RAIL - Back On Track Forum

SEQ Rail Clearways Concept

Between 2004-2014 Sydney had a program of rail network upgrades. Unusually, this was a cluster approach of many small projects across the network, small improvements but overall improving the safety, capacity, and reliability of the network.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_Clearways_Program

Here in this thread, members are encouraged to post micro-projects that would align with this idea for SEQ. These could be short amplifications, turnbacks, new platforms, curve easing, speed upgrades to certain sections

A mini-project would NOT include:

- Line extension to new areas
- Specific projects costing $1 billion or more, unless an LX removal at a particular site

Master List of Ideas: (list will be updated)

- Sandgate to Shorncliffe Track duplication (1.4 km) and potentially a second platform at Shorncliffe

- Oxley Electrification (unsure of km required)

- Doomben Line conversion to BRT

- Cleveland Line Duplication (Birkdale <> Cleveland)
Part A: Third platform and train turnback facility should be built at Manly or Lota station
Part B: Full duplication Thorneside to Cleveland (9.5 km)

- Runcorn - Altandi - Sunnybank curve removal and straightening, new Altandi Station near Pinelands Plaza (2 km tunnel)

- A series of 'close only' Level Crossing Removals (borrowed from SurfRail, some editing to the text here by me)

Quote from: SurfRail5 lines where LXs can be closed outright with no grade sepping (10 in total to be closed):

Beenleigh Line - 3 to close. 
- Runcorn (close either Bonemill Road or Nathan Road and grade sep the other one)
- Sunnybank (Mains Road overpass already exists)
- Salisbury (Beaudesert Road overpass already exists, LX can stay in place and be chained off but kept as emergency flood access).
- Warrigal Road and Bonemill Road / Nathan Road would be grade-sepped and all others are the subject of existing plans to remove or grade separate.

North Coast Line (south of D'Aguilar Hwy only) - 4 to close.
- Northgate Road (Sandgate Road overpass already exists)
- Strathpine (Mott Street underpass is compromised a fair bit is available; Kremzow Road overpass does not have the same issues and could be expanded probably more cheaply than grade sepping South Pine Road)
- Lawnton (Francis Road overpass already exists) and McKean Street (Lower King Street overpass already exists). Probably need to grade sep Sunshine, Narangba, Burpengary, Morayfield and Pumicestone Road.

Cleveland Line - 1 to close. 
-Murrarie only (Creek Road overpass already exists). The balance LXs from Coorparoo to Wynnum Central would probably involve grade sepping - I think road over at Cannon Hill, but rail over for Coorparoo and from Lindum to Manly).

Ferny Grove Line - 1 to close. 
- Ferny Grove only at Arbor Street (access to Samford Road through the TOD east-west roadway or via Tramway Street). 
- Skyrailing between Gaythorne and Grovely to wipe out 5 LXs in one hit, and grade sepping Newmarket, Alderley and the other LX at Ferny Grove on Samford Road itself.

Ipswich Line - 1 to close. 
- Sherwood only (alternative access at Long Street and Quarry Road - these are restricted height but it would be easier to fix those 2 bridges and the approaches than do anything about Sherwood itself).
- Wacol Station Road to be grade sepped.

Any other ideas? Mini project ideas that would allow trains to run faster would be very welcome.   

I wonder if there are any curve easement projects that could be considered in scope as mini projects that could improve speeds by reducing the number of decelerations needed etc.

I'd also like to see station improvements at some 'town centre' stations - inspired by the fact many Japanese regional cities use their train stations as community centres and are much more than just places to catch the train. The benefits go beyond just the railway network.

A couple of other minor observations:

Quote from: #Metro on January 15, 2024, 20:05:20 PM- Northgate Road (Sandgate Road overpass already exists)

Closing Northgate Rd would require some reconfiguration to Sandgate Road to make access to Banyo easier. The current roundabout just north of the overpass is often impossible to negotiate in traffic to complete the turn back onto Toombul Rd.

Quote from: #Metro on January 15, 2024, 20:05:20 PM- - Doomben Line conversion to BRT

I just heard a Watco consist run through the level crossing behind my house in Warwick outbound to Thallon to load grain. At the moment these are running 3x weekly (out to either Goondiwindi or Thallon and then down to Brisbane), but I couldn't tell you if they're going to the port or to Pinkenba.

Added Cleveland Line duplication to the Master List.

Cleveland duplication is 9.5 km and on the surface. Corridor is already there.

Does not seem like a tricky project like other concepts floating around on this forum.

Would be a lot cheaper and quicker to turn around than most other projects.

Plus you would get 15 min trains all the way to Cleveland, all day! Imagine that!

And if you didn't want to do that, 15-min all day to at least Manly with a turnback in place is achievable.

QuoteI wonder if there are any curve easement projects that could be considered in scope as mini projects that could improve speeds by reducing the number of decelerations needed etc.

Yes! What suggestions might we have for speeding up sections of the network?

Acacia Ridge extension could be done relatively cheap.  Acacia Ridge station I'd put between Learoyd and Beaudesert Roads.  You would need a grade sepped link to Salisbury platform 1 so as not to interfere with Beenleigh and Gold Coast trains.  If everything stops at Salisbury, Acacia Ridge trains would be the inner all stations service and anything coming from Coopers Plains would be non stop Salisbury to Boggo Road.

The more I look at it the more I dislike following the existing interstate line.  In the more distant future, south of Acacia Ridge, I'd be tunnelling the passenger line further east.  Where the big curve is south of Learoyd Road I'd bear due east and then south so I could have stations in useful locations - Calamvale (under Calam Road at Compton Road), another stop somewhere between there and Illaweena Street, and Grand Plaza.  Then you could branch the line here with one heading west to rejoin the interstate line around Boronia Heights, and one heading to Park Ridge, Logan Village and Yarrabilba.  Having a bunch of dead park and rides along the interstate line just because it is there seems a lot less useful.

In the longer run with something like Gazza's plan to tunnel from the Kuraby area to Boggo Rd via McCullough St and QSAC, the Mains Road corridor would have decent rail at all the busiest points.  Services on the southside would look something like this:

- Gold Coast - Beenleigh, Loganlea, Kuraby, then via QSAC and CRR.  12tph in peak.
- Beenleigh - all stations to Kuraby, then via QSAC and CRR.  6tph in peak.
- Kuraby - all stations via Dutton Park and CRR.  6tph in peak.
- Flagstone and Yarrabilba - all stations via Dutton Park and South Bank.  6tph each branch in peak, probably all stations.
- Cleveland - 6tph each express and all stations.

Sending GC and Beenleigh services via QSAC eliminates the capacity problem with the existing surface tracks Park Road to Kuraby - you'd have 18tph in peak running all stations, 6 into CRR and 12 into South Bank.  Park Road would need to be rebuilt to get the inbound Cleveland track into under the outbound track to Dutton Park eg by feeding into a new platform 3. 

Any speed or curve removals SurfRail? Altandi is on the list.

Altandi is a more costly one, since the line there is actually going around a big hill.
So to remove that curve means a new tunnel, so does it really fall under the category of a "small improvement" though?

Quote from: #Metro on January 16, 2024, 08:00:36 AMAny speed or curve removals SurfRail? Altandi is on the list.

I'd like to explore raising the speeds between Petrie and Caboolture so we can get something closer to 160km/h than where it is now.  There is a bit of room to move things around but those opportunities will get more challenging as the area fills out in the next few decades. 

In terms of "minor" projects I don't know there is a lot else that can be done.  A lot of geometry improvements will come from building new corridors (even the Trinder Park removal isn't exactly a small task).

Also need to try and get as much out of the LGCFR team about where track slewing, cant changes etc can make some sort of meaningful difference to transit times in the areas where there won't be any significant realignment.  If anything can be speedboarded for above 100km/h to better suit express running given it will all be quad track, that should happen.  I think we are realistic about not expecting a 20 minute transit time from Beenleigh to Albert Street, but every minute they can shave off still matters, especially with the 3 new stations opening south of Beenleigh.  Mind you, QR seems to be perfectly happy for trains to sit at Kippa-Ring for 30 minutes so unless that problem is also fixed, speed gains might not necessarily translate into anything useful.

My other bugbear is how much slower it takes these days to run between inner city stations.  We need to be squeezing fat out of the timetable even if infrastructure improvements are not available.  Having fully DDA compliant platforms at South Bank, Central etc will help that as dwells should be easier to manage with people not having to step up and down from the doors.

Great suggestions SurfRail, will add to the list.

HTG. What were your thoughts on fix suggestions? 

I agree that fixing Altandi isn't a small project and way out of scope for a clearways programme. Done "right" it's probably bigger than LGCFR.

The entire inner southern area needs a long term strategy.

(derailment ahead)

Fundamentally, to maximise the use of the network a few decades from now, we'll want to be running 9 car trains through CRR; it's a literal 50% capacity increase.

You'd probably expect the western lines to run out of capacity first. The trouble is where that comes from - on pre-covid AM peak numbers Milton-Darra generates about the same patronage as everything west of Darra. If you look *just* at pax numbers into Roma St then Milton-Darra is still ahead a bit, but you'd expect growth on the outer lines more. *Just maybe*, given expresses stopping at the major stations and Merivale junction being up for it, we could run 8 to 12 tph all stops on the subs Corinda - City.

(I posted early, so apologies for incoming double post)

(derailment continues)

The nice thing about the southern lines is that with CRR and potential 9-cars for at least the GC line we've got headroom. But we want to add something via Acacia Ridge. A big pro of building that as 9 car capable is that we might be able to avoid retrofitting the squillion Beenleigh line stations. But then if Beenleigh isn't retrofitted then it may well need to get out of CRR eventually.

If Clevewich happens then we have all of the Merivale capacity back except for the residual Cannon Hill via Buranda service, usable for Beenleigh or Acacia Ridge.

So ultimately we still need a 4th track Dutton Park to Kuraby, or a bypass providing equivalent sectorisation and capacity. But if we have a bypass tunnel for GC-CRR it probably shouldn't go anywhere near Salisbury, which puts the Acacia Ridge line *not* via CRR.

... Hence the need for a long term strategy.

Any fixes for the other lines?

Curve easing through Morningside and Norman Park and removing one of them from the express run would be fantastic. Those curves must be in the running for slowest section of track on the network.

The issue will be there is only so much to wring out of what is there (especially in places like Norman Park) without completely rebuilding the corridor.

There would easily be stretches between Beenleigh and Kuraby that can accommodate sustained speeds higher than 100km/h, and probably even more north of Petrie. 

The other problem is continuing to have EMUs, SMU200s and SMU220s in the fleet.  Everything else is capable of doing 130km/h or 140km/h while these are not going to go above 100km/h.  There are clearly stretches of the network that could result in timetable improvements even without changes to the line itself, if these models were either no longer in service or quarantined to slower routes (eg the Springfield branch).  Max speeds matter little if you are stopping every km, but where you have sustained runs at max speed over longer distances it does matter.

Do you think it's the top speed or more the train acceleration and deceleration between stations?

Station spacing becomes speed-determining on most lines within Brisbane.

It's a mixed bag of a few things that you have to find an even working for. Take the Ferny Grove line. EMUs/SMU200-220 are still the fastest when it comes to picking up time for late running. The IMUs/SMU260 while faster and have more powerful motors have a slower dwell time thanks to the plug doors. But in saying that it's all dependent on other things such as time of day, passengers etc. But in terms of raw dwell times they are the oldest and still the fastest. Even if refurbs have slowed their closing rate. Since the timetables are based on peak hour running which isn't full green to green running some of the advantages and disadvantages are nullified especially when you have timing restrictions on the inner core. And even then you have to think about connecting services. So that's when some minor things to improve speeds may have zero impact on actual services.

QuoteAnd even then you have to think about connecting services

Not when you go 4tph 

Quote from: #Metro on January 16, 2024, 09:38:02 AMGreat suggestions SurfRail, will add to the list.

HTG. What were your thoughts on fix suggestions? 

Cleveland has zero speed improvements until it's duplicated.

As SR mentioned there is plenty of fat that can be taken out of the timetable especially in the inner core but this is also there to spread out trains for flat junction crosses at Eagle Junction, Bowen Hills, Roma Street, Park Road and Yeerongpilly/Corinda/Sherwood. Essential in peak hour but not so much in the off peak. Better signalling helps but that means trains need to be retro fitted. Plenty of corridors can have speed increases but they can be nullified depending on the supporting bus network connections, uniformed timetabling and rollingstock. Sector 1 should be the first line to really be overhauled for speed increases as it will be QTMP and NGR only. If quad to sunshine you can resolve some of the crossover issues south of Virginia. Virginia-Zillmere, Carseldine-Lawnton can have a speed bump but freight needs to be considered as they are 80-100kph limited. Nothing can happen Petrie-Dakabin due to future works and realignments but land resumption for the Anzac road overpass will be able to get a quad through there at a later date. Spend more money on it and ease the curve. Maybe bring that forward but locals wouldn't be happy with the stabling yards there. Dakabin-Caboolture can have speed increases but as a whole this is unlikely until ETCS can go through along with allowing for faster crossovers to allow for higher running. Raised platforms speed up dwell times. DOO simply is not an option as the fleet isn't DOO nor are any of the stations or procedures in place. And DOO isn't a guarantee for faster dwell times. If anything DOO can slow down services. Its a similar justification at the moment with NGR's. Off peak not so much of an issue due to fat in the timetable so recovering time is easy. Peak has massive hurdles. But if you eat into the fat that's when you also have problems with recovering the time.

Quote from: #Metro on January 16, 2024, 13:46:23 PMDo you think it's the top speed or more the train acceleration and deceleration between stations?

Station spacing becomes speed-determining on most lines within Brisbane.

Average speed depends on four different things. Acceleration, braking, top speed (note that this can vary between stations IRL) and dwell time. You could also count frequency for 5.

According to Wikipedia our EMUs can accelerate at ~ 0.78 m/s/s and brake at 1.17 m/s/s. Figures are less readily available for other classes, but IIRC higher-speed trains are often lower geared and can't accelerate as quickly anyway. Let's compare an EMU and  a "fast train" with the same acceleration and braking stats as an EMU, but no speed limits. Average speeds exclude dwell time.

	1 km	2 km	3 km	5 km	10 km
Fast train peak speed (km/h)	109.9	155.5	190.4	245.8	347.6
Fast train avg speed (km/h)	55.0	77.7	95.2	122.9	173.8
EMU avg speed (km/h)	54.7	70.7	78.4	85.8	92.4
Fast train transit time (s)	65.5	92.6	113.4	146.5	207.1
EMU transit time (s)	65.8	101.8	137.8	209.8	389.4

In conclusion, at urban and suburban station spacing the EMU's limited top speed isn't too much of a problem, because you have diminishing returns. As an example, for 3km station spacing, going from a 100km/h top speed to 120 km/h saves you 12 seconds, but to save the next 12 seconds you need to go to 160 km/h, while maxing out at 190 km/h only saves another 3 seconds or so.

It seems this thread has drifted a long way from the rail clearways concept.
Rail clearways was entirely designed to separate sectors and lines in the Sydney network. Almost all of the projects were small scale such as added platforms, turnbacks and passing loops. Where tracks were added the purpose was to allow lines to run separately. Speed was never an element of the goals and frequency (though a massive outcome) was not a key part of the sell either.

When it began Sydney had opened 1 new train station in the previous 24 years and public transport organisation was an horrific shambles at the time.

While this was a really good project the government got little credit and few Sydneysiders would remember it compared to flashier projects such as opal card or the metro. So I think non transport nerd politicians would be unlikely to push for a project like this that fails to impress most voters.

Lastly and most importantly projects like this must be entirely driven by people with an excellent understanding of rail infrastructure and how to maximise operational effectiveness.

We can take the concept of a mini and micro project cluster approach and adapt it.

Smaller projects, lower cost, less blowout risk and a better network by ironing out little creases that are everywhere.

Sure, each project alone might not be sexy/captivating, but packaging it all up under one banner like Metronet has been packaged could work IMHO.

Former VIC premier Daniel Andrew's level crossing removal projects are a bit like this too. Each individual project not very prominent, but string say 30 together, it's a different thing.



Any thoughts about how to speed up the Ipswich line?

So similar to the current Station Accessibility Upgrade project? About 20 stations in 5 years seems like the sort of project you're talking about Metro. I agree that level crossings should also be a priority. Integrating these 2 programs would have major benefits to delivery timelines and costs, similar to Victoria.

I think focusing on quad electrification to Darra for now could help reduce timetable padding through greater flexibility. I know it's not what you were focusing on, but wouldn't the Springfield extension connect back at Ipswich? Perhaps setting out what infrastructure is needed to fully use both potential Ipswich-Darra routes and going from there would be helpful.

Again though Metro I think you're equating very different projects. Clearways was a 1-2 billion spend but Melbourne's level crossing removals have cost around 10 billion.

First define the problem and then the scope.

I think in Brisbane a Train upgrade Zone approach could be useful. Looking for technical projects that enable increased capacity and increased frequency (of course that frequency is limited by insufficient rolling stock but in theory that upgrade is already underway).

I'd be keen to hear about the spots in the network where small technical projects on lines crossing or lack of passing loops/turnbacks would be viable.

The bigger capacity projects are well established on here such as B2N, LGCFR, CRR already on the cards. Plus duplication of Cleveland, the last part of Shorncliffe, and Doomben often discussed here.

I think Cleveland duplication, Shorncliffe, or a level crossing removal project would each be big enough projects to brand on their own. Totally worthwhile but mostly discussed in other threads.

As for speed focussed projects they would probably be expensive and I'm not sure we could justify large expenditure of speed increases when the capacity of the network is in such desperate need for improvement.

Yes, so as you have pointed out the big concepts have been taken care of elsewhere, which is my point... we have a gap regarding the small stuff / low hanging / lower hanging fruit and also a lack of an overarching packaging of these things into one program.

As SurfRail has pointed out for example, you could just shut some crossings at certain locations - with no overpass or underpass works required.

Service upgrades / TUZ are a separate thing as they are about funding operations. In contrast, an SEQ clearways concept is about capital works.