0 APPROVALS .................................................................................................................. 72
9.0 SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ...................................................... 74
9.1 Safety Management................................................................................................ 74
9.2 Environmental Management ................................................................................... 74
10.0 ACTS, REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS FOR THE PROJECT ................................. 76
10.1 Document Precedence ............................................................................................ 76
10.2 Statutory Authorities............................................................................................... 76
10.3 Environmental Regulations ..................................................................................... 76
10.4 Australian Standards............................................................................................... 77
11.0 PROJECT RISKS MITIGATION ................................................................................... 77
12.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................ 77
13.0 PATH FORWARD........................................................................................................... 79
14.0 APPENDICES................................................................................................................. 81
Page No: v
TABLES
Table 1.1 Earthwork Cost Estimates of alignment options........................................................ 3

Table 1.2 Summary of Railway Formation Earthwork Volumes (million m3).............................. 8
Table 1.3 Required Bridges for OPT1 HA2 VA2 and OPT2 HA1 VA1 ......................................... 9
Table 1.4 Train Operating Simulation Results Comparison ..................................................... 13
Table 1.5 Railway Capex for Studied Alignments.................................................................... 15
Table 2.1 Key Design Criteria ................................................................................................. 18
Table 2.2 Key Earthwork Design Criteria ................................................................................ 22
Table 3.1 Options Earthworks Cost Estimates ........................................................................ 38
Table 3.2 Four Options: Advantages and Disadvantages........................................................ 40
Table 3.3 Track and Operational Lengths to OPT 1 Junction on FMG Line.............................. 42
Table 3.4 Geotechnical Desktop Assessment for OPT1 HA2 VA2 ............................................ 43
Table 3.5 Bridges & Major culverts Locations and Lengths..................................................... 44
Table 3.6 Additional Earthworks for Bridges/Major Culverts ................................................... 45
Table 3.7 Geotechnical Desktop Assessment for OPT2 HA1 VA1 ............................................ 47
Table 3.8 Bridges/ Major Culverts Locations and Lengths ...................................................... 48
Table 3.9 Additional Earthworks for Bridges/Major Culvert..................................................... 48
Table 3.10 Key Parameters Comparison for Alignments ........................................................... 49
Table 4.1 Rolling Stock and operational Data ......................................................................... 52
Table 4.2 Ore Train Cycle Time.............................................................................................. 52
Table 4.3 Consists Modelled ................................................................................................... 54
Table 4.4 Simulations Results Comparison ............................................................................. 54
Table 7.1 Summary of Capex Estimates ................................................................................. 62
Table 7.2 OoM and PFS estimate comparison......................................................................... 69
Table 7.3 Comparison with OoM estimate – cost driving items ............................................ 70
FIGURES
Figure 1.1 Simplified Layout of Corridors................................................................................... 4

Figure 1.2 Simplified Layout of four Alignments ........................................................................ 6
Figure 1.3 Simplified Schematic Diagrams of the preferred Alignments.................................... 7
Figure 2.1 OPT1 HA2 VA2 Air Strip Crossing............................................................................ 25
Figure 2.2 Landing strip near Ch. 77 Km. ................................................................................ 25
Figure 3.1 Corridors for 12 Alignment Options......................................................................... 37
Figure 3.2 Alignment Options selected for Train Performance Study ....................................... 39
Figure 3.3 Simplified Layout of Final Two Alignment Options .................................................. 41
Page No: vi
Acronyms
Acronym Meaning
1v:xh slope of 1 vertical in x horizontal
AC Alternating Current
ACI Automatic Car Identification
ACMA Australian Communications and Media Authority
AHD Australian Height Datum
ALARP as low as reasonably practical
ALS airborne laser scanning
ARI average recurrence interval
AS Australian Standards
ATP automatic train protection
AWS automatic warning system
BHPBIO BHP Billiton Iron Ore
BRD broken rail detection
BRL Brockman Resources Limited
Ch. chainage in km unless otherwise noted
CAR Calibre Rail
CSP corrugated steel pipe
CWR continuously welded rail
DC Direct Current
DED dragging equipment detector
DFS definitive feasibility study
DEM digital elevation model
DFS detailed feasibility study
DTM digital terrain model
EPCM engineering procurement & construction management
FBW flash butt weld
FMG Fortescue Metals Group
FOB free on board
FOT free on truck
GMT gross million tonnes
GSD geodetic survey data
GST goods and service tax
HBWD hot bearing/wheel detector
hr hour
IP internet protocol
km kilometre
LIDAR light detection and ranging
LoA limit of authority
m metre
Page No: vii
Acronym Meaning
min minute
mm millimetre
Mtpa Million tonnes per annum
OMC optimum moisture contents
OoM order of magnitude
PFS preliminary feasibility study
RBM rail bound manganese
RBS radio base station
RMT rail maintenance track
SDH synchronous digital hierarchy
sec second
SFD stream flow detector
SMOF single-mode optical fibre
SNX swing nose crossing
STM synchronous transport module
t tonne
tal tonnes axle load
TCC train control centre
TCS train control system
TPC train performance calculation
UHF ultra high frequency
WA Western Australia
Page No: viii
Intentionally Blank
Page No: Page 1 of 93
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.1 Overview and Background
Brockman Resources Limited (BRL) is developing a Marillana iron ore project in the Pilbara
region of Western Australia. The project is likely to commence production in 2013 at a
nominal rate of 17 Mtpa with an estimated mine life of 20 years.
In June 2009 Engenium Pty Ltd completed an order of magnitude (OoM) study for a rail
spur connecting the Marillana mines to the existing Fortescue Metals Group (FMG) rail line
using a rail corridor that FMG considered as part of a Mindy Mindy development. The OoM
estimated the construction capital cost for a 112 km railway line as $372 million.
The FMG’s rail network from Cloudbreak to Port Hedland including port facilities at Port
Hedland are owned and operated by The Pilbara Infrastructure (TPI), a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Fortescue Metals Group.
The TPI railway was built under the Railway and Port (The Pilbara Infrastructure Pty Ltd)
Agreement Act 2004, and has been included in the WA rail access regime since 1 July
2008. The aim of the act was to develop a multi-user railway and multi-user port facilities
in the Pilbara region of the WA.
In March 2010, BRL commissioned Calibre Rail to study the rail connectivity options for
their Marillana mines. The study scope was divided into two parts as follows:
• Study 1: A Definitive Feasibility Study (DFS) for a proposed rail loadout loop, and
grade-separated crossing over a BHPBIO railway line to a battery limit in the vicinity
of 8 km from the BHPBIO crossing. The estimate accuracy was ±15%.
• Study 2: A Preliminary Feasibility Study (PFS) to explore railway alignment options
for a rail line from the battery limit to a tie-in with the FMG line. The study was to:
− consider three route options; and
− provide an estimate accurate to ±30%.
Study 1 is complete and the report forms part of a Calibre Project’s “Marillana Iron Ore
Project Definitive Engineering Study, Product Loadout Facility” (CPJP 10006-0520-REP-G-
007) report for mining operations.
This report is for study 2 which concerns the construction of a new railway line from the
mine loadout battery limit to the FMG main line. The BRL railway will link Marillana mines
to the existing FMG’s Cloudbreak to Port Hedland railway. The study scope also includes
the necessary railway infrastructure, including a signalling and communications
conceptual design sufficient to determine high level capital costs.
1.1.1 Work Scope
The PFS work scope is to design a railway from the battery limit to a tie-in point on the
FMG railway via three BRL specified alignment corridors identified in an earlier study.
The Scope includes the following major elements:
• Track;
• Earthworks;
• Hydrology and high-level drainage design for bridge structures;
• Signalling and communications systems that can interface with existing systems;
• Access roads; and
• Temporary infrastructure necessary to construct the works.
The battery limits for the PFS railway is between about 8 km northeast of the grade
separation over the BHPBIO railway and the FMG railway tie-in.
1.1.2 Work Excluded
The following works are excluded from this study:
• Compilation and management of the overall definitive feasibility study;

• Ground disturbance work for geotechnical or hydrogeological studies;
• Formation of overall study and project policy;
• Environmental, heritage and native title approvals, studies and surveys;
• Land tenure, government and other statutory approvals necessary to execute the
project;
• Aerial survey works;
• Access agreements;
• Safety accreditation for the railway;
• Marketing and sales analysis;
• Water and building licences;
• Procurement and contracting strategy planning including identification of long-lead
items;
• Obtaining detailed quotations;
• Rolling stock selection;
• Design verification;
• Legal costs;
• Detailed design and site facilities and infrastructure;
• Hydrology and drainage design for culverts;
• Detailed drainage for bridges;

• Detailed geotechnical analysis for structures including bridges;
• Development of a railway maintenance strategy, except to the degree required to
help select an alignment; and
• Option to connect into the BHPBIO Port Hedland−Newman railway.
1.2 Alignment Options
Calibre Rail studied 12 potential alignments in three corridors. These were compared and
ranked on the basis of the preliminary earthwork costs estimate. Table 1.1 indicates
estimated earthwork costs. Figure 1.1 shows the simplified layout of corridors for these
alignments.
Table 1.1 Earthwork Cost Estimates of alignment options
Earthworks Cost Per Rank in each

Length
Options Capital Cost km corridor
(km)
($M) ($M) (total cost)
OPT1 HA1 VA1 99.59 225.9 2.27 4
OPT1 HA2 VA1 95.34 163.6 1.72 1
OPT1 HA2 VA2 95.34 207.3 2.17 2
OPT1 HA3 VA1 95.89 224.9 2.35 3
OPT1 HA4 VA1 98.71 232.1 2.35 5
OPT2 HA1 VA1 70.47 110.1 1.56 1
OPT2 HA1 VA2 70.44 142.6 2.02 2
OPT2 HA2 VA2 69.77 180.1 2.58 3
OPT3 HA1 VA1 70.25 125.7 1.79 1
OPT3 HA1 VA2 70.25 310.6 4.42 3
OPT3 HA2 VA2 70.29 306.1 4.36 2
OPT3 HA3 VA3 71.70 394.6 5.50 4
Figure 1.1 Simplified Layout of Corridors
Out of the 12 alignments options, the best four were selected and studied in more detail.
The four alignments are OPT1 HA2 VA1, OPT1 HA2 VA2, OPT2 HA1 VA1 and OPT3 HA1
VA1. These are shown in Figure 1.2 and highlighted on Table 1.1. Train simulations with
standard a Brockman/FMG consist were run on these four alignments.
Simulation of alignments OPT1 HA2 VA1 and OPT3 HA1 VA1 demonstrated unsatisfactory
operational performance due to steep continuous rising gradients against the loaded train
journey and were discounted from further investigation. Further study and simulations
were carried out on the two remaining alignments OPT1 HA2 VA2 and OPT2 HA1 VA1.
Figure 1.3 is a schematic of alignments OPT1 HA2 VA2 and OPT2 HA1 VA1.
Appendix A provides a register of related and supporting documents that have been used
for this study. The drawings developed for this study are in appendix D.
Scientific Reserve
Alignment OPT1-HA2-VA1
and
Alignment
OPT2-HA1-VA1
Common
alignment Alignment
OPT3-HA1-VA1
Brockman Stage 2 battery limit
Legend
Brockman Stage 1
FMG railway Railway alignment
BHPBIO railway
Road
Figure 1.2 Simplified Layout of four Alignments
Legend
Proposed rail Waterway
Existing rail Passing siding
Railway bridge Spur
Ch. Ch. Ch. Ch. Ch. Ch. Ch. Ch.

117.1 Loadout 105.5 105.0 102.0 52.3 15.4 12.4 10.2
Ch.
siding 88.1
Brockman Line
Brockman Battery
Stage 1 rail limit
Bridge 2 Bridge 1
Ch.
Rail-over-rail bridge 11.8 FMG
BHPBIO
Line Line
Ch. Ch. Ch. Ch. Ch. Ch. Ch. Ch.

117.1 Loadout 105.5 105.0 102.0 52.3 39.3 36.3 35.1
Ch. Ch. Ch. Ch. Ch. Ch.
siding 88.1 44.0 42.9 41.7 41.3 40.7
Brockman Line
Brockman Battery
Stage 1 rail limit
Bridge 6 Bridge 5 Bridge 4 Bridge 3 Bridge2 Bridge 1
Rail-over-rail bridge
FMG
BHPBIO Line
Line
Figure 1.3 Simplified Schematic Diagrams of the preferred Alignments
\\perfps01\CEJV$\PRO-Projects\2010\CARP10026 BR-Marillana Study\02 - PFS Study\06 Engineering\6.12 Reports\BRL Marillana Rail Project PFS Rev 0\CARP10026 - REP - G - 001- Brockman Resources Marillana Project - Pre-Feasibility Study Report -
Rev_0.doc
1.3 Engineering
1.3.1 Design Criteria
The design criteria are contained in the document “Calibre Rail−Brockman Resources
Marillana Creek Project – Basis of Design” (CPJP10006-0525-STD-G-001).
The Acts, Regulations and Standards that the design conforms to are listed in appendix B
of the above referred document.
1.3.2 Earthworks
The earthworks design parameters are largely based on the FMG standards for it’s Pilbara
operations. The design parameters applicable to this project will be modified after
geotechnical investigations are concluded during the DFS phase.
A preliminary assessment of cutting material and borrow sources along the alignment has
been done as part of the desktop geotechnical study. This data combined with the cut
and fill volumes produced from 12D, has been used for the mass-haul analysis.
The proposed strategy aims to balance cut and fill material where practical to maximise
haulage efficiency. Where cut material is inadequate for fill, suitable fill material will be
sourced from borrow areas.
Haul distances from cuttings have generally been maintained at less than five kilometres
where local borrow is available and haul distances for spoil have been maintained at or
less than two kilometres.
Table 1.2 shows the summary of formation earthworks quantities for the two options.
Table 1.2 Summary of Railway Formation Earthwork Volumes (million m3)

Material OPT1 HA2 VA2 OPT2 HA1 VA1
Cut 7.11 1.04
Fill 2.43 2.13
Additional fill for raising 0.75 1.20
alignment at Bridge location
1.3.3 Hydrology and Drainage Structures
Limited design work was done for the drainage structures which enabled the identification
of bridge and culvert requirements. Catchment area analysis and the likely bridge
configuration are based upon the following criteria:
• A waterway was considered to be a potential bridge site when the peak flow for the
50-year average recurrence interval (ARI) is greater than or approaches
200 m3/sec. Some of such locations have however been classified as major culverts;
and
• The stream profiles were estimated from the contour lines.
Culverts have been proposed at other drain crossings with corrugated steel pipes or
reinforced concrete box depending on the site conditions.
Alignment OPT1 HA2 VA2 has two bridges and four major culverts, and OPT2 HA1 VA1
has six bridges and four major culverts.
Table 1.3 shows the required bridges for both alignments.
Table 1.3 Required Bridges for OPT1 HA2 VA2 and OPT2 HA1 VA1
Options Chainage (Km) Total Length (m)

11.8 120
OPT1 HA2 VA2
88.1 260
40.7 200
41.3 160
41.7 180
OPT2 HA1 VA1
42.9 160
44.0 140
88.1 260
Option to provide RMT culverts is to be studied in the DFS phase.
1.3.4 Track Structure
• The mainline track structure will comprise:

- Continuously welded head-hardened 68 kg/m rails compliant with AS1085.1;
- 1435 mm gauge;
- Concrete sleepers at 675 mm centres; and
- 250 mm of under sleeper ballast.
• All turnouts routinely traversed by loaded trains will be swing-nose crossing (SNX)
turnout type;
• Mainline turnouts will be 1:20 SNX turnouts and turnouts from passing track to
backtrack will be 1:12 SNX turnouts;
• Turnouts from backtracks to spurs/sidings and turnouts in yards traversed by empty
trains will be 1:12 solid frog turnouts; and
• For yards, 150 mm of under sleeper ballast is specified.
1.3.5 Train Control, Signalling and Asset Protection
A “train order” train control practise is considered adequate to safely operate the
Brockman railway spur for tonnages up to 25Mtpa. The train order system uses a train
voice radio network linked to a train control centre via a communications backbone.
However, since the train consists will travel along the FMG main line railway, the
locomotives will have to conform to the FMG specifications and this will include
compliance with the safety management system. The equipment specified includes in-cab
signalling and the appropriate automatic train protection equipment (ATP).
As the BRL railway spur will connect to the FMG main line railway, Calibre Rail assumes
that all train control for the BRL train journey will be under FMG train control. For trains
operating along the BRL spur railway, train orders will be issued from FMG train control
centre (TCC).
If applied in the future, a computer-based train control system (TCS) will track train
movements using track occupancy indications. The control system will include:
• Track circuits along the railway; and

• Appropriate operating rules and procedures beyond those of train orders;
Asset protection devices are required to protect the rail infrastructure to minimise
disruption to train operations. These may include;
• Stream flow detectors (SFDs);

• Dragging equipment detectors (DEDs); and
• Hot box/hot wheel detectors (HBWDs).
As the BRL railway will constitute a railway spur off the FMG main line railway, all track
systems may be required to meet the FMG specifications.
1.3.6 Voice and Data Communication
A reliable voice communication network with redundant coverage is essential for safe and
efficient rail operation using a train order system. The communication options are based
on a 25 year life.
The communications system will:
• Support an internet protocol (IP) network for rail signalling/asset protection and
mobile voice communications for railway operations;
• Provide temporary and permanent communications for camps;
• Allow voice communications during construction; and
• Be compliant with FMG standards for interoperability.
The communications backbone can be either a fibre-optic cable or a microwave radio

system.
The fibre-optic solution is likely to be more expensive. However, it may be the better
option based on the anticipated project life. The system can provide sufficient capacity for
future expansion and support other services, such as mine and port communication/
control systems.
The microwave radio option potentially has a lower Capex, but it:
• May not be adequate for operations over a 25 year project life; and
• Will provide limited capacity for future expansion.
This study assumes that:
• Fibre-optic cable will be adopted. The Capex for the fibre optic option has been
estimated to ±25% accuracy; and
• It will be able to interface successfully with the FMG network backbone systems, if
required.
1.3.7 Construction Camps
Due to the large volume of materials anticipated from cuttings for the first 50 km of the
OPT1 HA2 VA2 alignment, the earthworks package for rail formation has been divided into
four work fronts with daily production rate ranging from 6000m3 to 10,000m3. The first
three earthwork fronts will operate within 50 km from the tie-in point with the existing
FMG railway, and the fourth front will work from the mine end heading towards north.
Based on this assumption, three temporary construction camps are required to meet the
project schedule. Camp size for this option will be up to 600 rooms at the peak of
construction.
For the OPT2 HA1 VA1 alignment, which is the shorter of the two alignments, two
temporary construction camps are considered sufficient to meet the project schedule. In
order to accommodate bridge crews for construction of 6 bridges, camp size is expected
to go up to 500 rooms at the peak of construction.
Construction crew numbers for each construction activity were estimated based on
previous construction experience from similar projects in the Pilbara, and peak level of
workforce during the construction determined the required camp sizing at a specific
location where the following engineering criteria were assessed:
• Minimising travel distances between camp and work site to maximise productivity
and minimise fatigue related incidents; and
• The proximity of existing access roads to the camp sites.
Although it is anticipated that the camps at the mine end will be shared facilities with
mine construction, the camp sizing used in this estimate allows for rail construction crews
only.
Further refinements to the camp sizing will be carried out during the next study phase.
1.4 Railway Operations
A preliminary assessment of train operations supporting 17Mtpa production for each

alignment has been undertaken. This assessment will provide:
• The number of passing sidings required to support a mine production up to 17

Mtpa;
• Passing siding locations;
• Typical train cycles on the Marillana rail spur; and
• A calculation of trains required from mine to port per annum.
The operational assessment has been based on the following assumptions:
• Axle load is 40 tonne;

• Maximum train speeds are 80 km/h for empty and 80 Km/h for loaded trains;
• Train loading rate is 8000 t/h;
• The car dumper at the port will be used for unloading;
• The car dumper unloads all the ore cars in a consist without splitting train;
• BRL trains can normally enter the FMG network when scheduled, without excessive
delays;
• BRL trains can leave the port when scheduled;
• Ore cars can hold 137 t of ore (refer table 4.1 for details);
• Passing sidings on the existing FMG network can accommodate the increased traffic
from BRL trains; and
• Train operations will be modelled on 348 working days per year.
At this stage train cycle is estimated to be around 22 hours. The cycle time estimation is
based on current available data. Some interaction with FMG will be required in next
project phase to appreciate the anticipated train operations, and to enable accurate
assessment of train cycle times.
1.4.1 Train Performance Modelling
Calibre Rail uses “Open Track” train performance simulation software to analyse
alignments during the development process to determine:
• Train performance on each alignment with a standard FMG train consist of two GE
C44-9W (Dash 9 DC) locomotives and 240 ore wagons, with two similar banking
locomotives where required; and
• Track design;
Table 1.4 outlines the simulation results for the OPT1 HA2 VA2 and OPT2 HA1 VA1
alignments. Simulation graphs are in appendix B.
Table 1.4 Train Operating Simulation Results Comparison
Alignment Fuel Consumption (L)

Travel Min.
Length to
Option time Speed Empty Loaded
Junction Total
(mins) (km/h)1 2 locos 4 locos
(km)
OPT1 HA2 VA2 95.3 143 20 2,656 5,766 8,422
OPT2 HA1 VA1 70.5 99 26 1,869 3,922 5,791
1.5 Track Maintenance
The proposed track maintenance plan is based on preventive maintenance to provide a

safe, efficient and cost effective train operation. The outline maintenance plan is detailed
in section 4.2 of this report.
1
Reference to “Minimum speed” in the table relates to the slowest speed the train runs at along the alignment before
losing momentum and stalling. This figure is compared to the “Minimum Continuous Speed” design criteria, the chosen
locomotive type can sustain. This measurement assists in the development of the railway design criteria for the
railway alignment in terms of adequate grades and vertical and horizontal curvature of the track.
Calibre Rail would anticipate that an appropriate commercial service arrangement would
be negotiated with The Pilbara Infrastructure (TPI) to include maintenance of the
Marillana railway spur into the FMG railway maintenance program.
1.6 Project Schedule
Preliminary project construction schedules have been developed for OPT1 HA2 VA2 and
OPT2 HA1 VA1 alignments taking into account the major group of activities. These are
attached in appendix C.
The major assumptions made for these construction schedules are;
• Project environmental approval by July 2011; and

• Commence major construction works in August 2011 including flycamp
establishment, camp earthworks, laydown areas, construction water facilities and
access road.
Based on the schedules, construction camp sizing has been estimated and the project
durations have been determined for each option. The project finish dates are respectively;
• 19 July 2013 for OPT1 HA2 VA2; and

• 10 July 2013 for OPT2 HA1 VA1.
Note: these may change following the completion of the findings of the detailed
geotechnical, hydrological and bridge studies.
1.7 Cost Estimates
Table 1.5 shows the summary Capex.
Table 1.5 Railway Capex for Studied Alignments

ITEMS COST ($M)*
OPT1 HA2 VA2 OPT2 HA1 VA1
Earthworks & Drainage $301.19 $123.98
Haul Roads $2.44 $1.81
Track Supply & Construction $77.29 $57.74
Bridges and Major Culverts $49.74 $144.93
Signals and Communications $41.43 $41.71
Construction Facilities $90.31 $104.28
Subtotal Directs $562.41 $474.44
Contractor Overheads & Indirects $66.44 $72.21
EPCM $56.16 $61.85
Subtotal Indirects $122.60 $134.05
Grand Total $685.01 $608.50
Track length Km 102.92 77.58
Cost per km* $6.66 $7.84
*
Excludes rolling stock and maintenance facilities
1.8 Safety and Environmental Management
During this PFS, safety and environmental management has mainly focussed on designing
for safety and environmental care.
1.9 Project Risks and Mitigations
For the PFS study no risk analysis has been carried out. This will be required during the
definitive feasibility study (DFS) phase.
1.10 Path Forward
The path forward for the project is to conduct a detailed feasibility study to achieve
greater accuracy and more detailed engineering and cost estimation on a selected route.
Some of the key works recommended as part of the definitive feasibility study are:
• Aerial survey;
• Ground breaking geotechnical investigation along the alignment;
• Detailed geotechnical investigation of bridge location;
• Review of basis of design document;

• Detailed alignment design;
• Temporary infrastructure requirement assessment;
• Risk assessment; and
• Construction safety plans etc.
1.11 Qualifications and Assumptions
The alignments were constrained within BRL specified corridors OPT1, OPT2 and OPT3,
each about 2km wide. Investigation outside the specified corridors may provide a more
cost-effective alignment.
The waterways analysis was carried out on the basis of information derived from DEM
data/imageries collected from Landgate. The hydraulic modelling should be reviewed
based on airborne laser scanning (ALS) data in the next project phase.
Bridges are specified at most of the locations with Q50 ≥ 200 m3/sec. Bridge configurations
are assumed on the basis of peak flow, formation height and channel width. A detailed
bridge study will be required during the next project phase.
The earthworks design and bridge foundations design is based on a preliminary desktop
geotechnical assessment from available information about the region. No site inspection
or ground-disturbing investigations were done. The earthworks design and bridge
foundations design may change when more detailed geotechnical data is acquired.
Temporary infrastructure, other than the construction camps, has not been included in
this study.
Safety management, environmental management and environmental risk management

will have to be discussed in detail before starting construction.
Only a standard 2.5 m wide side drain has been considered in the earthworks model for
OPT1 HA2 VA2. The high runoff in a long cutting will require wider side drains. This will
further increase the quantity of earthworks in cuttings. Further investigation is proposed
in the next project phase.
Intentionally Blank
2.0 ENGINEERING DESIGN
2.1 Railway
The project design criteria are in a “Calibre Rail−Brockman Resources Marillana Creek
Project – Basis of Design” document (CPJP10006-0525-STD-G-001). The key criteria are
shown on table 2.1.
Table 2.1 Key Design Criteria
Criteria/Parameter Value
Standard ore train consist 2 GE C44-9W (Dash 9 DC) head end locos + 240 ore cars+2
banker locos (where required)
Consist length (m) 2800
Tonne axle loading (t) 40
Maximum speed 80 km/hr loaded and 80 km/hr empty2
Maximum Vertical Grades
Loaded direction 0.55% compensated
Empty direction 1.50% compensated
Grade compensation 0.04% per degree of curvature
Horizontal Curve Radius
Desirable Minimum (m) 2,000
Absolute Minimum( m) 1,000
Vertical Curve Radius (Min.)
Summit (m) 3,000
Sag (m) 6,000
Formation
Width 6.6 m in fill & cut with 2.5 m wide side drains
Sub-ballast capping thickness 250 mm
Cut batter slopes 1v:1.5h
Fill batter slopes 1v:2h
Drainage structures
Design peak flow frequency 1 in 50 year
Freeboard for bridges & formation 500 mm
Track
Gauge 1435 mm standard gauge
Rail AS 68 kg/m, head-hardened
Sleepers Pre-stressed Concrete at 675 mm centres
Fasteners Elastic Rail Clip Pandrol E-type
Turnouts 1:12 and 1:20 SNX and fixed frog
Ballast 250 mm deep with 50 mm nominal size ballast
Spacing 8 m between tracks
Rail maintenance track 10 m wide unsealed
Signalling Communications-based centralised train control system on
FMG main line with train-order and remotely controlled
mainline points on BRL spur railway.
2
Advised by FMG to Calibre Rail on 15/09/2010
2.2 Design Life and Characteristics
The design life of the structures is:
• 50 years for bridges; and

• 20 years for all other structures.
The design life assumes that regular and routine maintenance practices are developed
and implemented in accordance with best practices for railways in the Pilbara.
2.3 Site Conditions
The design:
• Considers site conditions as specified by public gazetted recognised charts and

mappings;
• Includes information derived from a desktop geotechnical study, imageries and
available data in the public domain; and
• Is in accordance with design codes/ standards for the region.
A more detailed site assessment will be required in the next study phase.
2.4 Modular Design
Where possible all structures use modular designs. In this way offsite fabrication and
assembly is maximised, and onsite erection and installation is minimised.
2.5 Interoperability Requirements
The railway is designed for interoperability with the FMG railway network. The
requirements are:
• Compatible locomotives and rolling stock;

• Similar track structure and track tolerances;
• Compatible signalling and communication systems; and
• Similar train consists.
The BRL railway design conforms to typical Pilbara railway standards. These standards do
however, vary between operators. Interoperability with other networks in the region has
not been assessed.
2.6 Topography and Digital Terrain Map
The survey data used for the design alignments of this study are:
• Digital Elevation Model (DEM) data, unedited with spot height on a 10 to 20 m grid
and expected vertical accuracy for 90% of the points within ±1.5 m sourced from
Landgate; and
• Imagery at 1.5 m resolution (GSD) obtained from Landgate.
Unless stated otherwise, the vertical datum used is the Australian Height Datum (AHD).
The project datum will be adjusted from AHD to match the FMG line levels.
For detailed design in the next phase, more accurate data is required from a DEM derived
from either:
• Digital photogrammetric data sourced from aerial photography over the selected
route for coverage of 1:10,000 map sheets; or
• Light detection and ranging (LIDAR) or airborne laser scanning (ALS) data with
accurate up to ±1 cm.
A site survey may be required to verify the digital model accuracy, especially in areas of
dense vegetation. A detailed site survey is also required at the tie in point with FMG
alignment.
2.7 Geotechnical Assessment
The geotechnical assessment is based on a desktop study of:
• Geological maps (1:250,000);

• Cadastral maps; and
• Satellite imageries.
Site inspection reports and information collected for the Marillana Loadout Loop DFS have
also been applied.
No site inspection or sub surface investigations have been carried out.
Tables 3.4 and 3.7 in this document outline anticipated geotechnical characteristics along
each proposed alignment option.
A ground-disturbing geotechnical investigation will also be required that includes sampling

and geological testing at the DFS stage.
2.8 Construction Water
Construction water supplies will be required for the following:
• Railway formation construction;

• Construction camps;
• Site office and amenities;
• Bridge construction;
• Road maintenance; and
• Dust suppression.
No hydrogeological work has been undertaken at this stage however it will be required in
the next phase.
Construction water requirements have been assessed for the OPT1 HA2 VA2 and
OPT2 HA1 VA1 alignments.
Where permissible, construction water may be drawn from viable surface water sources.
A construction water standpipe for refilling water carts will be provided every 5 km along
the railway alignment. The standpipe will draw water from either a local creek or from a
turkey’s nest dam filled with bore water.
In order to address possible restrictions to drawing surface water, the Capex estimate
includes an allowance to drill, equip and operate one groundwater production bore at 5
km intervals along the alignment.
The earthworks and drainage contractor will drill and equip the construction water supply
bores required on a section of the railway alignment before the bulk earthwork starts.
2.9 Earthworks
The earthworks design parameters are largely based on FMG standards for it’s
Pilbara operations. The design parameters will be refined after geotechnical
investigations during the DFS phase. Table 2.2 lists the key earthworks design criteria.
Table 2.2 Key Earthwork Design Criteria

Description Criteria
Minimum embankment width 6.6 m shoulder-to-shoulder at top of sub-
ballast capping layer in fills and cuttings
Formation profile at top of sub ballast 2.7 m wide level central surface and 1:30
capping cross fall to formation shoulders
Fill side slopes 1v:2h
Cut batter slopes 1v: 1.5h
Typical side drain cross section Trapezoidal shaped drain 2.5 m wide at
in cuttings the base and 0.5 m deep
Minimum thickness of sub ballast 250 mm
capping material at formation
centreline
A preliminary assessment of cutting material and borrow sources along the alignment was
completed as part of the desktop geotechnical study. Combined with the bulk cut and fill
volumes produced from 12D, the geotechnical data has been used for the mass haul
analysis.
Normally, earthworks are the biggest variable cost for railway projects. Therefore, future
design effort should focus on minimising quantities through alignment optimisation and a
better cut-to-fill balance.
2.9.1 Cut and Fill Volumes
12D software was used to calculate volumes by the end-area method using the:
• Digital terrain model created from the available survey data;

• Design parameters in table 2-2; and
• Cut and fill slopes anticipated from the results of the geotechnical desktop study.
Where identified along the alignment, additional quantities of unsuitable material,

foundation improvement and over-excavation in rock have been calculated from first
principles.
2.9.2 Mass Haul Analysis
The proposed strategy for cut and fill maximises haulage efficiency by balancing cut and
fill material where practical. Where cut material is inadequate for fill requirements,
suitable fill material will be sourced from borrow areas.
Haul distances from cuttings have generally been maintained at less than 5 km where
local borrow is available and haul distances for spoil to 2 km, where possible.
2.10 Hydrology and Drainage
2.10.1 Railway
The drainage catchments and stream flow locations were identified from the DTM
generated from survey data received from Landgate.
The catchments for the options were delineated using a CatchSim program which
provides a preliminary assessment of catchment areas. The derived catchment peak flows
are based on David Flavell’s Revised Pilbara Flood Frequency Procedure. Flavell’s method
is based on about twice the length of stream flow records used to develop the procedures
given in Australian Rainfall and Runoff (Institution of Engineers, Australia, 1987). Flavell’s
method will be used under license in the next phase of study.
Catchment areas analysis and the likely bridge configurations are based on following:
• A waterway is considered to be a potential bridge site when the peak flow for the
50-year ARI is greater than or approaches 200 m3/sec.
For the PFS level of accuracy:
• The stream profiles were estimated from the contour lines and one universal
latitude and longitude value was used for all catchments; and
• A full drainage review has not been done for each rail option. Typical culvert
quantities were estimated from similar railway projects in the Pilbara. In later
studies, a detailed catchment assessment will be completed and engineered for
drainage along the selected route option.
Guide banks, levees, stream training works, rock scour protection and other erosion
protection works have not been studied or estimated at this stage. The PFS rail alignment
at some bridge locations will need to be optimised in the next phase.
No bridge design consultants were engaged. The bridge lengths are estimated from the:
• Flow at each location;

• Rail formation height; and
• The waterway channel opening.
No further calculations were done to refine the estimate. Bridge deck could be either steel
or concrete structure.
More accurate assessment of the required bridges and culverts will be possible when the
ALS or LIDAR data is applied.
2.10.2 Access Roads
A 20 m wide unsealed access road is required for construction and will be provided by the
earthwork contractor. After construction, half of the road width will be rehabilitated and
the other half will become a 10 m wide Rail Maintenance Track (RMT). Options to provide
RMT culverts and/or to seal its surface may be further studied in the DFS phase.
All access roads will be designed for a 5-year ARI peak flow.
2.11 Level Crossings
There are no high traffic roads, major named roads or other significant roads crossing the
railway. RMT crossings will be installed at 10 km intervals and regional minor roads will be
diverted to these crossings. The diversion of minor roads was not included in the study or
the Capex estimate. Level crossings with standard signs will be provided where:
• Existing access tracks to exploration areas cross the railway; and

• The RMT crosses the railway.
Crossing details for each location will be confirmed in subsequent studies.
The level of protection at level crossings will be based on risk assessments undertaken
during further study and in compliance with Austroads Standards.
An aerial map from Google earth indicates that the OPT1 HA2 VA2 alignment crosses an
air strip at Ch. 15 Km. Whether the strip is in operation will have to be confirmed with
appropriate authorities.
Figure 2.1 shows the crossing at the airstrip.
Air Strip
OPT1 HA2 VA2

Alignment
Figure 2.1 OPT1 HA2 VA2 Air Strip Crossing
One landing strip was observed almost parallel to a common section of alignments near
Ch. 77 Km. The lateral distance from alignment is varying from 100 m to 250 m. It
appears to be in disuse. Figure 2.2 indicates the landing strip.
Landing
Strip
Figure 2.2 Landing strip near Ch. 77 Km.
2.12 Construction Camps
A preliminary analysis assessed the number and size of construction camps required for
the both viable alignments. The analysis was based on the construction schedule.
Crew numbers per construction activity were calculated based on previous construction
experience on similar projects in the Pilbara.
In assessing the location and size of camps, key criteria include:
• Minimising travel distances from camp to work site to help maximise productivity;
• Keeping the camps near the work fronts; and
• Using existing infrastructure to access the camp.
Further refinement of camp sizing and location will be done during the next project phase.
2.12.1 Construction Camp Facilities
The standard of accommodation to be provided is typical of recent Pilbara construction

camps and includes the following:
• Accommodation rooms, with ensuite bathrooms, split system air conditioning,

satellite TV, refrigerator and four rooms to a building.
Central facilities would comprise:
• Administrative building;
• Kitchen and dining room;
• Laundries and linen stores;
• Administration office, communications room and shop;
• Dry mess with seating for 60% occupancy. Refrigeration and dry storage for one
months supplies;
• Wet mess with outdoor beer garden;
• Ice machine facilities;
• Public telephone facilities (if not provided to rooms);
• Gymnasium;
• Recreation buildings with TV and internet rooms;
• Sports courts;
• Swimming pool;
• Medical centre with ambulance bay; and
• Male and Female toilets;
Site services will comprise:
• Access road and car park;
• Water bores and water supply and treatment;
• Fire protection and fire breaks;
• Electrical power generation and distribution;
• Sewerage system, treatment plant and effluent disposal system;
• Satellite TV for cable system and radio receiver and rebroadcast system;
• Communications system for telephone, fax, data and email;
• Fuel storage and dispensing; and
• Transport system (buses).
2.13 Control, Signalling and Asset Protection System
A train order system is considered adequate to safely operate the Brockman railway spur
for capacity up to 17 Mtpa. Trains would operate under train orders for both the options.
The train order system uses a voice radio network linked to a train control centre via a
communications backbone. Radio coverage over the entire railway network is essential for
train order operation.
Calibre Rail is of the opinion that FMG would be the most likely train services provider for
BRL. Regardless of which entity operates the trains, FMG (TPI) will be the main line
access provider and to this end all trains operating on the network will need to comply
with all standards and systems prescribed by FMG. One integral system, that all
locomotives will require, will be in-cab signalling and automatic train protection (ATP).
in terms of operations on the Brockman rail spur the train order system will:
• Be computer based which is more accurate and issues train orders faster; and
• Use the voice and data transmission radio network to communicate orders to
railway users.
Issued orders will print out in hardcopy in locomotive cabs and the drivers will report
details back to train control verbally before authorisation to proceed is granted. The driver
reports the authorised movement to (assumed FMG) the Train Controller, and the
Controller will keep an electronic and hard copy as a record of the train order movement
Train orders will control all rail vehicle movements including inspection (Hi-rail) and on-rail
track maintenance vehicles. Where rail vehicles cannot shunt the track circuits, the Train
Controller will apply a track block to secure the path of an order.
If applied on BRL rail spur the computer-based train control system (TCS) will monitor
train movements using track occupancy indications.
Track circuits will:
• Lock all remotely controlled points at turnouts using wayside interlocking; and
• Help detect physically separated broken rails.
Remotely controlled turnouts on the BRL spur will have points approach locking to prevent
movements in front of trains. The length of the approach locking track circuit on the
railway will take into account the train characteristics and track alignment such as
breaking distance, gradient and so on. Where approach track circuits are not available,
such as depot exits, backtracks and bad order spurs, the movement over the points will
be controlled using rail operating rules and procedures.
Operating rules and procedures will be developed so train drivers can receive and verbally
confirm train orders in motion. This will allow the loaded trains to proceed while crossing
empty trains at the assigned passing sidings, where possible.
Block section limit-of-authority (LoA) boards will be provided on the mainline, passing
sidings, and approaches to the passing sidings, depot, mine and port. Trains will run to
schedules and allocated pathways, which will be generated by computer-based train
graph plans.
A BRL rail corridor TCC will control mainline points, backtrack end points and catch points
protecting the mainline.
Points indicators, visible over the normal braking distance, will be positioned on the
mainline for driver interface. Smaller versions of these indicators will be used in yard
areas, backtracks and depots. Track circuits associated with the points will be used to
provide point locking (dead locking) for safety.
Asset protection devices are required to protect the rail infrastructure to minimise
disruption to train operations. Asset protection includes:
• Stream flow detectors (SFDs);

• Dragging equipment detectors (DEDs); and
• Hot box/hot wheel detectors (HBWDs).
These wayside detectors will be strategically located along the railway and linked to the
FMG TCC via the communications backbone. The TCC will monitor the hazards that may
endanger train movements on the rail infrastructure.
2.13.1 Turnout Point Control
Points on the mainline at passing sidings, the mine loop and terminal points will be
remotely controlled from the TCC. Point motors will be configured to allow manual
operation during a power failure or maintenance.
Backtrack points and catchpoints will be manually operated after the Train Controller
releases them.
The interlocking will secure the points, and will:
• Track-lock or dead-lock the points when this track circuit is occupied; and
• Approach-lock the points when trains are detected on the approach track.
When the point machine is switched to manual control it will isolate the electrical
operation for safety. This control transfer will be managed under the rail operating rules
and procedure with permission from the TCC.
Remotely controlled points have indicators that show the driver whether the points are set
to either straight or diverge. The indicators are visible from a sufficient distance so that
the driver can stop if the point setting is not as expected.
2.13.2 Track Circuits
Track circuits will be provided for train detection along the railway and passing siding.
Coded track circuits provide the best long distance performance because they minimise
wayside equipment and telemetry links to train control. Coded track circuits can transmit
vital information to the in-cab signalling system.
Audio frequency overlay track circuits will be provided for points dead locking at the
passing sidings and yard to minimise the number of insulated rail joints.
Track circuit lengths will be scaled to suit the ballast condition for reliable operation. The
maximum length of coded track circuits is 8 km.
The last single line track circuit on the approach to a passing siding, yard, port and mine
will typically be 5 km long. This length will be confirmed in later project phases
considering:
• The line speed taking into account braking distance;

• Grade; and
• Train characteristic; and so on.
Mid-blocks will be required for track circuits. The track circuits beyond the first location
will be selected and spaced about 8 km apart. Where practical, all wayside equipment
near SFD sites will be located a safe distance from the detector to minimise the risk of
equipment damage from flooding.
The area beyond the catchpoints at the backtrack, depot, port and mine do not require
track circuits, and are considered as dark territory for signalling and control purposes.
Track circuits do not always detect broken or fractured rails and so a maintenance
strategy may be needed to mitigate this track circuit function.
2.13.3 Interlocking Equipment
Wayside interlocking equipment will be provided to secure remotely controlled points. The
interlocking will be programmable solid state equipment with safety integrity level 4
(SIL4) that can support:
• Track circuits;
• A wide range of interface options;
• Data logging; and
• Remote and local diagnostic facilities.
Standardisation and interoperability with FMG rail infrastructure will be addressed in the
detailed design phase.
2.13.4 Power Supply
Solar power with a battery back up power supply will be provided for wayside equipment.
Wayside signal locations using solar power will have a power socket to allow local signal
site operation from a portable generator for battery maintenance or prolonged overcast
conditions.
The system will:
• Maintain power to the site for eight days without solar input; and
• Have a recharge period of twenty days from nominal maximum discharge.
Nominal maximum discharge will be designed to prevent damage to the batteries from
over discharge. Solar charge controllers will ensure the batteries have a long and
trouble-free operational life.
Power supply status and solar panel unit monitoring information will be transmitted to the
TCC via the communications backbone to warn of high and low capacity and security.
Each signalled site will be constructed with an earth grid to provide a low resistance path
for lightning.
Photo-voltaic arrays of high capacity solar cells will power most signal locations. The cells
will charge sealed, low-maintenance, gel cell lead-acid battery banks.
2.13.5 Level Crossing Protection
Most railway crossings for both options will be protected by signs. The level of protection
at crossing locations will be further assessed in later studies.
2.13.6 Broken Rail Detection (BRD)
Broken rail detectors are not provided. Track construction method and regular
maintenance practices such as ultrasonic inspections will greatly reduced the incidence of
broken rails. Using conventional track circuits designed to operate over extreme distances
purely for broken rail detection is possible. However, their operating reliability over long
distances needs to be assessed.
Track circuits will help to detect broken rails and train occupation on a section of the
railway. Since track occupations occur in a logical sequence as trains move along the
track, the TCS can indicate to the Train Controller:
• Unexpected track occupations; or

• Track occupations after a train should have passed.
Such situations can occur if a broken rail occurs during train passage or if one or more
wagons are left behind.
2.13.7 Dragging Equipment Detectors (DED)
DEDs will:
• Identify any dragging equipment from rolling stock;

• Be located a safe braking distance from mainline turnouts and bridges; and
• Send alarms to the TCC and transmit to the train driver to bring the train to stop,
thus minimising damages to the infrastructure.
2.13.8 Hot Wheel/Hot Bearing Detectors (HBWD)
HBWDs will be installed along the railway to detect high temperatures in rolling stock
wheels and bearings. Their location will be on level straight sections of the railway, with
no or small gradients and where brakes should not have been used recently. HBWD sites
must also be at sufficient distance from terminals to allow wheels and bearings to have
reached normal operating temperature and where there are nearby sidings to allow
defective wagons to be cut out of rakes easily.
Local temperature and fault alarms are transmitted by voice radio to the train driver, and
to the TCC.
HBWD data can be used to predict bearing failures and provide information for planned
wagon maintenance and so are recommended for this project.
The locations of HBWDs will be assessed in a future study.
2.13.9 Stream Flow Detectors (SFD)
SFDs will be located where hydrological data suggests that water could overtop the
railway and compromise track integrity. If a SFD alarm comes on the associated track
circuit shows the track as occupied on the TCS.
Locations requiring SFDs will be identified in later studies.
2.14 Voice and Data Communication
The scope of the communications study includes:
• Develop an architecture and roadmap for a BRL rail communications system;

• Consider the following systems/technologies:
− Microwave radio system;
− Fibre Optic Cable;
− Wayside vital and/or non-vital communication systems;
− Land mobile two-way radio system that;
has three channels for train control and operational personnel;
has wide area conventional analogue voting system; and
can provide construction camp communications.
• The communication system should be able to integrated into the FMG

communication system.
Reliable voice communication network with redundant coverage is essential for safe and
efficient rail operation. The communication options are based on a 25 year life.
The communications system will:
• Support an internet protocol (IP) network for rail signalling, asset protection and
mobile voice communications for railway operations;
• Provide temporary and permanent communications for camps; and
• Allow voice communications during construction.
The communications backbone can be either a fibre-optic cable or a microwave radio

system.
Fibre-optic cable is likely to be more expensive. However, it may be the best option based
on the anticipated project life. The system can provide:
• Sufficient capacity for future expansion; and
• Support other services, such as mine and port communication and control systems.
The microwave radio system has a lower Capex, but it:
• Will not be adequate for operations over a 25 year project life; and
• Provides limited capacity for future expansion.
It may provide Capex savings in the short term and equipment could be upgraded later as
necessary.
A microwave radio system has more uncertainty and so further investigation is required to
determine whether it is feasible based on:
• Signal propagation;
• Terrain data;
• Maintenance; and
• Capital cost.
This study assumes that:
• Fibre-optic cable will be adopted. The Capex for the fibre has been estimated to
±25% accuracy; and
• It is possible to interface successfully to the FMG network backbone systems, if
necessary.
2.14.1 Camp Communications
Camp communications infrastructure will provide:
• Satellite communications;
• Mobile phone systems;
• Telephone systems;
• Internet access; and
• Construction two-way radio systems.
The base case is a satellite system that will provide communications into and out of the
construction camps. The camps will share a nominal 10 Mbps bandwidth of dedicated
capacity.
This bandwidth will be shared by the following:
• Telephone;
• Mobile phone;
• Business data network for Client’s and major contractors’ use; and
• Internet for camp residents.
The requirement for mobile phone systems will be assessed in the next phase of the
project. A decision could be made to provide mobile phone capability or fixed telephone
services in each camp room.
Construction camp residents are commonly provided internet access for personal
communications, business and entertainment. Camp residents’ internet can be provided
by:
• The primary satellite network;

• A dedicated satellite network; and/or
• A 3G mobile data network.
The most appropriate approach for the construction camps will be determined in the
detailed design phase.
Additional radio channels will also be required for construction. The construction radio
systems can be located at either:
• The construction camps where AC power will be available but will require radio
masts; or
• Existing sites where existing masts can be used but where the solar power must be
augmented.
The location will be determined during the detailed design phase.
Intentionally Blank
3.0 OPTIONS
This study considered the following major railway and infrastructure options:
• Railway routes from the BRL mine to the FMG line through three corridors; and
• Conceptual signalling and communications designs.
3.1 Railway Route Options
For the railway route, the PFS scope was to develop and compare railway alignments
within three BRL-specified corridors. The study terms of reference stipulated that
alignments must remain within the corridors.
Figure 3.1 shows the study corridors. These corridors are about 2 km wide. Starting from
the mine, for about 36 km all three corridors are common and run parallel to an existing
BHPBIO railway line. After that:
• Corridor OPT3 branches out to join the FMG rail line.

• Corridors OPT1 and OPT2 continue further as one corridor for about 9 km parallel to
BHPBIO line and diverge eastwards for next 13 km. At this point:
− Corridor OPT2 goes east to join FMG line; and
− Corridor OPT1 goes back towards the BHPBIO line, runs north, and stays
within 1 km of the BHPBIO line until it joins the FMG line.
CAR developed a large number of alignments within each corridor to find the optimum
alignment. Based on experience, judgement and the design criteria, the following 12
horizontal alignments, with vertical variations in each corridor, were selected for further
study:
• 5 in corridor OPT1;
• 3 in corridor OPT2; and
• 4 in corridor OPT3.
High level Capex estimates based on the earthwork quantities were produced and shown
in Table 3.1. The options under each corridor are ranked on the basis of earthworks
capital cost.
Plan layouts of these alignments are on general arrangement drawing CARP10026-SKE-C-

0074 in appendix D.
Figure 3.1 Corridors for 12 Alignment Options
Table 3.1 Options Earthworks Cost Estimates
Earthworks Cost Per Rank in

Length
Options Capital Cost km each
(km)
($M) ($M) corridor
OPT1 HA1 VA1 99.59 225.9 2.27 4
OPT1 HA2 VA1 95.34 163.6 1.72 1
OPT1 HA2 VA2 95.34 207.3 2.17 2
OPT1 HA3 VA1 95.89 224.9 2.35 3
OPT1 HA4 VA1 98.71 232.1 2.35 5
OPT2 HA1 VA1 70.47 110.1 1.56 1
OPT2 HA1 VA2 70.44 142.6 2.02 2
OPT2 HA2 VA2 69.77 180.1 2.58 3
OPT3 HA1 VA1 70.25 125.7 1.79 1
OPT3 HA1 VA2 70.25 310.6 4.42 3
OPT3 HA2 VA2 70.29 306.1 4.36 2
OPT3 HA3 VA3 71.70 394.6 5.50 4
The alignments selected for train performance study were:
• OPT1 HA2 VA1;

• OPT1 HA2 VA2;
• OPT2 HA1 VA1. and
• OPT3 HA1 VA1 .
Figure 3.2 shows these alignments. The advantages and disadvantages of these Options
are shown on table 3.2.
Scientific Reserve
and
Alignment
Alignment
OPT1-HA1-VA1
OPT2-HA1-VA1
Common
alignment Alignment
OPT3-HA1-VA1
Legend
Brockman Stage 1
FMG railway Railway alignment
BHPBIO railway
Road
Figure 3.2 Alignment Options selected for Train Performance Study
Table 3.2 Four Options: Advantages and Disadvantages
Alignment
Advantages Disadvantages Comments
Options
OPT1 HA2 VA1 Lowest cost in corridor OPT1 Lowest loaded train speed is The alignment has
14 k/hr for a distance of 2 not been studied
km which is below the further due to
recommended minimum unsatisfactory
speed of 18.5 km for DC operational
locomotives performance.
OPT1 HA2 VA2 • Minimum train speed is 20 k/hr Higher Capital Cost as This option has been
for 1 km only compared to OPT1 HA2 VA1 studied in more detail
• Travel time reduced by 7 mins. in this PFS.
• Train performance has
improved.
OPT2 HA1 VA1 Lowest unit and overall Loaded train speed falls to This option has been
earthworks cost less than is 18 km/hr for 3 studied in more detail
km which is undesirable for in this PFS.
sustaining train speed for
DC locomotives on this
alignment.
OPT3 HA1 VA1 Lowest cost in OPT3 corridor Lowest loaded train speed is The alignment has
14 Km/hr for a distance of 4 not been studied
Km just before joining FMG further due to poor
main line. This is below the operational
recommended minimum performance.
continuous speed of 18.5
Km for DC locomotives.
OPT1 HA2 VA2 and OPT2 HA1 VA1 were selected for further study.
Figure 3.3 shows the final two alignments considered. Table 3.3 shows the approximate
track lengths and operational lengths from the loadout loop battery limit to the
OPT1 HA2 VA2 and OPT2 HA1 VA1 junctions with the FMG line.
Scientific Reserve
Common
alignment
Legend
Brockman Stage 1
FMG railway
Railway alignment
BHPBIO railway
Road
Marillana
mines
Figure 3.3 Simplified Layout of Final Two Alignment Options
Table 3.3 Track and Operational Lengths to OPT 1 Junction on FMG Line
Operation on FMG Line

Route
to OPT1 HA2 VA2 Total Operation
Options Length
Junction Length (km)
(km)
(km)
OPT1 HA2 VA2 95.3 0.0 95.3
OPT2 HA1 VA1 70.5 29.6 100.1
3.2 OPT1 HA2 VA2
3.2.1 Route Description
The OPT1 HA2 VA2 route:
• Starts from the mine loadout battery limit at Ch. 105.5;

• Runs parallel to BHPBIO’s line up to Ch. 69.0 on the east side;
• Detours between Ch. 69.0 and Ch 35.0. to avoid high ground;
• Runs almost parallel to the BHPBIO line offset 1 km to Ch. 29.0; and
• Head east to joins the FMG line at Ch. 10.2 (FMG assumed Ch. 190)
This alignment shares the same horizontal alignment with the OPT1 HA2 VA1. The vertical
profile has been modified to meet the minimum locomotive speed requirement.
3.2.2 Railway Operations and Train Performance Modelling
Based on the details mentioned in section 4, following conclusions can be drawn:
• This option will work with two headend DC traction locomotives, 240 loaded ore
cars and two banking locomotives where required as shown below;
2 head-end Mainline DC locomotives 240 loaded ore cars 2 Banker DC locomotives
br o ck ma n br o c km a n b ro c km a n bro ckm a n
resour ces . r eso urces. r eso urc es. res our ces.
• On this alignment option, the banker locomotives are not required on FMG mainline
and can return back to mine on their own (light engine);
• Loaded trains operating over the Chichester Ranges from Ch. 15 to 29 will be
speed-limited to 50km/h using ECP and dynamic braking on all four locomotives;
• All empty trains can be hauled by 2 locomotives on the return trip;
• Passing sidings are not required for two loaded trains per day for transportation of
17 Mtpa iron ore; and
• From an operational point of view, this alignment is the preferred option because it
avoids the need for banker locomotives to operate s on the FMG mainline.
3.2.3 Passing Sidings and Refuge siding
Though operational studies have not indicated requirement of passing sidings, two
passing sidings are required, one just before junction with FMG to take care of the
situation where BRL may have to hold an empty train bound for mines in order to provide
unhindered entry to loaded train on FMG rail line and other near mines to hold mine
bound trains.
In addition, a 450 m clear standing length refuge siding is proposed about midway along
the BRL line.
With proposed passing sidings and refuge siding total length of track for this alignment
comes to 102.92 Km.
3.2.4 Geotechnical Desktop Assessment
Table 3.4 shows the geotechnical desktop assessment for excavation in cuttings along this
option.
Table 3.4 Geotechnical Desktop Assessment for OPT1 HA2 VA2

Chainage Method Materials
1
From To Common Rock Types 2 & 3F Type 3G2 Type 3C2
(%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
10.0 70.0 10 90 30 30 40
70.0 105.0 100 0 100 0 0
1
types 2 & 3F materials are suitable for top 1m below the subgrade level in transition
layer, 2 type 3G/3C material is suitable for layers below transition layer.
3.2.5 Earthworks
Bulk earthworks for this option are estimated to be about:
• 7.11 million m3 of cut;

• 2.43 million m3 of fill; and
• 0.75 million m3 of additional fill for lifting alignment at bridge locations.
About 3.3 million m3 of earthworks is confined in a cutting of about 10.6 km length

between Ch. 35.0 and 45.6. The maximum cutting depth is 18.6 m with an average depth
of 9.5 m. The long cutting was unavoidable in order to achieve a rising gradient of 0.25%
required for maintaining minimum train speed over long continuous ascent. There are two
short, fill embankments with culverts at Ch. 44 km and 44.8 Km which might assist in
draining this cutting.
A standard 2.5 m wide side drain has been considered in the earthworks model. The high
runoff in long cuttings may require wider side drains which will further increase the
cutting earthwork quantities. This additional earthwork will have to be quantified in the
next study phase.
Due to the large volume of materials anticipated from cuttings for the first 50 km of this
alignment, earthworks package for rail formation has been divided into four work fronts
with output ranging from 6000m3 to 10,0003. First three earthwork fronts will operate
within 50 km from the tie-in point with the existing FMG railway, and the fourth front will
work from the mine end heading northerly direction.
Although the cutting quantities are much larger than the fill quantities, about 1.7
million m3 of borrow soil will be required due to haul distance limitations and unsuitability
of cut material at some locations.
Raising of alignment at bridge locations has added about 0.750 million m3 to the
earthwork in fill. Modifying the track alignment model may result into corresponding
reduction in cut volumes there by compensating addition cost of this earthwork in fill.
Due to very high volumes in cuttings, mostly assumed to be rock, this activity is critical
and drives the project duration.
3.2.6 Bridges and Culverts
A high level review of the major catchments for this alignment identified 2 potential sites
for bridges and 4 potential sites for major culverts. Both options share an alignment
section from Ch. 69 to 105 in which these 4 potential Major Culverts are located.
Table 3.5 shows the bridge & major culvert locations and approximate lengths on OPT1
HA2 VA2.
Table 3.5 Bridges & Major culverts Locations and Lengths

Type of Waterway
No. Chainage (Km) Total Length (m)
Crossing
1 Bridge 11.8 120
2 Major Culvert 82.1 100
4 Bridge 88.1 260
The vertical alignment has not been reviewed from a drainage perspective. However, two
of the bridge/major culvert sites will need to be lifted by at least 1.7 m which will require
about 749,000 m3 of additional fill. Table 3.6 shows the additional earthworks required.
Table 3.6 Additional Earthworks for Bridges/Major Culverts

Chainage Lift (m) Fill Increase (m3)
82.1 1.7 453,000
88.1 1.7 296,000
This alignment runs parallel to existing BHPBIO railway for 36 km from Marillana mines
towards the port. Five waterway crossings have been proposed in this section from Sr.
No. 2 to 6 as shown in table 3.5. As the proposed BRL alignment is on the downstream
side of BHPB railway, the bridges/culverts on BHPB rail line may significantly affect the
hydrological design on BR alignment. Since no site inspection has been done, the BHPBIO
bridge and culvert locations are not known at this stage.
Three bridge crews are required to construct three bridges/Major Culverts simultaneously.
Since earthworks are a critical activity in this option, this requirement must be further
evaluated in later study phases.
Construction camp sizing has been determined with the help of march chart, crew sizes,
crew productivity, plant types, plant outputs etc.
Based on the assumption on earthwork and bridge construction, three temporary

construction camps are required to meet the project schedule shown in Figure 6.1. Camp
size for this option will be up to 600 rooms at the peak of construction.
The actual site conditions may not allow opening of multiple construction fronts altering
the overall project duration and construction camp requirements.
3.2.8 Construction Water Requirement Assessment
Total requirement of construction water has been assessed as 1.14 billion litres. Para 2.8
discusses details about requirement and sources.
3.3 OPT2 HA1 VA1
3.3.1 Route Description
The OPT2 HA1 VA1 route:
• Starts from the mine loadout battery limit at Ch. 105.5;

• Runs parallel to BHPBIO’s line up to Ch. 69.0 on the east side; and
• Heads east to joins the FMG line at Ch. 35.1 (FMG assumed Ch. 219.6).
This alignment has been selected because it is the lowest earthworks capital cost option
in corridor OPT2. The vertical profile satisfies the operational requirement of DC
locomotives and maintains an average loaded train speed of 42 km/hr.
3.3.2 Railway Operations and Train Performance Modelling
• This option will work with two head end DC traction locomotives, 240 loaded ore
cars and two banking locomotives where required as shown below;
2 head-end Mainline DC locomotives 240 loaded ore cars 2 Banker DC locomotives
br oc kma n br o ckma n br oc kma n br o ckma n

r esour ces. resourc es. resour c es. resourc es.
• The bankers will remain attached to the loaded trains until beyond Ch. 200 on the
FMG mainline or up to Hunter Siding. This may cause capacity constraints on the
FMG main line railway due to the extra train pathways required for returning
banking locomotives to the BRL railway spur;
• Loaded rains operating over the Chichester Ranges between Ch. 36 and 50 will be
speed-limited to 50 km/h using ECP and dynamic braking on all four locos;
• All empty trains can be hauled by two locomotives on the return trip;
• passing sidings are not required for two loaded trains per day for transportation of
17 Mtpa iron ore; and
• From an operational point of view, this alignment may be considered inferior to
OPT1 HA2 VA2 because a loaded train must be banked on FMG mainline to Ch. 200
or to Hunter Siding at Ch. 182. Banker locomotives will occupy valuable train
pathways on the FMG main line on return trip till BRL rail junction. This may trigger
a requirement by FMG for BRL to fund extra capacity infrastructure on the FMG
main line to compensate for the extra capacity required.
3.3.3 Passing Sidings and Refuge siding
Though operational studies have not indicated requirement of passing sidings, two
passing sidings have been found essential, one just before tie in with FMG to take care of
the situation where BRL may have to hold an empty train bound for mines in order to
provide unhindered entry to loaded train on FMG rail line and other near mines to hold
mine bound trains.
the BRL line.
With proposed passing sidings and refuge siding total length of track for this alignment
comes to 77.58 Km.
3.3.4 Geotechnical Desktop Assessment
Table 3.7 shows the geotechnical desktop assessment for excavation in cuttings along this
option.
Table 3.7 Geotechnical Desktop Assessment for OPT2 HA1 VA1

Chainage Method Materials
1
From To Common Rock Types 2 & 3F Type 3G2 Type 3C2
(%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
35.0 70.0 10 90 30 30 40
70.0 105.0 100 0 100 0 0
1
types 2 & 3F materials are suitable for top 1m below the subgrade level in transition
layer, 2 type 3G/3C material is suitable for layers below transition layer.
3.3.5 Earthworks
Bulk earthworks for this option are estimated to be approximately:
• 1.04 million m3 of cut;

• 2.13 million m3 of fill; and
• 1.2 million m3 of additional fill for lifting alignment at bridge locations.
A standard 2.5 m wide side drain has been considered in the earthworks model.
Raising of alignment at bridge locations has added about 1.2 million m3 to the earthwork
in fill. Modifying the track alignment model may result into corresponding reduction in cut
volumes there by compensating addition cost of this earthwork in fill.
Two work fronts will be required in cuttings and one work front in borrow area.
3.3.6 Bridges and Culverts
Six potential bridge sites and 4 potential major culverts sites were identified. One of the
bridge sites and four major culvert sites are the same as in OPT1 HA2 VA2.
Table 3-8 shows the bridge/major culverts locations and lengths.
Table 3.8 Bridges/ Major Culverts Locations and Lengths

Type of Waterway
No. Chainage (km) Total Length (m)
Crossing
1 Bridge 40.7 200
2 Bridge 41.3 160
3 Bridge 41.7 180
4 Bridge 42.9 160
5 Bridge 44.0 140
8 Bridge 88.1 260
The vertical alignment has not been revisited from a drainage perspective. However, five
of the bridge/major culvert sites will need to be lifted by about 2.0 m which will require
about 1,185,500 m3 of additional fill. Table 3.9 shows the additional earthworks required.
Table 3.9 Additional Earthworks for Bridges/Major Culvert

Bridge Ch. Lift (m) Fill Increase (m3)
41.7 2 403,500
42.9 1 10,000
44.0 1 23,000
82.1 1.7 453,000
88.1 1.7 296,000
This alignment runs parallel to existing BHPBIO railway for 36 km from Marillana mines
towards the port. Five waterway crossings have been proposed in this section from Sr. No
6 to 10 as shown in table 3.8. As the proposed BRL alignment is on the downstream side
of BHPB railway, the bridges/culverts on BHPB rail line may significantly affect the
hydrological design on BR alignment. Since no site inspection has been done, the BHPBIO
bridge and culvert locations are not known at this stage.
Five bridge crews are required to construct five bridges simultaneously. Since bridge
construction is a critical activity in this option, this requirement may be further evaluated
in later study phases.
Construction camp sizing has been determined with the help of march chart, crew sizes,
crew productivity, plant types, plant outputs etc.
Two temporary construction camps are considered to be sufficient to meet the project
schedule shown in Figure 6.1. In order to accommodate bridge crews for construction of 6
bridges, camp size is expected to go up to 500 rooms at the peak of construction.
3.3.8 Construction Water Requirement Assessment
Total requirement of construction water has been assessed as 1.22 billion litres.
3.4 Comparison Matrix
Table 3-10 shows a comparison of the key parameters for the alignments.
Table 3.10 Key Parameters Comparison for Alignments

Sr. OPT1 HA2 OPT2 HA1
Items
No. VA2 VA1
1 Corridor OPT1 OPT2
2 Length of construction (km) 95.34 70.47
3 Length of operation till junction of OPT1 (km) 95.34 100.44
4 approx. chainage of FMG rail line at tie-in (km) 190 219.6
5 Operation on FMG rail till junction of OPT 1 (km) 0 29.97
6 Earthwork in cutting –million m3 7.11 1.04
7 Earthwork in filling – million m3 2.43 2.13
8 Earthwork fronts (no.) 4 3
9 Bridges(no.) 2 6
Major culverts (no) 4 4
10 Bridge construction crews (no.) 3 5
11 Linear waterway in bridges (m) 380 1100
12 Total Capex $m 685.01 608.50
13 Average Capex $m per Km 6.66 7.84
14 Average train speed – on BRL line (km/hr) 40 42
15 Running time – on BRL line (mins) 145 100
16 Construction Camps 3 2
17 Construction water requirement billion litres 1.14 1.22
Intentionally Blank
4.0 RAILWAY OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE
4.1 Operations
A preliminary assessment of train operations was undertaken for each alignment to

provide:
• Number of passing sidings for mine production up to 17 Mtpa;

• Assess the minimum continuous train speed requirements;
• Possible passing siding locations;
• Train cycle time;
• Possible train consists; and
• Trains required per day.
The operations assessment has been based on the following assumptions:
• Axle load is 40 t;
• Maximum train speeds are 80 km/h for empty and 80 Km/h for loaded trains;
• Train loading time at the mine is 8000 t/h;
• An existing car dumper at the port will be used for unloading;
• One car dumper unloads all the ore cars in a consist and consists are not split;
• BRL trains can enter the FMG network when ready, without excessive delays;
• BRL trains can leave the port when ready and not on a specified train schedule;
• Ore cars can hold 137 t of ore;
• Passing sidings on the existing FMG network can accommodate the increased traffic
from BRL trains; and
• Train operations over 348 work days per year.
4.1.1 Preliminary Operations Assessment
This is a preliminary assessment only. Further analysis is required in future studies. Table
4.1 shows the rolling stock and operational data and table 4.2 shows the ore train cycle
times.
At this stage train cycle time is estimated to be around 22 hours based on:
• Loading time 4.8 to 5 hr (rate of 8000 t/h and 40 minutes train presentation time);
• Unloading time 6 hr (unloading 90 sec/pair +180 min in marshalling yard); and
• Travel time 11 to 12 hr (empty plus loaded).
The cycle time is an estimate based on current data. More work is required in the next
project phases and a better understanding of FMG operations is critical to accurately
estimate cycle times.
Table 4.1 Rolling Stock and operational Data

Element OPT 1 HA2 VA2 OPT 2 HA1 VA1
Tal 40 40
Number of wagons 240 240
Tonnage (Mtpa) 17 17
Tare Weight (t) 23 23
Wagon Payload (t) 137 137
Operating days 348 348
Distance (km) 280 286
Head end locomotives per train 2 2
Bankers per train where required 2 2
Train Payload (t) 32,880 32,880
No. of Train Cycle per year for 17 Mtpa 517 517
No. of Train Cycle per year per train 380 380
Wagon loads/year 124,088 124,088
Target Iron ore delivery per day (t) 48,851 48,851
Train sets required 2 2
Wagons required with +0.5 consist + 3% extra 618 618
locomotives required1 8 8
1
Does not include reserve due to failures because Calibre Rail assumes that FMG will
provide train services and have reserve locomotives as required.
Table 4.2 Ore Train Cycle Time

Time
Trip Component
OPT 1 HA2 VA2 OPT 2 HA1 VA1
11:07 11:07
Travel time one way port to BRL mine (hrs:min) (667mins) (667mins)
4:47 4:47
Time at Mine: Loadout @ 8000 t/h + 40 min (hrs:mins) (287mins) (287mins)
6:00 6:00
Time at Port: Unloading 90 sec/pair +180 min (hrs:mins) (360mins) (360mins)
Cycle Time (hrs:mins) 22:13 22:13
No. of trips in 24 hrs for each train 1.09 1.09
Trains per day 1.5 1.5
4.1.2 Train Performance Modelling
Calibre Rail’s “OpenTrack” train performance simulation software was used to analyse
alignments during the development process to determine:
• Train performance on each alignment with a train consist of two GE C44-9W (Dash
9 DC) locomotives, 240 ore wagons and two banking locomotives where required;
and
• Appropriate track geometry, gradients and standards for reliable and safe train
operations.
The train configuration is identical to FMG fleets. FMG currently operates locomotives
with DC traction, and whilst it is understood that future locomotive acquisitions may be
with AC traction, simulation of DC traction must occur as this is the inferior performing
locomotive that may be used regularly on the BRL rail spur if FMG provides train services.
Because of the long and steep falling grades facing the trains, Calibre Rail specifies a
speed restriction of 50 km/h on the operation of trains descending the grades through the
Chichester Ranges in both directions. This is to avoid trains losing control and achieving
dangerous runaway speeds on these stretches.
For the track alignment options modelling, the following should be noted:
• FMG railway operations:

− Currently FMG operates DC traction locomotives which will be in FMG service
across the network for at least ten years and thus they will form the
conservative benchmark for locomotive tractive effort;
− FMG trains currently use ECP braking. This type of braking system is the
operating standard for the railway and as such fleets serving the BRL mines
will need to comply;
− All trains that operate in the loaded direction beyond Ch. 200 will require
banking in the loaded direction. This means that the OPT2 HA1 VA1
alignment requires banking locomotives to run the full length of the Brockman
spur and then along the FMG mainline to the passing loop at Summit. This
may cause pathway capacity issues for the mainline where bankers must
return to the mine after each loaded train movement;
− Both alignment options may require a three kilometre stretch of suitable siding
track immediately before the FMG mainline junction to allow trains to stop
before entering the mainline, should the entry signal be against them;
− All ore trains are simulated in the following configuration;
Two head-end locomotives  240 ore wagons  2 banker locomotives
(where needed); and
− Two locomotives are required for all empty trains on the return trip on both
alignments.
A number of locomotive types were simulated against the standard FMG train consist to
understand different traction capabilities to explore the potential to remove the use of
banking locomotives. None provided this option.
Table 4.3 shows the consists modelled.
Table 4.3 Consists Modelled

Locomotives Ore cars
SR Dash 9 GE 4400 Travel Direction
Number Loaded/Empty
No. DC AC
1 4 - 240 L Mine to Junction
2 2 - 240 E Junction to Mine
5 - 4 240 L Mine to Junction
6 - 5 240 L Mine to Junction
The results indicated that AC traction locomotives do perform better than DC traction
locomotives in this task, but not sufficiently to eliminate the banking operation. Calibre
Rail maintains that the existing FMG fleet should be the benchmark for all simulations in
this project.
Table 4.4 indicates benchmark travel time, minimum speed of trains and fuel consumption
for both alignments.
Table 4.4 Simulations Results Comparison
Alignment Travel Min. Fuel Consumption (L)

Option Length to time Speed Empty Loaded
Junction (km) (mins) (km/h) Total
2 locos 4 locos
OPT1 HA2 VA2 95.34 143 20 2,656 5,766 8,422
OPT2 HA1 VA1 70.47 99 26 1,869 3,922 5,791
4.1.3 Passing Sidings and Tracks
Operational studies have shown that passing sidings on the BRL line are not required for
two loaded trains per day for transportation of 17 Mtpa iron ore. However, two passing
siding are proposed. One is located just before the junction with the FMG main line. This
may be required to hold an empty BRL train bound for the mine in order to provide
unhindered entry to the main line for a loaded train. The feasibility study of locating
passing sidings on the FMG main line near the BRL junction found that grades were not
favourable at this location. Second passing siding is located near battery limit of mine
loadout.
the BRL line. Such a siding will be used for track inspection vehicles, maintenance
vehicles, bad order cars and defective locomotives.
The proposed passing sidings and refuge spurs are shown in the track schematics for the
OPT1 HA2 VA2 and OPT2 HA1 VA1 alignments (Figure 1.3).
4.1.4 Scheduling
In order to develop a more detailed operating plan for trains between the port and the
mine Calibre Rail proposes that the following work be undertaken:
• Seek assistance from FMG to provide mainline operations data to enable full journey
simulation from BRL mine to port for costing purposes;
• Run a train performance calculation (TPC);
• Develop idealised trains schedule simulation, train configurations and passing siding
locations; and
• Model the railway and related operations using discrete event simulation techniques.
These steps are interactive and take into consideration different scenarios, schedules,
terminal operations and possible changes to the railway profile.
4.2 Maintenance
4.2.1 Track Maintenance
The Pilbara railways are well optimised systems operating on a preventive maintenance
philosophy. The proposed track maintenance plan is based on preventive maintenance to
provide a safe, efficient and cost effective train operation. The outline maintenance plan
includes:
• For track and infrastructure maintenance, BRL and/or a full time contractors can do
the following:
− track inspection including rail, sleepers, clips, pads etc;
− rail welding;
− rail surfacing including lifting, lining, tamping and ballast profiling;
− cutting and drainage clearing;
− unscheduled track repairs;
− servicing and maintaining switches;
− bridge and culvert inspections; and
− signalling and communications inspections and maintenance.
• A contractor could do the following periodic works that requires specialised

equipment:
− ultrasonic rail testing;
− laser rail head profile and other non-destructive testing;
− track geometry recording;
− rail profile grinding;
− switch grinding; and
− access road maintenance.
Normally, maintenance requirements will be minimal in the first few years of operation.
This period should be used to gather data on wear and tear on the tracks which will
provide a basis for future planned maintenance.
After the first heavy rains, resurfacing may be required, especially in areas with high
embankments.
As a part of the construction contract, the initial rail grinding to establish the required rail
profile, and some of the resurfacing works could be done.
4.2.2 BRL Track Maintenance Equipment
If BRL decides to undertake general maintenance on its own, the following minimum
equipment list may be required:
• Ballast regulator;
• On track tamper;
• Excavator for clean out of cuttings and drains;
• Front end loader and tip truck;
• Hi-Rail road vehicles for the track inspection; and
• Rail handling crane(s).
Some of this equipment, in particular the track surfacing machine and rail handling crane
may be purchased for construction and then retained for maintenance.
There may be cost saving opportunities if:
• Specialised services currently operating on the BHPBIO and/or FMG networks are
used; and/or
• Contractors having expertise and equipments are hired.
Intentionally Blank
5.0 CONSTRUCTION METHOD
Calibre Rail makes the assumption that BRL will enter into a service agreement with FMG
(TPI) to enable the use of FMG facilities, equipment and services to assist and or
construct the railway spur.
5.1 Earthworks
5.1.1 Clearing and grubbing
The clearing and grubbing is to be done up to 2 m from cutting tops and embankment
toes.
Grubbing should be done to 0.5 m below the natural surface or 1.5 m below the finished
earthworks level. Holes left after grubbing under proposed embankments should be filled
with sound material and compacted in layers as for embankments.
5.1.2 Excavation for Cuttings
Excavation should be done using earthmoving equipment such as excavators, rippers,

bulldozers, dumpers etc., to the lines, levels, dimensions and slopes shown on the
construction drawings and confirming to detailed specifications.
5.1.3 Embankment and Compaction
Unsuitable material will be removed and replaced with approved fill for the entire bottom
width and up to 2 m on either side.
Embankments will be constructed in full width horizontal layers up to 300 mm thick or of

a thickness at which desired compaction can be achieved using suitable material from cut
and borrow. Normally, uniform material should be used in one layer.
Embankment batter slopes will be as shown on the drawings and compaction levels as per
specifications.
5.2 Bridges and Culverts
Standard 20 m and 35 m spans will be used on all bridges in both the options. Bridge
beams/girders will be prefabricated and transported to site. A composite deck slab will be
cast insitu.
Pile foundation, spread footings, piers and abutments will be reinforced concrete cast
insitu.
Each bridge will have a simple, 6 m long reinforced concrete run-on slab at each
abutment.
Culverts will be mostly CSP with diameters ranging from 900 to 3600 mm. Some locations
may require a reinforced concrete box due to limited cushion.
Configuration of each bridge/culvert will have to be decided in the next study phase.
5.3 Track
5.3.1 Rails
Short 25 m rails will be shipped to Port Hedland, unloaded and transported to FMG Rail
Service Yard for stockpiling.
An existing flash butt welding (FBW) facility at FMG Rail Service Yard will be used to weld
the short rails into 325 m strings. A rail train will carry these strings to the track
construction work front.
5.3.2 Sleepers
Concrete sleepers will be fabricated at an existing manufacturing facility in Port Hedland.

Sleepers will be transported to FMG Rail Service Yard for stockpiling. A train will carry the
sleepers and rail strings to the track construction work front.
5.3.3 Tracklaying
Tracklaying will start from the FMG tie-in point towards the mine site using conventional
tracklaying machines for all mainline and passing siding.
Schedule durations and Capex estimates are based on an average production rate of
about 1.5 km of completed track per day.
5.3.4 Ballast
Ballast will be sourced from an existing Elazac quarry. Ballast will be carted by road from
the quarry and stockpiled at FMG Rail Service Yard for loading onto ballast trains and
transport to site.
6.0 SCHEDULE
The major assumptions for construction are:
• Project Completion: Post-commissioning operations start − Q2 2013.

• Preliminary environmental approval for geotechnical and bore investigation is
obtained by November 2010.
The project completion date is based on project detail design commencement by August
2010.
All design will be done during the project environmental approval process timeframe.
However, some geotechnical investigation and bore drilling will be required before the
environmental approval is likely to be granted. This will require a separate preliminary
approval.
Preliminary project construction schedules have been developed for the OPT1 HA2 VA2
and OPT2 HA1 VA1 alignment options based on major activities. Project completion date
is 19 July 2013 for OPT1 HA2 VA2 and 10 July 2013 for OPT2 HA1 VA1
Schedules are in appendix C.
The critical path goes through:
• Environmental approval;
• Camp construction;
• Railway formation and drainage construction;
• Bridges and major culvert sites;
• Signalling and backbone communications installation;
• Tracklaying; and
• Testing and Commissioning.
Intentionally Blank
7.0 COST ESTIMATES
7.1 CAPITAL COSTS
The Capex estimate is:
• Based on the scope definition and basis of design;

• Has a nominal accuracy of ±30%;
• In Australian dollars (AUD); and
• Based on prices and market conditions in Pilbara Region of Western Australia with a
base date of July 2010.
Table 7.1 shows summary Capex estimates for both the options.
Table 7.1 Summary of Capex Estimates

COST ($)*
ITEMS
OPT1 HA2 VA2 OPT2 HA1 VA1
Earthworks & Drainage $301,189,672 $123,979,307
Haul Roads $2,443,248 $1,806,060
Track Supply & Construction $77,293,678 $57,744,605
Bridges and Major Culverts $49,743,372 $144,927,095
Signals and Communications $41,428,445 $41,705,673
Construction Facilities $90,314,362 $104,279,929
Subtotal Directs $562,412,778 $474,442,669
Contractor Overheads & Indirects $66,438,422 $72,207,179
EPCM $56,162,601 $61,845,205
Subtotal Indirects $122,601,023 $134,052,384
Grand Total $685,013,801 $608,495,053
Track length Km 102.92 77.58
Cost per km* $6,655,789 $7,843,453
*
Excludes rolling stock and maintenance facilities
7.1.1 Estimate Basis
Direct works are those facilities installed or constructed for hand-over to the Owner as
part of the completed or partially completed rail infrastructure.
Costs and production rates for labour and construction equipment were developed from
first principles and were checked against detailed cost data for similar projects.
Labour rates were built-up from first principles using information from rates that are
anticipated to be based on award rates that reflect the additional payments and
allowances usually paid on construction sites in the Pilbara.
The assumed site working week was 13 days per fortnight, twelve hours per day (work
plus travel) and R&R leave on the fifth week of a work cycle.
Estimating factors and unit trade percentages were obtained from previous projects and
used for costing of lesser items and for checking the estimated costs.
Contractors’ indirect costs, including mobilisation and demobilisation, temporary site

facilities, management and supervision, were built up from first principles.
Unit rates for the supply of materials such as concrete, rebar and fabricated steelwork
were derived from data supplied by a number of suppliers with relevant experience. The
overall rates for supply, delivery and installation of these materials were then
benchmarked against current industry rates in the region.
The quotations for permanent and construction materials generally includes freight
free-on-board (FOB) to Port Hedland or free-on-truck (FOT) at site. Current freight costs,
on a tonnage or volumetric basis, were applied to all other items.
7.1.2 Indirect Cost Estimate
Indirect works are those that are of a temporary nature required to support the
construction of the direct works including the operation and maintenance thereof and
support services.
Indirect costs consisted of the man-hour costs, consultants and expenses of the EPCM
contractor for the project. They also include the cost of temporary facilities required on
site during the construction period. Where appropriate, they also include the man-hour
costs, expenses and temporary facilities of any subcontractors engaged to construct the
works.
Indirect costs were derived from:
• A first principle assessment of the man-hours; and

• Expenses for the required deliverable, management and services by both the EPCM
and any subcontractors and are to include at home office and site costs.
Man-hour rates appropriate to the industry include salaries, entitlements, payroll burdens
and the EPCM Engineer’s and subcontractors overhead costs.
Camp Facilities costs and costs associated with maintaining camps during the construction
period are included under a separate section called Construction Facilities.
Temporary construction facilities will include temporary offices, site services and facilities
for the EPCM contractor, construction camps, security, and the establishment,
maintenance, removal and cleanup of all sundry provisions required for the construction
phase.
Fuel prices for this estimate will assume that the diesel fuel rebate does not apply.
7.2 Capital Estimate Set-Out
The railway Capital Estimate was produced using a proprietary estimating software
system (Quest). The estimating system makes provision for the following inputs for each
element of the estimate:
• Work breakdown structure (Facilities/Commodity/Items) reference no;

• Item description;
• Quantity;
• Unit;
• Man-hours;
• Direct labour cost;
• Construction equipment cost;
• Plant/equipment cost;
• Bulk material cost;
• Freight cost – if applicable;
• Subcontract indirects; and
• Total cost.
7.2.1 Man-hours
All on-site direct construction labour hours required to complete the works are included,
with provisions for expected productivity at the site resulting from location, working
hours, etc. It also excludes indirect construction labour hours, such as service and repair
labour hours on construction equipment and for foreman and other supervisory hours.
7.2.2 Direct Labour Cost
Direct labour costs include costs up to but excluding foreman level and provide for the
following:
• Base rate of pay;
• Annual leave;
• Annual leave loading;
• Public holiday and sick leave;
• Long service leave;
• Overtime;
• Travel time;
• Superannuation;
• Workers' compensation and payroll tax;
• Messing and accommodation;
• R&R air fares and expenses;
• Site and location allowance;
• Termination allowance,
• Over-award compliance payment;
• Daily travel allowance;
• Boot allowance;
• Bereavement allowance;
• Income protection allowance; and
• Fringe benefits tax on camp meals.
Labour rates were built-up from first principles using information from similar projects in
the Pilbara Region. They are based on construction hours of 130 hours/fortnight.
Direct labour costs do not include for equipment service and repair labour, which are
incorporated in construction equipment rates.
7.2.3 Construction Equipment Cost
Construction equipment is large equipment brought to site during construction and is

removed at the completion of construction. Construction equipment includes such items
as dozers, dump trucks, water tankers, graders etc.
Rates for construction equipment include the following:
• Equipment materials and supply including costs for spare parts, fuel and oils and a
reserve for major overhaul;
• Equipment ownership costs (depreciation, insurances, registrations and taxes); and
• Outside equipment hire such as hiring from third parties for minor requirements.
7.2.4 Plant/Equipment Cost
The full purchase cost of all permanent equipment required for the project is included
under this item. Freight costs are included where items are quoted with delivery to site.
7.2.5 Bulk Materials Cost
Bulk material is the purchase cost of materials that are bought in quantity and are not
part of any item of plant equipment. Costs include all over supply for wastage, any off-
site prefabrication, packaging, inland freight to nearest port or place of consolidation,
duties and insurances.
7.2.6 Freight
Freight is the cost to transport equipment and materials from a port of export to site or
place of consolidation or site, including wharf charges, freight forwarding and
transhipment costs as required. Freight is only applied to items which are not quoted
with delivery to site.
7.2.7 Subcontract Indirects
The contractor’s corporate overheads and profit is included in this item.
An allowance of 55% of the labour cost has been allowed.
The remaining contractor indirects were estimated from first principles and held in the
Contractors Overheads item in the WBS. Contractors Overheads will include:
• Mobilisation and demobilisation of contractor’s employees, construction equipment,

temporary facilities;
• On-site contractor’s overheads including supervision, (foreman and above) field
engineering, management, administration, contractor purchasing and warehousing
and service and repair labour not included in equipment rates;
• Site expenses including vehicles, stationery, travel, communications (telephone, fax,
Postage) printing, indirect staff R&R leave travel etc;
• Temporary site facilities and services; and
• Indirect staff camp messing and accommodation costs (such costs for direct labour
have been included in wage rates).
7.2.8 Total Cost
This will be Total Estimated Cost for the above items. Sub-totals at each WBS defined
cost sections are maintained at the estimate build up summary level.
7.2.9 Rail Facilities Capital Cost
Within the Rail Facilities the estimate includes direct labour, bulk materials, permanent
equipment and contractor’s indirect costs for:
• Embankments & Cuttings;

• Drainage, Culverts & Embankment Protection;
• Roads and Crossings;
• Trackwork & Trackwork Materials Supply;
• Signalling;
• Communications;
• Bridges;
• Construction Facilities; and
• Contractors Overheads.
7.2.10 Engineering Costs
Engineering and Management costs cover the following:
• Project management;
• Detail design not undertaken during the DES;
• Procurement, inspection & expediting;
• Site supervision of works; and
• Owners costs such as insurance, Client support, Perth office costs, legal, audit and
minor consultants.
7.3 Insurances
No provision has been included within this estimate for the Owner’s specific project
insurances. Allowances for all necessary owners insurances are provided in the Owner’s
costs.
7.4 Scope Exclusion
The following items are specifically excluded from the capital cost:
• Heritage and State Agreement Costs;

• Environmental approval costs;
• Study costs and;
• Simulation, modelling, business analysis and other budget and engineering study
costs;
• Project funding establishment cost;
• Project finance costs and associated bank charges;
• Project delay in start date or suspension;
• Working capital;
• Marketing costs;
• Exploration/investigation/feasibility study costs;
• Operating cost;
• Cost of any further studies/options, other than design optimisation of the defined
scope;
• Goods and services tax (GST);
• Native title claims;
• Legal costs;
• External/independent audits;
• Owner’s costs;
• Escalation;
• Contingency;
• Design growth;
• Rolling stock; and
• Service relocations.
7.5 Operating costs
Excluded
7.6 Comparison with OoM Estimate
Direct item by item comparison between estimates prepared for OoM study and PFS is not
practicable due to following reasons:
• The estimates were prepared on different software platforms;

• Base dates for both estimates are different;
• Breakup of the activities and item descriptions are different;
• OoM estimate was at much higher level then PFS estimate;
• Estimates were prepared with different objectives in mind;
• Expected accuracy of both the estimates is different;
• Easis of rates for OoM estimate is not available;
• Eabour rates and fuel rates are different;
• Basis of design for the alignments is different;
• Lengths of railways are different (OoM - 112km, OPT1 – 95.3km, OPT2 – 70.5km);
and
• Battery limits are different.
However an attempt has been made to compare OoM estimate with the PFS estimate for
OPT1 as shown in table 7.2. OPT2 HA1 VA1 take a completely different corridor hence
similar comparison can not be drawn.
Table 7.2 OoM and PFS estimate comparison

Description Estimated Cost $M
OoM PFS Difference
OPT1
Bulk Earthwork - Main Trackwork 64.50 261.62 197.12
Culverts 11.26 39.57 28.31
Turnout Pads 0.02 0.00 -0.02
Trackworks 139.57 77.29 -62.28
Bridgeworks 41.10 49.74 8.64
Signalling & Communications 17.53 41.43 23.90
Road Upgrades & Modifications 0.00 2.44 2.44
Site Facilities 0.00 90.32 90.32
Indirects 98.63 66.44 -32.19
EPCM 0.00 56.16 56.16
Total 372.62 685.01 312.39
Some of the major cost driving items are compared in table 7.3 below:
Table 7.3 Comparison with OoM estimate – cost driving items

Sr. Item Description OoM ( generally corresponds to OPT1 HA2 VA2
No OPT1)
Qty. Rate $ Amount Unit Quantity Rate* $ Amount $M Diff
Unit $M
1 Place/Compact fill BF M3 4618554 3.95 18,243,288 M3 2208953 10.76 23,768,334 5,525,046
2 Establish borrow pits 0 0.00 0 HA 371 14,677.54 5,445,367 5,445,367
3 Rehabilitate borrow pits 0 0.00 0 HA 371 19,905.91 7,385,093 7,385,093
4 Drill and Blast (Rock) M3 3833647 4.96 19,014,889 M3 6306761 16.00 100,908,176 81,893,287
5 Excavate rock doze & Push 0 0.00 0 M3 6306761 3.51 22,136,731 22,136,731
6 load & haul rock for 2Kms 0 0.00 0 M3 5972500 11.30 67,489,245 67,489,245
7 Culverts LS 0 0.00 11,259,933 LS 0 0.00 39,573,807 28,313,874
8 Site Facilities, indirects & LS 0 0.00 98,634,442 LS 0 0.00 212,920,000 114,285,558
EPCM
* The rates have been derived from current prevailing rates in WA from recent projects undertaken by Calibre. All rates have been
pear reviewed and confirmed.
\\perfps01\CEJV$\PRO-Projects\2010\CARP10026 BR-Marillana Study\02 - PFS Study\06 Engineering\6.12 Reports\BRL Marillana Rail Project PFS Rev 0\CARP10026 - REP - G - 001- Brockman Resources Marillana Project - Pre-Feasibility Study Report -
Rev_0.doc
Intentionally Blank
8.0 APPROVALS
The following issues related to land ownership have not been considered as part of this
study:
• Tenure;
• Environmental;
• Heritage; and
• Operational regulations.
BRL is responsible for all activities in this area, including studies, negotiations and
approvals.
This study has not given consideration to current land ownership or leases when selecting
rail routes.
Note that tenure is required for any ground-disturbing activities, including:
• Geotechnical investigations;
• Water exploration and production drilling;
• Pioneering activities;
• Camp construction; and
• Main works construction.
The likely heritage issues relating to the construction of the railway are as follows:
• Agreements to allow development of the railway through indigenous land;

• Develop and implement procedures to prevent disturbance of heritage sites;
• Install barriers and fences to protect prominent heritage sites; and
• Provide opportunities for indigenous personnel to be involved in the project.
Intentionally Blank
9.0 SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
9.1 Safety Management
During this PFS, safety management has mainly focussed on designing for safety.
The following basic principles are an integral part of design and construction process:
• Ensure that a safe design is achieved such that risk of injury to personnel or
occupational illness, loss or damage to property and structures and pollution of the
environment is eliminated or effectively managed;
• The control of major accident events will be achieved by preventing or reducing the
possibility of an event and by controlling/mitigating the damaging effects, and from
the inherently safe design of the installation;
• Risks will be eliminated or reduced to ‘As Low As Reasonably Practical’ (ALARP) to
ensure the well being of individuals associated with the rail safety work, the public
and property;
• Personnel safety, protection of the environment and assets on a risk basis following
the principles of AS 4360: Risk Management will be the primary consideration in
planning and designing the safety systems for the facilities;
• The emphasis in equipment specification will be on operability, accident and fault
prevention and functionality for the design life; and
• Handrails and/or guard-railing will be provided where ever practical to do so.
9.2 Environmental Management
The rail route options investigated in this study cross the Fortescue River, associated
floodplain and tributaries. This is an environmentally sensitivity area which may
significantly affect the project plan and design.
The likely environmental issues relating to the construction phase of the railway are:
• Approval to construct the railway on the selected route;

• The development and implementation of procedures to prevent unauthorised or
unnecessary clearing or disturbance of vegetation;
• The preservation, where possible, of natural drainage features, including the
prevention of drainage shadows downstream of the railway;
• The preservation of sensitive vegetation areas;
• The appropriate storage and containment of hydrocarbons to minimise
environmental incident spills;
• The appropriate storage and disposal of waste materials;
• The appropriate rehabilitation of disturbed areas for temporary works including haul
roads, storage and work areas, and free draining borrow pits; and
• The preservation, where possible, of established vegetation in areas of temporary
disturbance such as construction camps and haul roads.
During this PFS, environmental management has focussed on designing for minimising
environmental impacts during construction, operation and closure.
10.0 ACTS, REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS FOR THE PROJECT
10.1 Document Precedence
The document hierarchy of precedence in descending order shall be:
• Project design criteria;

• Pilbara Iron Standard Specifications;
• Australian Standards; and
• Other Standards.
Where conflicting information exists, it shall be the more stringent standard that applies.
Where there is absent information, the Principal shall determine and direct on the
principles of best practice. None of the above however shall detract from Statutory
Requirements which shall be complied with at all times.
10.2 Statutory Authorities
Statutory authorities shall for the purpose of this document include the:
• Department of Transport – Office of Rail Safety;

• The WA Rail Safety Act and other regulations;
• Office of Energy W.A. (OOE) and Western Power (Electricity Act and
• Regulations);
• Department of Industry and Resources (Mines Regulation Act and
• Regulations);
• Worksafe Western Australia (Occupational Health Safety and Welfare Act
• and Regulations); and
• Port Hedland Port Authority (PHPA).
10.3 Environmental Regulations
The appropriate Australian environmental standards and regulations (WA) shall be used.
The approved Public Environmental Reviews (PER) shall be the basis for designing and
managing in environmental protection requirements.
10.4 Australian Standards
All Australian Standards apply unless noted otherwise. The Australian Standards are
inclusive of but not limited to those listed in Appendix B of Basis of Design document.
11.0 PROJECT RISKS MITIGATION
No risk management was done for the PFS. This will be done during the DFS.
12.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This report is solely to provide a basis of information and comparison to enable Brockman
Resources Limited to facilitate further negotiations and strategic planning. As such, no
conclusive recommendations have been drawn from this study, nor can any be made until
the strategic objectives of the project have been confirmed.
Intentionally Blank
13.0 PATH FORWARD
Building on this Preliminary Feasibility Report, Calibre Rail proposes that the next phase
would entail the completion of a detailed Bankable Feasibility Study to develop more
detailed engineering and cost estimates on a preferred route to bring the Brockman
Resources project closer to fruition.
The following engineering, surveying, geotechnical, hydrogeological and estimating work

are recommended as part of a feasibility study:
• For the railway route complete the following;

− non ground-disturbing geotechnical reconnaissance;
− geotechnical mapping and reporting;
− additional aerial surveys and mapping;
− hydrogeological desktop study and reconnaissance; and
− non ground-disturbing geotechnical investigation of bridge locations;
• Optimise the railway alignment through detailed design supported by train
operations simulation that delivers minimal Capex whilst enabling safe and cost
effective long term operations;
• Complete the preliminary designs for:
− drainage;
− bridge, including hydrology, flood levels, scour depths and foundation;
− earthworks; and
− rail maintenance workshop and temporary facilities.
• Determine construction water requirements and sources;
• Assess railway crossings requirements;
• Complete preliminary project and construction schedules;
• Prepare:
− a project implementation strategy;
− contracting and procurement strategy;
− railway design criteria and track structure design; and
− rail operating and maintenance strategy;
• Complete dynamic modelling of rail operations; and
• Prepare a Capex estimate accurate to ±15%.
During and after completion of the detailed feasibility study the following will be required
before SDL project approval:
• Value engineering to identify cost savings;
• Geotechnical investigations on the railway route including test pits, dozer

excavations, drilling, testing and reporting;
• Geotechnical drilling at the bridge foundations including testing and reporting;
• Groundwater exploration drilling, hydrogeological test work, bore testing and
reporting;
• Ground surveys for those areas not covered by the current survey;
• Detailed design for railway earthworks and drainage;
• Detailed design for camps, access roads and temporary infrastructure, and
signalling and communications;
• Produce detailed design for communications, signalling and asset protection;
• Construction and project schedules;
• Produce tender documents, and start procurement activities for long-lead items;
• Conduct heritage and environmental surveys of the alignment; and
• Install survey control for the railway construction and do an aerial survey for a
construction-accuracy model.
14.0 APPENDICES
Appendices Register
Appendix Title and Number

A Related and Supporting Documents Register
B Simulation results for OPT1 HA2 VA2 and OPT2 HA1 VA1
C Project Schedules for OPT1 HA2 VA2 and OPT2 HA1 VA1
D Engineering Drawings, 12 alignments on Google earth (Drawing 0074),
track Schematics and Signalling & Communications Schematics
Intentionally Blank
Appendix A : Related and Supporting Documents Register
Document No/Source Title/Subject

CPJP10006-0525-STD-G-001 Calibre Rail−Brockman Resources Marillana Creek
Project – Basis of Design
CPJP 10006-0520-REP-G-007 Calibre Projects Marillana Iron Ore Project Definitive
Engineering Study, Product Loadout Facility
9016A-REP-00-G-001 Brockman Resources Maillana project rail corridor
desktop study report
CARS10013 Brockman Resources Marillana Iron Ore Project
Work Plan for Rail Engineering;
• Study 1 - Definitive Feasibility Study – Loop
• Study 2 – Preliminary Feasibility Study – Line to FMG
Tie In
DEM 10m post and imagery 1.5 m GSD Purchased from Landgate

CARP10026 - REP - G - 001 - BRL Marillana Project - PFS Report - Rev - 0

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CARP10026 - REP - G - 001 - BRL Marillana Project - PFS Report - Rev - 0

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Calibre Rail Pty Ltd

Brockman Resources Marillana Project

Marillana Loadout Siding to FMG Tie-in

0 Issued for use BV PC PC 17 Sep 2010

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................. 1

\\perfps01\CEJV$\PRO-Projects\2010\CARP10026 BR-Marillana Study\02 - PFS Study\06 Engineering\6.12 Reports\BRL Marillana Rail

2.9.2 Mass Haul Analysis.................................................................................... 23

3.3.4 Geotechnical Desktop Assessment ............................................................ 47

7.2.3 Construction Equipment Cost .................................................................... 65

Table 1.1 Earthwork Cost Estimates of alignment options........................................................ 3

Figure 1.1 Simplified Layout of Corridors................................................................................... 4

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.1 Overview and Background

1.1.1 Work Scope

The Scope includes the following major elements:

1.1.2 Work Excluded

The following works are excluded from this study:

• Compilation and management of the overall definitive feasibility study;

• Detailed drainage for bridges;

1.2 Alignment Options

Table 1.1 Earthwork Cost Estimates of alignment options

Earthworks Cost Per Rank in each

Figure 1.1 Simplified Layout of Corridors

Brockman Stage 2 battery limit

Figure 1.2 Simplified Layout of four Alignments

Existing rail Passing siding

Railway bridge Spur

Ch. Ch. Ch. Ch. Ch. Ch. Ch. Ch.

Ch. Ch. Ch. Ch. Ch. Ch. Ch. Ch.

Figure 1.3 Simplified Schematic Diagrams of the preferred Alignments

1.3.1 Design Criteria

Table 1.2 Summary of Railway Formation Earthwork Volumes (million m3)

1.3.3 Hydrology and Drainage Structures

Table 1.3 shows the required bridges for both alignments.

Options Chainage (Km) Total Length (m)

Option to provide RMT culverts is to be studied in the DFS phase.

1.3.4 Track Structure

• The mainline track structure will comprise:

1.3.5 Train Control, Signalling and Asset Protection

• Track circuits along the railway; and

• Stream flow detectors (SFDs);

1.3.6 Voice and Data Communication

The communications system will:

The communications backbone can be either a fibre-optic cable or a microwave radio

This study assumes that:

1.3.7 Construction Camps

1.4 Railway Operations

A preliminary assessment of train operations supporting 17Mtpa production for each

• The number of passing sidings required to support a mine production up to 17

The operational assessment has been based on the following assumptions:

• Axle load is 40 tonne;

1.4.1 Train Performance Modelling

Table 1.4 Train Operating Simulation Results Comparison

Alignment Fuel Consumption (L)

1.5 Track Maintenance

The proposed track maintenance plan is based on preventive maintenance to provide a

1.6 Project Schedule

The major assumptions made for these construction schedules are;

• Project environmental approval by July 2011; and

• 19 July 2013 for OPT1 HA2 VA2; and

1.7 Cost Estimates

Table 1.5 shows the summary Capex.