How the SEQ rail network will operate after CRR is commissioned (2025).

[achiruel]

Original post by Timh

Rippa, thanks Tim   

I think we need to shame the authorities into publishing the proper information.  Doing our own up will be a start 

Summary of present SEQ rail network pairs/routing

https://www.queenslandrail.com.au/Customers/Stations%20and%20Maps/Pages/Network-and-line-maps.aspx

Sector 1

Rosewood <> Gympie North

Springfield Central <> Kippa-Ring

Sector 2

Varsity Lakes <> BNE Airport

Beenleigh <> Ferny Grove

Cleveland <> Shorncliffe

Roma St <> Doomben

Post CRR

I would expect three sectors.

As requested here's a very rudimentary line diagram showing the pairings I outlined above as per RPFC9.



It's not very professional obviously, I just used metromapmaker.com (which is a handy tool).

These line pairings are what is the most likely outcome under RPFC9 because

• Beenleigh line trains will most likely use the tunnel rather than travelling via South Brisbane to ensure tunnel capacity is used properly, and because the CRR tracks at the northern end must through-run to the NCL. Therefore GC line would pair with Cab/SC line, and Beenleigh line would pair with Kippa Ring.
• If Beenleigh line uses the tunnel, it cannot pair with any of the lines that use the city subs due to the track layout at Mayne.
• Track layout at Mayne also forces the Western lines to pair with the Shorncliffe / Airport / Doomben lines. Frequencies do not match up very well pairing Ipswich - Doomben/Aiport but it's not much better pairing Springfield to those lines either.
• Cleveland line is the only line to travel via South Brisbane (except for those short running Northgate-Park Road terminators I guess?) and once again due to Mayne track layout it therefore must pair with Ferny Grove

[ozbob]

From https://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=2034.msg245858#msg245858

• Beenleigh line trains will most likely use the tunnel rather than travelling via South Brisbane to ensure tunnel capacity is used properly, and because the CRR tracks at the northern end must through-run to the NCL. Therefore GC line would pair with Cab/SC line, and Beenleigh line would pair with Kippa Ring.
• If Beenleigh line uses the tunnel, it cannot pair with any of the lines that use the city subs due to the track layout at Mayne.
• Track layout at Mayne also forces the Western lines to pair with the Shorncliffe / Airport / Doomben lines. Frequencies do not match up very well pairing Ipswich - Doomben/Aiport but it's not much better pairing Springfield to those lines either.
• Cleveland line is the only line to travel via South Brisbane (except for those short running Northgate-Park Road terminators I guess?) and once again due to Mayne track layout it therefore must pair with Ferny Grove

[ozbob]

Will Beenleigh trains even be a thing post-CRR? I've got a sneaking suspicion Loganlea-Beenleigh will become part of the Gold Coast line (similar to what was done with Caboolture/Sunshine Coast) and the new all stops terminus will become Loganlea. That's assuming the new Loganlea station will even be ready for CRR.

[ozbob]

Will Beenleigh trains even be a thing post-CRR? I've got a sneaking suspicion Loganlea-Beenleigh will become part of the Gold Coast line (similar to what was done with Caboolture/Sunshine Coast) and the new all stops terminus will become Loganlea. That's assuming the new Loganlea station will even be ready for CRR.

True, Hopefully they will start on the Loganlea station next financial year. Just hope it' has decent station capacity and throughput. I am hoping for 4 tracks at Loganlea. Three through tracks and one terminator turnaround.

[ozbob]

^ I think that's unlikely. I'm having trouble finding it now, but I recall seeing last year a diagram of the new Loganlea station and it had 3 platforms, so unless they're planning on having a fourth track with no platform, I doubt there'll be four tracks.

[ozbob]

Thanks Tim for the map.  It is very useful and represents what we can glean from the limited information that is available.

I will prepare a nice FB post/media later in the week after members have a few days to comment as desired.

In the end it doesn't have to be the absolutely correct final solution, but might help to get the true final solution out of Government, which I don't think would differ by much.

[ozbob]

Possible sectors:

Sector 1

Rosewood <> BNE Airport

Springfield Central <> Shorncliffe

Sector 2

Cleveland <> Ferny Grove

Roma St <> Doomben

Sector 3

Varsity Lakes <> Gympie North

Beenleigh <> Kippa-Ring

[timh]

Thanks Bob

I will say it's probably worth some input from some of the more transit-knowledgeable people on here (IE MTPCo, Gazza, Surfrail, STB, etc.) before posting that map in case I've made some mistakes!

Sent from my SM-G780F using Tapatalk

[#Metro]

Reliability is going to be rubbish if trains run from GC into the NCL.

If something happens trains across the whole SEQ region will be impacted.

[Arnz]

Reliability is going to be rubbish if trains run from GC into the NCL.

If something happens trains across the whole SEQ region will be impacted.

Most of the NCL trains at this stage are Caboolture terminators, with every 2nd train to Nambour (hourly) off-peak (post Beerwah duplication). 

Peak hours isn't going to change much whether if it's Caboolture or Nambour. 2-3 extra trains ex-CAB and 1 (maybe 2 of lucky) extra peak ex-NBR

[achiruel]

Reliability is going to be rubbish if trains run from GC into the NCL.

If something happens trains across the whole SEQ region will be impacted.

Agreed, but what's the alternative? AIUI, trains via CRR have to connect to the NCL and vice-versa.

I guess they could do Beenleigh-CAB/NBR/GYN and VL-KR, but would it really make that much difference?

Edit: and this just shows how daft all the arguments that other improvements to the rail network depend on CRR, when CRR clearly depends very much on NCL duplication.

[kram0]

Not linking the GC line with the Airport line is criminal.

These two lines go hand in glove for obvious reasons!

[Cazza]

Not linking the GC line with the Airport line is criminal.

These two lines go hand in glove for obvious reasons!

Hence the need for flying junctions at either portal! It would be operational suicide if you were to link the 2 lines, given the current proposed track layouts.

[kram0]

Agree, but nothing would surprise me with the highly incompetent Bailey leading the charge.

[timh]

As an alternative to the map I made which shows the "current" pairings, perhaps we can make another one as an "Ideal" pairings map. Any suggestions?

When I say "Ideal" I'll clarify to say that I'm referring to ideal with the current CRR project (Ie tunnel portal at Dutton park, no stubs etc.) But maybe with some changes to track layouts at the north and south portals, changes at Mayne, flying junctions etc. Relatively simple stuff that *could* be part of the project without sinking additional billions.

Sent from my SM-G780F using Tapatalk

[aldonius]

Possible sectors:

Sector 1

Rosewood <> BNE Airport

Springfield Central <> Shorncliffe

Sector 2

Cleveland <> Ferny Grove

Roma St <> Doomben

Sector 3

Varsity Lakes <> Gympie North

Beenleigh <> Kippa-Ring

Sectors 1 and 2 aren't exactly distinct here (Shorncliffe, Airport & Doomben lines will all need to take the Subs through EJ-Albion) but it shouldn't matter too much (because Doomben is relatively infrequent).

[ozbob]

As an alternative to the map I made which shows the "current" pairings, perhaps we can make another one as an "Ideal" pairings map. Any suggestions?

When I say "Ideal" I'll clarify to say that I'm referring to ideal with the current CRR project (Ie tunnel portal at Dutton park, no stubs etc.) But maybe with some changes to track layouts at the north and south portals, changes at Mayne, flying junctions etc. Relatively simple stuff that *could* be part of the project without sinking additional billions.

Sent from my SM-G780F using Tapatalk

Thanks Tim.  Can we leave that for a  few days and just consider the present map.

One suggestion if you look at https://www.queenslandrail.com.au/Customers/Stations%20and%20Maps/Pages/Network-and-line-maps.aspx note Doomben is given a distinct colour (purple) if it is not too much trouble could Doomben to Roma St be drawn as shown in this map.  I don't think Doomben is going to change.

[ozbob]

Possible sectors:

Sector 1

Rosewood <> BNE Airport

Springfield Central <> Shorncliffe

Sector 2

Cleveland <> Ferny Grove

Roma St <> Doomben

Sector 3

Varsity Lakes <> Gympie North

Beenleigh <> Kippa-Ring

Sectors 1 and 2 aren't exactly distinct here (Shorncliffe, Airport & Doomben lines will all need to take the Subs through EJ-Albion) but it shouldn't matter too much (because Doomben is relatively infrequent).

Yes, but is more muddled post CRR.

You could equally just have two sectors.

For example.

Sector 1   

Varsity Lakes <> Gympie North

Beenleigh <> Kippa-Ring

Sector 2

Rosewood <> BNE Airport

Springfield Central <> Shorncliffe

Cleveland <> Ferny Grove

Roma St <> Doomben

[ozbob]

I think this will do Tim.

[ozbob]

G'day Lurkers 

Like our network map?  IF IT IS WRONG DO THE RIGHT THING AND PUBLISH UPDATED RAIL SERVICE PLANS PLEASE.

Not hard is it? 

Meanwhile, enjoy ...

[ozbob]

Page 8 of the Minerva Plan ( https://backontrack.org/docs/crr/db/MinervaPlan1.0.pdf )

Is essentially the same as Tim's map.



The suggested pairings are fluid in the sense that in peak trains could connect with lines the same sector of course, but the pairs would be the majority of workings.

[ozbob]

Some conclusions:

Will NGR trains be running on the Ferny Grove line or will Cleveland/FG be non NGR fleet only?

The Airport / Gold Coast nexus will be broken.  Be interesting to know what Airtrain think of that?

As discussed previously numbers of trains through South Bank and South Brisbane would be reduced.

Revised sectors:

Sector 1

Rosewood <> BNE Airport

Springfield Central <> Shorncliffe

Roma St <> Doomben

Sector 2

Cleveland <> Ferny Grove

Sector 3

Varsity Lakes <> Gympie North

Beenleigh <> Kippa-Ring

[verbatim9]

I disagree with that service map especially for the Doomben and Airport lines. Airport line should terminate at the CBD hence a shuttle service with extended operation. Doomben line wouldn't benefit from all day extra services, it would be under utilised. Better have those services run on the Airport line where needed. There would be a huge risk of cancellations and delays running Airport services from Rosewood.

I would agree with some peak and interpeak services originating Rosewood and Ipswich heading to the Airport. That would make more sense and have less risk. The Airport line should also be upgraded to ETCS 2 and run as driver only to save on costs.

[ozbob]

^

Doomben line is unchanged.

Most services between Ipswich and Rosewood are shuttles.  Airport services would be to and from Ipswich in the main, supplemented as for now with Roma St <> Airport services. Reliability is not an issue on the Ipswich line.  There are a few peak services that would run Airport <> Rosewood.

Pairings don't indicate that all services meet those pairs end to end.  They don't now, and wouldn't in 2025. 

ETCS L2 on the Airport line would be have to be funded by Airtrain.  I am not sure if they would be prepared to make that investment in view of the fact the the BOOT agreement concludes in 2036.

[ozbob]

The biggest problem with OTR on the network is Caboolture and Sunshine Coast lines ( and the Redcliffe Peninsula but it is getting a bit better of late).  I think that is the biggest risk to network OTR particularly for the Gold Coast line which has good OTR as a rule.

[aldonius]

FWIW, Bob's revised sectors match with the Minerva Plan conclusions about what lines are going to effectively get capacity upgrades and it's not pretty at all when you think about Central platform allocations. 

[Arnz]

Some conclusions:

Will NGR trains be running on the Ferny Grove line or will Cleveland/FG be non NGR fleet only?

The Airport / Gold Coast nexus will be broken.  Be interesting to know what Airtrain think of that?

As discussed previously numbers of trains through South Bank and South Brisbane would be reduced.

Revised sectors:

Could Ferny Grove <> Cleveland be the domain of the NNGRs alongside the 160/260 rollingstock, whilst NGRs on all other lines (excluding any Rosewood services).

Would be interesting to see what AirTrain thinks, I do wonder if they were consulted on the 'service plans' as this could be a clusterf___ if they were in the dark like us.

[aldonius]

The Airport/Gold Coast nexus being broken was always in the cards; I don't think any version of the current CRR project has featured the grade separation necessary to make it happen.

[Cazza]

Which is interesting because IIRC, only a few years ago (once GCLR Stage 2 was finished I believe)  airtrain took over GLink (or now have some sort of stake in it) because of the direct Helensvale connection. But as we are saying, it's likely that this partnership may not be around for too much longer.

[#Metro]

I think Airtrain line should be duplicated, the new station at DFO built and half the costs billed to the Australian Government as they have pledged for the Olympics.

Breaking the Gold Coast - Airport nexus would come at the worst timing for the Olympics and given that many events would run on the GC. Plus throw in extra unreliability of having trains run on the north coast goat track, is not looking good.

What would a mud map of separation look like infrastructure wise?

Can we play around with trying to make a peak hour traffic estimation and one with perhaps 10 and 50% increases? One of the lines is probably network limiting.

[ozbob]

^  it is shaping up as a debacle #Metro.

That is why we wanted the project reviewed by an external panel of rail operational experts to get the best outcome. 

I am confident based on the limited published material, and corroborated by some silent sources that our 2025 possible network diagram is correct as matters stand at the present.   Government and CRRDA have ignored our constant requests for updated information on how the rail network will operate.  RTI applications both administrative and under the legislation, Ministerial requests, requests to CRRDA have all been unsuccessful.  Other jurisdictions for similar scale projects that sort of information IS PUBLICLY available.  So we do our own.

Alarm bells ring!

I see it as my duty to alert the public of the looming debacle from the operational perspective.  We have a history of rail failures in Queensland, unless steps are taken soon we have another #crossriverrailfail  I don't have issues with the tunnel per se and stations generally (except known issues eg. Moorooka, Park Road/Boggo Road .. ).

We warned them for years about the problems with NGRs.  We were summarily dismissed and at one point they tried to cover it up.
We were eventually successful of course in finally getting the Commission of Inquiry.

Action now may avert another Commission of Inquiry into the botched Cross River Rail.

[ozbob]

...

Can we play around with trying to make a peak hour traffic estimation and one with perhaps 10 and 50% increases? One of the lines is probably network limiting.

See Minerva Plan ( https://backontrack.org/docs/crr/db/MinervaPlan1.0.pdf ) it is all there ..

[#Metro]

What if things had been different and it was the Cleveland line that went into the tunnel. Just a hypothetical.

[ozbob]

What if things had been different and it was the Cleveland line that went into the tunnel. Just a hypothetical.

Ha ha 

No need, we could have trams in the Brisbane River ... remember? 

The Cleveland line will never have the service levels to justify the CRR tunnel.

[ozbob]

Facebook ...

Possible SEQ Citytrain Network 2025 after Cross River Rail is commissioned 27th April 2021 Government and Cross River...

Posted by RAIL - Back On Track on Monday, 26 April 2021

[ozbob]

Sent to all outlets:

Possible SEQ Citytrain Network 2025 after Cross River Rail is commissioned

27th April 2021

Government and Cross River Rail Development Authority (CRRDA) have ignored our constant requests for updated information on how the rail network will operate when Cross River Rail (CRR) is commissioned.  RTI applications both administrative and under the legislation, Ministerial requests, requests to CRRDA have all been unsuccessful.  Other jurisdictions for similar scale projects this sort of information IS PUBLICLY available.  So we are forced to do our own.

By working through the rail service plans in the ' 2017 Cross River Rail Business Case (1)' and the 'CRR Requests for project changes (2)' it is possible come up with a possible guide as to how the SEQ rail network will operate in 2025 when CRR is opened.

It is not the best operational plan that could have been achieved in our view. If it is not correct we call on the Queensland Government to do the right thing and publish updated rail service plans please. A failure to do that only confirms that our possible network is correct.

Reasons why this is a poor outcome are outlined in detail in the ' The Minerva Plan - a rail strategy for Southeast Queensland (3)'.

In summary the major concerns are:

1. No public release of the updated rail service plans
2. Not future-proofed. No Allowances for extensions north or south of the tunnel.
3. Outer network issues unresolved.
4. In some respects worse outcome for passengers - Gold Coast services slowed.
5. Incoherent development - 9 project changes already, 5 after contracts signed.
6. Rollingstock and staff are not adequate for any real train frequency gains. Hence the change of the CRR messaging from "More trains more often" to "CRR will transform the way we travel".
7. The Airport / Gold Coast nexus will be broken.  Be interesting to know what Airtrain think of that?
8. The numbers of trains through South Bank and South Brisbane will be significantly reduced.
9. Poor outcome for freight.

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

References:

1. https://buildingqueensland.qld.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Building-Queensland-Business-Case-LR.pdf
2. https://crossriverrail.qld.gov.au/planning-environment/environment-approvals/eis-project-changes/
3. https://backontrack.org/docs/crr/db/MinervaPlan1.0.pdf
4. Discussion thread at RAIL Back On Track forum https://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=14240.0

Possible sectors for the map:

Sector 1
Rosewood <> BNE Airport
Springfield Central <> Shorncliffe
Roma St <> Doomben

Sector 2
Cleveland <> Ferny Grove

Sector 3
Varsity Lakes <> Gympie North
Beenleigh <> Kippa-Ring

The suggested pairings are fluid in the sense that in peak trains could connect with lines the same sector of course, but the pairs would be the majority of workings. Pairings don't indicate that all services meet those pairs end to end.  They don't now, and wouldn't in 2025.

[ozbob]

https://twitter.com/railbotforum/status/1386792268263170049

[Arnz]

In regards to the network, I do wonder if the Caloundra spur (suburban network only) does get 'fast tracked' as part of the bid.  This would allow basically almost all existing Caboolture terminators (excluding the peak 'short runners' and late evening Caboolture/Elimbah yard terminators) to be simply extended to Caloundra.

Nambour/Gympie North of course gets converted to a Beerwah shuttle service full time, thus to not take up slots in the city and of course allow for cross-platform transfer at Beerwah with the past proposals of Beerwah getting a 3rd platform as part of CAMCOS.  I would recommend a 'dock platform' in the middle' at Beerwah to allow cross platform transfers (doors open on both sides) in both directions.

The exclusions of the Nambour/Gympie North shuttles could be at least 2x Gympie North services each in the AM and PM peak, similar to the Rosewood scheduling (3-4 services in the AM and PM peaks).

[ozbob]

https://twitter.com/railbotforum/status/1387065358201155584

[#Metro]

I think the Queensland Government has managed to get this project backwards. An achievement worth an Olympic Medal given that the project only

went through three rounds of exhaustive design and re-design and re-re-design AND had ten years to stew over how to get it right first time



It is clear that the issue with botched rail projects is a cultural problem. The culture isn't "Right the First Time" which it should be, it is "Does this

look good/sound good in my media release?" and "How can I reduce/make cuts to the headline cost to beat the previous administration?".

Rail and Busway Planning

You start with the desired network plan FIRST and THEN you build the infrastructure to be able to deliver that.

NOT the other way around - build the tunnel first and then figure out how the entire network will fit around the infrastructure.

You can get away with infrastructure first approaches when you build roads and motorways, but PT is a different kettle of fish.


Ideally, an exercise should have looked at what the 'ideal' service standards, line pairings etc were and then worked on something to deliver that.

Much of the CRR discussion in the planning phase focused on the preferred route, station locations, train lengths etc, and not service standards or

ideal line pairings.

Gold Coast - BNE Airport nexus

I don't agree with views that breaking the nexus between GC and Airport is 'coddling' Airtrain. That and 'it's private' is entirely beside the point.

If you want to maximise patronage, GC-Airport is the line pairing that will do that due to the GC size and tourism demand.

Which other line pairing is more convenient for Airport travellers, if not GC-BNE Airport?


Brisbane Airport has undergone a massive expansion and second runway. In the longer-term airport demand will go right up with a DFO station

and better access to businesses around the airport, plus tourism (when it comes back eventually). As for being a private company, again that is

besides the point - the line is going to be handed back to the Queensland Government anyway.