How the SEQ rail network will operate after CRR is commissioned (2025).

[ozbob]

https://twitter.com/railbotforum/status/1390008845846515714

[ozbob]

^ Good Morning all. Not hard is it Lurkers ...

You want the pressure down?  Start performing at a level commensurate with reasonable standards, obligations and expectations ..

" Take the pressure down

Cause I can feel it, it's rising like a storm

Take hold of the wheels and turn them around

Take the pressure down ..."

[ozbob]

I can feel a RTI relating to community service obligations coming on ... 

[ozbob]

2025 ...

Sector 1
Rosewood <> BNE Airport
Springfield Central <> Shorncliffe
Roma St <> Doomben

Sector 2
Cleveland <> Ferny Grove

Sector 3
Varsity Lakes <> Gympie North
Beenleigh <> Kippa-Ring

The suggested pairings are fluid in the sense that in peak trains
could connect with lines the same sector of course, but the pairs
would be the majority of workings. Pairings don't indicate that all
services meet those pairs end to end.
They don't now, and wouldn't in 2025.

[achiruel]

Maybe I'm missing something here, but is there some reason Doomben couldn't be part of sector 2?

It seems it would be useful to have a few extra via South Brisbane services (Doomben <-> Park Rd instead of Roma St?)

[ozbob]

I wonder if it is worthwhile to make all Doomben services Park Road <> Doomben?  Some already are of course.

I believe I brought this up earlier in the thread in relation to increasing frequency in South Bank / South Brisbane. I can't remember specifically but I feel like MTPCo said it didn't work for some reason.

Not sure why it wouldn't.  Hopefully MTPCo can expand on this for us.

Please forgive the slightly rushed nature of the answer, but hopefully it is sufficient.

The short answer is "they could, but...", because it would introduce a flat junction crossing where you otherwise don't have one, and would remove sectorisation of the network (which, given the design decisions they have made, seems to be a priority for whatever reason).

The attached slide shows the layout around Mayne as of Change 7 (I don't believe it has changed since then) and the normal (assumed) flows of trains. Running Doomben (or indeed Airport) from the northern subs into the city subs would create a flat junction crossing near the Ferny Grove flyover. Granted it wouldn't be the most onerous crossing of all time - perhaps 2tph crossing 12tph in the peak, and 2tph crossing 8tph off-peak - but in general you want to be moving away from flat junctions rather than introducing them, and you'd have to have a fairly strong desire to want to run those services to Park Road or the Cleveland line in order to make that movement (which there may be).

I realise this answer is probably not as clear cut as might be hoped, but it is the best I can do in the information vacuum we live in.

[achiruel]

^ how does that work currently though. Don't both the FG and Doomben lines already use the subs from Mayne to Roma St?

Am I just really daft and not getting it?

ELI5 please?

[timh]

^ how does that work currently though. Don't both the FG and Doomben lines already use the subs from Mayne to Roma St?

Am I just really daft and not getting it?

ELI5 please?

After CRR opens the Doomben line will connect to the Mains at Bowen Hills and therefore can't go across the Merivale bridge without crossing a bunch of other lines, creating conflicting moves.

The Mayne junction has been posted a bunch of times earlier in the thread. It's got a very sub optimal layout. It makes it so that the Mains through central connect to the subs at Albion, and the subs through central ONLY connect to the FG flyover (unless you want to do wrong road running or add conflicting moves). CRR connects to the mains at Albion

Sent from my SM-G780F using Tapatalk

[ozbob]

Thanks Tim.  This is one of the biggest issues with the sub optimal track layout, leaves the subs and mains very unbalanced.

By highlighting the possible network perhaps some sanity might eventually prevail.

I still think an external panel of international rail planners/operational experts needs to review the layouts before it is too late.

Zero confidence in the present setup. Well on the way to propagating more rail failure, which will cost a lot of moolah to sort.

[achiruel]

Ah, ok, I get it now. Sorry if I'm a bit slow/dopey.

Will there be some kind of short working from Bowen Hills - Park Rd to maintain a better frequency through the inner south outside peaks?

Or will we be going to full time 8tph operation from FG to Cannon Hill? 

[#Metro]

^ Hence the opportunity to create a branch line replacing the proposed Eastern Busway with rail to Capalaba and beyond.

[aldonius]

I only really comprehended this in the last few days, but 2010-era CRR did have Doomben on the subs through both Albion and the city (breaking sectorisation, because Airport and Shorncliffe switched just as they will now). For 2TPH peak I suppose it doesn't matter that much either way, and Shorncliffe + Airport + Doomben combined is still no more peak demand than Ipswich + Springfield.

It's mostly just frustrating that it's all so unbalanced through the city. (And the mains platforms are so very narrow at Bowen Hills...) I think it was KJBrissy on SkyScraperCity who's pointed out to me that it should possible to reconfigure allocations at Roma St so the Mains can take over platforms 6/7 there, which would potentially be useful for starting and terminating, but to my knowledge there's no equivalent swap possible for platforms 3/4 at Central.

CRR-2010 also of course had a via-Merivale inner-Beenleigh-line service, which was necessary with the longer tunnel but is also, I think, still desirable given the patronage levels from the southern lines to South Brisbane and South Bank (combined, they were about the same as to Central in March 2019, and Fortitude Valley and Bowen Hills will also be net-slower with the transfer).

[MTPCo]

CRR-2010 also of course had a via-Merivale inner-Beenleigh-line service, which was necessary with the longer tunnel

Necessary and possible. This is one of the key differences between 2010 and now. While the (assumed) operating plans look similar at face value, the long tunnel allowed greater use of the Subs by allowing a second tier to run on the surface between Park Road and Yeerongpilly (and thereafter Salisbury with the upgrades associated with the Flagstone spur).

Due to the single outbound track and the short tunnel, running trains 'around the corner' is not possible so long as CRR is full from the north. If it is not full from the north, it provides less capacity to the North Coast Line than simply installing ETCS L2 signalling would have done.

[achiruel]

^ Hence the opportunity to create a branch line replacing the proposed Eastern Busway with rail to Capalaba and beyond.

I think  might apply to that, as well!

Would be good if you could have it branch off just after Buranda and go down OCR/Finucane Rd via Carindale/Capalaba/Alex Hills and meet up with the existing line just before Cleveland.

[aldonius]

CRR-2010 also of course had a via-Merivale inner-Beenleigh-line service, which was necessary with the longer tunnel

Necessary and possible. This is one of the key differences between 2010 and now. While the (assumed) operating plans look similar at face value, the long tunnel allowed greater use of the Subs by allowing a second tier to run on the surface between Park Road and Yeerongpilly (and thereafter Salisbury with the upgrades associated with the Flagstone spur).

Oh, wow. I've read the Minerva report of course but I guess it hadn't sunk in quite that much! Thank you.
Does this mean a surface quad Dutton Park to Salisbury is now a likely prerequisite for the Flagstone line?

[timh]

CRR-2010 also of course had a via-Merivale inner-Beenleigh-line service, which was necessary with the longer tunnel

Necessary and possible. This is one of the key differences between 2010 and now. While the (assumed) operating plans look similar at face value, the long tunnel allowed greater use of the Subs by allowing a second tier to run on the surface between Park Road and Yeerongpilly (and thereafter Salisbury with the upgrades associated with the Flagstone spur).

Oh, wow. I've read the Minerva report of course but I guess it hadn't sunk in quite that much! Thank you.
Does this mean a surface quad Dutton Park to Salisbury is now a likely prerequisite for the Flagstone line?

From the recently released SEQ Regional Transport Plan:
https://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/-/media/aboutus/corpinfo/Publications/regionaltransportplans/RTP-SEQ-web.pdf?la=en

A3.02 Beenleigh rail line (Dutton Park to Salisbury) rail corridor planning
Undertake planning for the Dutton Park to Salisbury rail corridor to determine and preserve corridor
requirements for future upgrades.

This is listed as a short term priority, page 110. I daresay it means a surface quad to Salisbury is absolutely on the cards

Sent from my SM-G780F using Tapatalk

[ozbob]

Ah, ok, I get it now. Sorry if I'm a bit slow/dopey.

Will there be some kind of short working from Bowen Hills - Park Rd to maintain a better frequency through the inner south outside peaks?

Or will we be going to full time 8tph operation from FG to Cannon Hill? 

Yes, there will be extra inner city services both via Central and CRR to maintain service without doubt.