Cleveland Line

[#Metro]

Remove single track sections
Extend Cleveland line with new stations at

Thornlands
Victoria Point
Redland Bay
Point Talburpin

[somebody]

I see little point in removing the single track sections while they are unwilling to run a 15 minute frequency as far as Manly.  Removing the single track sections wouldn't help the argument for 15 minute frequency very much.  Why send good money after bad?

[#Metro]

It would be good to get services to this area.
But doesn't it sound like a chicken or egg problem?
Can't run 15 min services because of single track, can't duplicate single track because won't run 15 min services....

Fair enough, but there should be no such thing as single track on the suburban network.

[somebody]

Not really.  They could be running 15 minute services on the Ferny Grove line now, but they aren't.  Also, Cleveland line as far as Manly, to Petrie or even Caboolture, Shorncliffe etc.

If single track is operationally adequate, why not leave it alone?

[stephenk]

During the peaks the Cleveland Line requires at least two partial duplications and new stabling to become operationally adequate, increase capacity, and have some form of homogenous timetable. The single track sections makes scheduling more complicated than it has to be. The Cleveland Line is also becoming increasingly overcrowded in the peaks.

I'm not sure it needs extensions, but it certainly needs duplications.

[STB]

I disagree with any extension of the Cleveland line, except perhaps to Toondah Harbour for the ferries, simply because it's far more efficient and faster to go via Eight Mile Plains in the Southern Redlands area, and there is plenty of bussing happening already, at least every 15 mins in peak to the city from Victoria Point and I'm sure will increase over time.  In fact, the majority of the Southern Redlands passengers gave up the route of going via Cleveland and Capalaba on the old network and took up the new route via Eight Mile Plains, so much so that it TL had to put on more buses and routes (route 279) to deal with severe overcrowding.  There isn't really that many catching the bus, except in off peak between Victoria Point/Redland Bay and Cleveland.

[#Metro]

During the peaks the Cleveland Line requires at least two partial duplications and new stabling to become operationally adequate, increase capacity, and have some form of homogenous timetable. The single track sections makes scheduling more complicated than it has to be. The Cleveland Line is also becoming increasingly overcrowded in the peaks.

I'm not sure it needs extensions, but it certainly needs duplications.

Agreed.

Wynnum is becoming a small CBD area.
Better connectivity/bus priority with say Beenleigh and Garden City would also be good.

[#Metro]

As large sections of this line fall outside the 30 minute CBD circle (see Timetables thread), this line should also be considered for a 2 tier operation ( with the break possibly at Wynnum Central). It would cut the time to reach the stations proposed in this thread at

Thornlands
Victoria Point
Redland Bay
Point Talburpin

To get to Cleveland takes 1 hour - 1hour to 1h 20 minutes. If you live on the islands you face an even longer commute (and apparently they are having issues with car parking and transport as well).

[O_128]

As large sections of this line fall outside the 30 minute CBD circle (see Timetables thread), this line should also be considered for a 2 tier operation ( with the break possibly at Wynnum Central). It would cut the time to reach the proposed stations at

Thornlands
Victoria Point
Redland Bay
Point Talburpin

To get to Cleveland takes 1 hour - 1hour to 1h 20 minutes. If you live on the islands you face an even longer commute (and apparently they are having issues with car parking and transport as well).



This is the first i have heard  of these proposed stations

[#Metro]

  Sorry, I didn't mean proposed by the gov or anything like that.... lol
I when I wrote "proposed" I meant "proposed in this thread".

This has now been fixed...

Well O_128, if Translink had come out with a media release saying "We are going to extend the Cleveland line!" that would be big news!!! It almost could have been real!

[longboi]

Going further than Cleveland is next to impossible without lots of land resumptions and some serious restructuring of the road layout between Cleveland and Viccy Point.

Besides, the Cleveland line is slow enough as it is - Too many curves and indirect.

[mufreight]

Well some of the curves can be straightened out but then listen to the screams from the NIMBY's affected.

[somebody]

Besides, the Cleveland line is slow enough as it is - Too many curves and indirect.

It's still slightly faster than the 250 off peak.  Other road options like the Storey bridge aren't that quick either.

Well some of the curves can be straightened out but then listen to the screams from the NIMBY's affected.

We need a laughing emoticon.

[#Metro]

Well some of the curves can be straightened out but then listen to the screams from the NIMBY's affected.

This is the funniest think I have read all day. 

[longboi]

Well some of the curves can be straightened out but then listen to the screams from the NIMBY's affected.

A project like that has the proverbial snowball's chance in hell - Not in Rudd's electorate!

They're still sour about flight paths over their area...and planes are hundreds of metres in the sky!

[#Metro]

I've posted this elsewhere, but I think that the Cleveland line would be better routed via New Farm-Valley or Bulimba-Tennerife-Valley, both underground.

Under a 2 tier timetable, first tier trains would run the current route from, say Wynnum to CBD.
Second tier trains would take the second route via New Farm/Bulimba and then continue to Victoria Point.

There are good and bad aspects for both. There is a metro proposal for this area as well. in the future, but it appears to be at the concept stage for now. It might be better as through running- heavy rail, though this would have to be looked at more closely. It would be great for New Farm to get a rail service- light, heavy or metro...

[somebody]

I've posted this elsewhere, but I think that the Cleveland line would be better routed via New Farm-Valley or Bulimba-Tennerife-Valley, both underground.

Isn't that nearly my idea?  Or did you have it first?

[Derwan]

Servicing Victoria Point (and beyond) is a good idea, but the Cleveland Line already takes too long.  I suggested a while ago the idea of making the eastern busway a train line instead, along Old Cleveland Road, through Capalaba then down to Victoria Point.  But this would require serious resumptions and/or running an elevated track.

I don't think we'll see either suggestion implemented.

[#Metro]

Somebody, I'm not really sure, but I don't mind either way.  

http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=2034.msg15117#msg15117
http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=2851.0

Jan 26th 2010:

Can somebody's proposal be modified into something more feasible? Let's see...

1. Cleveland line alignment is bad. Why does it do a hairpin?
-> Get rid of the hairpin, direct link

2. There is already a bridge proposal IIRC from the BCC (or was it Smart Cities?) for something to go between Tennerife- Bulimba
-> Make the bridge a green bridge + rail

3. There is already a potential Newstead alignment for the ICRCS
-> Plug into the potential ICRCS Newstead alignment as an option.

Connect the dots...

Option A
Putting the three proposals together, you would have Cleveland trains crossing the river at Bulimba (or close by), over a green bridge to Newstead where it would follow the ICRCS Newstead option to the City (brand new line). New Stations at Hawthorne and Bulimba. It might also be used as a freight bypass.

Option B
Alternatively, Cleveland trains cross the river at Morningside to New Farm (Brunswick St) with a station at Merthyr Village, this would continue to a station close to James St/Tenneriffe and then enter the main system to connect with Fortitude Valley Station.

October 17 2009
(As a separate plan) I think that there is merit in a New Farm/Newstead-Bulimba link.
whether it be by heavy rail or some other means (light rail, busway, tramtrain, Green Bridge).

A closed loop around the inner city suburbs would form, and act as a distributor.
Cars currently go from the Story Bridge onto Shaftson Ave. A New Farm/Newstead link would have an absolute advantage over the car (and the current Cleveland Line) because it would be a direct link.

Distance Measurements
Distance Central to Oxford St (via S'Bridge) by car: 7.75 km
Distance Cannon Hill to Central (via current line/M'vale bridge) by train: 12.3 km
Distance Cannon Hill to Central via proposed direct connector # by train 1: 8 km (stations at Balmoral, Bulimba, Newstead, Valley, Central)
Distance Morningside to Central via proposed direct connector #2 by train : (one new station at New Farm): 5.4 km
Measurements are approximate, using Google Maps distance measurement tool.

It would also be consistent with the plans expressed in the Mass Transit Report.
The bizzare situation where the Cleveland line passengers have to go all the way around in an arc (12 km) to get to the CBD, would end (and increase in patronage).

The BCC and QLD Gov have proposals/plans/options for a link between Newstead and Bulimba, but exactly what that link should be (green bridge, green bridge + one of bus, rail, light rail etc) hasn't progressed.
although like many ideas...

Another idea to be filed in the trainspotter fantasies folder (along with regular Ekka Loop services, and a high speed Maglev to Doomben).

[somebody]

Somebody, I'm not really sure, but I don't mind either way.  

http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=2034.msg15117#msg15117
http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=2851.0

Jan 26th 2010:

I take the blame/credit for this one based on those links.  Discussion was done in my threadstart by Oct 13 until re-activated in Jan.  You mentioned it in the CRR thread on Oct 17.

[Jon Bryant]

I live and breath the Cleveland Line every day on it slow wiander into the City.  Bring on the direct link through New Farm and Bulimba/Hawthorne no matter how much of a fantasy it might be.  Might even allow for a Cleveland- Dutton Park - Corinda - Ipswich line or a Cleveland - Park Road - Milton - Ipswich line.  All pipe dreams but we will need cross city services.  Yes well after the CRR.     

[stephenk]

As I've said before it is not cost effective, and not operationally advisable (i.e. knock on effects and benefits to other parts of the network) to build a tunnel from Bulimba through New Farm into the CBD.

Maybe if you are lucky in the future, there might be a green bridge over the river for buses.

[somebody]

As I've said before it is not cost effective, and not operationally advisable (i.e. knock on effects and benefits to other parts of the network) to build a tunnel from Bulimba through New Farm into the CBD.

Maybe if you are lucky in the future, there might be a green bridge over the river for buses.

It's better bang for buck that the tunnel from the Ispwich line via West End IMO.  Both options also increase capacity on the Ipswich line.

[mufreight]

The only Ipswich line capacity constraints are from Corinda to Ipswich which will soon be Darra to Ipswich when the current track augumentation works between Corinda and Darra are completed.

[#Metro]

As I've said before it is not cost effective, and not operationally advisable (i.e. knock on effects and benefits to other parts of the network) to build a tunnel from Bulimba through New Farm into the CBD.

I suppose that it would not do too much for that Park Rd/GoldCoast/Beenleigh train junction or perhaps only during peak hour?
There is a metro proposal for the CBD-Bulimba area being considered. We should keep this in mind as an alternative proposal for that.

Correspondence from the ICRCS project team also states that metro will likely be needed even with ICRCS.

[somebody]

The only Ipswich line capacity constraints are from Corinda to Ipswich which will soon be Darra to Ipswich when the current track augumentation works between Corinda and Darra are completed.

One would presume that by the time the Springfield line reaches Springfield, demand will exceed the capacity of the main tracks, and we will need to use some of the suburban capacity.  Or not long after at least.

[stephenk]

The only Ipswich line capacity constraints are from Corinda to Ipswich which will soon be Darra to Ipswich when the current track augumentation works between Corinda and Darra are completed.

One would presume that by the time the Springfield line reaches Springfield, demand will exceed the capacity of the main tracks, and we will need to use some of the suburban capacity.  Or not long after at least.

When the first cross city rail tunnel opens, the Gold Coast and some Beenleigh services will be moved from the suburban tracks through the CBD. This will allow the Springfield Line to move from the main tracks onto the suburban tracks through the CBD.

[somebody]

When the first cross city rail tunnel opens, the Gold Coast and some Beenleigh services will be moved from the suburban tracks through the CBD. This will allow the Springfield Line to move from the main tracks onto the suburban tracks through the CBD.

That's the theory, but the ICRS believes that by 2026 there will be no room in the first tunnel for the Beenleigh line trains.  The ICRS's solution is to send half the Beenleigh line trains around via Tennyson and build a tunnel between Toowong, West End and the CBD, but I'm not convinced that's a very good option at all.

EDIT: I would also question why you'd leave some of the Beenleigh line trains on the Merivale Bridge.  Swap the line pairings and you don't need to, then all the Beenleigh line trains will get the benefit of the new tunnel's more direct route.

[#Metro]

Beenleigh line trains around via Tennyson and build a tunnel between Toowong, West End and the CBD, but I'm not convinced that's a very good option at all.

Oh, so that's what that tunnel is for.
I was wondering because it looks like a strange route.

[Jon Bryant]

If that is the case would it not make sense to build double the capacity along the one route during construction.

[somebody]

If that is the case would it not make sense to build double the capacity along the one route during construction.

Hmm, maybe.  But on a discounted cash flow analysis the cost difference would have to be almost negligible.

[stephenk]

If that is the case would it not make sense to build double the capacity along the one route during construction.

No, because the second tunnel will be required to relieve capacity on the main tracks (currently Ipswich-Caboolture) through the CBD. It is all explained in the ICRCS - Rail Operations Review.

[somebody]

During the peaks the Cleveland Line requires at least two partial duplications and new stabling to become operationally adequate, increase capacity, and have some form of homogenous timetable. The single track sections makes scheduling more complicated than it has to be. The Cleveland Line is also becoming increasingly overcrowded in the peaks.

I'm not sure it needs extensions, but it certainly needs duplications.

I'm still unsure why we should be duplicating the Ormiston-Cleveland section though.  You do need to do something east of Wellington Point if you don't want crosses occurring on the bridge(s) between Lota and Thorneside.  Why not Manly-Lota and Thorneside-Ormiston? You could do 8-9 minute dwells at Cleveland then and no waits for crosses at 15 minute frequency off peak.  Also, saving on bridge duplication.

[mufreight]

The bridges will need duplication at some time and by duplicating the section with these bridges first a measure of improvement will be achieved with it then being a simpler construction task to duplicate the missing links at a later time.
Obviously it would be ideal if the complete duplication were to be done in one go and done now but with the current government that is unlikely.

[O_128]

I thought we would be aiming for duplication to thornside at the minimum so that there arent capacity constraints if the thornside stabling is built.

[somebody]

I thought we would be aiming for duplication to thornside at the minimum so that there arent capacity constraints if the thornside stabling is built.

I'd have thought the exact opposite would be true.  Thorneside stabling would prevent the need for empty moves between Manly and Thorneside, with the possible exception of a handful of Manly starters (they'd probably become Thorneside starters, but it's the same effect).

[somebody]

If that is the case would it not make sense to build double the capacity along the one route during construction.

No, because the second tunnel will be required to relieve capacity on the main tracks (currently Ipswich-Caboolture) through the CBD. It is all explained in the ICRCS - Rail Operations Review.

Seems pretty obvious that if the Beenleigh & Gold Coast line trains are all removed from the suburbans, some capacity could be used by the Ipswich/Springfield line, with a conflicting move at Roma St.  Also, you could reverse the use of the Tennyson loop from what is proposed in the ICRS, and send some or all of the Springfield line trains via the Tennyson loop into the new tunnel.

[ozbob]

\









Photographs R Dow 5th December 2013