RAIL - Back On Track Forum

Quote from: AOB on September 09, 2022, 17:10:47 PM

Quote from: Gazza on September 09, 2022, 15:24:35 PMPersonally, I think the whole BCC study was written to lead to a pre determined outcome.

Step 1: Claim the NWTC cant be used.
Step 2: Shift the focus to Gympie Road
Step 3: Implement the road tunnel that someone from Transurban wanted
Step 4: Greenwash with a 2nd rate surface level busway instead of the proper one that has been planned.
Step 5: Push the rail line out to the never never via a fake $13b price tag.

That's largely my thinking as well - there's a kernel of truth that the corridor is now a habitat for native and potentially endangered animals, and the carbrains at BCC almost certainly want a new motorway, so it's very easy to retroactively justify it to yourself by going "oh no we can't build a rail line there, there's native animals" and leave it at that. I doubt it's some grand conspiracy of not wanting the rail line - they just want the motorway, and discrediting the rail line as infeasible is a good way to get it sooner.

The fact that they somehow "forgot" to release the entire train plan and only did so after a week or so of major backlash from the road tunnel idea should be a huge red flag in itself...

I really am coming around to the idea that BCC needs to be split up into smaller local Councils, like pretty much every other city. They have far too much power and truly act like a bully at times. We don't need the Red Queensland State Government fighting against the Blue Brisbane State Government City Council. It's continued to show time and time again just how much this ongoing bickering stalls our region.

I agree with Jonno. RBOT members have debated extending the Northern Busway to Chermside and Aspley.

We have debated bus lanes, LRT and Brisbane metro on Gympie Road. After debating all the options, I do think extension of the Northern busway is the right approach.

By not having BRT in the median of Gympie Road, we can have big bike lanes either side, a median with vegetation and make it into a tree lined avenue.

The northern busway extension will go to 12,000 pphd, which is equal to adding about 5 traffic lanes. So overall, increasing capacity of the Gympie Road corridor overall.

For Old Northern Road, Priority A busway costs more or less the same as rail nowadays so may as well build rail in the first instance.

Quote from: Jonno on September 09, 2022, 19:22:12 PMThe question of whether the Sunshine Coast line may mean more capacity is needed remains.  However a line for both the Sunshine line and local commuter is a very big ask! Maybe NWTC is the express path into the CBD for Fast and even HSR? 

Somewhere in the future a commuter line may be built. 

I don't remember who originally said it here, but I like the idea of a 4-track line (or at least provisions for it) with 2 tracks for local services and 2 express. Run tilt trains, Spirit of Queensland, CAMCOS (if it ever gets built), etc along the new fast alignment which improves all of those services, and free up some space on the NCL for more freight and locals. Depending on how you worked out the junctions you could also use this to help solve the weird capacity situation with CRR.

The main problem with this plan isn't actually on the NWTC, it's the connection to the CBD/wider network. Connecting to the FG line is slow, hard to upgrade, and causes a ton of capacity problems (merging a 4 track line and a 2 track line into a single 2 track segment). A tunnel to CRR seems like a good choice, but it's expensive, there's no tunnel stub so it'd be disruptive, and there's no good way to turn long distance trains around without causing conflicts. I personally think the best option is to merge the locals onto the FG line, and run the express through a tunnel to the exhibition loop headed towards Roma St. However, that's foamer heaven so I doubt it'd happen.

Quote from: #Metro on September 09, 2022, 22:04:11 PMI agree with Jonno. RBOT members have debated extending the Northern Busway to Chermside and Aspley.

We have debated bus lanes, LRT and Brisbane metro on Gympie Road. After debating all the options, I do think extension of the Northern busway is the right approach.

By not having BRT in the median of Gympie Road, we can have big bike lanes either side, a median with vegetation and make it into a tree lined avenue.

The northern busway extension will go to 12,000 pphd, which is equal to adding about 5 traffic lanes. So overall, increasing capacity of the Gympie Road corridor overall.

For Old Northern Road, Priority A busway costs more or less the same as rail nowadays so may as well build rail in the first instance.

I honestly believe  that days of dedicated grad-separated Busway infrastructure are over!! Median running is the future aka Light Rail!

The only remaining busway to build is RBWH To Lutwyche which should have been built day 1. Other than that it's all at grade, centre running, controlled signalling.  Overtime convert to Light Rail!

With a very different enjoyment profile from the CBD centric days of old I truly wonder if this corridor really needs a CBD focus service and not cross-town or North ones.

Maybe cross-town BRT is all they ever need! This leaved NWTC for express and maybe even freight!

It's all expensive but so is 1km of 12 lane freeway!

Quote from: #Metro on September 09, 2022, 22:04:11 PMI agree with Jonno. RBOT members have debated extending the Northern Busway to Chermside and Aspley.

We have debated bus lanes, LRT and Brisbane metro on Gympie Road. After debating all the options, I do think extension of the Northern busway is the right approach.

By not having BRT in the median of Gympie Road, we can have big bike lanes either side, a median with vegetation and make it into a tree lined avenue.

The northern busway extension will go to 12,000 pphd, which is equal to adding about 5 traffic lanes. So overall, increasing capacity of the Gympie Road corridor overall.

For Old Northern Road, Priority A busway costs more or less the same as rail nowadays so may as well build rail in the first instance.

I honestly believe that days of dedicated Budway are over!! Median running is the future aka Light Rail!

The only remaining busway to build is RBWH To Lutwyche which should have been built day 1. Other than that it's all at grace, priority, controlled signalling.  Overtime convert to Light Rail!

With a very different enjoyment profile from the CBD centric days of old I truly wonder if this corridor really needs a CBD focus service and not cross-town or North ones.

Maybe cross-town BRT is all they ever need! This leaves NWTC for express and maybe even freight!

It's all expensive but so is 1km of 12 lane freeway!

QuoteI honestly believe  that days of dedicated Budwsy are over!! Median running is the future aka Light Rail!

I don't agree on this particular point. The original Northern Busway plans were for a dedicated busway as that provides the highest levels of speed, reliability, and capacity. And so it should be for the extension to Chermside. It's a trunk, line-haul route.

Just run with those plans.

If you can't justify Priority A ROW to Chermside, then how can Priority A be justified on the NWTC?

Surely Gympie Road + Chermside PT demand >> NWTC-local Corridor, as the NWTC-local will not serve Chermside Shopping Centre.

Not having a median for PT means that space can be re-alloced to high-quality Active Transport (Cycling and walking), vegetation both sides of the road, wider footpaths, and a vegetated median.

Transit lanes and even median BRT/LRT have issues with capacity (about 1/2 capacity of the busway), and reliability under distress scenarios (e.g. LRT collision with a car/truck at an Priority B intersection will both shut down the line and Gympie road)

Just on the point of why one would be justified and another wouldn't.

A possible explanation could be that because a vacant corridor was set aside for the NWTC, it would be easy to provide class a by default.

On the other hand, because the busway requires tunnelling and resumptions in a built up area that makes class a more difficult to provide.

That all said The bus way should still be done because The intensity of development on that corridor warrants something underground

Quote from: AOB on September 10, 2022, 12:33:12 PM

Quote from: Jonno on September 09, 2022, 19:22:12 PMThe question of whether the Sunshine Coast line may mean more capacity is needed remains.  However a line for both the Sunshine line and local commuter is a very big ask! Maybe NWTC is the express path into the CBD for Fast and even HSR? 

Somewhere in the future a commuter line may be built. 

I don't remember who originally said it here, but I like the idea of a 4-track line (or at least provisions for it) with 2 tracks for local services and 2 express. Run tilt trains, Spirit of Queensland, CAMCOS (if it ever gets built), etc along the new fast alignment which improves all of those services, and free up some space on the NCL for more freight and locals. Depending on how you worked out the junctions you could also use this to help solve the weird capacity situation with CRR.

The main problem with this plan isn't actually on the NWTC, it's the connection to the CBD/wider network. Connecting to the FG line is slow, hard to upgrade, and causes a ton of capacity problems (merging a 4 track line and a 2 track line into a single 2 track segment). A tunnel to CRR seems like a good choice, but it's expensive, there's no tunnel stub so it'd be disruptive, and there's no good way to turn long distance trains around without causing conflicts. I personally think the best option is to merge the locals onto the FG line, and run the express through a tunnel to the exhibition loop headed towards Roma St. However, that's foamer heaven so I doubt it'd happen.

NWTC only makes sense for speed if it's a quad into a tunnel. Outside of that it's not really a strong benefit. Ferny Grove is a slow alignment before you hit the highspeed track. You can build 2 tracks but if you introduce express and all stoppers you bring in the higher potential for yellow running either on the Ferny grove line or on the NWTC itself. The existing mains can be modified for higher track speeds with the reintroduction of the express boards and a few modifications here and there. Last I heard was strathpine had lost its status as a terminus with that being moved to Petrie as a result of MBRL/Dakabin stabling/not enough patronage demand. You can build 2 tracks with quads at stations but you will slow the all stopper waiting for the express to pass or the express hitting yellows along with a higher upfront cost.

There are other options too but it all depends on the NWTC connection. For instance the cost of a tunnel vs speed upgrades on the existing alignment eg Zillmere station and track realignment/quad, signalling upgrades etc. There are already basic plans for quads and triples north of Northgate but just comes down to funding.

QuoteNWTC only makes sense for speed if it's a quad into a tunnel. Outside of that it's not really a strong benefit. Ferny Grove is a slow alignment before you hit the highspeed track. You can build 2 tracks but if you introduce express and all stoppers you bring in the higher potential for yellow running either on the Ferny grove line or on the NWTC itself.

The existing mains can be modified for higher track speeds with the reintroduction of the express boards and a few modifications here and there. Last I heard was strathpine had lost its status as a terminus with that being moved to Petrie as a result of MBRL/Dakabin stabling/not enough patronage demand. You can build 2 tracks with quads at stations but you will slow the all stopper waiting for the express to pass or the express hitting yellows along with a higher upfront cost.

It would help all RBOT members greatly if we had a network map from QR with speed of sections indicated for the entire suburban network.

For either an NWTC or Old Northern Road corridor plugin to the FG line we should consider a scenario where additional tracks (total = 4 tracks) are added to the FG line to keep those trains separate and express until merging into 2 tracks before crossing Enoggera Creek into Bowen Hills.

So we would consider at least four Scenarios:

Scenario 1: NWTC-local into FG Line + all stops operation

Scenario 2: NWTC-local into FG Line + express to Bowen Hills (add 2 new tracks, merge 4 tracks into 2 around Gennon St)

Scenario 3: ONR-local into FG Line + all stops operation

Scenario 4: ONR-local into FG line + express to Bowen Hills (add 2 new tracks, merge 4 tracks into 2 around Gennon St)

Other scenarios - tunnel options direct to CBD

Questions:

- Can new (express) tracks be built such that trains can run non-stop and faster before merging near Gennon St over Enoggera Creek?

- Can existing FG line tracks be modified with works to make trains run faster (might be limited given the station spacing if we are operating an all-stops service or a mix of all-stops and express).

- Quantity - what sort of time savings for each would be reasonable to expect for these scenarios?

- Note, I am not asking for an assessment of financial or political feasibility in the above question, only engineering.

Can someone re-explain that spotlight analogy to me?

QuoteA policeman sees a drunk man searching for something under a streetlight and asks what the drunk has lost. He says he lost his keys and they both look under the streetlight together. After a few minutes the policeman asks if he is sure he lost them here, and the drunk replies, no, and that he lost them in the park. The policeman asks why he is searching here, and the drunk replies, "this is where the light is".

To me this analogy does nothing to advance this topic.
No reasonable person would go searching beneath an unrelated streetlight when they lost their keys in the park.
If they lost their keys in the park, they would most likley turn the torch on their phone on, and use that to search within the park.

Ah yes. Just the fact of connecting it into two lines so it can run into Bowen Hills shows that there are 0 or next to it when it comes to time savings and that 9 car operation will never use the NWTC.

Engineering anything is possible if costs aren't concerned. That line will never have a quad to a NWTC link. Cost wise would be prohibitive given the major infrastructure requirements along with minimal higher speeds due to curves and infrastructure limitations requiring a proper CRR link so 9 car operations can continue to be used on the Sunshine Coast line. But even then you still have slow speeds to deal with with some limitations even slowing down track speeds due to tightening the curve with more tracks. You'd have more of a quad built along the NCL as it's already been designed for a quad layout and already high track speed. You won't get track speeds especially one with a QR logo (for obvious reasons). track speeds can also change depending on the line you're on, direction your travelling and the type of service you are running. For example Bowen Hills junction on the mains citybound is dreadfully slow compared to outbound where your sailing along. Look at the time difference for inbound peak services on the mains vs the subs between Eagle junction and Bowen hills and then compare them to the arvo peak.

Northgate-Petrie is pretty much 80-100 boards with Geebung curve, Zillmere curve and strathpine curve slowing services. Express 120 boards were removed from Lawnton-Strathpine and Bald Hills-Carseldine a few decades ago now. In fact Northgate-Petrie has a shorter track distance than what it is from
alderley to Petrie so speeds will have to be quite high with minimal signal interference to gain that distance back.

For reference the Gympie express service and Ferny Grove all stopper depart Bowen Hills at the same time. The Gympie service departs Northgate at the same time as the FG all stopper departs Newmarket. Normal express trains take about a minute longer to get to Eagle Junction than a Ferny grove service takes to get to Windsor.

Personally I'd rather see the existing government buildings at Zillmere removed, the station taken off the curve and the property that makes up the Carseldine tod moved so the track can be realigned. A quad Northgate-Petrie. NWTC with 2 tracks using all stoppers that feed onto the FG/city lines.

That changes if there's a tunnel but given the lack of provisioning on CRR and the corridor constraints it's going to be a hard sell for another tunnel - even if it goes into Victoria park which has its own problems with elevation grades and bridges in the area. Spend the money upgrading the existing infrastructure than half assing things like a FG quad.

Thanks for the detailed response HTG 🙏. It demonstrates that the NWTC is inappropriate for fast rail to the Sunshine Coast as a branch of the FG line.

Yep. It's nigh-useless to run express-from-Strathpine through NWTC if you have to go through Windsor. Local-only NWTC through the inner Ferny line is a no-brainer, of course.

Let's keep in mind the default, which the NWTC quad + Alderley tunnel is the alternative to: track amplifications along the existing corridor.

It's not at all implausible to see >24tph peak from the "via Virginia" lines between mode share growth, CAMCOS and Caboolture West. CAMCOS as 9 car trains from the near-start seems likely, which will help a bit. But everything north-of-Landsborough will never be retrofitted for 9 cars, I guess that means a transfer at Beerwah.

Similarly the Redcliffe line is pretty retrofittable for 9 cars and that will also help; it's already at almost 10tph peak. Getting Lawnton to Virginia to 9-car platform lengths will potentially be tricky, though I suppose just to put the quad in there's a large amount of rebuilding to do anyway.

Eventually, it wouldn't be surprising if we have the Redcliffe/Caboolture/Sunshine Coast lines through CRR, but need to split the Redcliffe line to have Petrie-Virginia locals running through Central (presumably on the same sector as Shorncliffe). Seems likely we'd (a) need six tracks to Airport Junction and (b1) run up-down-up-down through Virginia or (b2) run UUDD with a grade separation coming in to Northgate... Either UDUD or UUDD has potential issues with Petrie as it is today.

That's where NWTC + big tunnel comes in, or the via-Chermside proposal that's been floating around on here the past month. The grade separation is a given, it completely replaces any need to six-track to Airport Junction, and at least some of the south-of-Strathpine quad too.

No need for extra tracks Northgate-City. This has been ruled out for ages despite political experts saying that it and 7 car trains are still required. NWTC helps negate the need for infrastructure upgrades but not eliminating it entirely as it also depends on the NWTC connection to the city. CRR improves thru put reliability due to conflict removal at Roma street. The Springfield trains already have 5-8 minute dwells at Central in the middle of peak which goes to show they are nowhere near capacity on the mains.

The main intention of 9 car trains was to improve capacity on longer services and increase short haul service frequency without having to do infrastructure upgrades. Petrie is not the original design. It had NWTC and quad provisions removed for cost cutting. This included triple provisions on the NCL removed, another road removed and platform 6 removed. IIRC Northgate, Petrie and Caboolture-Beerburrum are the only stations that intend on having 9 car services (which is why I used the Gympie service as a timing example). Dakabin-Morayfield can be extended to suit 9 car trains but I believe this is not ideal or wanted and is dependent on network configuration and once again external funding from treasury which doesn't have the best relationship MBRL was designed around 9 car extensions but it's a confusing situation. Without NWTC and what more than likely could be happening from what I've heard and it's a long way down the road but it's possible that Caboolture could return to full time all stoppers. Eagle Junction looses airport connection with NCL services. MBRL would go 9 car express Petrie-Northgate, SC would adopt Gympie pattern, Caboolture would stop all stations with interchange at Petrie to express services, peak hour services coming from stabling at Dakabin with Beaudesert and Gold Coast running 9 cars and Beenleigh with 6 car stock on the otherside.

From memory Northgate-Petrie can already handle 12tph each direction (4 all stopping/8 express) on the existing running pattern without using the middle road so it's not impossible for that to happen. If there's redundancy wanted quading Petrie-Strathpine would add some future proofing for a NWTC/existing infrastructure constraints without quadding the entire Northgate-Petrie section.

Despite NWTC being a needed key bit of infrastructure it just doesn't really integrate with the network very well without a tunnel. You can still connect it to CRR with another Mayne flyover but unless someone wants to do some expensive tunnelling and major work in Victoria Park I'm starting to think the NWTC will more than likely only become a spur linking the NCL and Ferny Grove lines feeding into the subs at Bowen Hills.

HTG -

I appreciate that but I still don't see how, in the very distant future when CRR hits capacity from the north, we can avoid either track amplification (be that existing or new corridor), or breaking sectorisation. Who knows, maybe breaking sectorisation on the northside will actually be fine.

We baulk at tunneling for rail yet billions spent widening the M1 and duplicating it And it just makes congestion worse! We have the funding we are just mis-using it!

Quote from: aldonius on September 11, 2022, 18:10:44 PMHTG -

I appreciate that but I still don't see how, in the very distant future when CRR hits capacity from the north, we can avoid either track amplification (be that existing or new corridor), or breaking sectorisation. Who knows, maybe breaking sectorisation on the northside will actually be fine.

Can you be more specific in terms of where the issues would be? The mains between Northgate-Mayne Junction are running 24 services between 7-9am.

As I have mentioned QR for quite a while have a preference for 9 car trains over frequency on the long distance lines. The long distance lines will be using CRR. Capacity is a long way away. As I mentioned 12tph (8 running the current stopping pattern/4 running the current MBRL stopping pattern) from Mayne Junction to Petrie is the max before the third line between Northgate and Petrie is taken into account along with the triple from Mayne Junction-Roma Street. And CCR from the north has quite a few options in terms of running. It's a triple with the potential for some peak hour services to use the above ground road into Roma Street P10 should the need arise. Peak hour at the moment is 13TPH at Eagle Junction on the mains with plenty of capacity left. IIRC CRR is designed for 26tph which means the current Northside capacity is half the capacity of CRR.

Yes, it's a very-distant-future problem - double to triple the current demand! Clearly not worth planning for now.

What I'm anticipating is that eventually (maybe?) we're going to need to shift the sector boundary north, from 2025's "just about everything via Virginia goes into CRR", to putting only the expresses into CRR and the (presumably Petrie) all-stopper back through Central.

But at that point, given the overall demand growth, I don't see how Petrie + Shorncliffe + Airport + Doomben, and their flat junctions, wouldn't also be just a bit too much for one track pair.

Quote from: aldonius on September 11, 2022, 22:27:36 PMYes, it's a very-distant-future problem - double to triple the current demand! Clearly not worth planning for now.

What I'm anticipating is that eventually (maybe?) we're going to need to shift the sector boundary north, from 2025's "just about everything via Virginia goes into CRR", to putting only the expresses into CRR and the (presumably Petrie) all-stopper back through Central.

But at that point, given the overall demand growth, I don't see how Petrie + Shorncliffe + Airport + Doomben, and their flat junctions, wouldn't also be just a bit too much for one track pair.

Trying to understand the future demand scenario that needs extra capacity?

So if Sunshine Line is built, Nambour is duplicated, freight rail is moving long distance freight needs, Beaudesert line is operating and SEQ network (all station) is operating a minimum of 15min 6am-9pm (lower headway in peak).

Does that's trigger the need for more capacity.  What is the tigger?

Quote from: Jonno on September 12, 2022, 21:13:57 PMDoes that trigger the need for more capacity.  What is the trigger?

The trigger for my scenario is if we need to run significantly more than about 24 to 26 trains an hour from the Redcliffe, Caboolture/Nambour & Gympie lines (plus Caloundra in the future, we hope). Currently we're well short of this, running at up to 18 tph in the AM peak and 13 tph in the PM peak, and CRR is 9-car capable so we're effectively at just under half of theoretical maximum usage as of today. (18 tph * 6 cars / train = 108 cars/hour today; then 26 tph * 9 cars/train = 234 cars/hour future max; then 108/234 = 46%). Heaps of room to grow.

Since CRR takes a bunch of train lines out of Central, this leaves what will effectively be spare capacity behind. Now, the Shorncliffe/Airport/Doomben lines don't have humungous growth prospects, at least compared to up north. But if we're assuming a doubling of patronage from up north we can probably assume a little bit more from Shorncliffe (>= 8 tph inc current Northgate starters) and Doomben (>= 2 tph, preferably >= 4tph), with  Airport steady at 4 tph. That means about 16tph used and at most 4-8 tph spare depending on how many tph can be put through platforms 5 & 6 at Central. And Ferny Grove - Cleveland will leave heaps of spare capacity on platforms 1-2 and 3-4 at Central.

So far so good, but what if patronage from up north grows even beyond the above, or we're genuinely limited to 6 car trains on one or more northern lines? This is the trigger. Remember, at this point, CRR is full, so we'll need either a new line through the city or (more likely) offload something to the spare capacity at Central. I suggest an all-stops Petrie-Virginia line for legacy station upgrade avoidance reasons, but it could be something else.

The trouble is that the northern line, Shorncliffe, Airport and Doomben all meet with flat junctions (conflicts) and putting the northern line in with S/A/D would pretty much saturate the track. It would be really convenient if we could offload Airport and Doomben in turn to the Ferny Grove tracks through the CBD, but since there's only four tracks through Albion, it seems like we're stuck with keeping Airport and Doomben together with Shorncliffe and the northern line. Unless there were more tracks somehow...

Thanks Aldonius

So a NW line helps by bypassing Bowen Hills and Fortitude Valley 4 tracks.

Quote from: Jonno on September 13, 2022, 07:38:04 AMThanks Aldonius

So a NW line helps by bypassing Bowen Hills and Fortitude Valley 4 tracks.

You're correct that it would help by being a bypass, but the section that might eventually need bypassing is north of Bowen Hills, not south.

Quote from: aldonius on September 12, 2022, 23:36:02 PM

Quote from: Jonno on September 12, 2022, 21:13:57 PMDoes that trigger the need for more capacity.  What is the trigger?

The trigger for my scenario is if we need to run significantly more than about 24 to 26 trains an hour from the Redcliffe, Caboolture/Nambour & Gympie lines (plus Caloundra in the future, we hope). Currently we're well short of this, running at up to 18 tph in the AM peak and 13 tph in the PM peak, and CRR is 9-car capable so we're effectively at just under half of theoretical maximum usage as of today. (18 tph * 6 cars / train = 108 cars/hour today; then 26 tph * 9 cars/train = 234 cars/hour future max; then 108/234 = 46%). Heaps of room to grow.

Since CRR takes a bunch of train lines out of Central, this leaves what will effectively be spare capacity behind. Now, the Shorncliffe/Airport/Doomben lines don't have humungous growth prospects, at least compared to up north. But if we're assuming a doubling of patronage from up north we can probably assume a little bit more from Shorncliffe (>= 8 tph inc current Northgate starters) and Doomben (>= 2 tph, preferably >= 4tph), with  Airport steady at 4 tph. That means about 16tph used and at most 4-8 tph spare depending on how many tph can be put through platforms 5 & 6 at Central. And Ferny Grove - Cleveland will leave heaps of spare capacity on platforms 1-2 and 3-4 at Central.

So far so good, but what if patronage from up north grows even beyond the above, or we're genuinely limited to 6 car trains on one or more northern lines? This is the trigger. Remember, at this point, CRR is full, so we'll need either a new line through the city or (more likely) offload something to the spare capacity at Central. I suggest an all-stops Petrie-Virginia line for legacy station upgrade avoidance reasons, but it could be something else.

The trouble is that the northern line, Shorncliffe, Airport and Doomben all meet with flat junctions (conflicts) and putting the northern line in with S/A/D would pretty much saturate the track. It would be really convenient if we could offload Airport and Doomben in turn to the Ferny Grove tracks through the CBD, but since there's only four tracks through Albion, it seems like we're stuck with keeping Airport and Doomben together with Shorncliffe and the northern line. Unless there were more tracks somehow...

Patronage up north would unlikely be a massive growth however. And you'd still have the limited capacity of running trains via CRR. It's unlikely Gympie services will go direct to brisbane anymore with a forced interchange required. Same with Nambour. Who knows depending on the rollingstock you might retain a couple 9 car peak hour thru services and simply lock off the rear cars.

NWTC via FG Line Plugin vs NWTC Option 2

I wanted to compare the pair, quantitatively.  #DueDiligence

NWTC Option 2 (Gympie Road)

Roma Street-Albion(ish): 12 minutes travel time
Albion-Chermside (5.5 km, 130 km/hr): 2.5 minutes travel time (new tunnel - build to faster rail standards) <--- Train reaches Chermside in ~ 15 min
Chermside-Zillmere (2.6 km, 130 km/hr) 1.2 minutes, roundup to 2 minutes as we actually stop at Chermside
Zillmere-Bald Hills: 6 minutes
=======
Total: ~ 22.5 minutes
=======

RBOT NWTC Option 1a via FG Line Plugin Connection

Roma Street - Alderley: 20 minutes travel time (via FG line)
Alderley-Bald Hills (11.6 km, 130 km/hr): 5.35 minutes (assuming no stops)
=======
Total: ~ 25.5 minutes
=======

Car Rapid Transport (CRT, via Gympie Road)

Roma Street to Bald Hills Station (~ 19.5 km via Gympie Rd): 30 min (estimated travel time, via Google. Light traffic.)

Based on this model, the travel times for both options would broadly be similar, assuming that no works between Zillmere and Bald Hills were undertaken to speed up that section of the line. And also assuming express and local tracks are built on the NWTC. There is some space on the FG line, so conceivably extra tracks could be added to separate NWTC trains from the rest of the FG line at least until the Mayne flyover.

Current NCL Route

Roma Street - Bald Hills: 32 minutes

=======
Total: ~ 32 minutes
=======

Northern Busway Alternatives
Roma Street-Chermside: Route 330 - 20 minutes to Chermside (could be faster if incomplete sections of the Northern busway were completed, say 15 mins)

Roma Street-Chermside: Route 333 - 31 minutes to Chermside (could be faster if incomplete sections of the Northern busway were completed, say 26 mins)

Conclusion: Based on these findings, no tunnel is required to connect the NWTC to CRR. Both proposals would be time-competitive vs CRT.
Going via NWTC Option 1a would save NCL commuters ~ 6 minutes compared to the current route.

Update - added current NCL travel times. Update 2 - added comparable busway journey times.

Might want to revise your Roma street to Albion timings. Via exhibition it's a lot faster than 12 minutes. And where do you propose this magical tunnel at Albion to appear?

QuoteMight want to revise your Roma street to Albion timings. Via exhibition it's a lot faster than 12 minutes. And where do you propose this magical tunnel at Albion to appear?

Hey HTG, thanks for sharing the info in the Shorncliffe and other threads. You do know a lot about practical speeds on the rail network.

I've used the basic FG-Cleveland line running times rather than via Exhibition to be consistent with what we expect operations to be after CRR opens (FG line is paired with Cleveland post-CRR).

I'll leave it to other members try work out what they think are the right/reasonable numbers. I've provided an example to show how that can be done. It can't be me posting all the time Have a go.

The original NW transit corridor proposal is dead. The new proposal as result from community consultation is much better and can provide faster services to the north while reducing overall travel times. People trying to resurrect the original proposal are fighting a losing battle.

Why is it dead?
BCCs consultation was a sham designed to make a road tunnel look good and a train line look bad.

The government have indicated it in rail connects....i think its great!

Anyway what metros comparison shows is that you get a 7 min time saving with NWTC and a further 3 mins if you do the tunnel.

Personally I think the extra 3 mins saving isn't worth the extra cost of tunneling and the chance to have a new catchment separate from the northern transitway.

Note, nwtc should be done as 3 tracks.

Given the quick transit time, counter peak  services should be able to share track without drama.

The other two tracks allow nwtc express and nwtc to be separated.

RBOT should get behind either of these solutions being via Everton Park or Chermside to Strathpine from Albion.

Both these options do have their merits in the own rights.

Tunneling is not really the major cost, as seen with other rail projects. It's the  station builds etc...Tunnelling and track laying are automated processes, thus needing less labour.

The BCC post community consultation solution requires only one to two additional stations.

Quote from: #Metro on October 30, 2022, 10:57:37 AM

QuoteMight want to revise your Roma street to Albion timings. Via exhibition it's a lot faster than 12 minutes. And where do you propose this magical tunnel at Albion to appear?

Hey HTG, thanks for sharing the info in the Shorncliffe and other threads. You do know a lot about practical speeds on the rail network.

I've used the basic FG-Cleveland line running times rather than via Exhibition to be consistent with what we expect operations to be after CRR opens (FG line is paired with Cleveland post-CRR).

I'll leave it to other members try work out what they think are the right/reasonable numbers. I've provided an example to show how that can be done. It can't be me posting all the time Have a go.

Only raised Albion due to the railway line being about 3m higher than the western side ground level. There are the flooding issues with the afl grounds going under water twice in the last decade. And then there's breakfast creek. Because of Airport link and clem7 you are very limited in where the railway line can go.

I came across this on a suburban news site.

https://aspleynews.com.au/index.php/new-underground-rail-station-could-be-built-in-bridgeman-downs/

A tad bit confusing with the suburb name for Albion being right next to Eagle Junction and the suburb name for Nundah being right next to Toombul 

Also, I love how they are completely disregarding all the other 'options' the Council put forward. Goes to show that the train is what people want.

^ thanks Derailed2 & RowBro for your post.  It has been a tragic shame the corridor was left for so long.

While there is life there is hope I guess. 

I love this comment

QuoteBecause the trains would be faster, it will not be possible to build stops at McDowall and Stafford, although there would be a park-and-ride at Bridgeman Downs that can accommodate 750 vehicles and another one at Everton Park with 175 spaces.

Sounds like a carist approach to Public transport!! Thanks BCC!!

Quote from: Jonno on January 15, 2023, 20:53:06 PMI love this comment

QuoteBecause the trains would be faster, it will not be possible to build stops at McDowall and Stafford, although there would be a park-and-ride at Bridgeman Downs that can accommodate 750 vehicles and another one at Everton Park with 175 spaces.

Sounds like a carist approach to Public transport!! Thanks BCC!!

925 spaces which will be full by 7:30am 

Quote from: Jonno on January 15, 2023, 20:53:06 PMI love this comment

QuoteBecause the trains would be faster, it will not be possible to build stops at McDowall and Stafford, although there would be a park-and-ride at Bridgeman Downs that can accommodate 750 vehicles and another one at Everton Park with 175 spaces.

Sounds like a carist approach to Public transport!! Thanks BCC!!

Quote from: RowBro on January 15, 2023, 22:33:34 PM

Quote from: Jonno on January 15, 2023, 20:53:06 PMI love this comment

QuoteBecause the trains would be faster, it will not be possible to build stops at McDowall and Stafford, although there would be a park-and-ride at Bridgeman Downs that can accommodate 750 vehicles and another one at Everton Park with 175 spaces.

Sounds like a carist approach to Public transport!! Thanks BCC!!

925 spaces which will be full by 7:30am 

Park n Rides are essentially a national approach endorsed by all three tiers of Government despite their political standing.

QuoteBecause the trains would be faster, it will not be possible to build stops at McDowall and Stafford, although there would be a park-and-ride at Bridgeman Downs that can accommodate 750 vehicles and another one at Everton Park with 175 spaces.

I seriously don't see why the default proposal wouldn't be 2 tracks with platforms for local services, and 2 without for express trains (or a cheaper option, having the platforms on sidings so trains can run express through stations while locals wait)

^ I don't know that there would be any massive advantage in that.  Every train along this alignment needs to feed into CRR, along with whatever trains are still serving Exhibition.  That probably limits you to only 14-16tph (maybe 10-12 Caboolture and 4 Sunshine Coast) with the Kippa-Ring trains continuing to use the mains to Albion then via Ekka.  Why not just stop at all stops on the NWTC, given there will be relatively few anyway and the alignment is straight?

Perth doesn't put on expresses to Mandurah or Butler for the same reasoning, just more frequent services closer in (Cockburn Central - Whitfords).

I think all stops makes sense but I also think an ideal model would see 2 more stops than this. 1 around either Hamilton or Rode Rd with good bus access and the second between the Ferny grove line transfer and joining the CRR.

It's fair to have wide spacing to benefit regional passengers but it still has to serve the communities it passes through. If it doesn't ridership will be too limited for the cost and it would not gain sufficient support in the areas experiencing construction impacts.

As a side note it is of course stupid for a project like this to focus on park and rides over bus connections but we can't solve everything at once.

Quote from: SurfRail on January 16, 2023, 12:02:48 PM^ I don't know that there would be any massive advantage in that.  Every train along this alignment needs to feed into CRR, along with whatever trains are still serving Exhibition.  That probably limits you to only 14-16tph (maybe 10-12 Caboolture and 4 Sunshine Coast) with the Kippa-Ring trains continuing to use the mains to Albion then via Ekka.  Why not just stop at all stops on the NWTC, given there will be relatively few anyway and the alignment is straight?

Perth doesn't put on expresses to Mandurah or Butler for the same reasoning, just more frequent services closer in (Cockburn Central - Whitfords).

It's possible to have express trains bypass the CRR tunnel portal and instead terminate at Roma Street. This would be useful for long distance services (and potentially increasing the number of tilts) and Gympie North services. Perhaps even CAMCOS would terminate at Roma Street. That being said I don't think there would be enough of a time saving to justify running express to skip 2 stops and even less so to have 4 tracks the whole way unless the intention is for freight to use it.