Cleveland Line duplication project - now!

[Nina M Blackwell]

Once again, the single rail between Manly and Cleveland has reared its head and caused hundreds of commuters to be 30-45 minutes late for work today .  A broken down unit was blocking the single rail between Lota and Manly (I think) and therefore outbound trains were stuck behind it.  QR was extremely good about keeping us informed every 5 minutes and apologetic for the inconvenience.  How long must we wait for the duplication so that these delays can be better managed and avoided?

[somebody]

Wouldn't make any difference if there wasn't bi-di signalling.  I understand that is present north of Petrie, but if something broke down west of Darra, on the Shorncliffe line north of Northgate, on the Ferny Grove line or south of Kuraby I would still expect chaos.  Although there could be somewhere else which has the bi-di signalling.

[ozbob]

Thanks for the update Redlandsneen.  Cleveland needs full duplication, as does Springfield when built.

Bi directional signaling will then allow paths around failed units as needed.  Crossovers need to be in place as well.

[tronixstuff]

Whoever signs off on new projects with only single-line running needs a definite kicking. It is so much cheaper to build dual track then have to come back later and finish the job (e.g. Gold Coast line).

[stephenk]

Any railway will have a weak point somewhere, for example a terminus crossover or level crossing fault can render all tracks to be unavailable.

However, the single track sections on the Cleveland Line, and Manly reversing causes constraints on peak timetabling resulting in the typical QR "random" timetable. The single track sections also prevent an eventual 15min off-peak service to Cleveland. Many peak services on the Cleveland Line are overcrowded, and thus extra capacity will be required in the very near future. To allow for a increased peak frequency and a more homogenous timetable, I think that there should be at least two partial duplications as outlined in the ICRCS, a 3rd track/platform at Manly, and extra stabling at Thorneside.

[somebody]

I would say that the biggest priority is Thorneside stabling.  QR do have a need to bring its costs down, I'm sure.  I think I may stand alone in this forum on that one though.

[stephenk]

I would say that the biggest priority is Thorneside stabling.  QR do have a need to bring its costs down, I'm sure.  I think I may stand alone in this forum on that one though.

Certainly infrastructure projects need to have a good cost vs benefit ratio, and this is a reason why Keperra to Ferny Grove has been given priority over other infrastructure projects.

According to the ICRCS appendix the costs of the following are:
"Additional Thorneside stabling $10-20m
Cleveland to Ormiston duplication $100-200m
Wellington Point to Birkdale duplication $50-100m
Manly to Lota duplication $50-100m
Two additional duplications $100-200m
Remainder of duplications $100-200m"
Despite being mentioned in the operation review, a 3rd platform at Manly is not costed, but I would expect would be $20-50m based on similar infrastructure costs.

Thorneside stabling is thus the cheapest project, and would free some capacity between Manly and Lota for extra services. It may ease some timetabling constraints with current Manly and Lota reversers, but would not help with capacity on the long single track sections between Thorneside and Cleveland.

A 3rd platform at Manly would cost more, and would also ease timetabling constraints with Manly reversers, but not help with increasing capacity between Manly and Cleveland. This would probably be less cost effective than Thorneside stabling.

The benefits of these would be very short term without two duplications between Cleveland and Ormiston, and Wellington Point to Birkdale which have a considerably higher cost.

[somebody]

Certainly infrastructure projects need to have a good cost vs benefit ratio

Yes, and upgrades to the off peak train frequency has far better bang/buck than any infrastructure project.

[Golliwog]

I totally agree that offpeak frequencyies need to be improved, and that if that happens there would most likely be alot more people who use the network. But wouldnt that then lead to peak problems as these people may still need to travel then? I don't think you can JUST do offpeak frequency. You need to do a combination to try and remove some of the bottlenecks that effect peak timetabling, which to me are single track sections and non-grade seperated switches and crossings.

[#Metro]

How much (roughly) would grade separation cost?

[Golliwog]

Cleveland Line
Third Track Manly to Cannon Hill $100-200m
Dual gauging and extension of Murarrie refuge loop $10-20m
New refuge loop near Lytton Junction $10-20m

According to the ICRCS appendix the costs of the following are:
Additional Thorneside stabling $10-20m
Cleveland to Ormiston duplication $100-200m
Wellington Point to Birkdale duplication $50-100m
Manly to Lota duplication $50-100m
Two additional duplications $100-200m
Remainder of duplications $100-200m"
Despite being mentioned in the operation review, a 3rd platform at Manly is not costed, but I would expect would be $20-50m based on similar infrastructure costs.

Grade separation Yeerongpilly $150-200m
Grade Separation Corinda $350-450m
Park Road Grade Separation $350-450m

All from the ICRCS Pre-feasibility. They also said earlier in the report that to delay the need for Park road to be grade seperated, that they could timetable both an inbound and outbound Cleveland line train to pass through the junction at the same time, to minimise lost time, however the current problem with that was that this couldn't be done due to the location of one of the single track section (I forget which one though). They did make sure to point out though that this was only a short term solution, AND could still have issues if trains are late.

[somebody]

I totally agree that offpeak frequencyies need to be improved, and that if that happens there would most likely be alot more people who use the network. But wouldnt that then lead to peak problems as these people may still need to travel then? I don't think you can JUST do offpeak frequency. You need to do a combination to try and remove some of the bottlenecks that effect peak timetabling, which to me are single track sections and non-grade seperated switches and crossings.

There's two factors at work here.  Upgrading off peak frequencies increases people's willingness to rely on PT, but on the other hand, it reduces the effect where people target travelling at peak times.  Both are good things really.

[ghostryder]

Patronage has been an issue on the Cleveland line for some time, The section Beyond Lota was closed and tracks removed due to lack of Patronage back in the 1960's to be restored during the 1980s, restoration of services was somewhat cheaper as the corridor was retained by council. When the line was restored it should have been to double line not single as there would have been minimal interuptions to services. Duplication regretably has not kept pace with population and service needs. Bean counting and political indifference, its a wonder anything gets done.   

cheers

scott

[mufreight]

The same argument applies to the original reconstruction of the Gold Coast line, the Ferny Grove line duplication, Corinda Darra triplication now a quadruplication which has failed to provide a fourth platform at Oxley or electrify the fourth line or provide carriage floor height platforms at Oxley and Darra and the north coast line duplication from Caboolture to Landsbrough which saw only the first stage to Beerburrum completed and the dithering and cost cutting on the Springfield line project.
Al of these projects have only been half done with the costs of setting up again to recommence the works to finalise these infrastructure projects adding tens of millions of dollars to the eventual costs to bring them to completion.
Shortsighted, bad economics and a further example of the stupidity of the policies of the current government and the Transport Minister.

[somebody]

I'm less familiar with the Gold Coast line, but all I can say is that I agree with mufreight 100%.

And with the Corinda-Darra, the 3rd and 4th tracks will need bi-di signalling now which if not done would probably have paid for most of the electrification.

[stephenk]

Cleveland Line
Third Track Manly to Cannon Hill $100-200m
Dual gauging and extension of Murarrie refuge loop $10-20m
New refuge loop near Lytton Junction $10-20m

According to the ICRCS appendix the costs of the following are:
Additional Thorneside stabling $10-20m
Cleveland to Ormiston duplication $100-200m
Wellington Point to Birkdale duplication $50-100m
Manly to Lota duplication $50-100m
Two additional duplications $100-200m
Remainder of duplications $100-200m"
Despite being mentioned in the operation review, a 3rd platform at Manly is not costed, but I would expect would be $20-50m based on similar infrastructure costs.

Grade separation Yeerongpilly $150-200m
Grade Separation Corinda $350-450m
Park Road Grade Separation $350-450m

All from the ICRCS Pre-feasibility. They also said earlier in the report that to delay the need for Park road to be grade seperated, that they could timetable both an inbound and outbound Cleveland line train to pass through the junction at the same time, to minimise lost time, however the current problem with that was that this couldn't be done due to the location of one of the single track section (I forget which one though). They did make sure to point out though that this was only a short term solution, AND could still have issues if trains are late.

This is the problem with the current poor infrastructure of Brisbane's rail network - you could spend $400m on partially duplicating the Cleveland line to allow an few more tph, but then that causes pressure on the next bottleneck such as Park Rd junction which also requires $400m to fix. The infrastructure problems are not helped by half-baked infrastructure projects which do the absolute minimum possible at any time.

Whilst each infrastructure project needs to financially justifiable, and there is no point building white-elephants, I find it difficult to see how the government could not justify:-
- Ferny Grove Line duplication in one project (first duplication did not increase overall line capacity)
- Electrifying both tracks between Corinda and Darra (creates an effective single track section)
- Not quadrupling the recent Beenleigh Line Salisbury to Kuraby triplication (limits reverse-peak and off-peak capacity)
These short sighted half-baked projects are ultimately wasting tax payers money and prolonging infrastructure bottlenecks.

[Golliwog]

The Ferny Grove line duplication was ridiculous! I remember hearing they were doing it and I thought that was brilliant, but then actually read that they were only doing it to Keperra.

Perhaps though, the government should fund these things better. IMO, its time they stopped funding these as catch-up projects, and instead try to get ahead of the game and do as many of these things as possible. I know they are short on cash but surely the Federal government could help fund some of it? After all, a lot of the problem is because of the massive increases in population due to interstate migration.

[somebody]

More of the problem is due to ridiculous penny pinching management.  And throwing away money on un-needed projects like the Gold Coast desalination.

[Golliwog]

GC desal may not be needed currently, but it is definatly needed for the future. The only reason our dams are full right now is because by chance we happened to get a bunch of rain this past summer. Although the stupidity that has gone on with the construction faults is amazing. Anyway, this is a transport forum, not a water forum.

I agree, they seem to look at the short term monetary gains of constructing things in stages, without looking at the fact of how much extra they will be wasting later when they have to re-form construction teams.

[ButFli]

The only reason our dams are full right now is because by chance we happened to get a bunch of rain this past summer.

I don't think something that has been happening for at least a hundred years can be said to be "by chance". It was only "by chance" that the dams got as empty as the did.

[Golliwog]

The only reason our dams are full right now is because by chance we happened to get a bunch of rain this past summer.

I don't think something that has been happening for at least a hundred years can be said to be "by chance". It was only "by chance" that the dams got as empty as the did.

But either way, theres still no way of ensuring that we get rain in the dam catchments, where as the ocean is always going to be there. Plus, when you add in the fact that you have roughly 1200 extra people in SEQ everyweek, we're going to need to get the water for them from somewhere.

[mufreight]

Sidetracked again by off topic issues irelevant to both the thread and this forum

[O_128]

If the government cant be bothered to upgrade the line why no do a private partnership also allowing them to run services on the upgraded line or is this idea to radical

[somebody]

If the government cant be bothered to upgrade the line why no do a private partnership also allowing them to run services on the upgraded line or is this idea to radical

Because almost every other PPP has been a disaster?  In this particular case, how would the private enterprise get paid from this project?

[#Metro]

I wouldn't say every has been. The visible "disasters" IMHO have been Airport Link (Bris Con) and Clem 7.
http://www.dip.qld.gov.au/processes-frameworks/public-private-partnerships-and-value-for-money-framework.html

Queensland Government has a few PPP projects such as:
* Gold Coast Rapid Transit
* South Bank TAFE

Some background http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rp/2002-03/03RP01.htm

[O_128]

If the government cant be bothered to upgrade the line why no do a private partnership also allowing them to run services on the upgraded line or is this idea to radical

Because almost every other PPP has been a disaster?  In this particular case, how would the private enterprise get paid from this project?

they would collect all fares from the line

[Jon Bryant]

Or charge an access fee to the operator which would then be passed onto Translink.

[#Metro]

I'm curious as to how the GC Rapid Transit is a PPP?
How will that work?

[somebody]

I wouldn't say every has been.

I did say almost.  The only successful ones I'm aware of have effectively charged for an infrastructure which isn't part of the project, with the possible exceptions of Sydney's M2, M5 and M7.  It's far too early to call the M7 a success of PPPs.