RAIL - Back On Track Forum

Treasury

Sometimes it works sometimes it doesn't. Many a project/investigation has been halted or changed by them. Beerburrum and Richlands-Corinda works are prime publicly known examples.

Quote from: Gazza on December 20, 2021, 10:10:43 AM
You have to wonder why they don't install a turnback at least prior to CRR and run some intensive service from Manly inbound.

Were you meaning off-peak (extension of Cannon Hill terminators perhaps)? Because I'm pretty sure peak doesn't have any paths available.

Why wouldnt paths be available post CRR?

The idea is get the infrastructure in place and plan for a higher frequency on opening.

And yeah extend Cannon Hill terminators now.

The main problem for more slots in peak is the express trains I believe. Being only 2 tracks, the express already catches the all stopper by Morningside, hence why they only run express Manly to Morningside these days. Track amplification is very much needed if more trains are going to run while keeping the express peak trains too.

I thought you'd get rid of the peak expresses?

It looks like it would be quite possible to put a short stretch of triplication in between the Wynnum Central LX and the bridge over Pine Street which could accommodate 2 x 6 car trains on the central track to function as a turnback - or if not there then around the back of Wynnum SHS.

Just run a 15 minute headway to Cleveland and run all the extras from Wynnum Central. Manly is then no longer a terminus station and the single track sections outbound of there should (I would think) have less of a reliability impact on the Wynnum Central to CBD trains.

It would be better to do the whole line properly and put in more stabling at Cleveland, but this would be a modest way of addressing things for now.

Quote from: Gazza on December 21, 2021, 08:46:43 AM
Why wouldnt paths be available post CRR?

The idea is get the infrastructure in place and plan for a higher frequency on opening.

And yeah extend Cannon Hill terminators now.

Your earlier post mentioned pre CRR. I don't think there's any capacity to do that in peak. I also don't know about extending Cannon Hill terminators whether there's enough rolling stock and crew to do so.

Just a reminder that we were successful with this RTI application:

https://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/About-us/Right-to-Information/Disclosure-log/2020-Disclosure-log

10 February 2020

RTI-955   
A copy of the Park Road to Cleveland Rail Upgrade Planning Project (PDF, 65.43 MB),
Stage 1 Duplication – Technical Assessment Report (July 2017).

Document > https://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/-/media/aboutus/rti/disclog/2020/RTI-955-Released-documents.pdf?la=en

QTRIP https://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/QTRIPonline

Page 40

Cleveland Line, Park Road to Cleveland, planning State  $1,710,000
Expenditure up to end of 21/22 $930K 22/23 $780K

Something is happening ...

I never ended up getting around to it, but surely a Ctrl + F on the last few pages of this thread to search "congestion on the Cleveland line" and compile just this years delays/cancellations would provide a very compelling argument for capacity upgrades and duplication of the line. This is especially the case since it's potentially to be the only line running through South Bank post CRR.

Couriermail Quest --> 'Rail fail': budget skimps on funds for Cleveland train line duplication $

QuotePlans to review duplicating the Cleveland train line in time for the 2032 Olympics have come under scrutiny after less than $1 million for the track analysis report was in this week's state budget.

The state government has been accused of skimping on funds to investigate duplicating the Cleveland train line in time for the 2032 Olympics.

Plans for the review came under scrutiny after this week's state budget allocated less than $1 million for the analysis.

Queensland Transport and Roads Investment Program documents revealed the state was conducting a $1.709 million report into the line duplication and set aside $779,782 for the project in the upcoming financial year.

The document also revealed that $930,208 was spent on the investigation this financial year. ...

https://twitter.com/ozbob13/status/1539741003330240512

Nice photograph that ... 

Surprised the Govt hasn't replaced the road bridge with a 4 lane monstrosity (no trees,, no bike lane, maybe a footpath) just in case it is duplicated in the 2100's

You can bet your dollar there will NOT be full duplication of the Clevelend line as the Government has eluded too as much in the article.

'Duplication of sections'. Is this what Bailey calls a 'Rail Revolution' ? 

They can improve Manly station with an added platform for turn backs in the interim. Thus, providing extra capacity and frequency on that line.

Redland City Bulletin --> Limited investment in Cleveland train line stokes fears it has been forgotten ahead of 2032 Olympics

QuoteTHE state government budget has been labelled another "rail fail" for Redlands, with limited investment slated for the Cleveland line a decade out from the 2032 Brisbane Olympics.

Transport Minister Mark Bailey defended the budget, saying $1.7 million had been allocated to planning works on the Cleveland line, with $780,000 to be dished out across the 2022-23 financial year.

Budget documents show the state government will have spent about $930,000 on planning by the end of this month, but no funding commitments have yet been made beyond mid-2023.

Rail Back on Track and several residents have lobbied over many years for a line duplication between Cleveland and Manly, long before Brisbane secured the 2032 Olympic Games. ...

https://twitter.com/redlandbulletin/status/1540938635662467073

Redland City Bulletin --> Cleveland line to link with Ferny Grove as state government releases redrawn rail network

QuoteCLEVELAND will link up with the Ferny Grove line under sweeping rail network changes set to take effect when Cross River Rail comes online in 2025.

The state government has released a new south-east Queensland rail map showing how it plans to reconfigure the network into three sectors after the multi-billion project is complete.

Cleveland will switch from its current link with Shorncliffe and connect with Ferny Grove in Brisbane's north. ...

What does this mean for Cleveland line infrastructure? Will we finally see some duplication?

I understand that many here want a third platform at Manly, but I believe the plan is for Lota due to more land being available there/less resumptions. This means duplication between Manly and Lota at a minimum. I think it would be good if the Cleveland line short workings could be extended to Lota instead of the current Cannon Hill terminus.

^ yes there will be some capacity improvements Manly <> Cleveland.

Exactly what i don't know, but I do know things are happening.

Quote... We're also undertaking planning to increase capacity on the Cleveland line in the future - be that extra passing loops or duplication ...

^ Minister Bailey  https://www.facebook.com/MarkBaileyMP/posts/pfbid0KAYQmJHnzkQWYXSQSPFA7RLTHC3thmEVqtkNjx7p2uJGyRZzH8YCQ86UPqD5cfBcl?comment_id=1089863161924128&reply_comment_id=1254690098623409

Quote from: ozbob on August 06, 2022, 12:07:17 PM^ yes there will be some capacity improvements Manly <> Cleveland.

Exactly what i don't know, but I do know things are happening.

Quote... We're also undertaking planning to increase capacity on the Cleveland line in the future - be that extra passing loops or duplication ...

^ Minister Bailey  https://www.facebook.com/MarkBaileyMP/posts/pfbid0KAYQmJHnzkQWYXSQSPFA7RLTHC3thmEVqtkNjx7p2uJGyRZzH8YCQ86UPqD5cfBcl?comment_id=1089863161924128&reply_comment_id=1254690098623409

How "future" is "future" though?

Cleveland Line: What is the average trip speed?

37.29 km from central / (63 minutes x (1hr/60 minutes))

= 35.5 km/hr average journey speed.

The comparable car trip average journey speed from Central to Cleveland is 37-40 minutes, or about 45 km/hr.

Conclusion: The Cleveland Line train service is a VLSR train service: Very Low Speed Rail.

It's slower than a car driving on a normal urban road in a built up area (50 km/hr) in unprioritised Class C ROW with traffic lights.

Just spend a moment thinking about that: this train in Class A prioritised ROW with no traffic lights to stop at or mixed car traffic to get in its way is slower than a Car in Class C ROW.

It is always frustrating to hear how low PT patronage must be due to low density or people loving cars. The service is obviously uncompetitive due to being slow, infrequent and disconnected from the BCC bus network.



Possible Fix

- The Cleveland Line should be quadruplicated, with trains running every 15 minutes all day to a station around 30 minute journey time (Station X).

- Beyond Station X, trains should run all day express from Park Road to Station X and then all stops to Cleveland.

- Station X is probably Lindum Station, though I accept there might be a bit of debate about which station is Station X.

- The current "Express" stopping pattern between Morningside to Manly only saves 5 minutes or so. That is about an 8% time saving, barely noticeable. TransLink should aim for a time saving of at least 10 minutes.

- In addition to adding a two-tier service pattern for the Cleveland line, TMR/TransLink should also look at track upgrades as an option to increase the speed of the service, just as they have with the Kuraby-Beenleigh section of the network.

It's time for the train network to meet contemporary standards and stop offering VLSR as a service offering.

Quote from: #Metro on August 06, 2022, 15:35:22 PMCleveland Line: What is the average trip speed?

37.29 km from central / (63 minutes x (1hr/60 minutes))

= 35.5 km/hr average journey speed.

The comparable car trip average journey speed from Central to Cleveland is 37-40 minutes, or about 45 km/hr.

Conclusion: The Cleveland Line train service is a VLSR train service: Very Low Speed Rail.

It's slower than a car driving on a normal urban road in a built up area (50 km/hr) in unprioritised Class C ROW with traffic lights.

Just spend a moment thinking about that: this train in Class A prioritised ROW with no traffic lights to stop at or mixed car traffic to get in its way is slower than a Car in Class C ROW.

It is always frustrating to hear how low PT patronage must be due to low density or people loving cars. The service is obviously uncompetitive due to being slow, infrequent and disconnected from the BCC bus network.



Possible Fix

- The Cleveland Line should be quadruplicated, with trains running every 15 minutes all day to a station around 30 minute journey time (Station X).

- Beyond Station X, trains should run all day express from Park Road to Station X and then all stops to Cleveland.

- Station X is probably Lindum Station, though I accept there might be a bit of debate about which station is Station X.

- The current "Express" stopping pattern between Morningside to Manly only saves 5 minutes or so. That is about an 8% time saving, barely noticeable. TransLink should aim for a time saving of at least 10 minutes.

- In addition to adding a two-tier service pattern for the Cleveland line, TMR/TransLink should also look at track upgrades as an option to increase the speed of the service, just as they have with the Kuraby-Beenleigh section of the network.

It's time for the train network to meet contemporary standards and stop offering VLSR as a service offering.

I think quadruplication would have a poor cost/benefit due a large number of property resumptions. The best that can happen is allowing use of the 3rd dual gauge freight track for peak direction expresses. This would be more likely if a freight tunnel was built to the port of Brisbane.

Well, on the bright side.

"Congestion on the Cleveland line" as a cause of inner city service disruption will disappear.  When there is only the Cleveland line starters coming through on the suburbans it really doesn't matter if they are all over the place, they don't have to fit into paths between other services as such.

The question is will there be enough services to handle the pax load coming from Boggo road transfers?

Counter peak is going to have its challenges as well?

Oh Cleveland, Oh ..

QuoteI think quadruplication would have a poor cost/benefit due a large number of property resumptions. The best that can happen is allowing use of the 3rd dual gauge freight track for peak direction expresses. This would be more likely if a freight tunnel was built to the port of Brisbane.

The Cleveland Line average service speeds are just not up to modern standards.

It is like having a freeway or motorway with a 35 km/hr speed limit and one lane shared direction bridges in places.

The problem here is not just peak hour. The line's length and journey time of 65 minutes justifies an all day express pattern. People's reasonable travel time budget for commuting is 30 minutes one way, and this line has journeys that are twice that.

There will probably have to be resumptions, but overall a better line will (a) induce more patronage (b) shift patronage from cars. It will actually be attractive to use.

There is also no direct freeway in the Eastern part of Brisbane, like the SE freeway or Western Freeway. This line should be pulling in more passengers than it currently is given that fact IMHO.

 

Quote from: ozbob on September 24, 2010, 12:18:02 PMFrom the Wynnum Herald 22nd September 2010 page 4

Express linked to Manly Line Upgrade: Cleveland Manly duplication tipped

QuoteExpress linked to Manly LINE UPGRADE: CLEVELAND MANLY DUPLICATION TIPPED
BIANCA SULLIVAN

BAYSIDERS are expected to get a slice of the $123 billion Connecting SE Q 2031 project. While the plan is Premier Anna Bligh's 20-year vision and a promise of the upcoming state election, the Cleveland railway line is earmarked for a line duplication from Manly to Cleveland.

This would include ExpressLink train services from Cleveland running all stops to Manly before travelling express to inner Brisbane seven days a week.

Transport Minister Rachel Nolan would not commit to a timeframe for the bayside section of the project, but she announced the delivery of the Cross River Rail tunnel last week. Rail Back on Track secretary Robert Dow said the announcement meant local commuters could expect the line duplication sooner than anticipated "We are looking at 2015/16 for the Cross River Rail tunnel and we would like to see the Cleveland duplication brought forward either built before or run concurrently with the tunnel," he said "There will be bidirectional signalling so trains can run on one line.

"The Cleveland line has become an important commuter line and it needs major station upgrades all the way through. (The duplication) is certainly overdue."

A spokesman for Ms Nolan told the Herald last week that under the new project Cleveland rail-goers could expect to arrive in the city within 45 minutes.

Frequencies would be also be doubled with trains departing stations every 15 minutes, off peak.

"A long-term vision is important because it takes a long time to take projects from idea to reality," the spokesman said.

However, he also added each aspect of the project in the plan was not "fully funded" and the state would seek additional funding from other levels of government. Opposition Leader John-Paul Langbroek condemned the draft plan saying it was not "intended to be fully funded" with no detailed cost estimates sought.

Member for Lytton Paul Lucas welcomed the transport investment.

I am going to Cleveland today.

 

Interesting to note that at Thorneside the ' triangle ' has had a complete sleeper replacement with concrete sleepers, and track improvements. Looks very flash now for a triangle.  Might be some future proofing going on.

Cannon Hill

Quotehttps://www.queenslandrail.com.au/inthecommunity/projects/cannon-hill-station-upgrade

Cannon Hill station upgrade

The station upgrade is designed to ensure all customers can access train platforms via paths, ramps or lifts, without the need to use stairs.

Features of the upgrade include:

a new pedestrian footbridge with lift access
a raised section of the platform at assisted boarding points
upgraded hearing augmentation loop and tactile platform surfaces
upgraded security cameras and lighting at assisted boarding points
new wayfinding and platform signage at assisted boarding points
a new bicycle enclosure to support active transport.

Cannon Hill station park 'n' ride upgrade

The Department of Transport and Main Roads (TMR) invested $3.4 million to upgrade the Cannon Hill station park 'n' ride in May 2020. The upgrade included an additional 80 car parks, as well as new lighting, CCTV and upgraded pedestrian facilities.

I travelled from Roma Street on a Cannon Hill service EMU 42.
Service terminated platform 1, crew changed and departed for Northgate about 1 minute or so after arrival.
Crosses over to the down track a few hundred metres down the line. 

Few photographs at Cannon Hill, recently upgraded with raised platform centre sections.



















Photographs R Dow 1st September 2022

The last photograph as viewed from train was part of the original station.



https://sigq.weebly.com/no-remains.html

What is the triangle used for?

Also, what was the reason why we cannot have 15-minute all day trains to Manly?       

It's double track to Manly and there are three tracks at Manly station?

Would it be as simple as adding a third side platform on the western car park side, or are there other issues involved? Two trains per hour could still proceed from Manly to Cleveland.

^There's no technical reason, same as there's nothing stopping 4tph to Springfield or Kippa Ring.

During the sector 2 changes they did 4tph to Cannon Hill as that what was possible with the fleet and staff pre NRG (Well that was the reason given) and Cannon Hill was a convenient place to turn back.

Pressing onwards to say Wynnum, or Manly would be a step increase in cost.

Why is there the turning angle at Thorneside?

It is a good question.  I think probably because Thorneside was a temporary terminus in 1982 when the line between Lota and Cleveland was being re-established.  It was used to reverse the locomotives. It has also been handy for turning steam locomotives on excursions.  I think it has some use today for turning maintenance vehicles as well.

The fact that it has been upgraded surprised me.  It is now first class, concrete sleepers, high standard track.   

Thanks for that info Gazza, could be low hanging fruit ripe to pick!

Also, there's only 2 main tracks at Manly. The other two tracks are the stabling yard.

So I talked about curve easing north-of-Norman Park yesterday:

Quote from: aldonius on September 02, 2022, 14:00:06 PMFinally, is it just me or would north-of-Norman Park curve easing ... actually be pretty straightforward to do? The costs of buying the ~10 houses on Bennetts Rd would be offset by a fairly equivalent amount of land freed up on the Railway Pde side and Bennetts Rd could even be made a little narrower there.

But Norman Park to Coorparoo is also a problem child. Perhaps not so much for railway operations but for everything else. There's a low rail-over-road bridge and TWO level crossings.

I think skyrailing the line is probably not the right solution here. It seems to me that a Cavendish Rd road-over-rail overpass would be fairly straightforward, like Geeing or Enoggera. And that's the main thing; the Crown St bridge and the Stanley St E LX are much less important. So that's that.



As for the outer section of the line...

Right now trains cross at Wellington Point. They also cross north of Manly (inbound goes through 2 minutes before outbound) and an inbound train departs Cleveland 3-4 minutes after an outbound train arrives (not sure if long dwell or tight turnaround there).

So the first thing for reliability will be to extend some of those duplicated sections. The tightest cross is Wellington Point and you'd probably go to Birkdale first, because the outbound train has more opportunities to be delayed than the inbound train.

Edit to add: conversely, if it is a tight turnaround at Cleveland and it's not being made, then to extend the dwell time trains might need to cross at Ormiston rather than WP, so duplicate there first to enable it and then Manly-Lota for reliability as now an exact cross will be at Manly.

QuoteAlso, there's only 2 main tracks at Manly. The other two tracks are the stabling yard.

Could one of those yard tracks become in-service with 3rd platform? There is a nice big car park either side of the station which could be resumed if the whole station is rebuilt and reconfigured.

As I understand there is another study underway looking at options. 

There have been a lot of studies done on the Cleveland line.  Time something happened, CRR might be the catalyst now.

This was one of them

Quote from: ozbob on April 30, 2022, 11:23:41 AMJust a reminder that we were successful with this RTI application:

https://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/About-us/Right-to-Information/Disclosure-log/2020-Disclosure-log

10 February 2020

RTI-955   
A copy of the Park Road to Cleveland Rail Upgrade Planning Project (PDF, 65.43 MB),
Stage 1 Duplication – Technical Assessment Report (July 2017).

Document > https://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/-/media/aboutus/rti/disclog/2020/RTI-955-Released-documents.pdf?la=en

"The Cleveland Line is predicted to reach capacity by 2021." (Page 8 of 207)
Says it all, really.

It's important to set out a vision. Like this:



- A 'do minimum' approach aims to have improved service as quickly as possible. This upgrade would see a third platform at Manly constructed and trains every 15 minutes all day ASAP.
There would be no express component in this initial stage. Two trains per hour would simply continue to Cleveland.

- In the medium to longer term, large P&R facilities (with user-pay car parking fee) would be opened at stations from Manly onwards. I would also include Hemmant and Lindum in the P&R list for the line given their urban context.

- Understandably, objections may be generated against P&R because its a P&R/DOT approach and not TOD, however TransLink could simply offer the car park land to the market for development at the TOD Point X critical mass or above. If there are no offers from developers that meet this minimum criterion... proceed to P&R.

- By all means, improve buses and cycling, to the stations as well. In particular, Manly station will be served by both all day express and local-frequent trains and therefore have 6 trains/hour all day. This station is therefore likely to generate extra car traffic, cycling, walking and e-scooter users trying to get the express services and so should have enhanced facilities.

- 'Slow' sections of the line would be upgraded as required. I understand TL might not have a focus on this as they would look at increasing road traffic congestion during peak hour and might be tempted to think "We can get away with offering this!" and offer VLSR service with speeds potentially dropping to 30 km/hr on average as timetables are inevitably padded out to increase reliability metrics.

- Unfortunately, this approach ignores the fact that the off-peak exists, and if there is ever to be growth in patronage on rail it will need to be in the off-peak, just as it was for BCC's BUZ bus services. It also ignores that in absolute terms, the areas enclosed by the 30-minute and 60-minute 'reasonable commuter' isochrones shrink in proportion to average speed loss. Slow services measurably reduce passenger freedom.

- Modal choice. If you have a choice between a car that goes 45 km/hr on average in mixed traffic, and VLSR which goes at 35.5 km/hr on average (plus 10 min walk, plus potential bus trip, plus up to 15 minute wait, plus another 10 minute walk at the end to the actual final destination) you might ask "Why bother?" and that would be entirely rational. Like Perth, rail should aim to have an average higher speed where possible to compensate for the other time and delay factors in the generalised travel cost equation (GTCE).

Bob. Triangle was like you said when it was the terminus locos used it to turn around.

As for sleeper replacement some sleepers on triangles/rarely used sidings have reached their end of life or have been damaged ie rot. They simply get replaced with concrete for longer life/less inspections and mtce costs. This is also more recent as long end leading is now banned (outside of yard ops/full track closures for mtce) meaning triangles would be used more frequently without the need for a second loco.

In terms of the manly 3rd platform it depends on what report you are looking at. But most recommendations/conclusions for the 3rd platform are removing the stabling roads/staff and passenger parking and access road with either more dead running, a second island platform to enable overnight stowing (1 dead road and 1 thru road) or additional stabling yards used towards Thornside on resumed land/triangle removal or at Birkdale. All depends on budget. You can rule out stowing at Manly as they tend to shy away from stowing trains at platforms overnight.