Infrastructure Australia and Sunshine Coast Line

[#Metro]

Infrastructure Australia regularly calls for public submissions. This means that ANYONE can make a submission.
An example of a previous, and now closed, submission call is here:

See here: http://www.minister.infrastructure.gov.au/aa/releases/2008/august/aa121_2008.htm

INFRASTRUCTURE AUSTRALIA CALLS FOR PUBLIC SUBMISSIONS

Federal Infrastructure and Transport Minister Anthony Albanese and Infrastructure Australia Chair Sir Rod Eddington have today urged all Australians to be part of the Rudd Labor Government's nation-building agenda.

From today until 15 October, any member of the public and business community can submit their project ideas to Infrastructure Australia for evaluation and possible inclusion on the National Infrastructure Priority List - the first of which will be handed to the Council of Australian Governments in March 2009.

"We want both industry and the community to be our partners in the long term effort to fix and modernise the nation's critical economic infrastructure: our roads; railways; ports; water and energy utilities; and telecommunications," said Mr Albanese.

"I urge the community to take this opportunity to have their say. After all, the quality of the nation's infrastructure affects the bottom line of all businesses and the quality of life of all citizens.

Here is the submissions guide: http://www.infrastructureaustralia.gov.au/files/PF_IA_Guide_for_Submissions.pdf

Basically:

It must have national significance.
It must be evidence based

Unfortunately the national freight network plan closed earlier this year: http://www.infrastructureaustralia.gov.au/public_submissions/nfnp/files/NFNP_Call_for_Submissions%20_2.pdf

[Fares_Fair]

darn, missed it by that much !
actually March 2010 to be precise.

Thanks for the research tt, well done ! 

Regards,
Fares_Fair.

[Stillwater]

Fares Fair, you asked for details of train services and their split on the Sunshine Coast Line.  These figures would appear to disclose the picture:

Overall, there are 262 train paths during the week (M-F), allocated as follows:
♦Citytrain 126 (48%)
♦Traveltrain 31 (12%)
♦Freight train 103 (39%)
♦Repositioning 2 (<1%)
♦TOTAL 262

[#Metro]

darn, missed it by that much !
actually March 2010 to be precise.

Thanks for the research tt, well done !

They might be able to take general submissions though. Its too far into the holiday season for anything to happen right now, but that is one avenue to look at.

♦Citytrain 126 (48%)
♦Traveltrain 31 (12%)
♦Freight train 103 (39%)
♦Repositioning 2 (<1%)

Assuming the line is at or close to capacity, would I be right in thinking that if both the travel trains and freight trains (12% + 39%) were moved the opportunity for services would increase by 51%, which seems to almost exactly wipe out the proportion of bus-substitute services on that line (which we know is 50% or so)?

Is this all paths (to and from the city), or in one direction?

[mufreight]

Ok so we suspend all travel train and freight serevices but while that then releases a number of paths problems arise with trains operating in opposing directions with the longest elapsed time section becoming the governing factor of the timetabling frequency. until this is addressed the basic problem will remain.

[#Metro]

Ok so we suspend all travel train and freight serevices but while that then releases a number of paths problems arise with trains operating in opposing directions with the longest elapsed time section becoming the governing factor of the timetabling frequency. until this is addressed the basic problem will remain.

Thanks for this. There is no need to suspend services, it was only thought about to get a better picture about the situation. The line does need to be duplicated/straigtened/whatever because it is now clear that the increase in passenger services can't happen and so is flowing into the bus services when they could be running train services but instead have decided to run freight during that time it seems.

Which makes sense.

Build CAMCOS!

[Fares_Fair]

Fares Fair, you asked for details of train services and their split on the Sunshine Coast Line.  These figures would appear to disclose the picture:

Overall, there are 262 train paths during the week (M-F), allocated as follows:
♦Citytrain 126 (48%)
♦Traveltrain 31 (12%)
♦Freight train 103 (39%)
♦Repositioning 2 (<1%)
♦TOTAL 262

Hello tramtrain,

My calcs show them as in one direction (southbound) for the Citytrain services.
I'm sure Stillwater could confirm this.

e.g. Southbound there are 25 daily services x 4 days (Mon-Thu) + 26 daily services x 1 day (Fri) = 100+26 for Citytrain from Mon-Fri. I'd say he's right on the money.

Of these 126 weekly Citytrain services, 65 comprise a rail-bus for the Caboolture-Nambour leg. (51.6%)

Regards,
Fares_Fair,

[Fares_Fair]

darn, missed it by that much !
actually March 2010 to be precise.

Thanks for the research tt, well done !

They might be able to take general submissions though. Its too far into the holiday season for anything to happen right now, but that is one avenue to look at.

♦Citytrain 126 (48%)
♦Traveltrain 31 (12%)
♦Freight train 103 (39%)
♦Repositioning 2 (<1%)

Assuming the line is at or close to capacity, would I be right in thinking that if both the travel trains and freight trains (12% + 39%) were moved the opportunity for services would increase by 51%, which seems to almost exactly wipe out the proportion of bus-substitute services on that line (which we know is 50% or so)?

Is this all paths (to and from the city), or in one direction?

Indeed, I believe you would be correct tramtrain.
Of the 126 weekly (one direction, southbound) Citytrain services, 65 comprise a rail-bus for the Caboolture-Nambour leg. (51.6%)


Regards,
Fares_Fair.

[Stillwater]

When the train path data is considered together with the Corridor Strategy objective, which is to preserve the growth for freight train traffic while catering for passenger train movements, it is easy to see the reasons for government intrangience.  Absurdly, it would seem that the plan is to restrict and discourage passenger train travel on the Sunny Coast Line.

Could the solution to the passenger-freight conflict be to lengthen crossing loops on the line?  I understand that the ruling grade for crossing loops is the crossover at Palmwoods (about 680m long).  Crossing loops twice this length would permit longer freight trains, but a fewer number of freight trains, meaning a smaller number of freight train slots to carry the same amount of freight.

This could be the key to Fares Fair's concept of federal government funding for freight upgrades on the line, with flow-on benefits for passenger trains.   

[#Metro]

Lack of public transport to support skill development and employment
Transport is consistently identified as one of the key challenges and barriers to getting employment by job seekers and agencies working in the employment field. The coastal population centres are not directly linked by public transport to major employment opportunities on the north side of Brisbane. Public transport routes servicing school runs operate at times that do not match the needs of industry and often run in areas of limited demand. Proximity of housing to work is a significant factor to accessing employment and education opportunities, especially for young people.

Poor access to PT means people are unable to access jobs in Brisbane to the same level that the Gold Coast has.
The Sunshine Coast is therefore at a relative disadvantage IMHO. The rail line also carries significant amount of
weekend day trippers to the Gold Coast, I doubt a similar thing happens on the Sunshine Coast line due to the
transport infrastructure there is at the moment.


From stillwater: 
Equally interesting ... some grist for the mill ... with a Queensland flavour

http://www.keepaustraliaworking.gov.au/documents/PDFs_RTFs/caboolture-sunshine_coast_rep.pdf

http://www.sunshinecoast.qld.gov.au/addfiles/documents/business/ecdev_strategy.pdf

[Stillwater]

Building CAMCOS is a monumental and costly exercise.  It would cost more than $4 billion on today's prices.  A more realistic, interim measure would be to upgrade the existing Sunshine Coast Line, particularly as that route would also qualify for federal government funding.  But, we should not hold our breath there either.

From a paper that Dr Philip Laird presented to the Australasian Transport Research Forum, September 2010:
"As part of the 2008 national infrastructure audit, and amongst other proposals, the Queensland Government identified four North Coast line projects. These were the operation of 1500m trains, and three major track upgrades south of Nambour. However, these projects were not selected in Infrastructure Australia's 2008 projects for prioritisation/further analysis.

"The situation regarding federal funding of the Queensland North Coast Line is yet to be clarified, although appreciable federal as well as Australian Rail Track Corporation (ARTC) funds are being applied to upgrading of the New South Wales North Coast and Main South interstate lines."

Dr Laird has also conducted analysis into the benefits of a track upgrade, as it affects passenger and freight train operations.  He says:
As part of a 2002 study for Queensland Transport, a study was done for those 135 sites between Landsborough and Townsville where the indicated speed restrictions are less than 100 km/h for freight trains. By application of a simple model from a "Smooth Running Study" for Queensland Transport (2003) (see also Laird et al (2003), and, Laird and Michell, 2004) indicative estimates were given for the savings in train transit time, train operator costs and track owner maintenance costs that would result from replacing sections of poorly aligned track with modern alignments.

For a 'standard' heavy freight train with a 1500 tonne trailing load hauled by a 2800 class locomotive, the aggregate reduction in train transit time is about 135 minutes, whilst the cost saving to the train operator amounts to approximately $2600 for a freight train haul (Laird and Michell, 2004). The estimate of $2600 for additional train operating costs compares with a broad estimate of total train operator costs of at least $13,000 (including about $5000 for fuel costs) for moving a 1500 tonne freight train with a single 2800 class locomotive from Nambour to Townsville.

These estimates are now conservative, as for the 2002 study, it was assumed that diesel fuel was costing 50 cents per litre. This cost is now over $1 per litre.

The reduction in track owner maintenance costs for the passage of this train over the upgraded track as compared with the current track was estimated at about $200 (Laird and Michell, 2004). There are also reductions in external costs for rail line haul, and where rail improves its competitiveness with road, appreciable further reductions in external costs.

As part of a former Rail CRC project, further analysis was undertaken for five potential NCL rail deviations between Landsborough and Maryborough West that would give a total reduction in point to point distance of 5.4 km. With Simtrain computer simulation by Mr M Michell of Samrom Pty Ltd a freight train with one QR 4000 class (or PNQ PN loco) with a 2000 tonne trailing load would have an average time (both directions) saving of 41 minutes and a fuel saving of 173 litres (Laird, 2008). The average time saving for the electric tilt train traversing the new track in either direction was found to be 57 minutes."
Full discussion paper: http://www.patrec.org/web_docs/atrf/papers/2010/1865_051%20-%20Laird.pdf

[#Metro]

Building CAMCOS is a monumental and costly exercise.  It would cost more than $4 billion on today's prices.  A more realistic, interim measure would be to upgrade the existing Sunshine Coast Line, particularly as that route would also qualify for federal government funding.  But, we should not hold our breath there either.

I agree that upgrades to the current line like you suggest should be done first. Though I also think that CAMCOS should be looked at. Yes it is expensive, but that can be dealt with by extending the line incrementally so that costs are spread into smaller, more affordable pieces over time.

The CAMCOS study is now almost a decade old. Done in 2001, it identified the cost to
construct Passenger Rail from Beerwah to Caloundra at $158 million dollars.
In $2009 this would probably be around $300 million, although this looks a bit optimistic
when you think that reasonable ballpark heavy rail costs are somewhere around $70-$150 million per kilometre
in QLD.

http://www.arup.com.au/camcos/docs/final/ch15.pdf

The financial analysis doesn't seem very good, however neither did the Kippa-Ring one (first it was viable, then it was unviable, and now it is viable again- go figure with what is happening to the BCR/NPV estimates here!)

[Stillwater]

Sadly, I think it was a case of Kippa Ring becoming viable because it served the odd one or two marginal (federal) electorates.  Check the VTR (voter to cost ratio).  Up the Sunny Coast, the voters are rusted on conservative voters.

[#Metro]

Sadly, I think it was a case of Kippa Ring becoming viable because it served the odd one or two marginal (federal) electorates.  Check the VTR (voter to cost ratio).  Up the Sunny Coast, the voters are rusted on conservative voters.

Yes, I think VTR is a far better statistic to explain things. Pity it is never published!
This doesn't explain the Gold Coast though. They are getting LRT and have a good heavy rail line, first class, and a lot of those seats are LNP http://www.mypolitician.com.au/electorates/queensland/

[Fares_Fair]

I guess thay think they have more of a chance with the Labor seats already in that area.
It'd be interesting to know exactly how many.

You can't play pin the tail on the donkey and spike a Labor seat on the Sunshine Coast.

Regards,
Fares_Fair.

[Arnz]

Gold Coast does have one or two ALP seats, but is traditionally LNP territory (with the exception of the 2001-2004 ALP whitewash with Beattie)

Edit: As in state government seats, not federal ones.

[Fares_Fair]

That's one or two more than the Sunshine Coast !  

Edit: Understood, assumed that was the case.

Regards,
Fares_Fair.

[tomato]

INFRASTRUCTURE AUSTRALIA DISCUSSION PAPER ON AUSTRALIA'S FUTURE INFRASTRUCTURE REQUIREMENTS
QR LIMITED SUBMISSION
October 2008

The views expressed in this submission are those of QR Limited and are not represented as the views of the Queensland Government. The Government's views are expressed in a separate submission to Infrastructure Australia......................

page 3.....

In this submission, we propose the first key elements along the path to this vision.
Specifically, we believe Infrastructure Australia should support:

• The Northern Sydney Freight Works;
• Metropolitan Brisbane rail upgrades (including the Inner City Rail Capacity project);
• Terminal developments in Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane;

....page 4
• Infrastructure upgrade to allow "double-stacking" on more routes;
• Infrastructure upgrade to suit overseas "off-the-shelf" locomotives;
• Infrastructure upgrade to allow longer trains Brisbane-Townsville; and
• A new approach to long-term planning based on:
− Inter-modal planning with long horizons (in excess of 50 years) rather than piece-meal and transport mode or corridor specific plans;
− Integration of an 'inter-modal' approach throughout planning processes (urban, port, rail, road, capital budgeting);
− Recognition of carbon, urban and congestion externalities in planning, investment and pricing; and
− Clear account taken of the effects of policies which inefficiently distort competition between transport modes.

[Stillwater]

At the time Paul Lucas, the then minister, made his promise of a start on CAMCOS to Caloundra by 2016, there was a shaky Labor seat on the Sunshine Coast.  Mysteriously, after Labor lost that seat, CAMCOS went cold and so did the University Hospital at Kawana - another firm promise.

Now, to be very generous to the government, the GFC can along and wrecked the economy.  Then there was the water crisis, with all that new infrastructure to pay for, including the cost of a phantom dam.

The government is selling off the silver (assets) to pay back debts.  Assuming it can scrape together $5 billion odd for transport, where best to spend it -- CRR or CAMCOS?  Odds on its CRR -- a no brainer as Ozbob would say.  That would bring about the most benefit for the network.

So the next best thing for Sunny Coast commuters is duplication of the track to Landsborough (maybe with a turnaround function) and longer crossing loops so frequency can be improved to Nambour (not just with extra buses).  Coordination with buses at stations is important under this scenario.

Eventually, hopefully, CAMCOS will come.  The common element, and the one where planning is largely complete, involves duplication to Landsborough.  The government should get on with building it.

[#Metro]

Now, to be very generous to the government, the GFC can along and wrecked the economy.  Then there was the water crisis, with all that new infrastructure to pay for, including the cost of a phantom dam.

Financial crisis like this are actually a very good time to build infrastructure. Lots of people are out of work, so no labour shortage to drive up prices; businesses have low demand, so on both fronts, lots of competition, so they would only be too happy to build some infrastructure.

The construction of the Story Bridge at kangaroo point was a similar scheme.