RAIL - Back On Track Forum

Yeah, there's no doubt that regional services cost more to operate for these reasons, same applies to the RTT, SOQ etc, you're not actually bringing any new info to the table.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_South_Wales_Hunter_railcar
7 units. Another example of a small order in oz.

Which is what I am alluding to rather than having 2x SMU200 stowed for 13 months before sending them to Maryborough. Regional traveltrains are being run on the cloth of an oily rag. Carriage hauled services mtce wise are a lot lower than you think. Same for the tilts.

I mean isn't the point of RBoT to get the gov to start spending more on rail and mtce?

Quote from: Gazza on April 12, 2023, 08:37:50 AMPerhaps, but the fit out of a 90 min duration commuter service to Toowoomba differ to a 4-6 hour service to Maryborough/Bundy/Rocky.

or the 90min trip to Brisbane get the same level of service/comfort as the 4-6hr fleet. I have caught the Tilt Train to Cooroy before just for the better level of service.   Who knows if beyond Toowoomba Regional Rail (where Toowoomba might be the destination not Brisbane) is possible in a carbon natural world.

Yeah good point, I imagine you could do say a 4 hourly or at least daily service to Dalby as well (similar to the Gympielander).
Only 78km further than Toowoomba, so you could potentially do Dalby>Oakey>Toowoomba>Brisbane in 2.5 hours, competitive with driving.

This is definitley a case where a dual mode unit could be useful, because you sure as hell wouldn't electrify to Dalby anytime soon.

Quote from: Gazza on April 12, 2023, 09:48:39 AMI mean isn't the point of RBoT to get the gov to start spending more on rail and mtce?

By all means but there comes a point in time where it's p%ssing into the wind for the sake of a few trains. For reference Toowoomba-Cairns has been part of the TT network. Over time funding has been withdrawn and other plans halted such as realignment along the ncl. Maybe Bob could do a foi request into the 2002/2003 TT realignment to Toowoomba?

Not sure Toowoomba needs tilts, but I think they'd be a good idea north of Nambour. Order a few new sets to enable 6-8 trips a day to Maryborough, 4 to Rocky. Maybe then Rocky tilt can skip a few stations south of Maryborough to save time, e.g. Gympie North, Cooroy, Landsborough, Caboolture etc.

Quote from: achiruel on April 12, 2023, 11:34:17 AMNot sure Toowoomba needs tilts, but I think they'd be a good idea north of Nambour. Order a few new sets to enable 6-8 trips a day to Maryborough, 4 to Rocky. Maybe then Rocky tilt can skip a few stations south of Maryborough to save time, e.g. Gympie North, Cooroy, Landsborough, Caboolture etc.

I assume the idea behind the TT was to phase out the Westlander or have the west or operate Toowoomba-Westwards. Track alignment was to be 200kph rated or at least the study was. Don't forget this was still around the same time that Nambour was to be a quad core 160kph realignment and other works with speeding up the NCL. There were definite intentions to increase the TT fleet over the years but that's fallen idle until part of the fleet came up on retirement - ignoring previous issues where other parts were retired due to rollingstock damage. It was also around the same time that QR was in now in full business monster mode.

So we can have a small fleet and it will cost a lot per unit, or we can have a large fleet and it will simply cost a lot...

I'm not concerned about rolling stock. Requests made will be filled.

Bi-mode looks like a goer. 👍

That just leaves the approach into Toowoomba. Could be via ARTC IR which would be slow.

But, a future option exists for a different more direct route (tunnelled?). Would be great to flesh out such an option.

Quote from: aldonius on April 12, 2023, 13:19:32 PMSo we can have a small fleet and it will cost a lot per unit, or we can have a large fleet and it will simply cost a lot...

Or develop a fleet that utilises a similar platform instead of requiring a new mtce facility with each new model of train. Mtce cost are quite high for qr at the moment for this very reason which they have been trying to curb since before the NGRs arrived. People are quick to jump to removing guards to cut costs meanwhile they fail to acknowledge the increasing costs of mtce because some politician or political party can't order a train due to lack of knowledge of how railways operate or because someone said ignore that asterisk next to the price tag. Or maybe it was just a tmr project. But hey let's make each new train order a multibillion dollar project with a different Kelvin fluro light.

Quote from: #Metro on April 12, 2023, 13:30:15 PMI'm not concerned about rolling stock. Requests made will be filled.

Haha. Quite a few requests for NGR and IMU160/SMU260 were knocked back due to the increased price cost. These were off the shelf trains and any mods to their listing incurred a price bump. Being a bottom dollar tender you end up not going for the mods. Like we saw with Kippa Ring signalling. You can have the good one or we can modify this other cheaper one that when first activated will cause the network controller to panic when all the trains and signals vanish off their screen.

QuoteCould be via ARTC IR which would be slow.

But, a future option exists for a different more direct route (tunnelled?). Would be great to flesh out such an option.

Tunnels are expensive and Toowoomba only 150k people, so I think the economics of passenger rail hinges off being able to piggyback off the ARTC tunnel since someone else is paying for it.

If its a dedicated direct passenger tunnel, great, we could go that alone right now, but I dont think it would be viable, else toowoomba would already have fast passenger rail.

Quote from: AldoniusSo we can have a small fleet and it will cost a lot per unit, or we can have a large fleet and it will simply cost a lot...

Agree.

The tilt trains are a "small fleet". I don't see members advocating to get rid of them because they are non-standard. Or that it cost money to maintain them.

This makes me think of an alternative of course - which should be assessed - is to consider a non-train alternative as well.

Similar to V/Line Coaches. These could run hourly ex Roma Street during the day and charge TransLink fare.

The trip by road is ~ 100 minutes, only 10 minutes slower than the train option, and no issues going up the range.

It is also low risk because the decision is easily reversible. If it doesn't work out, much easier to find a buyer for a coach than trains.

Indeed, improved bus/coach service should be looked at in the nearer term as a temporary/interim  position while the train approach is being figured out.   

Quote from: Gazza on April 12, 2023, 14:04:01 PM

QuoteCould be via ARTC IR which would be slow.

But, a future option exists for a different more direct route (tunnelled?). Would be great to flesh out such an option.

Tunnels are expensive and Toowoomba only 150k people, so I think the economics of passenger rail hinges off being able to piggyback off the ARTC tunnel since someone else is paying for it.

If its a dedicated direct passenger tunnel, great, we could go that alone right now, but I dont think it would be viable, else toowoomba would already have fast passenger rail.

They built the range bypass and didn't blink at the cost. Only looks expensive compared to doing Nothing which is the current Govt's rail approach.

Quote from: #Metro on April 12, 2023, 14:16:38 PM

Quote from: AldoniusSo we can have a small fleet and it will cost a lot per unit, or we can have a large fleet and it will simply cost a lot...

Agree.

The tilt trains are a "small fleet". I don't see members advocating to get rid of them because they are non-standard. Or that it cost money to maintain them.

This makes me think of an alternative of course - which should be assessed - is to consider a non-train alternative as well.

Similar to V/Line Coaches. These could run hourly ex Roma Street during the day and charge TransLink fare.

The trip by road is ~ 100 minutes, only 10 minutes slower than the train option, and no issues going up the range.

It is also low risk because the decision is easily reversible. If it doesn't work out, much easier to find a buyer for a coach than trains.

Indeed, improved bus/coach service should be looked at in the nearer term as a temporary/interim  position while the train approach is being figured out.   

Ignoring the point about the TT fleet. Not to mention it's a different class. The only time window panes get replaced is after a level crossing incident when a truck wraps around and makes contact or when someone has thrown a rock at it. They very rarely get replaced. The suburban fleet has bins of window panes constantly getting thrown out.

QuoteThey built the range bypass and didn't blink at the cost. Only looks expensive compared to doing Nothing which is the current Govt's rail approach.

Thanks Jonno. The two options are discussed in the context of something that is good enough for now, and something that is better than good enough for later (if ever).

Using the ARTC route is low cost but it's not ideal. It's designed for freight not passengers. You would desire to upgrade the route at some point after commissioning revenue service.

Quote from: Jonno on April 12, 2023, 14:46:54 PM

Quote from: Gazza on April 12, 2023, 14:04:01 PM

QuoteCould be via ARTC IR which would be slow.

But, a future option exists for a different more direct route (tunnelled?). Would be great to flesh out such an option.

Tunnels are expensive and Toowoomba only 150k people, so I think the economics of passenger rail hinges off being able to piggyback off the ARTC tunnel since someone else is paying for it.

If its a dedicated direct passenger tunnel, great, we could go that alone right now, but I dont think it would be viable, else toowoomba would already have fast passenger rail.

They built the range bypass and didn't blink at the cost. Only looks expensive compared to doing Nothing which is the current Govt's rail approach.

The Toowoomba bypass is not a good example to use here.

- It only cost $1.6bn, comparable to the estimated cost of the Inland Rail tunnel ($1.4bn). I suspect a second, passenger only tunnel, with a ridiculous inner city Toowoomba underground station, would be much more expensive.
- Both the Toowoomba bypass and the Inland Rail tunnel are about servicing freight, and the broader region west of Toowoomba, not Toowoomba itself (and the rest of the country in the case of IR)
- This makes both projects nationally significant, hence why the Toowoomba bypass was funded 80:20 Feds-QLD. Similarly, Inland Rail is funded mostly with federal money.
- In contrast, a passenger rail tunnel from Toowoomba to Brisbane is realistically only serving the population of Toowoomba and surrounds, again only like 150k people, much less than the nationally significant projects like Inland Rail and the Toowoomba bypass.
- It would therefore not be able to get the same level of federal funding as it is more of a state priority (you'd be lucky to get 50:50 split, just take a look at the Sunshine Coast rail duplication dramas!)
- QLD state government does not have access to the same level of funding as EASILY as the federal government does for mega projects of this magnitude
(PS. Jonno please don't just say "bUt tHeY sPeNd aLl tHe mOneY oN roADs iNsTeaD". We know. I'm being realistic).

Gonna mirror what has been said by others in this thread. Most sensible outcome would be:
- Uses Inland Rail alignment
- Gazza's stopping pattern
- Parkway station in the north of Toowoomba with big PnR/bus interchange as Metro suggsted.
- 2tph peak, 1tph offpeak at absolute max for the foreseeable future. Most likely start with 2 trains per day ala the Gympielander and work your way up.
- Rollingstock: A few more Diesel tilts or Bi-modes (best case scenario). More likely diesel loco hauled in push-pull config. Provision for future electrification where possible (ie. everywhere except the IR tunnel)

I think a parkway station north of Toowoomba (e.g. Harlaxton) would be sub-optimal. It needs to come into the city proper.

Also, a tunneled approach does not mandate an underground station. There may be potential for the line to exit into the daylight if a tunnel portal were to surface in Toowoomba South near the Toowoomba Hospital.

Indeed, you could consider a surface station near the hospital as well...

Quote from: #Metro on April 12, 2023, 16:02:40 PMAlso, a tunneled approach does not mandate an underground station. There may be potential for the line to exit into the daylight.

You mean exactly what the Inland Rail tunnel does? Albeit it exits north of Toowoomba, not south

Before commenting, it is definitely worth familiarizing yourself with the current inland rail plans.
https://maps.inlandrail.com.au/g2h#/

The tunnel pops out near the top of Boundary St, Gowrie Junction.
As the crow flies its 8km from the Toowoomba CBD, or about 10km by rail from Toowoomba station (7.5 mins at 80kmh)

The ARTC tunnel commences at about 400m elevation, so it's about 4km of tunnel from that point if you wanted to provide a direct passenger only tunnel to under the Toowoomba CBD which is elevation 600m.

So if the tunnel is 4km long, and it can do 2.5% grade (1 in 40) then maths tells us a Toowoomba CBD station would be 100m underground!

So its more like 6km of tunnel if you wanted to have the station at a more reasonable 50m underground, or 8km of tunnel if you wanted to have a surface station.
The passenger tunnel would have to follow a big, less direct curve to ensure the Toowoomba station is in the right spot.

In the end, the way the numbers bear out means a dedicated passenger tunnel can save about 10km compared on the journey compared to using the ARTC tunnel, but would come at a cost of at least a couple of billion.

Im assuming it wouldn't be a rack incline railway because whats the point. Yeah you save distance because the tunnel is steeper, but you lose speed because the train is only doing 20-40kmh.

This image sums up the possible routes into the CBD


Red is the cheapest, using the ARTC tunnel and existing QR tracks. Could involve realignment of the surface tracks to increase speed.

Blue is the short tunnel option but requires a very deep level station (100m) that would need high speed lifts rather than escalators.

Green is a medium tunnel option, with a station that is still fairly deep in the cbd (50m), but could be accessed with escalators.

Orange is a a long tunnel option, and could have either a medium depth station, or an above ground station in Harristown, 2km from the cbd.

Quote from: Tim_HYou mean exactly what the Inland Rail tunnel does? Albeit it exits north of Toowoomba, not south

Well, let's look at that suggestion Tim H.

Gowrie to Helidon project map
https://inlandrail.artc.com.au/gowrie-to-helidon-project-map/

The tunnel surfaces ~ 8 km out of town near Gowrie. A parkway station would be very far out of town.

I could see a way where the train would have to loop out of the tunnel portal and then join the existing surface rail to the centre of Toowoomba. It would be an ~ 11 km backtrack deviation though.

In terms of a passenger approach - which I am at pains to suggest would come after the service actually was commissioned - would start somewhere around Withcott. I would estimate it would need to be about 6 km long and at 220 million/km would cost about $1.3 billion (cost blowout value $2 billion).

As you can imagine, would be costly. So not something I would imagine would be available on Day 1. You would initially start the service as a bus service from Roma Street while the rail was being set up.

But to further explore the Withcott option, withcott is at 250m, so 6km of tunnel/viaduct from there at 2.5% gets you to 400m, so the station is still 200m below the CBD.
 It would be the worlds deepest train station by a very long margin. Probably wont be investigated.

Going into Withcott needs an additional 10km of new rail built since it would need to branch off at Helidon and run next to Toowoomba Connection road into Withcott somehow (eg in the median of the road) Make sure that cost is factored!

And I know somebody is going to say that you could run a bus from Withcott up to the CBD. Thats still going to be 15 mins on the bus + 5 min interchange = 20 mins.

And if you are going to make people spend 20 mins doing that, you could just run the train via the indirect ARTC tunnel and also be in the Toowoomba CBD in 20 mins, and it would be a more pleasant convenient experience.

************

Basically, there is no way you can 'magic away' the fact that Toowoomba is several hundreds of meters above the next town along the line.
One of those geometry problems where there is not necessarily a clear solution.

QuoteIn terms of a passenger approach - which I am at pains to suggest would come after the service actually was commissioned - would start somewhere around Withcott. I would estimate it would need to be about 6 km long and at 220 million/km would cost about $1.3 billion (cost blowout value $2 billion).

Tim H, here is how I would suggest it. You'd have quite a run up to get height, potentially you could embank or elevate the line in the run up section as well. Would need to be investigated as part of options evaluation and appraisal.

In terms of the ARTC tunnel, it is an untested assumption as to whether it is suitable for packed passenger trains. I imagine it would be designed to allow the driver(s) etc from a freight train to evacuate the tunnel in case of fire etc. But what if you have 500 people packed into a passenger train having to evacuate? Is the tunnel even designed for that? A question to consider.

Getting up and down the range for a train will be technically challenging, and reminds me a bit of how  challenging it will be to get a faster rail from Sydney to Newcastle (which involves going through hills and inlets), or how a train might get up the Blue Mountains to Katoomba.

Probably the nearest comparison is the climb from Western Sydney over the Blue Mountains to Lithgow, which involves tunnels (just in case any members thought there was something suss about tunnels or spending $ on them. )

Lithgow 10 tunnels https://www.nswrail.net/library/lithgow-zigzag.php

QuoteThe Lithgow Zig-Zag

Image: Zig Zag map

The Lithgow Zig Zag was created where the Main West line descends the western side of the Great Dividing Range, about 100km west of Sydney. In order to reach the bottom, the track switches back on itself twice. The Lithgow Zig Zag was opened in 1869 and remained in use until 1910 when it was bypassed by a different route utilizing 10 tunnels to descend the range.

NSW Railways - The Ten Tunnels - Lithgow NSW HD
https://www.nswrail.net/library/lithgow-zigzag.php

Did I mention these are electrified too?

Built 113 years ago, takes double deck NSW Intercity trains to Lithgow.

The ARTC website states that the tunnel can support passenger trains, but it is up to the individual states decision to run them.

Quote from: #Metro on April 12, 2023, 17:36:47 PM

QuoteIn terms of a passenger approach - which I am at pains to suggest would come after the service actually was commissioned - would start somewhere around Withcott. I would estimate it would need to be about 6 km long and at 220 million/km would cost about $1.3 billion (cost blowout value $2 billion).

Tim H, here is how I would suggest it. You'd have quite a run up to get height, potentially you could embank or elevate the line in the run up section as well. Would need to be investigated as part of options evaluation and appraisal.

In terms of the ARTC tunnel, it is an untested assumption as to whether it is suitable for packed passenger trains. I imagine it would be designed to allow the driver(s) etc from a freight train to evacuate the tunnel in case of fire etc. But what if you have 500 people packed into a passenger train having to evacuate? Is the tunnel even designed for that? A question to consider.

Getting up and down the range for a train will be technically challenging, and reminds me a bit of how  challenging it will be to get a faster rail from Sydney to Newcastle (which involves going through hills and inlets), or how a train might get up the Blue Mountains to Katoomba.

Probably the nearest comparison is the climb from Western Sydney over the Blue Mountains to Lithgow, which involves tunnels (just in case any members thought there was something suss about tunnels or spending $ on them. )

Lithgow 10 tunnels https://www.nswrail.net/library/lithgow-zigzag.php

QuoteThe Lithgow Zig-Zag

Image: Zig Zag map

The Lithgow Zig Zag was created where the Main West line descends the western side of the Great Dividing Range, about 100km west of Sydney. In order to reach the bottom, the track switches back on itself twice. The Lithgow Zig Zag was opened in 1869 and remained in use until 1910 when it was bypassed by a different route utilizing 10 tunnels to descend the range.

Yes it was designed for passenger evacuation. Dual air chambers.

Getting up the range is challenging,but i think the artc option is the best since it makes use of a natural gully to slope up as far as possible and then enters the hillside.

Options like the straight green line from withcott are not viable because youd require essentially a huge long ramped viaduct rising from the lockyer valley floor, literally hundreds of metres tall.

When i did up my little proposal about rail to Toowoomba it was at the level where i was on qldtopo to ensure what i was putting forward was reasonable.
There's no point investigating options that fail at the first hurdle.

Re tunnels and lithgow.... depends on the importance of the line really.

Eg through Lithgow it forms part of the transcontinental railway to Perth and opens up the west of nsw to Bathurst, dubbo, orange, broken hill etc.

But i think in Toowoomba having a multi billion ARTC tunnel and then another tunnel thats a few mins faste is probably too much infrastructure spending on a town of that size, being realistic.

Inland rail gets a tunnel because it's part of a nation building project.
Not sure if you'd get funding to spend on an extra tunnel for an hourly pax service

Quote from: Gazza on April 12, 2023, 19:19:37 PMRe tunnels and lithgow.... depends on the importance of the line really.

Eg through Lithgow it forms part of the transcontinental railway to Perth and opens up the west of nsw to Bathurst, dubbo, orange, broken hill etc.

But i think in Toowoomba having a multi billion ARTC tunnel and then another tunnel thats a few mins faste is probably too much infrastructure spending on a town of that size, being realistic.

Inland rail gets a tunnel because it's part of a nation building project.
Not sure if you'd get funding to spend on an extra tunnel for an hourly pax service

This is exactly the point I was making

Re: a station closer to the CBD. Can the train just surface at Gowrie and continue along the surface tracks to Harlaxton? Big patch of empty land just north of the freight yard. Prime real estate for the Parkway station imo. It's on a bit of a hill but Parknrides don't care too much about that.
Google maps has an old station called Willowburn there

Yeah I've got no problem with that.
Have a parkway station there, and such a parkway station would also be convenient for people coming from Highfields or Dalby, and for a good deal of the northern suburbs of Toowoomba.

And then the train can continue on to the Toowoomba CBD anyway....

Another thing worth noting is that the tunnel up the range is not the only tunnel part of this project.
There's also the tunnel planned under the little Liverpool range between Grantchester and Laidley.

For passenger rail to be viable and fast enough you would need to take advantage of that tunnel as well.

So Ifvtrains can use the Little Liverpool tunnel then therefore they can use the one up the range too

Yeah of course, it should just use the Inland Rail alignment the whole way along.

The only place I would consider deviating to the old QR alignment is through Laidley, in order to stop at the old Laidley station in the town centre. But that's not entirely necessary

Decided to do some extra analysis on this just to demonstrate the point.

We know that the ARTC tunnel pops out about 10km away from the 'ideal' location in the middle of Toowoomba.

Therefore the train must travel an extra 10km to get to the existing Toowoomba CBD station compared to a direct route with an underground station.

Therefore we can state there is approx. a 7.5 min time penalty compared to the 'ideal' direct route.

This implies that the price of an additional tunnel is the price of a 7.5 min time saving.

Eg If an extra tunnel costs $2b, we are assigning a $2b cost to save 7.5 mins.

Though, looking more in depth, what also needs to be considered is that deep level stations have an access time associated with them.
This access time analysis always forms part of the appraisal of underground rail projects and can inform station locations
(balance surface walk distance again vertical access distance/time basically)
Why? Because a tunnel might reduce the in vehicle time, but if passengers have to spend an extra couple of minutes on escalators of lifts to get down from street level, you detract from the time saving.

As I mentioned earlier, the sheer geometric reality is that an underground station for Toowoomba needs to be 50-100m underground, and based on precedents overseas, it can take 2-5 mins to reach a station this deep.

Therefore, the time saving of a direct tunnel is perhaps closer to 5.5 mins at best.

I can now revise my earlier statement.
If an extra tunnel costs $2b, we are assigning a $2b cost to save 5.5 mins.

If you don't believe me, run the numbers yourself and experiment with rail grade calculations and qldtopo elevation data.

Couple of other conclusions and points I discovered in this process.

-The total length of new corridor required from Helidon (last possible branching point) via Withcott and to a deep underground station in Toowooba is 17km.
Given the huge engineering works to build a ramped viaduct and tunnel, $2b might be a little on the 'cheap' side.

-If we want to save 5.5-7.5 mins on the journey to Toowoomba, could you do the same for less elsewhere on the corridor. Eg do selective curve easing elsewhere on the line, or build a 3rd track between Ipswich and Dinmore.

-The way i see it now, Red team is in control at both the fed and state level. If this study is underway, can they simply come to an agreement to ensure the tunnel is compatible with Qlds future passenger service aspirations. The tunnel isn't built yet, and they haven't even gone to tender, so definitely time to make any changes needed to ensure compatibility.

QuoteProbably the nearest comparison is the climb from Western Sydney over the Blue Mountains to Lithgow, which involves tunnels (just in case any members thought there was something suss about tunnels or spending $ on them. )

Interesting comparison.

Both the Blue Mountains line and the line to Toowoomba are both characterized by being quite winding steam era routes, with lots of short tunnels along the way. (The Toowoomba range has 9 tunnels)
Though the line to Lithgow was eventually electrified.



The bypass of the Lithgow ZigZag opened in 1910, but would have still been limited by 1910s construction methods.
For the money they spent, they didn't really achieve much steam ironing in the scheme of things.

Investment must better directed to straightening some of the winding section coming out of Toowoomba and increasing the speed on the curve out of the tunnel...which must be future proofed by being duplicated (and be able to be electrified if not from day 1

Quote from: Jonno on April 13, 2023, 10:10:48 AMInvestment must better directed to straightening some of the winding section coming out of Toowoomba and increasing the speed on the curve out of the tunnel...which must be future proofed by being duplicated (and be able to be electrified if not from day 1

Take a look at the planned Inland Rail alignment from Helidon to Calvert. It is doing just that.

https://maps.inlandrail.com.au/h2c#/

The frequencies we're talking about don't justify full duplication, but the corridor is wide enough that it could be done in the future if it's ever necessary. Electrification is also perfectly doable along this corridor further down the line, if it is ever deemed necessary and/or the jusrisdictional issues with QR/Aurizon/ARTC/PN/whatever are sorted out.

The only part that we are really locking in for the long term (100 years) are the two tunnels. As much as Verbatim9 wants it, it's not getting electrified. And as much as Jonno/Metro want it, it's not getting duplicated.

However, it's still a very impressive piece of infrastructure. If those two tunnels are the only single track, unelectrified sections of the whole alignment, the rest of the Inland rail alignment is more than capable of meeting the needs of a decent passenger service for decades to come, as the ability is there to electrify/duplicate as needed further into the future. Diesel trains are what we would be getting in the near term. Long term, bi mode would be the option I think

Is the tunnel going to be duplicated (i.e. two single track tunnels or one double track tunnel) or will there only be a single track through the tunnel?

Quote from: RowBro on April 13, 2023, 11:16:24 AMIs the tunnel going to be duplicated (i.e. two single track tunnels or one double track tunnel) or will there only be a single track through the tunnel?

Single track. I don't see a chance of getting a two track tunnel.

https://maps.inlandrail.com.au/g2h#/

Single track through the tunnel. Passing loops immediately on either side of it.

The long one is (nominally) 6.7 km. Assuming a 60 km/h speed plus time for loooooooong trains to get through it I figure it's good for about 6 tph both directions if you want to run alternating trains each way. If you run a couple one way, then a couple the other way you can do a bit better. But if we ever want more than half hourly to Toowoomba then we'll probably need a duplication.

A single-bore two-tracked tunnel may present a number of challenges.

In my journeys in Japan I visited the Seikan Tunnel, which connects the islands of Honshu and Hokkaido. It's the only section of the network where Shinkansen and freight trains share track infrastructure. The Shinkansen trains are heavily speed restricted to about 140kph in the tunnel as the engineers determined there was a risk the air  wave generated by the trains could blow containers off single stacked (narrow gauge) freight trains coming in the opposite direction.

Whilst our trains are smaller and slower, I'm not sure about how this might interact with double stacked freight, and whether it would be more or less stable than the single stacked freight which passes through the Seikan Tunnel. The Japanese rail freight operator tried a number of engineering solutions to increase the stability and safety of container freight in the tunnel against oncoming trains, but couldn't devise a cost-effective solution. There is a plan to allow a limited number of Shinkansen trains to operate at the rated speed of the tunnel (260kph) by creating blackout times when no freight trains will be in the tunnel, which I do not believe has yet been implemented.

Realistically, if Toowoomba has an hourly service, there would only be 1 train in the tunnel since its right near the end of the line, so duplication is not necessary for a long time.

If a train from Brisbane to Toowoomba heads up the range, then that same unit will dwell at Toowoomba and form then next  inbound service to Roma St, wouldn't it?

Perfect if not the ultimate example of the blinkered thinking and lack of collaboration that is wasting our tax payers money.



Lack of Collaboration and Proof of Waste