New River Crossing for the Cleveland Line

[somebody]

I may be a nutter, but:

How about taking the Cleveland line from around Morningside, resuming a few hundred properties, and building a bridge over to New Farm.  Then run underground, with a station in New Farm and connect to Platforms 1 & 4 at Central (or equivalent platforms).

Would seem to make capacity problems on the Merivale Bridge not really an issue, especially if the first tunnel goes ahead anyway.

I presume there's some reason why something like this isn't in the ICRS.

[ButFli]

I presume there's some reason why something like this isn't in the ICRS.

Needing to "resume a few hundred properties" might be a start.

[O_128]

i have actually always thought about this but my idea was to go over the gateway and join up with the airport line

[somebody]

I presume there's some reason why something like this isn't in the ICRS.

Needing to "resume a few hundred properties" might be a start.

It could be 30.  But even if it's 300 @ $1million each, I don't see how that could cause the death of this project.  It's a lot cheaper than tunnelling under the river, and gives a greater benefit, both in terms of minutes transit time saved and also bringing rail service to New Farm couldn't hurt either.

[stephenk]

I may be a nutter

Yes 

How about taking the Cleveland line from around Morningside, resuming a few hundred properties, and building a bridge over to New Farm.  Then run underground, with a station in New Farm and connect to Platforms 1 & 4 at Central (or equivalent platforms).

Would seem to make capacity problems on the Merivale Bridge not really an issue, especially if the first tunnel goes ahead anyway.

I presume there's some reason why something like this isn't in the ICRS.

Not cost effective, serves little purpose, adds to more trains from North problem, trains would still need to serve inner Cleveland Line, waste of platform capacity at Central, etc, etc. 

[O_128]

we would be better off jsut building a bus/pedestreina bridge from bulimba to new farm

[somebody]

serves little purpose,

It would save more than 10 minutes off the average journey.  You can't tell me that wouldn't stimulate any demand, although it would be somewhat more effective at 15 minute off peak frequency.

adds to more trains from North problem,

Yep.  But given that the majority are Bowen Hills terminators anyway, they'd just become Roma St terminators or Inner Cleveland trains.  It's only the Doomben trains that aren't connected with anymore.

I thought after I posted, if you wanted to do it properly, you would build two new underground platforms at Central, then keep tunnelling to a new station at QUT KG, then connect to the FG line at Newmarket.  A major downside of this would a loss of service at Wilston.  Another would be not getting so much value out of the busway anymore.  Less important at Windsor because that already has the 333/332.

trains would still need to serve inner Cleveland Line, waste of platform capacity at Central, etc, etc. 

You might as well Bustitute Coorparoo & Norman Park.  No extra effort is required at Buranda.

[Derwan]

It's great to explore new ideas.  You never know, we may hit on something that can be put forward as a genuine option.  I personally have some issues with this idea though.

When considering spending such huge amounts on solutions to congestion and overcrowding issues, it has to be directed to where it will be most effective.  I assume that this is why the first stage concentrates on the Beenleigh/Gold Coast lines and north to the Caboolture/North Coast, Shorncliffe and Doomben lines.  (Regular paths may not include all those lines but the ability is there for all of them.)  This is followed by stage 2, looking at the Ipswich/Rosewood/Springfield lines.  (I dare say this also takes into consideration the growth in the western district.)

If you're looking at the Cleveland line, money would be better spent duplicating the remaining single track.  I cannot see the requirement for a rail tunnel from Cleveland in my lifetime.

Add to that the design problems.  As previously mentioned, the tunnel from the north will begin between Eagle Junction and Wooloowin - just to get to the required depth.  I understand that this is to get under the river, but a significant depth would still be required to house a station underground - and I'm not sure you'd achieve that depth from a bridge over the river into New Farm.

[O_128]

I would rather the money spent on extending the line to redland bay.

[Jon Bryant]

...and connecting it back to Beenleigh to create Bay Loop line.

[somebody]

Derwan,
The ICRS states that there should be double the current capacity through the CBD by 2026.  Only one route proposed adds much value to the current network at all (IMO), that's the one with stations at Woollongabba, Edward St and Spring Hill.  And even that one has truly crappy interchange opportunities with the Ipswich Line.  While we could make this a quad track line, I doubt that it will happen that way.  If this line is to be built anyway, and we then want another one, it seems pretty logical to connect it to the Cleveland Line to me.  If you want still more capacity for the Ipswich Line than what the mains can offer, you could easily run some Ipswich line trains from the suburbans, since Merivale bridge capacity isn't really an issue anymore.

But regarding:

It's great to explore new ideas.  You never know, we may hit on something that can be put forward as a genuine option.  I personally have some issues with this idea though.

I think the updated idea might be doable.

If you're looking at the Cleveland line, money would be better spent duplicating the remaining single track.  I cannot see the requirement for a rail tunnel from Cleveland in my lifetime.

Far out, did I say that you didn't need to do anything about the single line section?

Add to that the design problems.  As previously mentioned, the tunnel from the north will begin between Eagle Junction and Wooloowin - just to get to the required depth.  I understand that this is to get under the river, but a significant depth would still be required to house a station underground - and I'm not sure you'd achieve that depth from a bridge over the river into New Farm.

In Sydney, the train line stops underground at Wynyard and then goes over the Harbour Bridge, which is quite high deck, about 1km away.  But those trains are heaps heavier, have to deal with only 1.5kV DC electrificiation and only power half their axles.  Surely QR's trains could do a steeper grade than that.  I remember reading somewhere (might have been the ICRS) that grades should be restricted to 2.5%!!??  No justification was given for this: that's what you might say if you wanted to run freight trains on the line.  I understand that trams can do 1:8 grades due to powering all axles and light weight.  Well why can't QR pax trains do steeper grades than CityRail due to powering 2/3rds of axles?  Ok, so that's a bit simplistic, here's a calculation for an SMU:

6 car train tare weight: 252t
1000 people @ 68kg ea: 68t
Motors: 16x180kW = 2880kW
90% of power for hill climbing
P=mgv
2880*.9 = 320 * 9.8 * v
v= 0.826m/s vertically

which works out that a full SMU can sustain around 60km/h up a 1:20 grade at full power.

One other problem with bridging at Morningside might be that high masted boats moored between there and the Capt Cook bridge may need to move.  That actually could be prohibitively expensive.

[O_128]

...and connecting it back to Beenleigh to create Bay Loop line.

Gasp we think exactly alike the only problem is that a tunnel would have to go from ormiston to Victoria point as it is a built up area and cleveland station would ahve to be moved underground

[stephenk]

Another idea to be filed in the trainspotter fantasies folder (along with regular Ekka Loop services, and a high speed Maglev to Doomben).

[O_128]

Another idea to be filed in the trainspotter fantasies folder (along with regular Ekka Loop services, and a high speed Maglev to Doomben).

we mayaswell think of ideas most of them are better than what someone is paid to do.

[somebody]

It's great to explore new ideas.  You never know, we may hit on something that can be put forward as a genuine option. 

I think I've done so a few times, for the record.  Most notably with putting the returning 332/331/341s on the busway between RB&WH and Roma St.  Thinking about this more later, I think even more that this trumps the idea of extending the 66.  AFAIK there is no bus turnaround at RB&WH, that would mean that the 66 would then need to run around the block on surface streets.  And there would be other 3xx rockets which could do the same.

I also think that I do note ideas which are not fully developed as opposed to ones which could be implemented.

[#Metro]

Another idea to be filed in the trainspotter fantasies folder (along with regular Ekka Loop services, and a high speed Maglev to Doomben

Maglev to Doomben!?

'Somebody' does have a point though. I read somewhere (couldn't find the original) but apparently the Cleveland line was built as a freight line to serve mail and an abattoir. Secondly, there is a need for a crossing between Teneriffe and Bulimba anyway. It could be a green bridge with rail on it. Finally doing this would create a closed rail loop serving most of the inner city suburbs (perhaps this could include the 'fantasy' Ekka line too).

Once these were in place, you could dramatically densify this area based on its proximity to the CBD, its low density and PT convenience.

[somebody]

'Somebody' does have a point though.

Thanks!

[stephenk]

  AFAIK there is no bus turnaround at RB&WH, that would mean that the 66 would then need to run around the block on surface streets. 

There is a roundabout for reversing buses at the bottom of the ramp down to Bowen Bridge Rd. Thus Translink have no excuses for not reversing buses at RBWH.

[somebody]

There is a roundabout for reversing buses at the bottom of the ramp down to Bowen Bridge Rd. Thus Translink have no excuses for not reversing buses at RBWH.

Ok, thanks!

But it wouldn't have done anything to solve your problem on Sunday.  Sounds like they should go with 10min frequency for the 333 off peak.

[STB]

Slightly on subject, I have heard in the past of building a rail line (or a high frequency service of some sort) between Murrarie and Airport One in conjunction to the redevelopment of the old Airport site (the actual name of the development escapes me now), including re-opening and relocating the old Eagle Farm railway station.

I haven't heard anything since I heard that though.

[stephenk]

There is a roundabout for reversing buses at the bottom of the ramp down to Bowen Bridge Rd. Thus Translink have no excuses for not reversing buses at RBWH.

Ok, thanks!

But it wouldn't have done anything to solve your problem on Sunday.  Sounds like they should go with 10min frequency for the 333 off peak.

My problem was on a Friday 
The Northern Busway only seems to have issues on weekdays.

[#Metro]

Well if you are going to put a tunnel connection, you could put freight down it as well- an automatic and complete bypass of the CBD!

I like this idea.

[somebody]

Well if you are going to put a tunnel connection, you could put freight down it as well- an automatic and complete bypass of the CBD!

Not if the other end of the tunnel is a dead end like the Ferny Grove line.

[Jon Bryant]

For freight you would tunnel near the industrial estates adjacent to the airport and then head north.  wouldn't you?

[#Metro]

Jonno I had a similar idea. The port is there, so why should the freight have to do a hairpin manouvre just to get north of the city.
Seems silly.

Though any tunneling might run into geological issues.

[mufreight]

The volumes of freight from Port of Brisbane for the north are relatively small so from the operating perspective the existing system where freight moves either to Acacia Ridge or Moolabin where the loading is attached to other loading either for the north or the west.
Ports such as Gladstone, Bowen and Townsville cater for most freight arriving by sea for northern destinations.
Because of this there is little if any real benefit in constructing a cross river conection for freight closer to the river mouth.
Again the money could be better spent elsewhere where it could be of more benefit.

[#Metro]

So then how is it that the volumes of freight are so amazingly high on the Exhibition line to absolutely rule out its use?
If the freight isn't going to the port, where is it going on this line? The Doomben line? Caboolture line?

[Derwan]

I'm guessing the tunnels have been designed for electric trains only - without the additional ventilation required for diesel fumes.  If you ran freight through tunnels, you'd have to either make sure all the locos that went through were electric or include better ventilation.

I also assume that the maximum gradient would be even less for freight trains - adding another consideration to the mix.

Some freight trains carry dangerous goods.  Do we really want them in a tunnel?

[Jon Bryant]

I would rather have dangerous good on a train in a tunnel than on a truck in a tunnel

[#Metro]

I'm still wondering what freight is using the Exhibition line.

Another thought I had with the ICRCS is how will you rescue people when (the following common things) happen:
- there is a train fault
- the power fails
- SCADA falls over
- there is a signal fault

and you have 800+ people stuck directly underneath the Brisbane River?

[somebody]

I'm still wondering what freight is using the Exhibition line.

I think it's largely intra-QLD freight heading between northern country areas and the yards at Moolabin and Acacia Ridge.

[SockGap]

I would rather have dangerous good on a train in a tunnel than on a truck in a tunnel

I was going to say exactly the same thing.

I'm still wondering what freight is using the Exhibition line.

AFAIK the main services are the QR National Intermodal services to/from Acacia Ridge and the Pacific National Intermodal services to/from Moolabin.  If these services aren't daily they'd be every other day.  They run across the Merivale Bridge and cross over the Ipswitch line to the Ekka line.   They'd generally be given paths to run through outside the peak times.

I don't know if the intermodal trains run from Port of Brisbane straight up the coast or whether they run to Acacia Ridge to be added together with other loading.

Other services that have just come to mind include CattleTrain services and the (weekly?) molasses train to/from Warwick.

[O_128]

I'm still wondering what freight is using the Exhibition line.

Another thought I had with the ICRCS is how will you rescue people when (the following common things) happen:
- there is a train fault
- the power fails
- SCADA falls over
- there is a signal fault

and you have 800+ people stuck directly underneath the Brisbane River?

Japan can cope so can europe. If we follow the clem 7 approach there would be a door every 100m to connect with the other tunnel

[#Metro]

Can somebody's proposal be modified into something more feasible? Let's see...

1. Cleveland line alignment is bad. Why does it do a hairpin?
-> Get rid of the hairpin, direct link

2. There is already a bridge proposal IIRC from the BCC (or was it Smart Cities?) for something to go between Tennerife- Bulimba
-> Make the bridge a green bridge + rail

3. There is already a potential Newstead alignment for the ICRCS
-> Plug into the potential ICRCS Newstead alignment as an option.

Connect the dots...

Option A
Putting the three proposals together, you would have Cleveland trains crossing the river at Bulimba (or close by), over a green bridge to Newstead where it would follow the ICRCS Newstead option to the City (brand new line). New Stations at Hawthorne and Bulimba. It might also be used as a freight bypass.

Option B
Alternatively, Cleveland trains cross the river at Morningside to New Farm (Brunswick St) with a station at Merthyr Village, this would continue to a station close to James St/Tenneriffe and then enter the main system to connect with Fortitude Valley Station.

[O_128]

Can somebody's proposal be modified into something more feasible? Let's see...

1. Cleveland line alignment is bad. Why does it do a hairpin?
-> Get rid of the hairpin, direct link

2. There is already a bridge proposal IIRC from the BCC (or was it Smart Cities?) for something to go between Tennerife- Bulimba
-> Make the bridge a green bridge + rail

3. There is already a potential Newstead alignment for the ICRCS
-> Plug into the potential ICRCS Newstead alignment as an option.

Connect the dots...

Option A
Putting the three proposals together, you would have Cleveland trains crossing the river at Bulimba (or close by), over a green bridge to Newstead where it would follow the ICRCS Newstead option to the City (brand new line). New Stations at Hawthorne and Bulimba. It might also be used as a freight bypass.

Option B
Alternatively, Cleveland trains cross the river at Morningside to New Farm (Brunswick St) with a station at Merthyr Village, this would continue to a station close to James St/Tenneriffe and then enter the main system to connect with Fortitude Valley Station.

I REALLY like this idea.

[stephenk]

I'm still wondering what freight is using the Exhibition line.

Another thought I had with the ICRCS is how will you rescue people when (the following common things) happen:
- there is a train fault
- the power fails
- SCADA falls over
- there is a signal fault

and you have 800+ people stuck directly underneath the Brisbane River?

Well hundreds of underground railways can cope with trains in tunnels, so I'm sure Brisbane can. Failed trains can be pushed out, or passengers walked along the line. Failed signals can be passed at danger if strict rules are followed.

Can somebody's proposal be modified into something more feasible? Let's see...

1. Cleveland line alignment is bad. Why does it do a hairpin?
-> Get rid of the hairpin, direct link

2. There is already a bridge proposal IIRC from the BCC (or was it Smart Cities?) for something to go between Tennerife- Bulimba
-> Make the bridge a green bridge + rail

3. There is already a potential Newstead alignment for the ICRCS
-> Plug into the potential ICRCS Newstead alignment as an option.

Connect the dots...

Option A
Putting the three proposals together, you would have Cleveland trains crossing the river at Bulimba (or close by), over a green bridge to Newstead where it would follow the ICRCS Newstead option to the City (brand new line). New Stations at Hawthorne and Bulimba. It might also be used as a freight bypass.

Option B
Alternatively, Cleveland trains cross the river at Morningside to New Farm (Brunswick St) with a station at Merthyr Village, this would continue to a station close to James St/Tenneriffe and then enter the main system to connect with Fortitude Valley Station.

I REALLY like this idea.

Still seriously flawed, not cost effective, and little benefit to the rest of the network. I have explained the reasons in another thread, so don't wish to repeat myself again.

[STB]

Can somebody's proposal be modified into something more feasible? Let's see...

1. Cleveland line alignment is bad. Why does it do a hairpin?
-> Get rid of the hairpin, direct link

The Cleveland line does that so called "hairpin" as it's historical.  Back in the day when it was built it allowed people to access the beach and park at Wynnum which is where demand was back then, it also allowed access to the Fisherman Islands Port of Brisbane.  The line originally was built as far as Cleveland then was ripped up back in the 60s due to a lack of patronage (keep in mind the Redlands back then was mostly farmland, unlike today).  The local council did however buy the corridor and retained it for when it was rebuilt back in the mid 80s.

FYI, there has been rumors within the industry of the possiblity of a future rail line or high frequency bus service to spur off Murrarie to the yet to be built Airport One station as the old airport gets redeveloped in the future, known as Australia Trade Coast.

[mufreight]

Would seem that many have lost sight of the purpose of the line and how it has changed over the years.
The original purpose of the line was to frovide transport both for passengers and freight into a rural area.
With the passing of time the freight traffic diminished either because the land became residential or the freight moved to road.
That the line still retains most of its original alignment now that it has evolved into a commuter line revolves largely around two things, the first being that it services those people along the existing corridor and the second being that for those services to be retained it is not a practical option to reroute the line away from those who currently use it,

[Derwan]

The Eastern Busway should have been (or include) a train line - branching off around Buranda, following Old Cleveland Road, down through Capalaba, Victoria Point and Redland Bay.  These areas have grown substantially and needs to be serviced by a train line.

Of course this is just a pipe dream. 

[somebody]

The Eastern Busway should have been (or include) a train line - branching off around Buranda, following Old Cleveland Road, down through Capalaba, Victoria Point and Redland Bay.  These areas have grown substantially and needs to be serviced by a train line.

Of course this is just a pipe dream. 

Indeed.  One of the better proposed lines is the Kippa-Ring line, at least as far as Mango Hill.  I presume that has a reserved corridor.

A line through Carindale and Alexandra Hills to Victoria Point would require building through already developed areas which isn't cheap.  The busway is definitely better bang for buck.