Caboolture-Beerburrum duplication - why?

[Stillwater]

You can probably recall better than I can FF, but I have read somewhere that rail freight growth Bris-Cairns greater than 3% a year results in 'spill' onto the Bruce Highway.  So I just can't understand the logic.  As the freight task grows, rail freight volumes increase yet the proportion of freight moved by rail on the principal transport corridor gets smaller.  Why is that a good thing, when rail is far more efficient and safer?  What's the state's response - pour more money into the Bruce Highway than into rail. 

As passenger rail numbers increase, the only way of dealing with the problem is a road-based solution (railbus) disguised as a train.  The whole lot smashes together in a 'perfect storm' of conflict on a single track line serving the Sunshine Coast.  (And let's not forget the Sunlander and the tilts.)  Rail freight efficiencies are compromised by short passing loops and, consequently, short freight trains.  All that freight to and from North Queensland has an unnecessary cost penalty, resulting in more B-doubles on the Bruce Highway.  The freight trains are subject to a curfew north and through Brisbane, and this will get worse.  And, this situation stays frozen in time until duplication to Nambour about 2031.

Somewhere in the Inner-City Rail Capacity study it says that, as freight grows, the only way to get freight trains through Brisbane is to cut passenger services  or to make the freight trains 1500m long.  Clearly, longer passing loops are required Beerburrum-Nambour at least, yet they can't be built because it would be a waste of money to construct on current alignment.  Better they were built on the proposed new alignment.

The whole lot sits there like a pus-filled boil, yet the government continues to dither.  This government's inaction is hampering the fundamental logistics underpinning our state's economic growth.

[somebody]

I still think Beerwah or Nambour would be the most logical next extension to the duplication.  The former ties in with the planned CAMCOS branching point, and is good enough to allow a half hourly frequency to Landsborough with reasonable reliability, which is the busiest station on the line.  Also the trains are only marginally faster than the railbuses north of Landsborough.

[Arnz]

Still think a small stabling yard, just south of Beerwah (2x or 3x 6-car sets) would be useful, it would allow peak-hour Landsborough terminators (most of the pax traffic are in the Glasshouse-Beerwah-Landsborough areas with mostly Park&Ride commuter from the Coast and surrounding hinterland areas), with express buses Landsborough-Nambour connecting up with the Landsborough terminators.

It would however have to tie in with the Beerburrum-Beerwah/Landsborough re-alignment duplication

[mufreight]

I still think Beerwah or Nambour would be the most logical next extension to the duplication.  The former ties in with the planned CAMCOS branching point, and is good enough to allow a half hourly frequency to Landsborough with reasonable reliability, which is the busiest station on the line.  Also the trains are only marginally faster than the railbuses north of Landsborough.

Realignment and duplication of the Mooloolah to Eudlo stretch would speed up the trains transit times quite considerably raise the average speeds from 40kph to something in the region of 90kph for EMU/SMU/IMU/ICE sets and 70kph for freights as against 35kph at present) as would the realignment of Beerburrum to Glasshouse, these sections have the greatest number of speed restricted curves that would be eliminated by the realignment and the duplication of these sections removes the need of the QR shuffle at intermediate locations to cross passenger services.

[somebody]

I still think Beerwah or Nambour would be the most logical next extension to the duplication.  The former ties in with the planned CAMCOS branching point, and is good enough to allow a half hourly frequency to Landsborough with reasonable reliability, which is the busiest station on the line.  Also the trains are only marginally faster than the railbuses north of Landsborough.

Realignment and duplication of the Mooloolah to Eudlo stretch would speed up the trains transit times quite considerably raise the average speeds from 40kph to something in the region of 90kph for EMU/SMU/IMU/ICE sets and 70kph for freights as against 35kph at present) as would the realignment of Beerburrum to Glasshouse, these sections have the greatest number of speed restricted curves that would be eliminated by the realignment and the duplication of these sections removes the need of the QR shuffle at intermediate locations to cross passenger services.

No argument with that.

I advocate duplicating to Beerwah, as the Glasshouse - Landsborough - dwell - Landsborough - Glasshouse stretch would be very tight in 30 minutes, as would Glasshouse - Mooloolah be tight to do it in 15 minutes (bi-di 30 minute frequency).

[mufreight]

We are takling incremental improvements here, Beerburrum to Glasshouse has the worst alignment and as a cintinuation of the existing double track gives the greatest improvement in running times particulary for through services such as the tilts, the landers and freight services, the next logical stretch is Beerwah to Landsbrough which reduces the single track to a six minute section.
The same justification applies for the Eudlo to Palmwoods section then doing the Eudlo to Mooloolah section followed by Mooloolah to Landsbrough and Landsbrough to Beerwah

[somebody]

We are takling incremental improvements here, Beerburrum to Glasshouse has the worst alignment and as a cintinuation of the existing double track gives the greatest improvement in running times particulary for through services such as the tilts, the landers and freight services, the next logical stretch is Beerwah to Landsbrough which reduces the single track to a six minute section.
The same justification applies for the Eudlo to Palmwoods section then doing the Eudlo to Mooloolah section followed by Mooloolah to Landsbrough and Landsbrough to Beerwah

Interesting concept there.  Timed crosses in the short duplicated sections Landsborough-Beerwah & Eudlo-Palmowoods.

I think there are too many phases there, but it may be the only way it would get done.

[mufreight]

The only way to eat an elephant, one small bite at a time, with this project it is simply a case of which bite gets taken first.
Working with a limited annual budget a smaller crew is put on the project and kept together so that the skills and plant needed to carry out the work simply keep nibbling away, this does away with set up close down costs numerous times to get the works completed and a smaller team will require a smaller administration, preferably using all competent QR management staff rather than contractors who are profit driven.

[Fares_Fair]

You can probably recall better than I can FF, but I have read somewhere that rail freight growth Bris-Cairns greater than 3% a year results in 'spill' onto the Bruce Highway.  So I just can't understand the logic.  As the freight task grows, rail freight volumes increase yet the proportion of freight moved by rail on the principal transport corridor gets smaller.  Why is that a good thing, when rail is far more efficient and safer?  What's the state's response - pour more money into the Bruce Highway than into rail.  

As passenger rail numbers increase, the only way of dealing with the problem is a road-based solution (railbus) disguised as a train.  The whole lot smashes together in a 'perfect storm' of conflict on a single track line serving the Sunshine Coast.  (And let's not forget the Sunlander and the tilts.)  Rail freight efficiencies are compromised by short passing loops and, consequently, short freight trains.  All that freight to and from North Queensland has an unnecessary cost penalty, resulting in more B-doubles on the Bruce Highway.  The freight trains are subject to a curfew north and through Brisbane, and this will get worse.  And, this situation stays frozen in time until duplication to Nambour about 2031.

Somewhere in the Inner-City Rail Capacity study it says that, as freight grows, the only way to get freight trains through Brisbane is to cut passenger services  or to make the freight trains 1500m long.  Addition by FF (Correct SW. It also advises to spread freight movements further apart.)Clearly, longer passing loops are required Beerburrum-Nambour at least, yet they can't be built because it would be a waste of money to construct on current alignment.  Better they were built on the proposed new alignment.

The whole lot sits there like a pus-filled boil, yet the government continues to dither.  This government's inaction is hampering the fundamental logistics underpinning our state's economic growth.

That's right SW, it does result in spillage.


If freight transport growth was sustained at more
than three per cent a year, there is concern that
current NCL infrastructure may not enable rail
freight to grow at the same rate, thereby resulting
in the freight growth over three per cent a year
'spilling over' to road transport.

Source: 2007 Brisbane-Cairns Corridor Strategy, p15.

Regards,
Fares_Fair.

[Stillwater]

Thanks FF, helps for something else I'm working on.

[Stillwater]

Of course, the figures you have produced here shows that rail freight growth is occurring at more than 3% a year, and indeed, is above 4%. 

[Fares_Fair]

G'day SW,

JSYK, I noticed that the figures quoted refer to 'Non-Bulk' Freight.
Not sure why the difference but the figures are possibly different for 'Bulk' freight perhaps ?
Just have to be careful with the overall totals and maintain a correct context.

Regards,
Fares_Fair.

[Stillwater]

Thanks for the clarification.  I wonder which category a trainload of cattle falls under -- bulk freight or non-bulk freight?

[somebody]

Thanks for the clarification.  I wonder which category a trainload of cattle falls under -- bulk freight or non-bulk freight?

Fairly sure that would be non-bulk.  Bulk is more like a stone train.  Or cement.

[Fares_Fair]

Thanks for the clarification.  I wonder which category a trainload of cattle falls under -- bulk freight or non-bulk freight?

that may depend on how fat they are ...

I agree with Simon, I read somewhere recently that bulk freight means cement, coal, non-metal minerals etc.

Regards,
Fares_Fair.

[Metatron]

It is suspicious that the ALP stopped the duplication at Beerburrum after losing the seat of Glass House. 

I thank Fares Fair for the reposting of petition 1882-12, calling for the duplication. 

Just prior to the 2012 election Andrew Powell on the 25th of October, 2011 submitted a petition with 122 signatures to parliament calling for the duplication and John Connolly had an epetition sponsored by Andrew Powell with 180 signatures.

On the 30th of May this year, Peter Wellington submitted a petition with 301 signatures. 

www.parliament.qld.gov.au current e-petitions has petition 1882-12.  Please facebook and tweet this link.  We need a lot more people signing the petition. 

Attachment has a poster utilising the Bottleneck Poster and it also advertisers the petition.  Please get colleagues in Brisbane to sign.   

[mufreight]

Why did they ever duplicate to Beerburrum only?  There was no operational reason to do so.

When CityRail duplicated the remainder of the Cronulla branch in Sydney, there didn't seem to be much reason to do so either.  However, the timetable implemented within weeks of its commissioning explained all.  They were concerned about removing single seat journeys from people not taking the whole trip.  (Whether or not this is appropriate isn't my point.)  This did not occur in QLD, and it seems that there is no discernible reason for only going as far as Beerburrum.  Extend to Glass House Mountains and an hourly timetable to Landsborough could be constructed, without needing to cross.

It just seems that it never made any sense whatsoever.  Maybe I should move on.

Politics, the decision had nothing to do with operational need and provided no effective operational benefit, thye need for the duplication is more to cater for the needs of freight services that pay for and are the chief justification for the NCL rather than the passenger services.

[Stillwater]

Agreed.  Mr Newman is keen for Canberra to pay for big ticket items in Queensland, yet there is no prospect of a business case being worked up for SCL duplication based on freight operational efficiencies.  Remember, his solution for north-south transportation improvement is based around the Bruce Highway, not the North Coast Railway.  Not one rail person on the 'Bruce Highway' taskforce.  An investment in rail along the Queensland Coast, is an investment in road -- even the RACQ recognises that now and supports rail duplication to Nambour.

Did anyone watch Channel 7 news tonight?  Qld Govt report predicts Brisbane will have 720km of congested roads by 2031 and the average speed on motorways will fall from 85 km/hr now to 70 km/hr by 2031.  Channel 7 previewed a story, to be aired tomorrow night, about government plans to get more people onto public transport.  But just not from the Sunny Coast, it seems.

[somebody]

Qld Govt report predicts Brisbane will have 720km of congested roads by 2031 and the average speed on motorways will fall from 85 km/hr now to 70 km/hr by 2031.

That actually doesn't sound bad to me.  Sydney would be worse than that already.

[ozbob]

Oh no, 2031 has resurfaced ...

[SurfRail]

^ Anybody care to guess what the RACQ's solution was to the problem?

Hint: Starts with "r", but not the word we like.