Gold & Sunshine Coast Regional Rapid Rail (formerly HSR thread)

[#Metro]

Note: This thread name changed on 04 April 2016 from HSR to MSR
Note: This thread name changed on 13 April 2016 from to Regional Rapid Rail

FOAM WARNING


I am getting fed up listening to calls for a SECOND Pacific Motorway because Pacific Motorway #1 is "full".

Then there is National HSR, just so business travellers can get around. Planes travel 2x the speed of HSR.

So let's combine two bad ideas and see if we can get something half-useful out of it.

High-Speed Rail to the Gold and Sunshine Coasts.

HSR to the Gold Coast would take just 30 minutes, halving the time to the Gold Coast. GC stations would be converted to HSR stations.

An alignment into the CBD would have to be determined, but given the Pacific Motorway is so wide, we should look at making a median

out of that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E1_Series_Shinkansen

Capacity E1 Shinkansen 1,235
Speed 240 km/h

[SurfRail]

The commentary I have read from other leads me to conclude the best HSR stop for the Gold Coast is probably at Helensvale, as part of an east coast HSR.

You should be able to achieve a journey time closer to 20 minutes assuming the alignment is good all the way to Brisbane.

Absolutely no way would you touch the existing line or compromise the HSR by stopping more than once.

[Arnz]

SC Alignment should be up Trouts Road, BUT join up to the Bruce Highway around Carseldine then place track directly next to the Bruce Highway all the way up to the CAMCOS junction on the Bruce Highway before following the CAMCOS alignment into Caloundra.  Only stop should be the Caboolture turn-off, though there is the option of the North Lakes turnoff stop. 

Train should stop no-more than 2 times maximum on the way North.

[red dragin]

Whilst we are foaming away with this.

Stops:
Sunshine Coast Airport
Somewhere just west of Mooloolaba (replace sunny coast services)
Brisbane CBD
Helensvale (replace gold coast services)
Gold Coast airport

[SurfRail]

^ It wouldn't replace the existing lines - certainly not if this was built on a cost recovery basis with proper fares.

[#Metro]

This is the other thing with the CRR study. I just wonder if we should just build two deck solution, but have the top deck as HSR to the Gold Coast and the bottom deck as metro.

Beenleigh services could use the existing Merivale Bridge crossing, with two-patterns - express and inner local all stops serving the line.

[SurfRail]

Short answer - that's probably not going to be cost effective.

For an HSR, the engineering tolerances are going to be much, much stricter, especially if we have a rubber tyred metro with high gradients.  Building a metro to the same tolerances will severely restrict what you can do with it.

There is really only so much scope for building combination tunnels like this.  The tunnel proposed for BaT, as it emerged, would not have been able to accommodate rail or even a rubber tyred metro on the bus deck, so up your costs again.

I also think its debatable whether a single tunnel with a wider bore is more cost effective than a series of single track tunnels.  There is considerably more spoil and other issues to deal with, and the alignment is going to be more difficult to manage given the dimensions.  there are some advantages of course.

[#Metro]

For an HSR, the engineering tolerances are going to be much, much stricter, especially if we have a rubber tyred metro with high gradients.  Building a metro to the same tolerances will severely restrict what you can do with it.

A rubber tyred metro can travel along low, medium or high gradients. It will not be a problem.

More of an issue is a gradient for the HSR train and the tunnel itself. That would have to be dug rather deep and have a shallow

gradient, but I would be surprised if it would be more than what existing QR trains can achieve already.

The tunnel proposed for BaT, as it emerged, would not have been able to accommodate rail or even a rubber tyred metro on the bus deck, so up your costs again.

We are not talking about the BaT tunnel. A double deck combined tunnel could be built with a different design/specifications to BaT.

Precedents for double deck Rail/Rail tunnels do exist. So it can be done.

I also think its debatable whether a single tunnel with a wider bore is more cost effective than a series of single track tunnels.  There is considerably more spoil and other issues to deal with, and the alignment is going to be more difficult to manage given the dimensions.  there are some advantages of course.

Agreed. And technology is evolving all the time as well. Hence a proper study is required. The original Wilbur Smith Plan 1965/1970 was just going to put a hole in KP cliffs and send a bridge over the Botanical Gardens.

[Gazza]

I'm inclined to say combining the two wouldn't be easy, because of HSRs larger loading gauge, and because a HSR terminal station in Brisbane would be a whole different animal design wise to a CRR station box.

[#Metro]

I'm inclined to say combining the two wouldn't be easy, because of HSRs larger loading gauge, and because a HSR terminal station in Brisbane would be a whole different animal design wise to a CRR station box.

How would the station box be different?

[aldonius]

HSR is long distance; think 10 minute dwell times at a minimum. This possibly means more than two platforms.

The trains themselves might be longer. (If we're building CRR for 9-car units this probably won't be an issue, but given the NGR is unitary 6-car I won't predict one way or another).

Luggage means platforms might need to be wider, more lifts, etc.

[Fares_Fair]

I'm drowning in all of the foam here... lol 

Seems so Pie in the Sky to me, given the current fiscal circumstances.
"As you were..."

[#Metro]

I'm drowning in all of the foam here... lol 

Seems so Pie in the Sky to me, given the current fiscal circumstances.

Yes, that is why it is being discussed in the foam section. 

I think you'd have a different view if HSR got up to the Sunshine Coast. Or even something faster than what we have currently, that isn't HSR.

[Fares_Fair]

Fair call LD   
It's like a bubble bath in here 

[SurfRail]

HSR is long distance; think 10 minute dwell times at a minimum. This possibly means more than two platforms.

The trains themselves might be longer. (If we're building CRR for 9-car units this probably won't be an issue, but given the NGR is unitary 6-car I won't predict one way or another).

Luggage means platforms might need to be wider, more lifts, etc.

As far as I'm aware the NGR sets can be extended to 9 car length, it would just require additional cars to be built and added in rather than a simple remarshalling exercise.

[Fares_Fair]

I'm drowning in all of the foam here... lol 

Seems so Pie in the Sky to me, given the current fiscal circumstances.

Yes, that is why it is being discussed in the foam section. 

I think you'd have a different view if HSR got up to the Sunshine Coast. Or even something faster than what we have currently, that isn't HSR.

It has only ever been discussed at Gov't level (if you could even call it that) to go as far north as the Gold Coast

[#Metro]

Fair call LD

If anyone EVER want's to talk about HSR, direct them to HSR for the Gold Coast and Sunshine Coasts. Part of the sexiness of HSR

is that it is 'out there' in the never-never 'future', where we don't get too close to practical aspects. Suggesting along an alignment

that might be useful and a bit too close to home, will make it a bit more uncomfortable for proponents.


A HSR (or even MSR) proposal for the Gold and Sunshine Coasts would have guaranteed patronage, and take all the pax that are

currently being carried (a few million each year) and then some more.

[SurfRail]

^ I doubt it honestly.  There are plenty of people who are going to be happy to remain on the existing line because an HSR isn't going to run with TransLink fares or stop anywhere near frequently enough to suit them.

It would certainly add a new market and make rail on the whole a better proposition, but I can't see people willing to pay 4-5 times the current fare just for a 20 minute trip.  I fully expect I wouldn't, at least not most of the time.

[#Metro]

^ I doubt it honestly.  There are plenty of people who are going to be happy to remain on the existing line because an HSR isn't going to run with TransLink fares or stop anywhere near frequently enough to suit them.

I am proposing it be part of the TL network, with TL fares.

Queensland Government subsidises aircraft and tilt trains. No reason why it couldn't pay TL subsidies for faster rail to the GC. Closer stops on the GC might be a problem.

Medium speed trains might be worth looking at too.

[SurfRail]

Wasn't quite sure just how foamy we wanted to get, was all.

[Fares_Fair]

^ bubble bath mode..

[aldonius]

As far as I'm aware the NGR sets can be extended to 9 car length, it would just require additional cars to be built and added in rather than a simple remarshalling exercise.

Oh good!


SEQ shouldn't be building HSR outside of the context of the eastern-seaboard network. What we do need is medium speed rail, with average speed approaching 100km/h. For context, Beenleigh to Varsity Lakes is 49 km in 32 minutes - 91 km/h average; Central to Beenleigh is 40 km in 51 minutes - 40 km/h average.

If a Beenleigh to Central express service travelled at 90 km/h average journey speed, it would take 27 minutes at the current distance. SurfRail and the other Coast commuters would save about 11,000 minutes every year. That's more than seven days. A better alignment means a shorter distance, too.

Then there's the Sunshine Coast line. City-CRR to Strathpine via Trouts Rd is 20 km on a very straight alignment. An express service should be able to do it in 18 minutes, hitting Caboolture in under 40. This is only half the Gold Coast time savings, but we already have the alignment preserved... besides, the main SC line time savings are to be found north of Beerburrum.

[#Metro]

SEQ shouldn't be building HSR outside of the context of the eastern-seaboard network. What we do need is medium speed rail, with average speed approaching 100km/h. For context, Beenleigh to Varsity Lakes is 49 km in 32 minutes - 91 km/h average; Central to Beenleigh is 40 km in 51 minutes - 40 km/h average.

There are non-HSR lines in Europe that do 200 km/hour as part of normal, daily operations. They are non-HSR.

PT in general is about twice as slow as by direct car. The solution? Make PT twice as fast.

Something going to the GC needs to be at least 200km/hour from Brisbane to Beenleigh.

Have a look:

"Top speed 205 km/hour" 20 minute journey.

[#Metro]

Look at the track, it doesn't seem to be particularly fancy:

[#Metro]

And when it pulls into the city, it runs over normal track. There isn't a special, separate station for it with fancy features.

It has its own platform, which is a bit higher than for other trains, but that is all.

[#Metro]

And it isn't just that train either. Other trains routinely travel at 200 km/hour around Europe.

The SJ High Speed Train: the perfect tilt in Sweden.
The SJ is a tilting high speed train, traveling at speeds of up to 125 mph on all major routes. You can take it internationally from Copenhagen, Denmark, to the Swedish capital of Stockholm, from Copenhagen to Malmö or from Stockholm to Oslo, Norway: three fabulous examples of a more global experience. Of course, you can also enjoy it exclusively within Sweden traveling from Stockholm to Malmö, or for carefree trekking to Göteborg and Sundsvall, as well as other scenic spots in the hinterlands.

Seats are available in First and Second Class, in addition to offering a First Class Premium Service with extra amenities like a warm meal, beverages, and more personal service. All travelers will find access to power outlets, WiFi, and a bar car offering hot and cold dishes, sandwiches, beer, 
wine, coffee and cakes. There's even an on-board gift shop offering chocolate, games, perfumes and more. With all these on-board comforts, you'd never imagine trains in Sweden are also made to let you indulge in the magnificent nature passing outside: pristine mountain views and alpine fields impossible to appreciate from airplanes or the burdens of the driver's seat.

Like a lot of things here, Sweden's high speed rail is made of many interconnected parts. It seems the only connection waiting to be made is you.

https://www.raileurope.com/european-trains/sj-high-speed-train/how-to-book.html?

Regular commuter trains (i.e. EU equivalent of Brisbane to GC, or SC) can reach speeds of 160 km/hour:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:X60_train_ride_Rosersberg_-_Upplands_V%C3%A4sby.webm (couldn't embed this)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SL_X60

[Gazza]

So was this thread about high speed rail or medium speed rail?

[#Metro]

Gazza, your question is a bit like asking what temperature water needs to be, to be considered "hot", rather than "warm".

"We have deliberately used the word "definition" in the plural because there is no single standard definition of high speed rail (nor even a standard usage of the term: sometimes it is called "high speed" and sometimes "very high speed"). The definitions vary according to the criteria used since high speed rail corresponds to a complex reality."

However, there is some guidance from the International Union of Railways. http://www.uic.org/highspeed

which I just looked up now:

THE HIGHSPEED DEFINITION OF THE EUROPEAN UNION
DIRECTIVE 96/48/EC APPENDIX 1

1. Infrastructure

a) The infrastructure of the trans-European High Speed system shall be that on the trans- European transport network identified in Article 129C of the Treaty:

those built specially for High Speed travel,
those specially upgraded for High Speed travel. They may include connecting lines, in particular junctions of new lines upgraded for High Speed with town centre stations located on them, on which speeds must take account of local conditions.
b) High Speed lines shall comprise:

Specially built High Speed lines equipped for speeds generally equal to or greater than 250 km/h,
Specially upgraded High Speed lines equipped for speeds of the order of 200 km/h,
Specially upgraded High Speed lines which have special features as a result of topographical, relief or town-planning constraints, on which the speed must be adapted to each case.
2. Rolling stock

The High Speed advanced-technology trains shall be designed in such a way as to guarantee safe, uninterrupted travel:

at a speed of at least 250 km/h on lines specially built for High Speed, while enabling speeds of over 300 km/h to be reached in appropriate circumstances,
at a speed of the order of 200 km/h on existing lines which have been or are specially upgraded,
at the highest possible speed on other lines.

A train going at 200 km/hour could qualify as both MSR or HSR.  :conf

So, the Swedish Arlanda Express, which reaches 205 km/hr could be considered MSR or HSR.

[#Metro]

(UIC, and interesting organisation in itself. Australia is only an 'Affiliate' member, how sad!!)

UIC, THE WORLDWIDE HIGH PROFILE ORGANISATION
UIC MISSION, OBJECTIVES, CHALLENGES

http://www.uic.org/about

[verbatim9]

I'm inclined to say combining the two wouldn't be easy, because of HSRs larger loading gauge, and because a HSR terminal station in Brisbane would be a whole different animal design wise to a CRR station box.

When they build CRR its should be built in mind of HSR. Dual guage sleepers and provisions at The New Roma Street station Transit/Retail precinct to allow the train to terminate.

[#Metro]

When they build CRR its should be built in mind of HSR.

Agree. Railways are very long term investments. Central station opened 18 August 1889.

At the time standard railway gauge wasn't agreed on. Systems were separate then.

Well, they're not now...

[Gazza]

There's always overlap, but I think of HSR as being 250-300 km/h plus.....The top tier basically, Eg Shinkansen, TGV, Ave, TAV, ICE, Eurostar

As for building CRR with HSR in mind, I'd say no, because to get the full benefit, it needs to be on segregated tracks.

CRR will be full enough in peak with the various lines it is meant to carry.

I think we can definitely do MSR in SEQ, using titling sets, and with infrastructure like the trouts rd line. Stations would have passing loops to allow a fast run for most of the way.


TL&DR

HSR : fully segregated
MSR: could share with the current network

[#Metro]

A question in my mind is whether 200 km/hour is achievable with narrow gauge.

The Tilt Trains only go at 160 km/hour https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tilt_Train

which is the same as the V/Locity in Victoria. However, the track is not good for such speeds and there has been derailments

of the tilt train also. It would truly be a disaster if it were a packed GC commuter train. When I went on the QR Tilt train up north, the

speed was terrible, it went no faster than QR CityTrain really. I took a plane back...

Then there is the alignment issue also. Clem 7 is in the way if we send it up the SE Freeway.

[#Metro]

Interestingly, Japan also has narrow gauge. HSR on separate network.

History[edit]

A JNR map from the October 1964 English-language timetable, showing the then-new Tokaido Shinkansen line (in red) and conventional lines

A 0 series set in Tokyo, May 1967
Japan was the first country to build dedicated railway lines for high-speed travel. Because of the mountainous terrain, the existing network consisted of 1,067 mm (3 ft 6 in) narrow-gauge lines, which generally took indirect routes and could not be adapted to higher speeds. Consequently, Japan had a greater need for new high-speed lines than countries where the existing standard gauge or broad gauge rail system had more upgrade potential.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shinkansen

[verbatim9]

Doesnt mean we need to The more standard guage the better I reckon. SA is doing it.

[aldonius]

So was this thread about high speed rail or medium speed rail?

If GC QR stations are being converted to 'HSR' stations, the station spacing means it's effectively MSR. Which is entirely appropriate for SEQ!

There are non-HSR lines in Europe that do 200 km/hour as part of normal, daily operations. They are non-HSR.

I'm talking average journey speed - total time divided by track distance.

There are diminishing returns to increasing track speed, and station spacing is the dominant factor. A train takes significant time and distance to accelerate and decelerate - and then there's dwell time. Once the combined distance taken is half the station spacing, there's little point in raising track speeds further.

(There's a hard limit too, if the stations are too close together the train can't even get up to top speed before it needs to slow down again).

However, for a train with an SMU acceleration profile, 200 km/h track speed is about optimal for stations at about an 8 km average (which is the Gold Coast spacing.

[#Metro]

Doesnt mean we need to The more standard guage the better I reckon. SA is doing it.

Is the SC line SG? I guess it being a national line it would need to be SG, or am I wrong on that point?

If GC QR stations are being converted to 'HSR' stations, the station spacing means it's effectively MSR. Which is entirely appropriate for SEQ!

The section Beenleigh - Brisbane CBD could be higher speed.

Also, scope for minor speed increases on existing GC stations. The distance between Helensvale and Nerang stations is about 8 km.

Train could get up a good speed between those stations, and others.

[aldonius]

The section Beenleigh - Brisbane CBD could be higher speed.

And how! As I wrote earlier, getting that section's speed up to the level of the Coast line proper would save commuters 11,000 minutes a year.

[#Metro]

And how!

One idea was to place it into the motorway alignment. Well, if they are going to build a whole new parallel motorway, this might be cheaper and have more capacity than that... 

[aldonius]

The parallel road is initially just from Coomera-ish to Cornubia-ish, so that there's a parallel route with reasonable capacity. If it continued via Mt Cotton it could get to the Gateway fairly easily at Mackenzie. And there's an obvious extension south to Helensvale.