CRR Inquiry: Feedback received

[ozbob]

Well,  didn't take long ...

====

27th May 2021

Message:

I would like to reflect the sentiments and concerns raised by the RBOT membership with regards to the outcomes CRR will generate in its current form.

In particular, I would like to echo a few specific points, some of which I fear may be too late to remedy:

Southside:

(1) No additional track capacity from the tunnel portal. This is a critical issue. A 2 platform, 4 track solution is the best approach, rather than the 3 track/3 platform solution currently being implemented. Intermediate stations that will not be used for pax transfers (e.g. Salisbury for future Flagstone services) do not require 3 platforms and bi-directional running of express services is critical for service frequency improvements into the future. A 4 track solution is required, at least as far as Salisbury but preferrably as far as Loganlea (or an alternative 2-track alignment elsewhere).

(2) Use of the existing legacy alignment. The Beenleigh Line has many tight curves which severely restrict operating speed. A new alignment should be considered into the future, especially if the idea of 'fast/faster rail' is ever to be realised.

(3) Lack of Cleveland Line duplication. The Cleveland Line will be doing all the heavy lifting for South Brisbane etc, but the far end of the line will gain nothing with the status quo of single track.

Central section:

(1) CRR tunnel alignment. Once again, to save $$ there is a steep gradient and at least one tight curve on the line, which will severely restrict operating speed within the CRR tunnel. It's too late to change this, but I have doubts that 'fast/faster rail' could effectively achieve these speeds in the tunnel. Rail projects should be targeting shallow grades/slopes and curve radii of at least 1,200m (preferably more) to support 160kph operation or future fast rail conversion. Continually settling for dodgy curves and steep grades to save money limits the utility of major infrastructure projects.

(2) Roma Street Station underground. I believe it would be preferable to have two island platforms at Roma Street underground. This would allow for dwells of local trains or originating/terminating platforms for fast/faster rail into the future using the CRR tunnel.

(3) Roma Street Station master plan. The Busway/Metro should be undergrounded here. To have no plan right now, or now actively be talking about not undergrounding the Busway/Metro is a joke. The wonderful heritage station should be the defining viewpoint/vista of the redesigned station.

Northside:

(1) crap connection to existing Mains. RBOT members have gone over this time and time again. A cheap and nasty solution which will create track conflicts destroys any utility gains on the Mains north of Bowen Hills.

(2) Lack of additional track capacity at least as far as Eagle Junction/Airport turnouts. I understand there are major restrictions in the corridor width north of Albion, but the gains being made on this section are almost entirely driven by ETCS. It begs the question - what's the point of all this then for the Northside? No plan for track capacity, and no plan for NWTC/Trouts Rd Corridor. If NWTC won't happen, more track capacity is needed, probably at least as far as Northgate, and it's probably worthwhile to build the fourth track as far as Lawnton junction. As for the southside, you can remove platforms to fit in a fourth track if needed, as many of these stations only require 2 platforms (not 3, certainly not 4).

(3) Lack of any plan at all for future NWTC connection. If the State Government doesn't plan now, it'll end up as an arterial road. What a joke. Also thinking it would be ok to use the existing FG Line to connect if ever built. Also a joke.

Overall, it's unacceptable to be building this piece of infrastructure with public funds whilst being totally ignorant of how it needs to tie into other projects to realise positive outcomes. Furthermore, it's also unacceptable to use such an amount of public funds to achieve a cheap and nasty solution, which is where we'll end up at the current rate. In what world is it ok to forge ahead like this with the blinders on and a 'plan to make a plan' for what happens next?

The idiocy is staggering.

====

^ thank you for your feedback.  Spot on.

[ozbob]

https://twitter.com/railbotforum/status/1398712041884422144

[ozbob]

https://twitter.com/railbotforum/status/1399072696529420290

[Murrie]

My concerns are, apart of the ongoing lack of transparency (milestones, plans, progress, outcomes), is on other upgrades to lines so that we can utilise any additional capacity.
1. I'm on the cleveland line. To increase the # of services, there needs to be a solution for duplication to cleveland or changes to the existing system to allow more trains per hour.
2. Also on the cleveland line, there is no third line, so express trains aren't really much faster than the stop all stations. What a joke.
3. Limited car parking around stations. To make a step change in the ease of access to train travel, there needs to be more carparking. Only minor car park extensions have occured. Stations like Morningside should have double carparking and other stations should have plans for car park extensions.
4. The waste of money on improving accessibility at stations that are already accessible, over other important capital infrastructure like carparking. Take Cannon Hill for example. A new lift is being installed. The project has been in progress for nearly 12 months, and looks like it might take another 6 months. What a gross waste of taxpayer $. Also the new lift looks like it will reduce the number of car parking spots. Prior to the new lift, QR had improved the accessibility across the tracks. Anyone could transit across the tracks and into the station in a wheelchair or with a pram. Another example is Morningside. There is another major upgrade planned to replace the very good ramp system with a lift. What is needed is an upgrade to the train station carpark, utilising the vacant land adjacent to the station. Another station Murarrie, has very poor disability access. Its almost impossible to walk across the tracks, completely impossible for a wheelchair or pram to safely cross and access the station.
5. Removal of level-crossings. The crossing at Hemmant is a death trap, but there has been no announcement to remove the crossing.
6. Lack of action to stop rail bridge strikes. Outages due to bridge strikes are still common. There seems to be no action taken to ensure that high vehicles don't reach the rail bridge, but are stopped before they hit it. This seems like a no-brainer, but still bridge strikes happen.

[ozbob]

^ thank you for your feedback.

[Stillwater]

Could the RailBOT submission suggest that, with the Federal election looming, the Commonwealth include a sum of $200m in its City Deal to undertake a business case / rail transport corridor study and possibly additional land acquisition around future railway stations (carparks and bus interchanges) consistent with the plan along the NWTC -- building upon the Brisbane City Council study (only to the BCC boundary) and the Queensland Government's Western Brisbane Transport Network Investigation.

The federal electorates in play along this route are Brisbane, Dickson, Longman, Petrie and Ryan. It would be a nice little promise during the federal election campaign.

If it wanted to play a little mischief, the Federal Government could stipulate that its money would apply for the corridor and sites for stations between Alderley and Strathpine IF the State Government committed to to fund the study from CRR (stubs) to Alderley.

[verbatim9]

Re: election.. I reckon it will be at the end of October.