Queensland UTC +10
Terms of use Privacy About us Media Contact

Links

Author Topic: Regional Rapid Rail link discussion  (Read 7690 times)

Offline ozbob

  • Administrator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 80193
    • RAIL Back On Track
Regional Rapid Rail link discussion
« on: August 21, 2016, 08:43:22 AM »
Sent to all outlets:

21st August 2016

Gold Coast - Regional Rapid Rail link?

Greetings,

The LNP seem to have no transport policies whatsoever. The ALP also leaves much to be desired. Here's a concept that both sides could consider.

Rapid Rail for the Gold Coast Region will require a new rail link between Brisbane and Beenleigh.  The existing Gold Coast railway line south of Beenleigh is already of the equivalency of a regional rapid rail link.

* A 16 kilometre elevated rapid rail line parallel to the M1 Pacific Motorway.
* Dedicated 160 km/hr or faster trains to the Gold Coast.
* Capacity for 18,000 passengers/hour, equal to nine extra lanes on the M1 Pacific Motorway.
* Fully compatible with Cross River Rail and wider rail network.
* New station at Garden City Mt Gravatt.
* Faster travel times** to the Gold Coast, Brisbane Airport and Logan
 - Garden City - 17 minutes
 - Beenleigh - 27 minutes
 - Helensvale - 42 minutes
 - Robina - 52 minutes
 - Coolangatta Airport - 64 minutes***

Gold Coast Regional Rapid Rail will provide expanded M1 Pacific Motorway capacity by using high-speed trains along a new alignment into the Brisbane CBD.

Traditional road lane expansion of the M1 Pacific Motorway will never match the speed and capacity of Regional Rapid Rail. Motorway lanes are limited to 2000 passengers/hour and cars are legally limited to 100-110 km/hr. Regional Rapid Rail will offer 9x motorway lane capacity, and speeds that are not legal to do in a car. Trains will also offer a level of safety simply unachievable on motorways.

Politicians constantly tell us how we need to fund their road upgrades for safety, speed and reliability. Really? They now need to justify why they are choosing the slowest, lowest capacity and most dangerous options for the community with their road expansions.

Faster trains and driver-only operation mean reduced rail running costs for the State Government. Substantial time savings mean more passengers and more ticket revenue.

Regional Rapid Rail could be funded by cancelling all M1 Pacific Motorway upgrade funds. Federal funding would also be sought. State funding could be raised by directing the Queensland Productivity Commission to investigate various options for changes to state taxation.

Want to know how Regional Rapid Rail can change South East Queensland? See our discussion concept at http://tiny.cc/SEQHSR

Best wishes
Robert

Robert Dow
Administration
admin@backontrack.org
RAIL Back On Track http://backontrack.org


** Travel times include running through Cross River Rail stations. Times are ex Roma Street as CRR trains do not stop at Central.
*** Expected travel time when built.
« Last Edit: May 15, 2017, 02:13:22 AM by ozbob »
Half baked projects, have long term consequences ...
  Bob's Blog

Offline ozbob

  • Administrator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 80193
    • RAIL Back On Track
Regional Rapid Rail link discussion
« Reply #1 on: August 21, 2016, 08:48:48 AM »
Half baked projects, have long term consequences ...
  Bob's Blog

Offline verbatim9

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2448
Regional Rapid Rail link discussion
« Reply #2 on: August 21, 2016, 10:02:39 AM »
Yep thats the slow bottle neck between Park Road and Beenleigh. Would there need to be land resumptions for an elevated line along the M1?

Offline Stillwater

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5990
Regional Rapid Rail link discussion
« Reply #3 on: August 21, 2016, 12:29:52 PM »
Motorists stuck in traffic jams on the M1 would be able to see rail passengers whizzing by in comfort at much higher speed -- powerful message. Time pollies were called out on constant promises of fast rail to the coasts in 'about an hour'.

Offline verbatim9

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2448
Regional Rapid Rail link discussion
« Reply #4 on: August 21, 2016, 01:27:48 PM »
Motorists stuck in traffic jams on the M1 would be able to see rail passengers whizzing by in comfort at much higher speed -- powerful message. Time pollies were called out on constant promises of fast rail to the coasts in 'about an hour'.
They have the train lines along some freeways in Perth has that sent a powerful message? Is there an increase of car use still?

Offline James

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2087
Regional Rapid Rail link discussion
« Reply #5 on: August 21, 2016, 03:01:17 PM »
Yep thats the slow bottle neck between Park Road and Beenleigh. Would there need to be land resumptions for an elevated line along the M1?

There's two options:
1) Use the existing SEB alignment from Buranda to Sprignwood (future), then a new corridor to Beenleigh.
2) Use an entirely new corridor from Buranda to Beenleigh.
Resumptions will be required in any case. This won't be a cheap solution, but there is no cheap solution to M1 congestion.

Perhaps when the M1 is widened, instead of having car lanes, how about having train lanes (tracks) instead?
Is it really that hard to run frequent, reliable public transport?

Offline verbatim9

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2448
Regional Rapid Rail link discussion
« Reply #6 on: August 21, 2016, 03:31:43 PM »
Yep thats the slow bottle neck between Park Road and Beenleigh. Would there need to be land resumptions for an elevated line along the M1?

There's two options:
1) Use the existing SEB alignment from Buranda to Sprignwood (future), then a new corridor to Beenleigh.
2) Use an entirely new corridor from Buranda to Beenleigh.
Resumptions will be required in any case. This won't be a cheap solution, but there is no cheap solution to M1 congestion.

Perhaps when the M1 is widened, instead of having car lanes, how about having train lanes (tracks) instead?
SEB is going to be a Metro/Light Rail

I guess the freeway or new or improved corridor!?

Offline tazzer9

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 906
Regional Rapid Rail link discussion
« Reply #7 on: August 21, 2016, 04:16:25 PM »
I wouldn't make all of it elevated, especially further south where there is plenty of cheap land, even if it is 100m away from the freeway.  Would probably also make it have stations at greenslopes, springwood and yatala.  Extra three stations here would slow the service by only ~4 mins but it would benefit those area's greatly.
And while make it compatible with the rest of the network, I would put it in a new tunnel through the city, even if it has a a terminal station in the CBD.  Isolate the heck out it and you don't have many delays.

I also wouldn't have it attach to the current gold coast line at beenleigh, Have it attach at yalata with a new station, and extend the current beenleigh line trains to there. 

Offline ozbob

  • Administrator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 80193
    • RAIL Back On Track
Regional Rapid Rail link discussion
« Reply #8 on: August 21, 2016, 04:29:53 PM »
Interesting to look how Victoria is proposing to construct the elevated railway east from Caulfield.

This video looks specifically at Murrumbeena and shows how they will build the elevated structures for the railway while still running trains on the ground tracks.


Half baked projects, have long term consequences ...
  Bob's Blog

Offline SurfRail

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7265
Regional Rapid Rail link discussion
« Reply #9 on: August 21, 2016, 05:47:47 PM »
I wouldn't make all of it elevated, especially further south where there is plenty of cheap land, even if it is 100m away from the freeway.  Would probably also make it have stations at greenslopes, springwood and yatala.  Extra three stations here would slow the service by only ~4 mins but it would benefit those area's greatly.
And while make it compatible with the rest of the network, I would put it in a new tunnel through the city, even if it has a a terminal station in the CBD.  Isolate the heck out it and you don't have many delays.

I also wouldn't have it attach to the current gold coast line at beenleigh, Have it attach at yalata with a new station, and extend the current beenleigh line trains to there.

My preferred staging for such a project would basically be as follows (half-remembering something I posted on SSC):

Stage 1

Cross River Rail, in its currently proposed form (ie dives at Dutton Park, tunnel stubs for future extension further south.

Stage 2

Extension from the Dutton Park tunnel stubs to Upper Mt Gravatt - tunnel to the vicinity of Greenslopes, then the cheapest possible alignment to Upper Mt Gravatt, which is basically elevated and roughly following the M1 and busway corridor.  Leave the busway in place, but reduce the number of routes actually using the busway down to 2 only (basically the 111 and the 130) and run those intensively.  Other routes feed into the railway at Fruitgrove, Altandi and Upper Mt Gravatt - for instance, the 150 no longer goes to the city, all the peak hour services are rationalised and largely the bus network is the same at all times of the day but with ramped up frequency in the peak.  No more 77, 160, 169 etc - you catch the train to Boggo Rd or Roma St and change to a bus to UQ / the northside there.

Stage 3

Extension from Upper Mt Gravatt to Kuraby, with station at Eight Mile Plains (with significantly expanded parking capacity).  Kuraby would have 2 new platforms to form something similar to Blacktown or Footscray with an acute angle between.  At this point, all trains from south of Kuraby use the new alignment, and all trains going north of Kuraby on the current alignment are all stations trains.  There is no longer any need for track amplification north of Kuraby, and the only major works would involve grade-sepping Boundary Road at Coopers Plains (if not already done) and anything required for the Flagstone line.

Stage 4

Extension from Eight Mile Plains to Yatala, with stations at Springwood and Loganholme.  The outer Beenleigh line now runs from Yatala to Kuraby, then Eight Mile Plains, Upper Mt Gravatt, Boggo Rd, Gabba etc.  The Gold Coast line uses the new alignment from Yatala all the way to the city.  There is also a service which only goes from the city to Yatala via the new route.  The idea would be that there are at least 12 trains per hour in the off-peak on the section inbound of Eight Mile Plains, and more than that in the peak.

This stage can be done progressively (eg a single station at a time until the connection is made at Yatala enabling Gold Coast services to run through).  Most of the route would either be at grade or on viaduct - tunnelling would be limited to non-existent if done properly.

Separately, you would be planning or carrying out the enabling works needed to get the Sunshine Coast version off the ground, which would broadly involve:

- Tunnel from Roma St to Everton Park, stations at Kelvin Grove and Alderley
- Surface/viaduct alignment from Everton Park to Strathpine, stations at Everton Park, McDowall, Aspley and Bridgeman Downs
- Improve the track arrangements between Strathpine and Petrie to eliminate conflicts between trains from north of Petrie and trains from Kippa-Ring (which would likely still go the old way and form a sector with Shorncliffe, Ipswich and Springfield) - fourth track and flyovers/dives to ensure the lines are properly separated and that long-distance/freight trains can still head towards Northgate
- Curve easing and either continuous third track or long passing loops from Petrie to Caboolture
- Beerburrum to Landsborough project (at minimum)
- CAMCOS alignment progressivley built towards Maroochydore, with minimum speed of 140kph for most of its length.
Ride the G:

Offline #Metro

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19600
  • DON'T SIGN! DON'T RENEW!!
Regional Rapid Rail link discussion
« Reply #10 on: August 21, 2016, 06:03:13 PM »
Quote
Would probably also make it have stations at greenslopes, springwood and yatala.  Extra three stations here would slow the service by only ~4 mins but it would benefit those area's greatly.

And while make it compatible with the rest of the network, I would put it in a new tunnel through the city, even if it has a a terminal station in the CBD.  Isolate the heck out it and you don't have many delays.

Original aim was to try to get the terminal station within 1 hour of the CBD. It is slightly over that.

The core reason why PT isn't first choice is that it is simply too slow, both in time terms and waiting time terms. Simple solution really - make it as fast as possible, run it frequently.

The overall speed is sensitive to what happens in the CBD with the CRR tunnels where speeds are slower, pax numbers are higher (longer dwells) and stations are closer (can't get to top cruising speed). The trend in QLD with timetabling is to add fat whenever there is a problem, so over a decade or so, the speeds slowly degrade.

It is always tempting to add more stations with a concept like this. More stations add more cost and reduce speed, which pushes the BCR down and reduces the relative journey times vs cars on the M1. The main thing is to get it out of Brisbane as quickly as possible with as few stops as possible.

Garden City is a good interchange point as that makes GC RRR accessible from any busway station on the SEB. I understand Logan pax will want some of the action as well, but that too would further push times out, degrading the service. The solution there if you look at the concept http://tiny.cc/SEQHSR is to disconnect all stations on the Beenleigh line from Kuraby to Beenleigh
from the existing line and feed that directly into Regional Rapid Rail.

By doing it that way, Logan pax get all the stations they want without affecting speed or capacity for Gold Coast passengers.  There are 9 RRR stations in Logan, and people can catch it from their existing station.

Logan pax would be first to benefit from this project as they are closer to Brisbane CBD - the tracks will reach them first. Existing QR trains could be used until higher speed trains become available.
« Last Edit: August 21, 2016, 06:11:29 PM by LD Transit »
Negative people... have a problem for every solution.
Posts are commentary and are not necessarily endorsed by RAIL Back on Track or its members. Not affiliated with, paid by or in conspiracy with MTR/Metro.

Offline tazzer9

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 906
Regional Rapid Rail link discussion
« Reply #11 on: August 21, 2016, 06:40:24 PM »
Quote
Would probably also make it have stations at greenslopes, springwood and yatala.  Extra three stations here would slow the service by only ~4 mins but it would benefit those area's greatly.

And while make it compatible with the rest of the network, I would put it in a new tunnel through the city, even if it has a a terminal station in the CBD.  Isolate the heck out it and you don't have many delays.

Original aim was to try to get the terminal station within 1 hour of the CBD. It is slightly over that.

The core reason why PT isn't first choice is that it is simply too slow, both in time terms and waiting time terms. Simple solution really - make it as fast as possible, run it frequently.

The overall speed is sensitive to what happens in the CBD with the CRR tunnels where speeds are slower, pax numbers are higher (longer dwells) and stations are closer (can't get to top cruising speed). The trend in QLD with timetabling is to add fat whenever there is a problem, so over a decade or so, the speeds slowly degrade.

It is always tempting to add more stations with a concept like this. More stations add more cost and reduce speed, which pushes the BCR down and reduces the relative journey times vs cars on the M1. The main thing is to get it out of Brisbane as quickly as possible with as few stops as possible.

Garden City is a good interchange point as that makes GC RRR accessible from any busway station on the SEB. I understand Logan pax will want some of the action as well, but that too would further push times out, degrading the service. The solution there if you look at the concept http://tiny.cc/SEQHSR is to disconnect all stations on the Beenleigh line from Kuraby to Beenleigh
from the existing line and feed that directly into Regional Rapid Rail.

By doing it that way, Logan pax get all the stations they want without affecting speed or capacity for Gold Coast passengers.  There are 9 RRR stations in Logan, and people can catch it from their existing station.

Logan pax would be first to benefit from this project as they are closer to Brisbane CBD - the tracks will reach them first. Existing QR trains could be used until higher speed trains become available.

The GC line isn't some frequently run high speed intercity line, so why run try and run as if it was one, while making the passenger pay only half as much. If they are paying the same way as an inner city passenger would, they should expect a service that does occasionally stop. 
Even using the NGR, having stops along the way you could still easily go from varsity lakes to the brisbane CBD in under 60 minutes if it was built correctly.  Having it bypass so much of southern brisbane isn't practical.  If something like this was built, they would likely be using something that is faster and longer than an NGR.



Offline Old Northern Road

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 277
Regional Rapid Rail link discussion
« Reply #12 on: August 21, 2016, 06:52:19 PM »
  • Tunnel from Park Rd to around Greenslopes
  • Rail runs alongside the highway and busway between Greenslopes and Griffith University. Busway would remain as is
  • South of Griffith University to Eight Mile Plains rail takes over the busway with stations at Upper Mt Gravatt and Eight Mile Plains
  • Station at Springwood
  • Station at Shailer Park
  • Rebuilt Beenleigh station located where the shopping centre is for interchange with the Beenleigh line

Beenleigh and Cleveland would continue to use Merivale Bridge

Same amount of stations between Beenleigh and the city for Gold Coast trains (6)

Offline Old Northern Road

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 277
Regional Rapid Rail link discussion
« Reply #13 on: August 21, 2016, 07:02:16 PM »
Original aim was to try to get the terminal station within 1 hour of the CBD. It is slightly over that.
Why? How many people do you think live on the southern end of the Gold Coast and work in Brisbane's CBD?

The aim of this project should be to benefit as many people as possible

Offline tazzer9

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 906
Regional Rapid Rail link discussion
« Reply #14 on: August 21, 2016, 07:12:51 PM »
  • Tunnel from Park Rd to around Greenslopes
  • Rail runs alongside the highway and busway between Greenslopes and Griffith University. Busway would remain as is
  • South of Griffith University to Eight Mile Plains rail takes over the busway with stations at Upper Mt Gravatt and Eight Mile Plains
  • Station at Springwood
  • Station at Shailer Park
  • Rebuilt Beenleigh station located where the shopping centre is for interchange with the Beenleigh line

Beenleigh and Cleveland would continue to use Merivale Bridge

Same amount of stations between Beenleigh and the city for Gold Coast trains (6)

Taking over the busway at that point would cause so many issues to how the busway is operated, you may as well just take it over from buranda.  The exit just after  griffith is a major intersection.

Offline #Metro

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19600
  • DON'T SIGN! DON'T RENEW!!
Regional Rapid Rail link discussion
« Reply #15 on: August 21, 2016, 07:13:31 PM »
Quote
The GC line isn't some frequently run high speed intercity line, so why run try and run as if it was one, while making the passenger pay only half as much. If they are paying the same way as an inner city passenger would, they should expect a service that does occasionally stop. 

The purpose of regional services is to get people from one region to another. If people want local services from Greenslopes, Eight Mile Plains and Springwood, all of these locations already have busway stations. Catch the bus to Garden City and make the connection.

Speed saves staffing costs and the new line could well be run as DOO (save 50% existing staff costs, in addition). Better service will draw in the pax, increasing fare and ticket revenue. Fares would be standard TransLink fares. There is no case for increased fares (except in peak), if anything the cost to run has fallen so they should be paying less.

Quote
Even using the NGR, having stops along the way you could still easily go from varsity lakes to the brisbane CBD in under 60 minutes if it was built correctly.

The target is within 60 minutes from Coolangatta Airport.

A side benefit is that it will put some competitive pressure on Brisbane Airport re: competition for flights into Brisbane/SEQ. Perhaps will bring down air fares into SEQ a little. A similar effect if RRR is extended to Maroochydore - Sunshine Coast Airport will become an alternative.

A model timetable is available, calculated from first principles. Distances were measured and then broken into three phases
- accelerate (special equation)
- cruise (simple, just multiply speed by length)
- decelerate (special equation)
- then add dwell (30sec) and fat (5 min)

Feedback or constructive criticisms are always welcome, of course.


(CLICK for enlargement)

Quote
Having it bypass so much of southern Brisbane isn't practical.  If something like this was built, they would likely be using something that is faster and longer than an NGR.

It is entirely compatible with whatever trains QR currently uses. It is not necessary to have the hi-speed rollingstock on day one.
Trains could be moved to other lines as services are increased and the new, higher speed trains phased in.

Southern Brisbane is already covered at all busway stations (make connection at Garden City), and also at Beenleigh for Logan pax.

The current model assumes 160 km/hr trains. This is because even if the line is rated for, say, 200 km/hr, there needs to be some safety buffer. Ideally, I would like to see what the engineers come up with regards to that. There is a point where the train is too fast and the signalling needs to be changed - $$$. Prefer to avoid that if possible. A 'do minimum' approach has been very successful with bus reform, elements of that approach can be applied here also.
« Last Edit: August 21, 2016, 07:24:29 PM by LD Transit »
Negative people... have a problem for every solution.
Posts are commentary and are not necessarily endorsed by RAIL Back on Track or its members. Not affiliated with, paid by or in conspiracy with MTR/Metro.

Offline Old Northern Road

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 277
Regional Rapid Rail link discussion
« Reply #16 on: August 21, 2016, 07:28:11 PM »
  • Tunnel from Park Rd to around Greenslopes
  • Rail runs alongside the highway and busway between Greenslopes and Griffith University. Busway would remain as is
  • South of Griffith University to Eight Mile Plains rail takes over the busway with stations at Upper Mt Gravatt and Eight Mile Plains
  • Station at Springwood
  • Station at Shailer Park
  • Rebuilt Beenleigh station located where the shopping centre is for interchange with the Beenleigh line

Beenleigh and Cleveland would continue to use Merivale Bridge

Same amount of stations between Beenleigh and the city for Gold Coast trains (6)

Taking over the busway at that point would cause so many issues to how the busway is operated, you may as well just take it over from buranda.  The exit just after  griffith is a major intersection.
There is no reason to take over the busway north of Klumpp and Mains Rd because the corridor is wide enough to have rail, busway and highway

Offline #Metro

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19600
  • DON'T SIGN! DON'T RENEW!!
Regional Rapid Rail link discussion
« Reply #17 on: August 21, 2016, 07:45:53 PM »
Quote
Why? How many people do you think live on the southern end of the Gold Coast and work in Brisbane's CBD?

Not many. At least with the service on offer now.
However, one cannot generally derive a ' should ' from an ' is '.

In this context:

Statement 1: Rail to the Gold Coast is slow. It should stay slow.
Statement 2: Rail to the Gold Coast is slow. It should be faster.

Quote
The aim of this project should be to benefit as many people as possible

Agreed, and that requires a design geared towards maximum patronage, not maximum coverage.
Jarrett Walker at http://humantransit.org/2015/07/mega-explainer-the-ridership-recipe.html has a blog on that aspect.

The Gold Coast has many tourists who would want to do day tripping, either locals from Brisbane who want to get to the beach or Gold Coast tourists that want to spend the day in Brisbane and then go back to the Gold Coast in the evening. Major tourism benefits with this upgrade. Also, there is Coolangatta Airport at the end of the line, some of Australia's best beaches, and a small university - an excellent anchor.

There is also another reason - trains must be competitive vs the car. Here is a Google Maps comparison on Sunday night assuming free-flow traffic (these MWY speeds are not possible in peak). Trip is from Roma Street to Coolangatta Airport. (The car is travelling non-stop, the train in comparison is making stops).

(Modelled train time = Coolangatta 64 minutes, fat-free)

CAR trip via M1 Pacific Motorway from Roma Street to Coolangatta Airport



As you can see, even adding one extra station would start to change the relative advantage of train over car. This will not be so much of a problem if RRR is extended to the Sunshine Coast because SC has no rail near the coast and so stations can be placed much further apart for maximum speed than they have been on the Gold Coast.

Ideally, I would like to see if the train could go faster than 160 km/hr, say 200 km/hour, but we are constrained by the use of narrow gauge track in QLD.
« Last Edit: August 21, 2016, 07:51:48 PM by LD Transit »
Negative people... have a problem for every solution.
Posts are commentary and are not necessarily endorsed by RAIL Back on Track or its members. Not affiliated with, paid by or in conspiracy with MTR/Metro.

Offline tazzer9

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 906
Regional Rapid Rail link discussion
« Reply #18 on: August 21, 2016, 08:05:31 PM »
The trick for high speeds between here and the GC isn't about top speed.  Its about the acceleration.  The IMU160's can go from beenleigh to varsity lakes faster than the IMU100's despite having a lower top speed due to their much better acceleration.
160 km/h max should be fine, as long as the acceleration is 0.9-1.0 m/s^2. 

Offline #Metro

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19600
  • DON'T SIGN! DON'T RENEW!!
Regional Rapid Rail link discussion
« Reply #19 on: August 21, 2016, 08:14:18 PM »
Quote
The trick for high speeds between here and the GC isn't about top speed.  Its about the acceleration.

Looking at the model timetable, about 10 minutes is spent accelerating the train.
In contrast, about 36 minutes is spent having the train in cruise mode.

Do you have a reference train compatible with narrow gauge that can do 0.9-1.0 m/s^2?

Assuming instantaneous acceleration, the maximum time saving there would be 10 minutes. In reality, perhaps much less.
Negative people... have a problem for every solution.
Posts are commentary and are not necessarily endorsed by RAIL Back on Track or its members. Not affiliated with, paid by or in conspiracy with MTR/Metro.

Offline Old Northern Road

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 277
Regional Rapid Rail link discussion
« Reply #20 on: August 21, 2016, 08:35:34 PM »
Not many. At least with the service on offer now.
However, one cannot generally derive a ' should ' from an ' is '.

In this context:

Statement 1: Rail to the Gold Coast is slow. It should stay slow.
Statement 2: Rail to the Gold Coast is slow. It should be faster.

The mistake you are making is assuming that everyone works in Brisbane’s CBD. Actually only a very small percentage of people do and public transport access to the CBD is already pretty good. On the other hand Beenleigh, Springwood and Upper Mt Gravatt are the 3 major employment centres on Brisbane’s south side and public transport access to these places is awful (i.e. imagine trying to commute to Springwood if you live on the north side)

Statement 1: Rail to these major centres doesn’t exist. It shouldn’t exist.
Statement 2: Rail to these major centres doesn’t exist. It should.

Quote
As you can see, even adding one extra station would start to change the relative advantage of train over car. This will not be so much of a problem if RRR is extended to the Sunshine Coast because SC has no rail near the coast and so stations can be placed much further apart for maximum speed than they have been on the Gold Coast.

Actually stations on the CAMCOS line would be closer together on average (3-5km part) as that line would serve more of a local function than the Gold Coast line

Offline #Metro

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19600
  • DON'T SIGN! DON'T RENEW!!
Regional Rapid Rail link discussion
« Reply #21 on: August 21, 2016, 08:53:19 PM »
Quote
The mistake you are making is assuming that everyone works in Brisbane’s CBD. Actually only a very small percentage of people do and public transport access to the CBD is already pretty good. On the other hand Beenleigh, Springwood and Upper Mt Gravatt are the 3 major employment centres on Brisbane’s south side and public transport access to these places is awful (i.e. imagine trying to commute to Springwood if you live on the north side)

Statement 1: Rail to these major centres doesn’t exist. It shouldn’t exist.
Statement 2: Rail to these major centres doesn’t exist. It should.

Thanks for the feedback.

Mt Gravatt already proposed to have a RRR station - suggested by others actually as that is the best place for a station to have maximum connection with the rest of the network.

Beenleigh - again, already on the RRR network and to be served by RRR trains. Not sure what issue you raise there.

Springwood - already has a busway station, quick bus trip on busway to change to RRR.

Logan - there are nine RRR stations on the Logan Branch
http://tiny.cc/SEQHSR

Kuraby
Trinder Park
Woodrige
Kingston
Loganlea
Bethania
Edens Landing
Holmview
Beenleigh

They have direct hi-speed access to Brisbane via a portal at Kuraby and access to the Gold Coast via connection at Beenleigh. Local buses can also feed into that.

I can see what you might be suggesting - plop stations at Springwood and Hyperdome.


Quote
Actually stations on the CAMCOS line would be closer together on average (3-5km part) as that line would serve more of a local function than the Gold Coast line

Regional Rapid Rail for the SC is a new proposal not restrained by CAMCOS. Average RRR station spacing is 9-10km between stations (i.e. 9 km between Kawana and Maroochydore). Local transport would be done by BRT and LRT (if SC can fund that). When a place has lots of sprawl and long distances, longer station spacing and rapid connections can be deployed. Builds on the Perth model.
« Last Edit: August 21, 2016, 09:06:43 PM by LD Transit »
Negative people... have a problem for every solution.
Posts are commentary and are not necessarily endorsed by RAIL Back on Track or its members. Not affiliated with, paid by or in conspiracy with MTR/Metro.

Offline tazzer9

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 906
Regional Rapid Rail link discussion
« Reply #22 on: August 21, 2016, 09:16:21 PM »
Quote
The trick for high speeds between here and the GC isn't about top speed.  Its about the acceleration.

Looking at the model timetable, about 10 minutes is spent accelerating the train.
In contrast, about 36 minutes is spent having the train in cruise mode.

Do you have a reference train compatible with narrow gauge that can do 0.9-1.0 m/s^2?

Assuming instantaneous acceleration, the maximum time saving there would be 10 minutes. In reality, perhaps much less.

It's how much of it is cruising at maximum speed.  Because even the M1 alignment couldn't sustain 160 km/h for the entire way.  Neither can the robina-varsity lakes bit.
I have a few non-reputable references for the acceleration figures but Its all simple physics and engineering to get the 1 m/s^2 figure anyway.  As long as you know its traction output and weight, you can get a very good idea of its acceleration.

Offline #Metro

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19600
  • DON'T SIGN! DON'T RENEW!!
Regional Rapid Rail link discussion
« Reply #23 on: August 21, 2016, 09:28:16 PM »
Quote
It's how much of it is cruising at maximum speed.  Because even the M1 alignment couldn't sustain 160 km/h for the entire way. 

Why not?

Quote
I have a few non-reputable references for the acceleration figures but Its all simple physics and engineering to get the 1 m/s^2 figure anyway.  As long as you know its traction output and weight, you can get a very good idea of its acceleration.

I don't have knowledge in this area. Acceleration at 1 m/s^2 seems like quite a hard uncomfortable acceleration.
So I wonder if that is used on railways already. Happy to know more in this area.

Edit: V/Locity in Victoria has 0.9 m/s2 acceleration and 0.95 m/s2 braking. But that is diesel and on a different gauge.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V/Line_VLocity
Negative people... have a problem for every solution.
Posts are commentary and are not necessarily endorsed by RAIL Back on Track or its members. Not affiliated with, paid by or in conspiracy with MTR/Metro.

Offline Old Northern Road

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 277
Regional Rapid Rail link discussion
« Reply #24 on: August 22, 2016, 12:46:53 AM »
Springwood - already has a busway station, quick bus trip on busway to change to RRR.

It has a bus station but not a busway and there probably wouldn’t be room to build a busway to Springwood as well as a train line

Quote
Regional Rapid Rail for the SC is a new proposal not restrained by CAMCOS. Average RRR station spacing is 9-10km between stations (i.e. 9 km between Kawana and Maroochydore). Local transport would be done by BRT and LRT (if SC can fund that). When a place has lots of sprawl and long distances, longer station spacing and rapid connections can be deployed. Builds on the Perth model.

This is just your proposal. The actual CAMCOS line would have at least 7 stations. LRT would be inappropriate for the Sunshine Coast due to its low density

Offline tazzer9

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 906
Regional Rapid Rail link discussion
« Reply #25 on: August 22, 2016, 07:49:04 AM »
I don't have knowledge in this area. Acceleration at 1 m/s^2 seems like quite a hard uncomfortable acceleration.
So I wonder if that is used on railways already. Happy to know more in this area.

Edit: V/Locity in Victoria has 0.9 m/s2 acceleration and 0.95 m/s2 braking. But that is diesel and on a different gauge.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V/Line_VLocity

1 m/s^2 is much slower than a bus accelerating.     And diesels will always have lower acceleration compared to electrics due to them being limited by the power supply of the engine. 

Offline ozbob

  • Administrator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 80193
    • RAIL Back On Track
Regional Rapid Rail link discussion
« Reply #26 on: August 22, 2016, 07:55:06 AM »
VLocity trains are not sprinters but high speed stayers ..
Half baked projects, have long term consequences ...
  Bob's Blog

Offline ozbob

  • Administrator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 80193
    • RAIL Back On Track
Regional Rapid Rail link discussion
« Reply #27 on: August 22, 2016, 08:00:39 AM »
This is an interesting little vid ..

Train from Perth to Mandurah Saturday See how fast the train goes

Half baked projects, have long term consequences ...
  Bob's Blog

Offline #Metro

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19600
  • DON'T SIGN! DON'T RENEW!!
Regional Rapid Rail link discussion
« Reply #28 on: August 22, 2016, 09:04:56 AM »
Quote
1 m/s^2 is much slower than a bus accelerating. 

Interesting question though - why do QR trains have accelerations much below this?

I still find it difficult to believe that the key is in the acceleration re: travel times.

When a train is cruising at constant speed, its acceleration is zero.  :is-
Negative people... have a problem for every solution.
Posts are commentary and are not necessarily endorsed by RAIL Back on Track or its members. Not affiliated with, paid by or in conspiracy with MTR/Metro.

Offline SurfRail

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7265
Regional Rapid Rail link discussion
« Reply #29 on: August 22, 2016, 09:31:27 AM »
  • Tunnel from Park Rd to around Greenslopes
  • Rail runs alongside the highway and busway between Greenslopes and Griffith University. Busway would remain as is
  • South of Griffith University to Eight Mile Plains rail takes over the busway with stations at Upper Mt Gravatt and Eight Mile Plains
  • Station at Springwood
  • Station at Shailer Park
  • Rebuilt Beenleigh station located where the shopping centre is for interchange with the Beenleigh line

Beenleigh and Cleveland would continue to use Merivale Bridge

Same amount of stations between Beenleigh and the city for Gold Coast trains (6)

I basically agree except around Beenleigh.  There is a significant speed advantage to just following the M1 from basically the Albert River north, and if you have a Beenleigh pattern running every 15 minutes terminating at Yatala and properly timetabled you have a seamless transfer.  I just don't think it would stack up timewise or costwise to have anything to do with Beenleigh on the new alignment.

You would need the Kuraby connection, as there is no way the line can be delivered in an acceptable timeframe in one hit from Beenleigh to the City.  It would link both of the lines through the Logan area to Upper Mt Gravatt and the CBD via a much faster and more attractive connection than the current surface route, and also frees up capacity on the Merivale Bridge for Flagstone services.
Ride the G:

Offline tazzer9

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 906
Regional Rapid Rail link discussion
« Reply #30 on: August 22, 2016, 10:41:44 AM »
Quote
1 m/s^2 is much slower than a bus accelerating. 

Interesting question though - why do QR trains have accelerations much below this?

I still find it difficult to believe that the key is in the acceleration re: travel times.

When a train is cruising at constant speed, its acceleration is zero.  :is-

Well, its mainly just overkill going faster than this.   But that is also in dry weather with full grip.   Having more powerful motors also means more chance of wheelslip.   Also we don't have every axle motorised, there are several engineering reasons for this but it does mean lower acceleration.  It is also a bit of a comfort thing. Only trains that accelerate much faster than this are metro trains, which are designed for stopping and starting.

The acceleration is key because it doesn't spend all of its time at top speed, Maybe a completely rebuilt M1 line would have the majority of the route at 160km/h so its not as important, but in and around the CBD and the robina-varsity lakes bit where its certainly not at top speed, thats why acceleration is important.

Offline aldonius

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1184
Regional Rapid Rail link discussion
« Reply #31 on: August 22, 2016, 03:01:57 PM »
When your line speed is only 60 km/h maximum anyway and your station spacings are 3km...

Acceleration is very important for higher speed though. Let's posit some medium speed rail similar to GC-RRR:
160 km/h line speed, 1m/s^2 acceleration (generous) and deceleration (less generous), 10km station spacing (it would probably be more like 8, though).
First: 160 km/h is 44.44 m/s, so we know it'll take our train 44.44 seconds to go from zero to hero.
Second: in that time, it will cover 987 metres.
Third: double both those numbers to include the deceleration at the other end.
Fourth: that leaves 8025 metres traversed at top speed, which will take 181 seconds.
Fifth: total time is therefore about 270 seconds.

Note that only two-thirds of the travel time is spent at top speed. I'd say the other third of the time is pretty important too.

Offline Stillwater

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5990
Regional Rapid Rail link discussion
« Reply #32 on: August 22, 2016, 04:36:08 PM »
The CAMCOS stations, as envisaged (from Beerwah) are Pelican Waters (note no Caloundra South station), Caloundra, Aroona, Erang Street. Kawana Town Centre, Parrearra, Mooloolabah and Maroochydore and then (if the state government wins the lottery) Bradman Ave (Maroochy River), terminating at SC Airport and then (if Martians land and build it) Coolum/Noosa.

Offline SurfRail

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7265
Regional Rapid Rail link discussion
« Reply #33 on: August 22, 2016, 04:53:46 PM »
The formative work on CAMCOS is nearly a decade old, so I think it is safe to assume a station at Caloundra South is on their radar if it ever happens.  The issue is Beerburrum to Landsborough of course.
Ride the G:

Offline Gazza

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4767
Regional Rapid Rail link discussion
« Reply #34 on: August 23, 2016, 01:24:15 AM »
Quote
     The purpose of regional services is to get people from one region to another. If people want local services from Greenslopes, Eight Mile Plains and Springwood, all of these locations already have busway stations. Catch the bus to Garden City and make the connection 

But why is so much emphasis given to ensuring the very last station (so only maybe 5-10% of all GCRRL pax?) get a sub 1 hr journey?

Yet people at springwood commercial hub, making more sustainable shorter journeys get stuck mucking around making an extra interchange and a slower jouney (Because of the way buses must enter and exit the M1 and do a big loop)

 (lol it could well be that a passenger at Shalier Park gets an overall shorter journey to the cbd than one at Springwood....wtf is that all about?)

If you look at the current network map Springwood is already a major interchange and terminus, large park and ride, and has the patronage to support high frequency services.

So it stands to reason that this would be one of the busiest stops on the line....the pax youd gain at this stop would heavily outnumber the lesser gains at Varsity lakes or whatever because the journey is 1:03 rather than 0:59

Offline #Metro

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19600
  • DON'T SIGN! DON'T RENEW!!
Regional Rapid Rail link discussion
« Reply #35 on: August 23, 2016, 03:23:33 AM »
Where should an RRR station go?

Springwood vs Garden City
http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=12193.0

 :is-
Negative people... have a problem for every solution.
Posts are commentary and are not necessarily endorsed by RAIL Back on Track or its members. Not affiliated with, paid by or in conspiracy with MTR/Metro.

Offline ozbob

  • Administrator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 80193
    • RAIL Back On Track
Regional Rapid Rail link discussion
« Reply #36 on: August 23, 2016, 03:32:52 AM »
Half baked projects, have long term consequences ...
  Bob's Blog

Offline Gazza

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4767
Regional Rapid Rail link discussion
« Reply #37 on: August 23, 2016, 04:02:17 AM »
Where should an RRR station go?

Springwood vs Garden City
http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=12193.0

 :is-

False choice.

It should stop.
Garden City
Springwood
Loganholme

Not framed as one or the other

(8mp picked up on a short working local pattern)

Offline #Metro

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19600
  • DON'T SIGN! DON'T RENEW!!
Regional Rapid Rail link discussion
« Reply #38 on: August 23, 2016, 04:50:09 AM »
Nothing ' false ' about it. Just a tradeoff.

I'll give you another station if you can find a way to cut the travel time down further.

This service must be FAST.
Negative people... have a problem for every solution.
Posts are commentary and are not necessarily endorsed by RAIL Back on Track or its members. Not affiliated with, paid by or in conspiracy with MTR/Metro.

Offline SurfRail

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7265
Regional Rapid Rail link discussion
« Reply #39 on: August 23, 2016, 05:59:05 AM »
Your modelled times are still way off.  It will not take as long as you are suggesting to get from Roma St to Boggo Road.
Ride the G:

 

Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 


“You can't understand a city without using its public transportation system.” -- Erol Ozan