Rail capacity on the northern line

[HappyTrainGuy]

@ Simon, yeah. Kippa Ring would most likely be getting a similar size stabling as Redbank and when comined with a very basic 2tph frequency should be enough to handle morning peak hour by itself (I assume if they want to remove the counter peak traffic jam ).

Someone should try to get the tender plans so we could get a idea of what the hell we might be looking at instead of reading between the lines from multiple reports that may or may not even be happening

Edit: For those that want to know waht I've base my opinons on or have a quick catch up on updated documents for the MBRL.
MBRL Project Change Report June 2011 - http://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/~/media/428c9118-a69a-40db-96bd-46ffc7a6a951/mbrl%20project%20change%20report%20full%20version.pdf
Natural Environment Technical Report (50mb) - http://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/~/media/c5edc713-c661-4bef-8f7c-38cf1b9e32e4/existingenvironmentfull.pdf
Reference Design/corridor plans (Along with other documents) - http://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/Projects/Name/M/Moreton-Bay-Rail-Link/Moreton-Bay-Rail-Link-change-report.aspx
Community Consultation Report (10mb) - http://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/~/media/d34fd6ef-2584-48e7-964e-a828e09d596f/completembrlconsultationreportlrwithappendices.pdf

There's also a few others that I'll try to find links for tomorrow.

[BrizCommuter]

One point: 6 minute frequency = 10tph.

IIRC, there are 2 x 6 minute combined service gaps in that busiest hour, meaning that each service pattern is usually every 6 minutes, but with one 12 minute gap. Thus 18tph instead of 20tph.

[somebody]

I don't think that proves a thing.

The price charged likely has little to do with the costs, and just as importantly, it's a bit different adding regularly scheduled services as compared to specials.

[somebody]

True, simple way to do it then is count value for the number of tickets sold for any one return service in off peak, then x 3 and thats how much it costs as thats what the average subsidy is.

When I read this I was tempted not to read any further.  You are completely ignoring my argument about fixed vs variable costs.

Track access charges, 5c/gross t/km going by various rates I found and I think this would be cheap as it was linked with bulk freight rates. 100km x 240t (6 car set) x 5c = $1200 ($600 for 3 car set)

That's interesting but doubtless handling charges are part of the reason for freight costs.  I thought in the US at least they were significantly below this.  It's more expensive per kg to ship air freight than to fly oneself.

Airtrain only started to make a profit after it dropped the 15min service, along with other changes. Also so look at the numbers of users on Airtrain and the fares to give you an idea of train running costs, after writing off a large chunk of the capital cost of building the line.

Still, just because Airtrain were charged an excessive fee per service, particularly off peak, that doesn't discount any of the above arguments.

[#Metro]

I don't think that proves a thing.

The price charged likely has little to do with the costs, and just as importantly, it's a bit different adding regularly scheduled services as compared to specials.

We are getting off topic, but I agree with Simon.

Think of it this way - that train would be in use making money $$$ OR it would be sitting in the depot making ZERO dollars.
You would NOT charge a price where you assume you are hiring a train with full fare paying passengers- you would charge a price just above the marginal cost (the cost to run the service - so labour costs plus a margin). The only time where full price might be charged might be during peak hour when that train would be out making $$$ from TransLink.

Who runs the Finance and Economics Depts? Jaysus, half baked projects, mispriced products...

[Arnz]

Talking of "half-baked", In regards to north of Beerburrum I have brought this up in the past a few times.  

This regards to a suggestion bringing forward the Glasshouse-Landsborough duplication (minimal resumptions,  and eliminates the scheduled precision cross for City-bound and Nambour-bound passenger services), and also partially duplicating north of Landsborough by moving the Eudlo and Palmwoods stations to the new alignment, effectively extending their crossing loops on part of the new alignment, while keeping the old alignment between Mooloolah-Eudlo-Palmwoods.  

This would at least improve reliability for both freight and passenger services, cuts about 3 minutes in travel time for Southbound passenger trains (eg removing the scheduled Beerwah precision cross for City-bound trains).  

Not saying that is the ideal solution (as it is half-baked), but a "Cheap" half-baked solution for the ALP (or whatever incoming state government) that improves reliability in the short to medium term, and at least increases capacity for longer freight trains, and perhaps hourly off-peak passenger services to Landsborough (using Platform 2 as the turnback platform).

[Fares_Fair]

That's certainly worth looking at Arnz. 
Mufreight has also raised that point and it is worthy of investigation.

Regards,
Fares_Fair.

[Fares_Fair]

HTG,

I'm interested to know your thoughts on moving the temporary short platforms and stations Located at Mooloolah, Eudlo, Palmwoods and Woombye onto the proposed dual track alignment, making them long passing loops in the meantime.

Regards,
Fares_Fair.

[somebody]

@Tramtrain, think about it, how does a business who survives on a 70% subsidy (on average) make money running a train off-peak (where subsidy would be higher than average). Send the train out to pick up $1000 in fares at a cost of $2000 or leave it stabled and save a $1000 loss? I agree the CPAEX of the train and track is already spent regardless, but the energy, MTCE and labour costs are additional and paid for each run.

Sending the train out on those numbers would improve the farebox recovery.  There are other benefits to railways besides collecting fares, you know!

[#Metro]

$1200 track access charge? The busway doesn't have a 'busway access charge'. What is the purpose of this charge, capital infrastructure maintainence?

Labor costs - these would be the main component and as I made out, getting guards converted to drivers would be a MAJOR step forward. Why are railways so intractable to operate- no wonder they built the SE busway as a busway!

I agree with shuttles if that's whats needed to get 15 minute frequency to both Caboolture and Kippa Ring. People need to stop being so precious, get out and change!

[HappyTrainGuy]

HTG,

I'm interested to know your thoughts on moving the temporary short platforms and stations Located at Mooloolah, Eudlo, Palmwoods and Woombye onto the proposed dual track alignment, making them long passing loops in the meantime.

Regards,
Fares_Fair.

I'm abit tired at the moment so sorry if I'm completly off ball haha. Do you mean retaining the initial infrastructure post duplication (minus overheads) to enable 'freight passing loops'? During the day they would be pointless as their momentum on the realigned/faster track would negate the difference (Could be used to allow the Tilts to overtake as those things just destroy freight paths and capacity/harbor somewhere instead of blocking the NCL north of Nambour) but they could be ultilized in morning and afternoon peaks by still enabling longer freight trains to run into the BSA and stowing them back to back Woombye to Mooloolah which would inturn free up more capacity north of Nambour for the Gympie North/morning Tilts.

[Arnz]

HTG,

I'm interested to know your thoughts on moving the temporary short platforms and stations Located at Mooloolah, Eudlo, Palmwoods and Woombye onto the proposed dual track alignment, making them long passing loops in the meantime.

Regards,
Fares_Fair.

I'm abit tired at the moment so sorry if I'm completly off ball haha. Do you mean retaining the initial infrastructure post duplication (minus overheads) to enable 'freight passing loops'? During the day they would be pointless as their momentum on the realigned/faster track would negate the difference (Could be used to allow the Tilts to overtake as those things just destroy freight paths and capacity/harbor somewhere instead of blocking the NCL north of Nambour) but they could be ultilized in morning and afternoon peaks by still enabling longer freight trains to run into the BSA and stowing them back to back Woombye to Mooloolah which would inturn free up more capacity north of Nambour for the Gympie North/morning Tilts.

No, I'm sure FF meant moving the current stations from Mooloolah to Woombye to the proposed duplicated alignment (hence basically creating new extended loops), whilst keeping the existing alignment north of Landsborough due to the state government's budget cuts, I mean, continual delays (eg date of 2020 pushed back to 2026 then pushed back again to 2031).

In other words, basically only partial duplication works done north of Landsborough by moving the current stations (Mooloolah to Woombye) to the proposed alignment (basically creating new longer passing loops at the new station sites connecting to the existing single track alignment).

[HappyTrainGuy]

Oh, so rebuilding the stations on the proposed route to prevent rebuilding temp platform after temp platform. Very good idea actually. It would work in some locations but not others. This is all from memory of reading various reports.

Woombye would be possible but they might aswell do the full Woombe-Nambour duplication/realignment as its the easiest part of the project. If its elevated it might cause a couple issues with the future realignment/track construction to the south (Maybe start construction prior to the right kink on Woombe approach).
Yellow temp road (doesn't have to be sealed). Red cut out road for an underpass for the railway line. Blue is a temp road again to link the two roads back together. Remove the yellow temp road and start construction on the new station. Green is future road once the new station is built and old station removed.

Palmwoods might be possible as the new planned station is to be elevated and any realignment works has to have the whole track operational prior to shutting down the old network (Prevents the track sloping back to the current track without more land acquisation being require to make it invalid. Maybe build it, use it and slope the track now and then rebuild the temp station again at the old site once the realignment goes through).
Eudlo might be possible but it would be tight especially if its elevated with the planned rail bridge over Highlands road?
Yellow temp road while the red dug out road is built and the orange is the new line

Maloolah should have the green light considering its the same alignment. Biggest problem would be stations costs and locking in any future alignment plans.

Having said all that it shouldn't be a increase in services. Main issue would be the station costs, earthworks and property resumptions. All new stations has to be DDA complient. The ideal option would be to build one platform on to the side that will freature parking spots etc for the station or in the future. It won't be cheap.... probs around 400-500 mil if Woombye duplication goes ahead, earthworks, underpass roads/road network modifications etc.

[mufreight]

The highest part of the costs involved is not constructing the actual stations a servicible DDA compliant station could be constructed for less than $20 million, the major cost is the realignment of the track alignment this would in locations such as Palmwoods entail something like 2.5 km of the line to reach a point where it is possible to transition from the existing alignment to the new. 
As the new alignment is to be double track lay both tracks effectively creating a loop and remove the current track on the old alignment, that old alignment than can be returned to the community.
The long loop which becomes a running line when full duplication eventualy is carried out would enable moving crosses or overtaking movements.
Carried out at each station location this will overall have an impact not only on the point to point transit times and possible train frequency but is effectively preliminary works for full realignment and duplication.
It is painfully obvious from some of the posts on this thread that some are more intent on raising argument on why these works should not be carried out rather than the advantages possibly longer term of them being carried out and by their comments promote and seek to justify more half baked solution that eventualy result in much higher coste to resolve the half baked solution or the do nothing position they present. 

[Fares_Fair]

HTG,

I'm interested to know your thoughts on moving the temporary short platforms and stations Located at Mooloolah, Eudlo, Palmwoods and Woombye onto the proposed dual track alignment, making them long passing loops in the meantime.

Regards,
Fares_Fair.

I'm abit tired at the moment so sorry if I'm completly off ball haha. Do you mean retaining the initial infrastructure post duplication (minus overheads) to enable 'freight passing loops'? During the day they would be pointless as their momentum on the realigned/faster track would negate the difference (Could be used to allow the Tilts to overtake as those things just destroy freight paths and capacity/harbor somewhere instead of blocking the NCL north of Nambour) but they could be ultilized in morning and afternoon peaks by still enabling longer freight trains to run into the BSA and stowing them back to back Woombye to Mooloolah which would inturn free up more capacity north of Nambour for the Gympie North/morning Tilts.

No, I'm sure FF meant moving the current stations from Mooloolah to Woombye to the proposed duplicated alignment (hence basically creating new extended loops), whilst keeping the existing alignment north of Landsborough due to the state government's budget cuts, I mean, continual delays (eg date of 2020 pushed back to 2026 then pushed back again to 2031).

In other words, basically only partial duplication works done north of Landsborough by moving the current stations (Mooloolah to Woombye) to the proposed alignment (basically creating new longer passing loops at the new station sites connecting to the existing single track alignment).

Yes, spot on Arnz. Thank you.  

Hello HTG, thank you for your input and diagrams above.  
All valuable.

Regards,
Fares_Fair.

[SurfRail]

Compare this against a few $10's thousand dollars in revenue extra for the day and you cannot justify the extra trains on fare box, its a social/community thing. Remember Citytrain needs a 70% subsidy, this is unlikely to be required in peak with full trains on full fare tickets, more likely peak is reducing the subisdy to off-peak with trains lightly loaded and discount tickets.

Let's assume they run a 15 min all stations to Caboolture service until 9pm.  That is maybe an extra 25 trains per day per direction - say $100,000.00 per day on the costs quoted further above.

We can expect that patronage will probably increase by around 80% using evidence available (eg BUZ on routes travelling through much lower density areas, patronage in Perth etc).  In other words, train loadings would be broadly similar on each train to current position - maybe a bit less per train, but still nearly double what is being moved now.

To maintain 30% fare recovery, you only need to take an extra $30,000.00 in fares.  Assuming an average fare paid of $5.00 per trip to average out short/long trips and concession/full and paper/go card fares, that only requires an extra 6,000 people on the line each day accounting for both directions.

6,000 passengers / 50 6 car trains = only need 120 passengers on each of these extra trains for it to cost no more to the government proportionately than existing services do.  Even if you only attract 4-5 people at each station on average (10-12 getting on at Caboolture will wipe out any disbenefit in there not always being somebody at places like Dakabin or Sunshine), you are almost there at this rate.

All of this is ignoring the sunk cost of actually buying and maintaining the rollingstock and perway.  If you include those (and if you don't you are carrying out a furphy), then the cost recovery position becomes significantly more attractive. 

I don't know about anybody else, but this screams "DO IT!" to me.

EDIT: Numbers crunched wrong first time round, but the premise is still sound.

[HappyTrainGuy]

The highest part of the costs involved is not constructing the actual stations a servicible DDA compliant station could be constructed for less than $20 million, the major cost is the realignment of the track alignment this would in locations such as Palmwoods entail something like 2.5 km of the line to reach a point where it is possible to transition from the existing alignment to the new.  
As the new alignment is to be double track lay both tracks effectively creating a loop and remove the current track on the old alignment, that old alignment than can be returned to the community.
The long loop which becomes a running line when full duplication eventualy is carried out would enable moving crosses or overtaking movements.
Carried out at each station location this will overall have an impact not only on the point to point transit times and possible train frequency but is effectively preliminary works for full realignment and duplication.
It is painfully obvious from some of the posts on this thread that some are more intent on raising argument on why these works should not be carried out rather than the advantages possibly longer term of them being carried out and by their comments promote and seek to justify more half baked solution that eventualy result in much higher coste to resolve the half baked solution or the do nothing position they present.  

I'm not against it, infact i'm all for it. But you have to remember that the new future realignment will be quad enabled (dual track actually laid) and it will be higher than the current tracks in places which could cause problems in some locations. Before any new track can be switched over it has to be operating seperatly by itself which has a few problems for places like Palmwoods. More land acquisation to have the new alignment and extra space to slope the track back to its old alignment or same land sloping back to the old alignment while reverting back to the original/temp platform so when the full realignment goes through they simply remove the track that is sloping, build a bridge and raise land then decomission the old track through Palmwoods.

Edit: Added Palmwoods 'ultimate and future' designs. Remember it will be built dual track but constructed as such for minimal future upgrade to quad if needed. I also chucked in the dual plans for Maloolah. Click for larger image.

[mufreight]

HTG, you miss the point that the point of transition at Palmwoods is somewhat distant from the existing station and is at points both to the south and north of Palmwoods where the new and old alignments are relative to each other both in alignment and elevation, in the case of Palmwoods it means that not only is the station and formation constructed for the dual tracks with provision for the future expansion to quad but such works are an effective preliminary for the eventual full duplication.
As far as the station itself is concerned it is unlikely that there will ever be a need for four platforms even were the line to eventualy be quaded, express passenger services and freigh services would have no need of platforms.
Might I suggest that you go back to the alignment drawings and locate the points where transition can be acomplished from the old to the new alignments with the minimum of earthworks, Palmwoods is it would seem the worst situation and the location where the greatest immediate benefit can be obtained in terms of removal or reduction of curvature and gradient allowing for increased operating speeds.   
The idea is that any works carried out do not require significent change to fit in with future works, it may in some cases add to the cost in the first instance but present considerable savings in future inevitable construction costs.
Do it once and do it properly.

[mufreight]

Having done a little homework it would seem from the proposed drawings for the realignment and duplication that it would be possible to transition from the existing alignment to the new alignment in the region of the 94.7 kilometer mark with the minimum of earthworks to allow for the difference in elevation between the existing at that point single track line which is below the level of the new alignment and then the new alignment proceeds through the new Palmwoods station site to the 97.6 kilometer point where transition can again be made from the new alignment to the old alignment which at that point is on a comparable level and parallel to the proposed new alignment thus requiring only minor earthworks to make the transition.
This would effectively allow for a double track section on the new alignment of aproximately 2050 metres through the Palmwoods stationsite and removing three curves below the 80kph speed and easing the curve at the southern end which would remain speed restricted.
Future earthworks for the eventual realignment and duplication towards Mooloolah could be carried out without any further restriction on services and a similar situation exists at the northern end towards Woombye.
Palmwoods is possibly the most awkward location for the deviation to the new alignment and as a consequence would be one of the most expensive to carry out.
Eudlo due the distance betwee the current alignment and the difference in elevation also poses problems until such time as the new alignment from 88.3 km north to 94.7km point where the Palmwoods deviation commences.  
This will require the construction of the two tunnels the first to the south of Eudlo running from 89.1km under Pinch Lane to 89.5km and the second tunnel north of Eudlo between 92.089km and 92.3km was built.
This second phase would greatly reduce transit times by elimination the most speed restricted curves between Landsborough and Nambour and would effectively give a section of double track some 9km long, more than long enough for an passing movement by two trains without either having to come to a stand.
This section would be the most expensive in the entire Landsborough to Nambour project but will produce the greatest operating benefits for both freight and passenger operations.
As finance was avaliable this work could continue replacing the alignment through each of the existing station areas then connecting up these sections as an ongoing program to gain the greatest benefit.
As this program continued it would see the elimination of the existing temporary platform extensions, the more that is done over time the greater the benefit.  

[Gazza]

At the moment, the best solution I can think of is to build a steel platform with a tiled surface and railings and a shelter, that can sit on the old alignment, and be unbolted like mecanno set and re-used at a new site, but this depends on the new station having the same degree of slope, and the new and old platforms being dead straight, for practicality reasons.

Forget any niceties like a ticket office. Things such as benches, bins, AVVMs, signs, get unbolted and packed up, and re-used at the new station.

It's such a BS situation, and if they just went and gave the duplication priority, we wouldn't be thinking of the odd solutions we have to at the moment.

If we're talking even only realigning a couple of km of track, thats still approaching a $100 mil project, so its a big ask 

This sucks, basically.

[HappyTrainGuy]

But be realistic mu. Money just doesn't grow on trees especially when there's the 8 billion dollar CRR project on the table. The Euldo-Woombye section is the most expensive part of the duplication/realignment project. Even if they did Palmwoods-half way to Woombye its still an expensive section with very little benefit especially if they move Woombye station to the new alignment then they might aswell do the whole Palmwoods-South of Nambour/Nambour duplication and realignment. Actually, temp platforms is not a bad short time solution. Yes, it might have a couple conflicts with other services but it is managable. Some people might be delayed as a result but for a line that has less than a thousand people travelling at peak hour money would be better spent in the short term with CAMCOS, Cleveland line duplications, Beenleigh/Caboolture tripple, Beerwah-Landsborough with more potential return.

[Stillwater]

There are twin aspects to this situation.  The flip side to the passenger rail benefits on the Sunshine Coast Line revolves around the freight train side of things.  Better, faster, longer freight trains generate an economic benefit.  Having QR looking at the SCL from a passenger perspective represents only part of the picture.  Both freight and passenger benefits/issues must be examined simultaneously.

[HappyTrainGuy]

Not really. There's still plenty of capacity available. Especially early morning-night. The Tilts take their time becuase the recent realignment has seen its speed raised from 60-80kph curves to 150kph dead straight running which just makes their dwell time at the crosses longer as they now get there earlier. Tilts do Caboolture-Landsbrough in under 20 minutes compared to the all stoppers doing it in 30 minutes. Landsborough-Nambour for tilts is 21 mins compared to...... was 23 mins for the all stoppers and freight did the same section in roughly 25 minutes.

[Stillwater]

That just exposes the fact that the Tilts can't be used to their full capability because of the steam train track alignment.  In her CoastConnect vision (no doubt it will be dusted off and trotted out again during the election campaign), Anna Bligh said 'fast express trains will make the journey from the Sunshine Coast to Brisbane in about an hour.'  Well, it won't happen in her lifetime.  Nothing but false hope from the ALP re the SCL and still no realisation that its major benefits will be to freight operations.  LNP members have pledged to 'reduce waste in government'.  That is a slogan, not a promise to do anything more or less than Labor on the Sunshine Coast.

[Arnz]

Not really. There's still plenty of capacity available. Especially early morning-night.

Night-time after 7pm and early morning has enough capacity for freights.  

Daytime on the other hand, a non passenger slot is taken up by freight.  Since passenger trains have priority over freight north of Beerburrum, if one falls late, the freighters start bunching up on the loops.  The daytime Gympie North to Brisbane trains are regularly 5-30 mins late and there's 2 freighters in-between service #X9D0 and service #T5X6 (45 min gap between Citytrain #X9D0 from Gympie to Brisbane and Citytrain #T5X6 from Nambour to Ipswich).

Peak hour still has freighters going in the counter-peak direction (north in the morning peak and south in the afternoon peak).  They are however held up at most loops for the barriage of peak trains.

Some people might be delayed as a result but for a line that has less than a thousand people travelling at peak hour money would be better spent in the short term with CAMCOS, Cleveland line duplications, Beenleigh/Caboolture tripple, Beerwah-Landsborough with more potential return.

Are you kidding me on the first 2?  I would think increasing freight capacity for more daytime freight services, which would increase revenue opportunities which in turn passes down the benefits to passenger services would have higher priority.  The increased revenue would at least enabling the possibility of funding for upgrades of the non-freight, passenger only lines.  The state is broke, I would think increasing freight capacity with benefits passed down to the passenger lines would be the next priority after CRR.

[mufreight]

Not really. There's still plenty of capacity available. Especially early morning-night. The Tilts take their time becuase the recent realignment has seen its speed raised from 60-80kph curves to 150kph dead straight running which just makes their dwell time at the crosses longer as they now get there earlier. Tilts do Caboolture-Landsbrough in under 20 minutes compared to the all stoppers doing it in 30 minutes. Landsborough-Nambour for tilts is 21 mins compared to...... was 23 mins for the all stoppers and freight did the same section in roughly 25 minutes.

You make the point that there is still capacity for freight services late night through to the early mornings, unfortunately this is not when the freight services need to be able to depart to run north if they are to be competitive with road freight so obviously your knowledge of freight transport is lacking or you advorcate road freight over rail.
Passenger services south of Nambour are extended commuter services and a rail service with a capacity of better than 300 passengers is not only quicker in transit times than the replacement bus but is slightly less costly to operate than two buses each of 53 passenger capacity giving slightly more than a third of the passenger capacity of the train service.
While it would be nice if trains did operate at a profit passenger services are provided as a Community Service Obligation by Government and the most cost effective manner of operation is by rail.

[HappyTrainGuy]

Please. If the railway wanted to be more competitive against road freight they would operate 24/7 for starters. A couple years ago the NCL only saw about 15 trains on a monday....

[Arnz]

Please. If the railway wanted to be more competitive against road freight they would operate 24/7 for starters. A couple years ago the NCL only saw about 15 trains on a monday....

They technically do (at least the NCL anyway).  The only restriction is no freight in the peak direction on the single track (but plenty of freighters in the counter-peak direction).

And that would have been 10-15 years ago when it was less busy.  There are plenty of reports everywhere regarding the freight traffic FF has posted in various other threads, including the earlier reports by Trackstar, QR, State government, etc from the Beerburrum duplication in the 2003-2007 period.

[Fares_Fair]

... not to mention the 44% of the weekday services are buses between Nambour and Caboolture.
Why do you think that is?

Are buses cheaper to run than trains?

There are also freight curfews in operation.
It is congested, it is a bottleneck and the facts are in all of the reports, by both the State and Federal Government and even QR themselves!


Regards,
Fares_Fair.

[somebody]

Are buses cheaper to run than trains?

Yes.  On a per trip basis, but not per seat, generally.

Please. If the railway wanted to be more competitive against road freight they would operate 24/7 for starters. A couple years ago the NCL only saw about 15 trains on a monday....

Wouldn't they do both things?  Provide more services at peak freight times AND run at other times for lower value freight?

[Set in train]

From Hansard today in the Qld Parli, p/358:

"Nambour, Rail Transport
Mr WELLINGTON: My question is to the Minister for Transport. With respect to the delays in the
completion of the duplication of the railway line from Nambour to Brisbane, will the minister support calls
to bring forward the completion of this important transport link and, if so, discuss the project with the
federal transport minister at the next ministerial conference?
Mr EMERSON: I thank the honourable member for the question. This project has a long history.
Let us not forget what Labor promised ahead of the 2009 election. Before the 2009 election it promised
that this work would be done, that the money was in the bank and that it would complete the project.
However, 26 days after the 2009 election, what happened? The honourable member sitting behind me
was elected to the seat of Glass House and Labor scrapped the project. They said, 'There's no money,
despite our election promises of 2009.' We know about all the other election promises they scrapped.
Was there a mention about asset sales? No! There was nothing on asset sales.
What did the member for Nicklin do? Let us not forget who put Labor into power in 1998. It was
the member for Nicklin. In 2009 they promised him, 'We'll deliver', but what did they do? Twenty-six
days after the election, they scrapped the project. The reality is that there is no money from Labor for
00931 May 2012 Questions Without Notice 359
that project. All that was delivered by the former  transport minister, who is now the Leader of the
Opposition, was a 140-page document that she called Connecting SEQ 2031, but everyone else called
'Conning SEQ 2031'. Do members know what the biggest con was? Passed her glossy photo at the
front of the brochure, at about page 130, on the top left-hand side, is a little paragraph that says, 'We
don't commit to any of the projects in here'. On the next page it says that the cost of all the projects she
outlined was $227 billion, which she did not have and did not commit to.
We will work to put the appropriate infrastructure in place when we can afford it. The reality is that
from Labor we have inherited $85 billion of debt, a $2.8 billion deficit and a $100 million a week interest
bill on that debt. Can the member for Nicklin, the man who put Labor into power in 1998, imagine what
his community could do with an extra $100 million? That money is going to pay off Labor's debt. "

[#Metro]

On the next page it says that the cost of all the projects she
outlined was $227 billion, which she did not have and did not commit to.

$227 billion divided by 20 years = 12 billion dollars every year for the next 20 years.

Yeah. Dead giveaway. Much like 2000 express buses in the Legacy way - one every 30s - minute. Numbers just don't add up = FANTASY

[colinw]

CW's Translation:

From Hansard today in the Qld Parli, p/358:

"Nambour, Rail Transport
Mr WELLINGTON: Sensible question about rail capacity issue affecting my electorate.
Mr EMERSON: Waffle, waffle, blame, dump, nothing of substance.

Business as usual in QLD. Move along, nothing to see here. If you want to be mobile, buy a car and then bitch about the congestion.

[Fares_Fair]

The short answer by Mr Emerson:
"We will work to put the appropriate infrastructure in place when we can afford it."

Disappointing in light of the proposed redevelopment of the Parliamentary precinct, reported to cost around $2 Billion, but also reported as not costing the taxpayer a cent, due to land sales and developer proposals. Can't do the same for the rail duplication apparently.

It's the priorities that hurt the most.

[mufreight]

The response given by Transport Minister Mr Emerson is interesting.

The short answer by Mr Emerson:
"We will work to put the appropriate infrastructure in place when we can afford it."

The question now is can the state transport system afford not to carry out this infrastructure work now

Mr Emerson has in his speech of reply acknowledged that there is an urgent and compelling need to carry out this upgrade works NOW.
A start could be made with the duplication of selected sections of the line which would increase the capacity to operate more, more reliable services and enable rail to compete with road for long haul freight services taking trucks off the Bruce Highway and the standards of Sunshine Coast commuter services to be improved.
    

[Stillwater]

 Mr Emerson on the Sunshine Coast Line duplication: "We will work to put the appropriate infrastructure in place when we can afford it. The reality is that from Labor we have inherited $85 billion of debt, a $2.8 billion deficit and a $100 million a week interest bill on that debt. Can the member for Nicklin, the man who put Labor into power in 1998, imagine what his community could do with an extra $100 million? That money is going to pay off Labor's debt. "

lol, a literal interpretation of Mr Emerson's comment is that the electors of Nicklin are in line for a $100 million in transport infrastructure funding, except they are not because 'their' $100 million is going to pay the debt for all other electorates apart from Nicklin.

C'est la vie, apparently.