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

[petey3801]

Just as an extra aside to that, every other forum I am on frowns upon users making multiple posts back to back.

[#Metro]

Just as an extra aside to that, every other forum I am on frowns upon users making multiple posts back to back.

I have never ever heard of this - which would explain why I have separate posts for things. I'm not a member of any other forum.

I can't find anything in the TOS about it either. http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=3.0

For that sort of station spacing, 160km/h is more than enough. Any higher than that and the trains won't actually make it to their top speed and in the rare instance that they do, they will not be there for very long at all (1, 2mins max).
To give you an idea of train operations:
The 160/260s have the fastest accelleration of all current QR units (700s will have slightly better accelleration with a 140km/h top speed), with their top speed of 130km/h.

These units take approx 700m to stop comfortably and approximately 1km to get to their top speed (130km/h). Those rates increase exponentially. For example, 60km/h to stop is comfortable at 150m. 80km/h to 60km/h at the same comfortable decell rate takes 150m, stopping distance approx 300m. Thats double the stopping distance for 20km/h extra speed. For something geared for 160km/h running, increase that to, say, 1km+ to stop comfortably, 1.5-2km, possibly more, to get to top speed, depending on gearing. 200km/h? Likely be looking at 3-4km to stop comfortably, 5km or more to get to top speed (educated guess). Pointless with station spacing of 10km or so. For 200km/h+, you want station spacing of 30km or better to make it worth it, getting higher as the speed gets higher.

I will have to take some time to read through this, and like I said before, I'm not a rail expert. Do you have a reference for the figures you

have quoted? Are you aware of any narrow gauge railway where trains routinely reach 200 - 250 km/hour in service (not experimental tests

and the like?). My understanding is that in Japan, for example, they have narrow gauge railways but rather than try and speed those up,

they have decided to have a separate Shinkansen network which is standard gauge. A reference here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shinkansen

The Shinkansen uses 1,435 mm (4 ft 8 1⁄2 in) standard gauge in contrast to the 1,067 mm (3 ft 6 in) narrow gauge of older lines. Continuous welded rail and swingnose crossing points are employed, eliminating gaps at turnouts and crossings. Long rails are used, joined by expansion joints to minimize gauge fluctuation due to thermal elongation and shrinkage.

Clearly the Japanese have taken a different view to yours. They must also have separate maintainence etc.

Siemens HSR leaflet

In addition to this I have done some basic looking around. http://www.siemens.com/press/pool/de/materials/industry/imo/velaro_cn_en.pdf

This is the specifications sheet for a 300 km/hour train, standard gauge. It has the braking distance at 3700 m. Now a SEQ Regional Rapid

Rail system would be 200 km/hr, 250km/hour tops as the distances don't need trains faster than that (I have shown this previously in this

thread). So why would the braking distance for a 200 km/hour train be more than 3700 m for a 300 km/hour train? Perhaps it would be less,

closer to 3km for a 200km/hour train. (I don't know - I will have to think more about this).


With an average distance of 11km between stations, to a non-expert, 200 km/hour seems reasonable. The Gold Coast line would have closer

average spacing, but there is quite a long non-stop section once the train leaves Beenleigh (we could debate about the one stop in Logan - I

think SurfRail suggested a stop in Logan earlier in this thread).

[petey3801]

Reference? My own experience of actually driving trains.

The Velaro stat would depend on whether that is a minimum braking distance (ie: Emergency braking) or regular in service braking. As I said in my comment, it was an educated guess. Could be 2km, I don't know, I haven't driven a train at that speed. Either way, a speed of 200-250km/h on your GC/SC line is, quite simply, not needed. 160km/h is plenty for those sorts of station spacing. In a perfect world, 200km/h may work, but the world is not perfect.
One example: The Thalys running between Amsterdam Schiphol Airport and Rotterdam. The high speed line starts around 1-2km after the Airport station, before that is 160km/h, HSR line finishes a couple km before Rotterdam. The HSR line is 300km/h (maybe even 320km/h) capable. However, trains very rarely bother getting up to the 300km/h in the 40-odd km distance, simply because it is not at all worth it. 250km/h is generally the drivers bother getting up to, simply because by the time you get to the top speed, you need to start braking again.

In the Gold Coast line example, 160km/h is more than enough for Beenleigh to Robina. City to Beenleigh, 160km/h is also more than enough, especially if there is a stop in there. CRR tunnel will not be fit for higher speeds, likely to be limited to 80km/h or so. W'gabba to Beenleigh via M1 is around 31km. Put a station in the middle of that, gives roughly 15km between Beenleigh and W'gabba, which is only slightly more than Beenleigh to Ormeau. To be honest, 160km/h is more than fast enough for that distance. Gives time for accelleration (160km/h would likely be geared slightly slower than the 160/260s) and allows a couple minutes of cruising time. At 160km/h max speed, you'll be looking at about 7mins for 15km. 200km/h you'll be looking at 5.5-6mins. Honestly, not worth the $$ needed to construct a straight enough alignment for 200km/h (also remember, the Gold Coast line Beenleigh - Robina was built to a 160km/h engineering standard, so for 200km/h would need to be rebuilt on a straighter alignment). Also not worth the extra electricity required to get the train from 160km/h to 200km/h, not worth the extra wear and tear of 200km/h over 160km/h.

A bit more food for thought: In the UK, it is only the long distance, intercity trains that do 125mph (200km/h). The all stations services (often with similar station spacing as you're looking at) generally have a maximum speed of 75mph (120km/h).

[Gazza]

Lapdog, its basic nettiquite not to make multiple posts in a row.
Thee are multiple unwritten 'rules' on forums, for example ITS BAD MANNER TO TYPE WITH CAPSLOCk ON, as another example.

What is physically preventing you from just having everything in one post?

[aldonius]

Results of number crunching: if you ran a 160/260 flat out (130 km/h) on LD's proposed Gold Coast route (ignoring hills and curves, which will slow everything down) and allowing 30 seconds dwell time per station, the run would take just under an hour.

[petey3801]

You've edited since I posted, and am now on the phone so I will make this short:
Regarding Japanese Shinkansen: That is a High Speed train, not a medium speed train. Also, as I pointed out with your German example (which you once again completely ignored because it does not fit with your point of view), there are a massive amount of Shinkansens running around on humdreds upon hundreds of km of track, compared to what would be a handful of trains on about 100km of track. Economies of scale.
200km/h+ is not needed between Gold Coast, Brisbane and Sunshine Coast. Too much money for too little benefit above the 160km/h standard. Same with standard gauge conversion, too much money for bugger all return.
To sum up:
- Too short a distance between stations to be worth it
- Too costly to build a 200km/h+ alignment to save 2 minutes Beebleigh to City vs 160km/h alignment
- Too costly to rebuild a perfectly good 160km/h standard track to 200km/h
- Too costly to convert a perfectly good NG track to an isolated SG system
- Too costly to purchase a small subfleet of completely isolated trains with zero interoperability/flexibility for use on current network
- Too costly to purchase all new infrastructure maintenance machines for a small, orphan, isolated network when NG systems are already in place
- Very small bang for buck when other projects of much higher value can be completed first

I'm sure there are other things that I have not mentioned, but really, it's just not a good idea, simple as that.


Edit: aldonius, does that include accel/decel time as well? A good idea of how a 200-ish km/h train would do would be to find out the a/d rates for the Pendolino used in the UK which is 200mph. 160km/h train could use much the same as the current 160/260s, possibly slightly less for gearing to the higher speed.

Edit 2: aldonius, I have it in my head that the 160/260 accel rate is 0.81m/s(2). Pretty sure that's correct, but can't be 100% without finding my original documents.

[verbatim9]

Dual guage sleepers should be the standard now in Qld for the move to standard guage later.

[aldonius]

Petey: It does indeed include acceleration and deceleration time.

The acceleration rate I calculated (based off 1000 metres to get to 130 km/h) is 0.65 m/s^2, the decleration rate (for 700 metres) is 0.93 m/s^2.

[ozbob]

As long as people stick to the terms of use I don't have any real issues, anyone can post as often they like providing not spam etc.  We are not George St and the secret state ... lol

Not everyone agrees with everyone.  Sometimes it is best to just move on.

[Old Northern Road]

I would have thought that alot of the M1 corridor is too curvy for anything much more than 100km/h and that there wouldn't be enough room for a rail line as well as the busway anyway. Correct me if I'm wrong.

If they were to build a rail line along the M1 corridor then I doubt they would bother extending the busway south of Eight Mile Plains so you would need to build stations at Springwood and Shailer Park. Would still be faster than going via the Beenleigh line however it wouldn't give you much chance of going faster than around 140km/h

[petey3801]

Dual guage sleepers should be the standard now in Qld for the move to standard guage later.

To be honest, apart from new build lines that can be built to SG loading gauge, there is no point spending the money on DG sleepers on the current NG network. Gauge conversion isn't as simple as moving one rail out to the SG width, change the rollingstock and away you go.
For example, the track centers on the current network are build for NG. There is not enough room between the tracks to put SG trains on there. Easy enough to rectify in many circumstances along the line, but will basically mean the demolition of all stations and rebuild to SG loading gauge, just to name one example. Not worth the money.

[SurfRail]

I would have thought that alot of the M1 corridor is too curvy for anything much more than 100km/h and that there wouldn't be enough room for a rail line as well as the busway anyway. Correct me if I'm wrong.

If they were to build a rail line along the M1 corridor then I doubt they would bother extending the busway south of Eight Mile Plains so you would need to build stations at Springwood and Shailer Park. Would still be faster than going via the Beenleigh line however it wouldn't give you much chance of going faster than around 140km/h

Yatala, Loganholme, Springwood, Upper Mt Gravatt, Boggo Road.  Easy. 

Busway from Greenslopes station inbound remains open as busway.

Griffith Uni needs some thought - possibly leave the station itself but alter the connecting road layout so it is a terminus.  Most of the buses from Mains Rd would either go to Garden City or end up here or at Nathan (or here via Nathan).  I suspect more use would be made of Padstow Rd and the Warrigal Rd green link to get buses into Garden City rather than Kessels Rd.

Still quite a bit faster than the Beenleigh line, offers much more capacity and enables all southside bus routes to run more frequently without massively increasing opex or fleet size.

Is somebody able to run quick numbers on likely running times assuming 140kph line speed from a station roughly proximate to the M1/rail overpass at Yatala to about Greenslopes?  Assuming it will be 80kph at best once it dives but otherwise 140kph unrestricted but for station stops.

[#Metro]

I have made some further changes to the map ---> http://tiny.cc/SEQHSR

In the concept, QR Commuter Trains could continue to Caboolture and finish there. As such the purple boundary line has been extended

to reflect this. This allows the Burpengary RRR station to be removed and increase speed further.

There is some discussion to be had about the following points.

1. A station around Aspley. Do people value future Nth busway pax having access here, or would they rather have the station deleted and
have faster travel to the SC?

2. A station around Springwood. Do people value the access to this stop and connection to SE busway here, or would they rather have the station deleted and faster travel to the GC?

3. There may be scope to include the Kippa-Ring line in this. Trains would exit Kippa Ring and then have one or two stops before reaching the Brisbane CBD. One could expect a 20 min travel time or so. Thoughts?

4. There may be scope to include Noosa also. Thoughts?

A good case has been made for narrow gauge retention in the discussion, and trains around 160 km/hour. Curve issues could be potentially handled with tilting rollingstock.

[red dragin]

Does the tilting allow higher speeds when compared to non tilting  (like a leaning motorbike vs upright) or just improve passenger comfort?

[ozbob]

Does the tilting allow higher speeds when compared to non tilting  (like a leaning motorbike vs upright) or just improve passenger comfort?

Yes it does.  Allows higher speeds on regular tracks compared to non tilting trains. Our own tilt trains in Queensland demonstrate that well.  It is related to passenger comfort, less force on passengers around curves.

This is an excellent article, albeit 2001

>> http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/single-view/view/tilt-technology-still-evolving-as-the-cost-falls.html

[red dragin]

Thanks 

I remember when the borrowed NSW tilting sets visited Brisbane many years ago. (1995 apparently)

[#Metro]

Report from BITRE

Improving regional passenger rail services
Report 137
https://bitre.gov.au/publications/2014/files/report_137_Regional_Rail.pdf

Upgrades might be better strategy than HSR

Upgrades can serve as both substitutes for and complements to high-speed railways.
As substitutes to high-speed rail, they involve smaller drain on government budgets, can
be introduced sooner, have a lower environmental impact and provide useful commercial
proving-ground for subsequent improvements, including high-speed railways, which can reduce
investment risks.

As complements to high-speed rail, it is common practice across the world for sections of
high-speed tracks to connect to upgraded railways.

Upgrades have particular appeal since the cost and funding required is usually less, delivery
time is shorter, environmental impact is lower and, overall, risk is lower. Where there is a strong
market response to an upgrade, it can underpin the case for subsequent construction of a
high-speed railway [1]

Some comments about "high speed"

In the first instance, the concept of the train's headline speed needs to be abandoned. As noted by Nash (2003, p. 37):
The name 'high-speed rail' may mislead people into thinking that high maximum speed is the objective, but
customers care about total travel time, not maximum speed.

The faster the train is the *less* time savings it makes. Diminishing returns because t=d/s

Travel time savings decline with higher base (pre-upgrade) speeds. Accelerating average
train speeds from a low base reduces total travel time by relatively more than a speed
increase of a train that is already travelling fast.

For example, for a 50 kilometre journey, a train averaging 50 km/h will take 60 minutes, but will save 10 minutes if its speed is
increased by 10 km/h. However, a train averaging 150 km/h will save just 1¼ minutes on a
50 kilometre journey when average speed is raised by 10 km/h. Thus, the speed increase from 50, to 60, km/h is more effective
in decreasing travel time than an increase from 150,
to 160, km/h.

[#Metro]

SEQ Regional Rapid Rail

Trip Time Model Results. About 1 hour to Noosa and Coolangatta. http://tiny.cc/SEQHSR

I constructed a model of travel times to the Sunshine Coast and Gold Coast.

The basic idea is that distances between stations are 'blocks'. Each block consists of three phases: accelerate, cruise, decelerate.

Times are calculated for each phase and then added together. This happens for all stations. 5 min fat added and 30 sec station

dwells.


If this system were to exist, it would be the end of $billions going to motorways on the Pacific, Bruce Hwy and possibly the Gateway.

The time savings are big for the SC (up to 40 min vs car), and slightly faster than car on the GC (assuming no congestion the whole

way). HSR proponents are barking up the wrong tree IMHO. Regional applications within a 200km 'magic circle' around cities is where

the money is at IMHO.


Imagine what the patronage would be on a service like this! It would be full around the clock. There

probably would be so much patronage, a surcharge would have to be applied on the train ticket.


Gold Coast via M1 corridor





Sunshine Coast via Bruce Hwy (approx alignment)





References - Kinematic Equations

SEQ Regional Rapid Rail http://tiny.cc/SEQHSR

http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/1DKin/Lesson-6/Kinematic-Equations
http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/how-to-calculate-time-and-distance-from-accelerati.html

Velocity-Distance-Acceleration
(V_final)^2 = (V_initial)^2 + 2(accel)(decel)

Velocity-Time-Acceleration
V_final - V_initial = accel * time

[#Metro]

SEQ Regional Rapid Rail - Model Times

(approximate, "fat free") 





Updated.

[Old Northern Road]

Your table doesn't make any sense, Kawana is south of Maroochydore

What about Alderley, Everton Park, Upper Mount Gravatt? A station at Upper Mount Gravatt would probably be used by just as many people as the entire Gold Coast line

I also don't see the logic in building an entire new line along the Bruce Hwy when the existing line is fast enough

[#Metro]

Your table doesn't make any sense, Kawana is south of Maroochydore

What about Alderley, Everton Park, Upper Mount Gravatt? A station at Upper Mount Gravatt would probably be used by just as many people as the entire Gold Coast line

I also don't see the logic in building an entire new line along the Bruce Hwy when the existing line is fast enough

Thanks for the feedback. I post it publicly so any bugs can be ironed out.


Alderly, Everton park and Upper Mt Gravatt already have rail or busway stations. Generally travel from these destinations is within people's ca.

30 min travel time budget (1 hour all day budget). So it isn't necessary at these locations. Garden City is about 20 mins or so from the CBD by

bus, so there isn't much time saved (ca. 12 minutes). Also, adding more stations slows everything down.


The busway pax would feed into the SEQ Regional Rapid Rail at Aspley and Springwood.

However, would people rather have Springwood deleted and have a station at Mt Gravatt? Are other stations non-essential?


The good thing about tilts and NG is that it would be compatible with CRR.

The model would have to change to include stops at say W'Gabba and Park Road, but that could come out of fat and perhaps dropping one

or two other stations on the line (Palm Beach?). It would also be possible to run QR rollingstock on it at 'normal speeds' before actually

ordering any tilt rollingstock.

I also don't see the logic in building an entire new line along the Bruce Hwy when the existing line is fast enough.

It is an interesting point. What I would need to know is this: Is the line between Caboolture and Beerburrum capable of taking trains at 160 km/hour? Is there capacity and would freight trains be a problem? Mixing different models of trains with different acceleration and deceleration characteristics, such as freight and rapid rail trains decreases line capacity.

If it is possible, then the line would only need to be built new along the Trouts Rd corridor, and from say Beerburrum through to the Sunshine
Coast. It would be a construction saving.

[Old Northern Road]

Everton Park has no train station, you would also need a station at McDowall (either Rode Rd or Hamilton Rd). Alderley is needed for interchange with the Ferny Grove line. On the south side I would have stations at Upper Mount Gravatt, Springwood and Shailer Park.

Having only express trains to the Gold and Sunshine Coasts using CRR would be wasteful.

[HappyTrainGuy]

Everton Park has no train station, you would also need a station at McDowall (either Rode Rd or Hamilton Rd). Alderley is needed for interchange with the Ferny Grove line. On the south side I would have stations at Upper Mount Gravatt, Springwood and Shailer Park.

Having only express trains to the Gold and Sunshine Coasts using CRR would be wasteful.

Hamilton over Rode road. Maybe somewhere in the middle for ease of access and a slightly larger spacing to Aspley given its still a mile away from the current interchange (More like Bridgeman Downs ).

[#Metro]

Everton Park has no train station, you would also need a station at McDowall (either Rode Rd or Hamilton Rd). Alderley is needed for interchange with the Ferny Grove line. On the south side I would have stations at Upper Mount Gravatt, Springwood and Shailer Park.

Everybody wants an express train from their station. Or the train to stop near them. More stops degrade service.

There is no train station within Everton Park proper, however there is rail access at Mitchelton and Enoggera. There is also the 369 bus that RBOT lobbied for and actually go installed along Stafford Road.

I would be interested in what people think about Springwood vs Garden City. One or the other, not both. Springwood has lots of industrial land around it which could be rezoned to CBD like and land tax used to fund the project. Garden city will be harder to do that, but it is an excellent interchange however...

Having only express trains to the Gold and Sunshine Coasts using CRR would be wasteful.

More stations means slower services, negating the benefits of higher speed. Brisbane residents already have the benefit of living closer to the CBD, SC and GC residents do not. It is going to be a challenge not to add any more stations than are absolutely necessary. The temptation is massive...

Faster trains are efficient because they reduce both the number of trains that need to be bought (for a given frequency) and reduce labour costs of operation, plus you avoid the cost of constructing a station. Although the train top speed is 160 km/hour, due to all of the accelerating, stopping, dwelling etc, the average speed is around 120 km/hour.

I don't know how wide the Trouts Rd corridor is, but DTMR wants to put a motorway in it (long term concept plans to put a motorway tunnel under Stafford Rd also). Train has 10x motorway lane capacity AND would go 60km/hour faster than the fastest cars on the motorway, so it is a winner hands down.

If there were space to fit more than just two SEQ RRR tracks, I would put in a 2-lane road (1-lane in each dir) and run a bus along it, feeding that into Enoggera Rail Station from Aspley or similar. It's not sexy, but at 9km or so, it is a good feeder bus length.

[Gazza]

Just have passing loops at intermediate stations like Everton Park etc, as is done on other  similar operations overseas.

Basically, its an identical arrangement to how a busway station works. Non stoppers run down the middle, while all stop trains pull off to the side.

[#Metro]

Transit wash. Public and active transport used as deodorant for a roads project.

Elimination separates purpose from benefit. If the motorway catered to PT and cycling, but not cars, it would be non-functional as a motorway.
If the motorway only catered to cars, and not anything else, it would still function as a motorway.

The purpose of this DTMR concept project is thus to move cars.

As determined by the Western Brisbane Transport Network Investigation, the North West Transport Corridor is a key part of the network strategy, and would provide significant benefits to the transport network if developed.

The North West Motorway would run along the preserved North West Transport Corridor connecting into the Stafford Road Tunnel and Inner Orbital tunnel.

The Motorway would allow greater public transport and active transport opportunities by providing bus priority and a high-quality cycleway along the corridor.

http://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/Community-and-environment/Planning-for-the-future/Planned-transport-corridors/North-West-Transport-Corridor.aspx

Google Earth says the corridor is about 53 meters wide. A two track rail corridor seems to be around 8.5m wide. You could probably fit in 4 tracks
if you wanted to. One pair could be standard QR services branching from the FG line. Or a busway feeding into Enoggera.

After all, I have not heard about a 2 lane motorway.

[aldonius]

Regarding Trouts, something we don't often think about is just how hilly it all is. As for station locations between Alderley and Strathpine:

• Everton Park: north side of Stafford Rd
• McDowall: north side of Rode Rd. Remember, Hamilton Rd has forest on its north side
• on Albany Ck Rd (unsure as to station naming)
• maybe Linkfield Rd (also unsure as to station naming)

[Gazza]

Regarding Corridor width, zoom in on Murdoch station.
In a space of  exactly 52m they fit 6 freeway lanes,two emergency lanes, 2 tracks, 9m wide island platforms.
If you go further south to a more typical cross section, its 42m.

[HappyTrainGuy]

Regarding Trouts, something we don't often think about is just how hilly it all is. As for station locations between Alderley and Strathpine:

• Everton Park: north side of Stafford Rd
• McDowall: north side of Rode Rd. Remember, Hamilton Rd has forest on its north side
• on Albany Ck Rd (unsure as to station naming)
• maybe Linkfield Rd (also unsure as to station naming)

Its flat as a pancake

Cut and cover would be the best option. That way you can get some elevation up and over Albany Creek Road along with potentially building on top.

[Arnz]

Your table doesn't make any sense, Kawana is south of Maroochydore

What about Alderley, Everton Park, Upper Mount Gravatt? A station at Upper Mount Gravatt would probably be used by just as many people as the entire Gold Coast line

I also don't see the logic in building an entire new line along the Bruce Hwy when the existing line is fast enough

The NCL between Northgate and Caboolture varies between 80km/h to 100km/h for much of the alignment, the only sections of the NCL in SEQ that are above 100km/h is the Caboolture-Beerburrum section (at 140km/h for MUs and 160km/h for Tilts) and the straight single track section just after the turn north of Glasshouse Mtns and Landsborough (at 120km/h for MUs and 140km/h for Tilts). 

Then theres the Beerburrum-Glasshouse Mtns section which has 60km/h curves here and there on single track and won't be suitable for any sort of Intercity fast rail rollingstock.

Building a Intercity Rapid Rail alongside the Bruce Highway at least allows up to 160km/h for most of the way at best.  Cars stuck in traffic during peak times while watching a train go past at 160km/h-180km/h alongside the traffic would be a decent sight to see.

[#Metro]

Regarding Corridor width, zoom in on Murdoch station.
In a space of  exactly 52m they fit 6 freeway lanes,two emergency lanes, 2 tracks, 9m wide island platforms.
If you go further south to a more typical cross section, its 42m.

Great info. Thanks. Thus a regular QR line could go in with separate tracks to SEQ RRR alongside, or a busway option feeding into Enoggera.

Cut and cover would be the best option. That way you can get some elevation up and over Albany Creek Road along with potentially building on top.

What about elevated skyrail like the Airtrain line? Space underneath could be used for bikes etc. How would that compare cost wise to cut and cover?

The NCL between Northgate and Caboolture varies between 80km/h to 100km/h for much of the alignment, the only sections of the NCL in SEQ that are above 100km/h is the Caboolture-Beerburrum section (at 140km/h for MUs and 160km/h for Tilts) and the straight single track section just after the turn north of Glasshouse Mtns and Landsborough (at 120km/h for MUs and 140km/h for Tilts). 

Then theres the Beerburrum-Glasshouse Mtns section which has 60km/h curves here and there on single track and won't be suitable for any sort of Intercity fast rail rollingstock.

Building a Intercity Rapid Rail alongside the Bruce Highway at least allows up to 160km/h for most of the way at best.  Cars stuck in traffic during peak times while watching a train go past at 160km/h-180km/h alongside the traffic would be a decent sight to see.

Thanks for the useful info! The line would need to be built to 176 km/hour (basically 180 km/hr) as QR leaves some wiggle room for emergencies.

[HappyTrainGuy]

What about elevated skyrail like the Airtrain line? Space underneath could be used for bikes etc. How would that compare cost wise to cut and cover?

Not ideal due to the rise and falls and connections at Alderley/Carseldine/Bald Hills. Since alderley is going to be a tunnel (Kedroon brook is a flood plain remember so you wanna start diving before everton paek) best to cut and cover along with using the same infill along the line and then raise the line over albany creek road. That way you can then cut and cover past houses/Graham Road before leveling out heading towards Bald Hills (Graham Road-Beams road has a ~10m elevation difference with the beams road end being another flood plain by the time you get halfway to Bunnings).

[Old Northern Road]

More stations means slower services, negating the benefits of higher speed. Brisbane residents already have the benefit of living closer to the CBD, SC and GC residents do not. It is going to be a challenge not to add any more stations than are absolutely necessary. The temptation is massive...

People who choose to live 100km from where they work shouldn't expect the same commute times as those who live 10-20km from where they work. The north-west suburbs are some of the most poorly served in the city and stations at Everton Park and McDowell with good feeder buses would be the best way to fix that.

The point of CRR is to reduce congestion on the existing lines. Simply running Sunshine Coast and Gold Coast trains through the tunnel is going to do very little to help that

[#Metro]

People who choose to live 100km from where they work shouldn't expect the same commute times as those who live 10-20km from where they work. The north-west suburbs are some of the most poorly served in the city and stations at Everton Park and McDowell with good feeder buses would be the best way to fix that.

Thanks for the comment.

Yes, but put the shoe on the other foot. If someone moves to an area with no rail, should they expect a rail station?

Much of the problem in this area is due to poor bus network design. There isn't any good reason as to why frequent services could not be put on in these areas and feed into Brookside/Mitchelton.

If there are to be local stations in this corridor, SEQ RRR should be separate from that. Local services should have their own track feeding into the FG line. Or busway could go along it.

The point of CRR is to reduce congestion on the existing lines. Simply running Sunshine Coast and Gold Coast trains through the tunnel is going to do very little to help that

The map will be updated to reflect the fact that use of CRR will require stopping at a CBD station (Albert St), Wooloongabba and Park Road. These extra stations which must be stopped at will probably mean that adding new stations is going to be limited.

[Gazza]

LD, im not sure why im getting this sense that you are resentful of passengers.
Here I was thinking that the goal of Public transport was to provide an attractive service to encourage people out of their cars.

Yes, but put the shoe on the other foot. If someone moves to an area with no rail, should they expect a rail station?

But there's no rail along the Sunshine Coast corridor, where you are proposing your fast line is there? so the difference is 

Again, I  thought RBoT advocated for rail, where it makes logical sense to do so,
Whilst this doesn't mean a train station on every corner, I think most on here would agree that trying to get most of the population within a few ks access to some sort of class A service is a worthy long term goal.

Or busway could go along it.

Why does SEQ need more busways? They aren't really any cheaper to build or operate than a proper railway.

Much of the problem in this area is due to poor bus network design. There isn't any good reason as to why frequent services could not be put on in these areas and feed into Brookside/Mitchelton.

It should be done as per the new network proposal right now, but it's still the 2nd best solution for the long term, and isn't the final goal.

Basically, if someone lives at Albany creek, its still a  a 9km slog on a feeder bus to Mitchelton, and then an all stops train to the city. Better frequency and span do a bit to shift mode share, but there's a limit, and if you want to take things to the next level, this is where having stations at each of the E-W arterials on the northside would be a huge sucess (Alodunis has it basically spot on where you put the stations)

Suddenly instead of a 9km feeder bus ride, its a 4.5km feeder bus ride, and onto then a train travelling at a decent clip, compared to the 60km/h speed limit on Old Northern Rd.

And HTGs dream comes true. The northside gets re-arranged into having east west routes that intersect with the trouts rd line, the northern busway (or metro maybe), the caboolture line, and finally the the shorncliffe line.
And of course, you have the north south bus routes like the 345, 325, and then its a true frequent grid.

I notice you don't really acknowlege it when i say that you'd just have intermediate stations on passing loops. This arrangement is used extensively overseas where you have express and all stops trains sharing a line.
Basically, it works like central where you have bifuricated platforms.

On approach to the station, the track forks in two around an island platform. The express trains run straight through. The all stop trains run through points and stop at the station, then accelerate away and merge back onto the main line.

This is clearly the most logical solution for any fast line in SEQ, because it allows you to maximise the use of track capacity, and means high quality transport is available to the greatest number of people, no matter if you are a intercity traveller wanting a non stop run, or a local living in the brisbane proper that would find a quick rail service with stops only every 4km or so very attractive.

[#Metro]

LD, im not sure why im getting this sense that you are resentful of passengers.
Here I was thinking that the goal of Public transport was to provide an attractive service to encourage people out of their cars.

ONR's point was that long distance passengers should not expect a fast trip to the city because
they have voluntarily chosen to live that far.

I was merely pointing out that this voluntary choice argument also applies to areas which don't have rail.
People know when they move to an area if there is or isn't a rail station there.

I am not necessarily arguing that there should or should not be a station based on the above argument.
All I am saying is that the voluntary choice argument isn't so great.

The Sunshine Coast does have rail stations - but they are really far and with slow, windy and single track.
It is terrible. Current proposals are to upgrade it from 'terrible' to 'bad' (IMHO). Even with upgrades, the line will still be
slow and uncompetitive with car. And then more money will go into the Bruce Hwy for upgrades due to congestion.

If a new line is built, it should be fit for purpose, and fast, preferably faster than what cars can do. Hence SEQ Regional Rapid Rail, with very limited stops.

Basically, if someone lives at Albany creek, its still a  a 9km slog on a feeder bus to Mitchelton, and then an all stops train to the city.

The Ferny Grove line is an excellent rail line. It is not a suffering to ride it and is takes about 30 min to get to Ferny Grove - stations before that would be less. The Albany Creek example is not correct. Pax there could take a feeder bus (unnamed bus line 8 on map), drive 4.5km to Aspley and change to a SEQ Regional Rapid Rail there.

If the Northern busway were to be converted to feeder and transfer mode, or converted to a metro, it would be possible to have a grid arrangement with or without rail along trouts road. From McDowall, it would be about 4.5km or so to the Nth Busway alignment or 4km to Enoggera Interchange - about a 8 min bus trip in both cases.

I would be interested to hear what the thoughts of SC passengers were (Fares_Fare etc) about this.

I notice you don't really acknowlege it when i say that you'd just have intermediate stations on passing loops. This arrangement is used extensively overseas where you have express and all stops trains sharing a line.
Basically, it works like central where you have bifuricated platforms.

On approach to the station, the track forks in two around an island platform. The express trains run straight through. The all stop trains run through points and stop at the station, then accelerate away and merge back onto the main line.

Well, I don't know a lot about this arrangement. Do you have an example where a train 160 km or higher is in this arrangement?
Would it reduce line capacity, particularly if local trains do 130 km/hr max but RRR trains do 160 km from Aspley - Roma St? During peak hour RRR trains would be running every 10 minutes or so.

[Gazza]

Well, I don't know a lot about this arrangement.

Well I do

Do you have an example where a train 160 km or higher is in this arrangement?
Would it reduce line capacity, particularly if local trains do 130 km/hr max but RRR trains do 160 km from Aspley - Roma St? During peak hour RRR trains would be running every 10 minutes or so.

They even use it on the TGV, so it can do the job.
https://www.google.com.au/maps/place/Futuroscope/@46.670577,0.3780291,314m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x47fda33c42dc2de3:0x6676320a3d792873

he Ferny Grove line is an excellent rail line. It is not a suffering to ride it and is takes about 30 min to get to Ferny Grove - stations before that would be less. The Albany Creek example is not correct. Pax there could take a feeder bus (unnamed bus line 8 on map), drive 4.5km to Aspley and change to a SEQ Regional Rapid Rail there.

No but what I'm saying is that a shorter feeder bus ride and a faster train will attract more passengers than a longer feeder bus and a slower train.
That's why in Perth the modern fast lines attract more pax than the slower old ones.

In march
Mandurah 1.8mil
Joondalup 1.5mil
Midland 0.5mil
Armadale 0.7mil
Freo 0.7mil

[HappyTrainGuy]

And HTGs dream comes true. The northside gets re-arranged into having east west routes that intersect with the trouts rd line, the northern busway (or metro maybe), the caboolture line, and finally the the shorncliffe line.
And of course, you have the north south bus routes like the 345, 325, and then its a true frequent grid.

I'd be so soooo happy

[#Metro]

HTG, ONR, I go do some more work and get back to you  

[#Metro]

More information to come later

Timetable Model - Trouts Rd Corridor
http://tiny.cc/SEQHSR

Usual QR trains and SEQ RRR trains modelled. Some of the acceleration times are rather quick - 27 seconds in one example.
Not sure how practical that is. Estimated 11 minute trip to Aspley from Roma Street on Trouts Rd Local line.

Beats the car hands down. It is PT like this that is needed - so fast that car has no chance!!



Assumptions

SEQ RRR
Accel 0.69 m/s2
Decel 0.8 m/s2
Top Speed 160 km/hr

QR Local Trains
Accel 0.8 m/s2
Decel 0.8 m/s2
Top Speed 130 km/hr

Update: Small adjustment applied to 160 km/hr case for Trouts Rd Local to take into account the slower acceleration of a high speed train.