Kuraby to Beenleigh capacity improvement (Logan - Gold Coast Faster Rail)

[BrizCommuter]

With the previously proposed 3rd track/platform at Loganlea, additional turnback on the Gold Coast Line (? at Helensvale), and improved signalling it would have been possible to operate all of that 18tph - 6tph Loganlea, 6tph Gold Coast semi-express, 6tph Gold Coast express (as well as contra-peak and off-peak 4tph Gold Coast and 4tph Loganlea services) without additional tracks.

Isn't what you suggest the exact sort of short sighted, band-aid solution that we usually rally against? Better to build it once and build it right than just keep adding band-aids?

I feel there could be less of a push to upgrade the 18tph bottlenecked sections if there was only a 18tph limit beyond that from Kuraby and Beenleigh. However, if a Kuraby to Beenleigh upgrade is built with a higher future capacity built in (a rare example of future proofing something), that gives the Government the ability to spruik a Park Road to Kuraby quad project as straight away benefiting Park Road to the Gold Coast, and Park Road to Beaudesert if it's bundled in with that project too.

There is no point having a band aid if there isn't a cut to put it on. Whilst I'm doing a bit more number crunching, this is a very poor use of funds due to the 24tph bottleneck north of Salisbury. Unless of course there is some secret plan north of Salisbury we don't know about?

Not secret. Take a look at the SEQ Regional Transport Plan. Right up the top of the list of priority actions for the Metropolitan Area is A3.02 - Beenleigh Rail Line (Dutton Park to Salisbury) Corridor Planning

"Undertake planning for the Dutton Park to Salisbury rail corridor to determine and preserve corridor
requirements for future upgrades."

It is clearly on their radar and something which will be upgraded in the future.

Sent from my SM-G780F using Tapatalk

The problem with preserving the corridor is that the 3 track/platform station designs make it very difficult to add a 4th track. So they've just done the opposite to preserving the corridor!

[HappyTrainGuy]

Also, I've always wondered if the current GC expresses are sandbagged a bit? I feel as though they could to the run south of Kuraby a bit faster (despite the curves) but do not, purley to ensure they don't clash on approach to Beenleigh. With a full quad, trains can flog it a bit more I reckon.

Correct. Signalling and level crossing meet times (to the north) also come into it too. The old Gold Coast South brisbane to Beenleigh express services were frequently dwelling at Beenleigh due to early running when track was clear and no Beenleigh service waiting at the platform.

[SteelPan]

Why?  South of Beenleigh can already be operated at 17tph with the current signalling system, and there is a practical limit of probably 12 given the need for everything from Coopers Plains and south to go via CRR.  I see no need for skip-stop or express services at that headway.

Why not?

Because it achieves nothing useful.  The problems are north of Beenleigh.

If we need more cspacity than a 6 car train every 5 minutes, there are 2 better options:
- Move to 9 car trains by adding 3 cars to a good proportion of the NGR fleet, extend platforms at all stations Beenleigh and south plus Loganlea and anywhere else GC trains will stop.
- Build proper HSR.

Their going to double the number of services AND are already in the process of adding more stops [stations] - the need should be obvious!

[Cazza]

Trains running every 15 mins stopping at all stations is much better than having tiered services running every 30 mins all stops, and every 30 mins limited stops. Pretty much the same amount of resources used, one option just provides much greater service quality and reliability than the other. Obviously, this doesn't work in all scenarios (e.g. between Beenleigh and Park Rd) and I don't expect to have the GC Line stop at all stations through this section. But I don't quite see the value in running a 2 tiered service for the local GC stations.

If anything, an Ormeau to Varisty Lakes shuttle service could be implemented tomorrow (using the existing crossovers just south of Ormeau) to tie in with the GC-Brisbane Airport services to provide a consistent local 15 min frequency.

[BrizCommuter]

Trains running every 15 mins stopping at all stations is much better than having tiered services running every 30 mins all stops, and every 30 mins limited stops. Pretty much the same amount of resources used, one option just provides much greater service quality and reliability than the other. Obviously, this doesn't work in all scenarios (e.g. between Beenleigh and Park Rd) and I don't expect to have the GC Line stop at all stations through this section. But I don't quite see the value in running a 2 tiered service for the local GC stations.

If anything, an Ormeau to Varisty Lakes shuttle service could be implemented tomorrow (using the existing crossovers just south of Ormeau) to tie in with the GC-Brisbane Airport services to provide a consistent local 15 min frequency.

Tiering may be required due to the additional stations increasing journey time. It is less likely though if Beenleigh services continue to terminate at Beenleigh instead of Loganlea.

[Gazza]

But the project improves speeds in two ways:

-Straighter alignment
-Ability to run faster on existing sections (Express services appear to run underspeed at present)

That offsets the addition of new stations. (The speed from Dutton Park to Clapham remains to be seen....)

At best we save a few mins, at worst its neutral with present.

Maybe the idea of Loganlea termination was just a thought bubble by TMR in those earlier documents and now the thinking is just to quad the whole corridor long term (Which is the correct choice)

Or is your argument that in terms of investment priority, we should have spent the money quadding from Dutton Park to somewhere and got time savings from that?
You're not wrong in that respect, but it seems that bit of the network is in flux due to the ongoing study, whilst south of Kuraby it's a bit easier to know what to do.

[nathandavid88]

Recalling the original renders shown for Loganlea Station when the relocation was first talked about officially, they did look like they may have shown a 4 platform layout right from the start (I recall some discussion about it either here or over on Skyscrapercity - can't remember which). Maybe this quad track solution was the actual plan all along?

[kram0]

I honestly think we can forget about a quad track from Dutton Park. The reason Dutton Park is only going to be 2 platforms and not 3 like the rest, is due to the fact extra houses were required to be resumed and this was deemed political suicide, so did not go ahead.

At best you could hope for quad south from Yeerongpilly, but then why has TMR, not considered this in the design of the current new stations getting rebuilt?

[BrizCommuter]

I honestly think we can forget about a quad track from Dutton Park. The reason Dutton Park is only going to be 2 platforms and not 3 like the rest, is due to the fact extra houses were required to be resumed and this was deemed political suicide, so did not go ahead.

At best you could hope for quad south from Yeerongpilly, but then why has TMR, not considered this in the design of the current new stations getting rebuilt?

We can't forget about Dutton Park to Salisbury as that section limits the combined Gold Coast/Beenleigh/Beaudesert Lines from 36tph (ish) to 24tph and will slow down contra-peak trains. It really is a major design f up. Any solution to resolve this will now be more expensive due to the lack of forward thinking.

[verbatim9]

I honestly think we can forget about a quad track from Dutton Park. The reason Dutton Park is only going to be 2 platforms and not 3 like the rest, is due to the fact extra houses were required to be resumed and this was deemed political suicide, so did not go ahead.

At best you could hope for quad south from Yeerongpilly, but then why has TMR, not considered this in the design of the current new stations getting rebuilt?

As long as they fix up the section from Coopers Plains to Altandi at the same time as the level crossing removals in the area. I am pretty sure the current speed in that area is 40-50kph.

Cut and cover tunnels or driven tunnels could be a solution here. This would prevent the need of expensive road overpasses as well.

They could sell the old rail corridor off, or retain some of it for community use?

I wonder what the proposed time saving would be once they complete all this work down to Beenleigh?

10mins?, 15mins?

Or is this just a 2 billion dollar exercise to ensure future capacity without significant time savings?

I hope they also release public consultation on the heavy rail extension to OOL. TMR needs to complete this before any quad work. I believe that the ETCS 2 rollout to Varsity lakes and the new Loganlea station will improve capacity significantly in the short term in line with the Cross River Rail opening.

Quad and realignment is welcomed, but not urgent.

[kram0]

I'd be surprised if the quad track saves any more than 5 minutes. This is being built to allow additional services from/to Beenleigh and the GC.

The main time saving will come from CRR, however the 3 additional stations will offset a portion of the time saving CRR offers.

[Gazza]

Between Altandi and Loganlea it does 13.6km in 13 mins, an average speed of 62.8km/h

If we can lift that to an average speed of 90km/h it will save just under 5 mins.

Between Loganlea and Beenleigh it does 7.9km in 10 mins, an average speed of 47.4km/h. I suspect it's this stretch that has the most sandbagging.

If we can lift that to an average speed of 80km/h it will save 4 mins.

So potentially 9 mins of time savings. Quite impressive!

For comparison. its an average speed of 108km/h Beenleigh to Ormeau, or 94.5km/h Nerang to Beenleigh.

[BrizCommuter]

Between Altandi and Loganlea it does 13.6km in 13 mins, an average speed of 62.8km/h

If we can lift that to an average speed of 90km/h it will save just under 5 mins.

Between Loganlea and Beenleigh it does 7.9km in 10 mins, an average speed of 47.4km/h. I suspect it's this stretch that has the most sandbagging.

If we can lift that to an average speed of 80km/h it will save 4 mins.

So potentially 9 mins of time savings. Quite impressive!

For comparison. its an average speed of 108km/h Beenleigh to Ormeau, or 94.5km/h Nerang to Beenleigh.

...and an average speed of 25kph whilst a Gold Coast train trundles behind an all stations between Dutton Park and Salisbury ;-)

[ozbob]

Just published a now rare post:
https://brizcommuter.blogspot.com/2021/09/kuraby-to-beenleigh-capacity.html

https://twitter.com/ozbob13/status/1434764035086422022

[SteelPan]

We've got to run with this [for now]...I guess...but let's be honest, it's not the fast rail we'd all hoped for!

[ozbob]

We've got to run with this [for now]...I guess...but let's be honest, it's not the fast rail we'd all hoped for!

Yope,  it is .... "  faster rail "     

[SteelPan]

It's "fastish"....not really "faster"....in fact, not real sure it will be any faster at all!    it IS QLD but   

[Stillwater]

So, the proposed funding split for this project is $178.1 million from the state government and a $178.1 million contribution from the feds. In other words, this is an agreed 50:50 funding split. Why then is the State Government pushing for an 80:20 funding split for the SCL Upgrade to Nambour? Has the state capitulated and agreed to a half-and-half funding split for the SCL duplication to Nambour?

And, where are all those extra trains proposed for the run between Brisbane and the Gold Coast going to go when the pop out on the northside of Brisbane at Bowen Hills / Albion? Do they do a big sling onto the Exhibition loop and head back down south, or do some extra trains proceed beyond Albion?

[BrizCommuter]

So, the proposed funding split for this project is $178.1 million from the state government and a $178.1 million contribution from the feds. In other words, this is an agreed 50:50 funding split. Why then is the State Government pushing for an 80:20 funding split for the SCL Upgrade to Nambour? Has the state capitulated and agreed to a half-and-half funding split for the SCL duplication to Nambour?

And, where are all those extra trains proposed for the run between Brisbane and the Gold Coast going to go when the pop out on the northside of Brisbane at Bowen Hills / Albion? Do they do a big sling onto the Exhibition loop and head back down south, or do some extra trains proceed beyond Albion?

Any excess train services from CRR will be turned back in the rebuilt Mayne Yards.

[ozbob]

Couriermail --> Homes to go as part of billion-dollar fast rail plan to boost Olympic tourism $

A billion-dollar plan to boost train services between the Gold Coast and Logan in time for the 2032 Olympics will include property resumptions.

It is still unknown how many properties will have to be resumed when the existing rail corridor is widened from two tracks to four.

State and federal governments this week announced $356.2 million would be spent duplicating the train line between Kuraby and the Gold Coast. ...

[verbatim9]

Inevitable re land resumption.

[Gazza]

This is why i think deviating or tunneling is the best solution for this project in the vicinity of Woodridge

The budget is in the billions right, so clearly something like a tunnel can be afforded. Much cheaper to tunnel when you aren't threading between skyscrapers and under rivers.

Do you disrupt hundreds of backyards and still end up with something sub par, and years of track possessions?

Or do you build the whole thing off-line, commission the signalling, and then complete the tie ins during an Easter track closure.

Ditto for around bethania. Build skyrail over the floodplain, miss the built up areas. Beenleigh and GC lines run uimpeded, and again, a track closure for a few days for the final tie in and you have a 21st century rail line that can handle the highest possible narrow gauge speeds.

[ozbob]

Dozens of Logan homes to be demolished for upgraded rail line to the Gold Coast | 7NEWS

[SteelPan]

IF we're going to "spend billions" what's really the point of this project?
Translink...it might save "minutes" uhhmmm, it might rain next week too!
Spending Billions to me, would be better spent toward the cost of a new corridor [tunnel] from around the southern end of CRR to Beenleigh    :conf

This seems to be a dogs breakfast idea before the serious planning is already done!

Hardly "Fast/er Rail"

What's their plan for the proposed Sunshine Coast [proper] line - have a "RAPID"stage coach meet the train somewhere on the existing main northern line?

Ahhhh Queensland...Beautiful One Day.....Perfect the Next....Bewildering EVERY!

[ozbob]

7 News 13th September 2021

[BrizCommuter]

IF we're going to "spend billions" what's really the point of this project?
Translink...it might save "minutes" uhhmmm, it might rain next week too!
Spending Billions to me, would be better spent toward the cost of a new corridor [tunnel] from around the southern end of CRR to Beenleigh    :conf

This seems to be a dogs breakfast idea before the serious planning is already done!

Hardly "Fast/er Rail"

What's their plan for the proposed Sunshine Coast [proper] line - have a "RAPID"stage coach meet the train somewhere on the existing main northern line?

Ahhhh Queensland...Beautiful One Day.....Perfect the Next....Bewildering EVERY!

Fixing Salisbury to Dutton Park would be better use of money.

[Gazza]

Doing this forces a fix of that area regardless.

I'll have to dig it up, but I figured you could run about 16 tph from Boggo Rd to Clapham without slowing to all stops speed by running a hetrogenous stopping pattern.
That could buy some time until you needed the remaining slots to run a Flagstone service.

[Gazza]

Perhaps @MTPCo or @BrizCommuter can comment on the below for a counter peak service.

I've modelled this based upon:

8 mins all stations from Moorooka to Dutton Park
4 mins from Clapham to the portal, based on an average speed of 70kmh, which reflects the current speed boards.

Scenarios

A) 12tph GC 12tph Beenleigh, upper limit and probably less reliable due to precision crossing needed at both the portal and the yard entry.

B) 8tph GC 8tph Beenleigh, so more generous gaps.

C) 6tph Beenleigh , 12tph GC but this has an odd 2.5+7.5 frequency.

Thoughts?

[MTPCo]

Perhaps @MTPCo or @BrizCommuter can comment on the below for a counter peak service.

I've modelled this based upon:

8 mins all stations from Moorooka to Dutton Park
4 mins from Clapham to the portal, based on an average speed of 70kmh, which reflects the current speed boards.

Scenarios

A) 12tph GC 12tph Beenleigh, upper limit and probably less reliable due to precision crossing needed at both the portal and the yard entry.

B) 8tph GC 8tph Beenleigh, so more generous gaps.

C) 6tph Beenleigh , 12tph GC but this has an odd 2.5+7.5 frequency.

Thoughts?

There's a fair bit to go on with here, but I'll try to be as brief as possible. Some of this is covered in the Minerva Plan, so I'll reference relevant page numbers in brackets.

To start, we know that the contra-peak (or counter peak) will operate at all stations speed. There is no alternative when 24tph comes out of/goes into the tunnel, onto a single outbound/inbound track, and some of those trains have to stop all stations (pages 5 & 6).

For a more generalist view, let's just look at one direction and assume rough equivalence for the other direction. Choosing the Up (southbound), we can get rough information from the timetable that a train stopping at Park (Boggo) Road and running all stations to Moorooka (our equivalent to Clapham) takes 10 minutes (NB I've chosen Park Road rather than Dutton Park as I don't believe, from the infrastructure layouts, that all CRR trains will stop at Dutton Park, but the analysis isn't materially impacted either way). If I had to guess, an express train – stopping at Park Road but not stopping at Moorooka – would probably take about six minutes, meaning a four-minute differential between them.

Taking a 2:30 headway (ETCS2) as the standard scheduled gap between departures*, we could have an express leave at 0:00, and the following all-stations leave at 2:30, which would arrive at Moorooka at 12:30. For an express train to be behind by 2:30 at Moorooka, it must pass at 15:00, which means it needs to have left Park Road at 9:00 – leaving a 6:30 gap from the preceding all-stations train (which is the four minute travel difference plus the minimum headway). This means trains leaving Park Road at 0:00, 2:30, 9:00, 11:30, ...54:00, 56:30. This is a total of 14tph, without notionally reducing the speed of the expresses through this area. Any increase in service levels would reduce the speed, through to 24tph incurring the four-minute time penalty which results in all-stations speed during the contra-peak periods. This is very close to your "B" variant, which is pretty close to what would be achievable.

The "A" variant has trains scheduled too close to be able to work. The "C" variant could also be made to work, but would require slightly wider spacing at the Dutton Park end and would also be contingent on a very particularly sequencing of trains e.g. 0, 2.5, 9, 11.5, 14, 20.5, etc...which isn't to say it couldn't be done, but would have flow-on impacts through the rest of CRR and the network (and ends up with 16tph).

The off-peak is slightly different, where you might only have 4tph express and 4tph all-stations (which would be a fairly good outcome, considering). If you can keep the same sequencing at Park Road, it's probably somewhere around Altandi that the express catches up to the previous all-stations train (i.e. timetabled all-stations time of 24 minutes, express can probably do it in around 14 minutes by dropping a minute for each of the 10 intermediate stations). This requires very specific timings of trains coming out of Park Road, however, and would result in a notional 12.5 minute gap through CRR, so it may be the case that Mayne-Clapham shuttles would be needed to supplement frequency at keep gaps below ~7 minutes.

In the case above, off-peak express services would probably only be slowed by ~3 minutes before hitting the quad at Kuraby and being able to overtake. Contra-peak services, noting that expresses could only be timed to start running express at Moorooka, would then not be slowed with the quad in place. Having quad/long tunnels to Yeerongpilly (at least) would have allowed expresses to operate at maximum possible speed all day in both directions.

In a general sense, the proposal to do quad between Kuraby and Beenleigh is welcomed – after all, it was one of the recommendations of the Minerva Plan (pages 65-69 for the detailed analysis). However it will only provide benefit under certain operating assumptions (such as those detailed above, or in the Minerva Plan) – yet supposedly there is no operating plan available. In such a case, how can it be said for certain that the scope of the proposal is correct?


*although it is technically possible for closer headways under ETCS2, it is not appropriate or realistic to schedule trains closer than the overarching headway, which is 2.5 minutes in a 24tph corridor.

[Gazza]

Will CRR need to run at 24 tph on opening day?
Apologies if I missed that in the report.

Just thinking about this again this morning, theoretically counter peaks only needs to accommodate 4 expresses per hour for the foreseeable future, with all other services going at all stations speed, either to Beenleigh, Salisbury or into Clapham.

What would be the capacity of that?

(Then of course in the future if we did a faster rail tunnel to Kurabyyou send all expresses into that and can use the full capacity of crr)

A less preferable option would be to slightly slow express trains by a minute, and slightly increase the speed of all stations trains (for example the level platforms and higher frequency might allow dwell times to be revised)

Another solution could be to install a turnback on spare land near Fairfield....the idea being that a service uses the turnback which then clears a path for a following express.

[BrizCommuter]

Will CRR need to run at 24 tph on opening day?
Apologies if I missed that in the report.

Just thinking about this again this morning, theoretically counter peaks only needs to accommodate 4 expresses per hour for the foreseeable future, with all other services going at all stations speed, either to Beenleigh, Salisbury or into Clapham.

What would be the capacity of that?

(Then of course in the future if we did a faster rail tunnel to Kurabyyou send all expresses into that and can use the full capacity of crr)

A less preferable option would be to slightly slow express trains by a minute, and slightly increase the speed of all stations trains (for example the level platforms and higher frequency might allow dwell times to be revised)

Another solution could be to install a turnback on spare land near Fairfield....the idea being that a service uses the turnback which then clears a path for a following express.

The combined Redcliffe/Caboolture Line currently runs every 3 mins in the am peak (20tph, though I'm reality it's 18tph as the service doesn't operate for a full hour). So 20tph am contra-peak (between Dutton Park and Clapham Yards) may occur at opening due to lack of new trains and will power to improve train services to the proposed 24tph.

Additionally turning back trains near the portal wouldn't work as it would decrease peak capacity from the Gold Coast/Beenleigh Lines. All except 8-12tph of those am contra-peak services will be removed from service at Clapham Yards.

[Gazza]

So how about this....A way to do 24tph.

Key points:

-Have reversed the direction of the graph to make it easier to visualise....Trains coming out of the tunnel southbound and needing to be dealt with.

-Agree that expresses wont stop at Dutton Park, I'm just nominating that as the common start/end point for analysis.

-Between Dutton Park and Clapham, we can take it as a given that an express will take 2 paths.

-The Gold Coast is unlikely to need more than 4tph express contra peak for many years.

-Thus 20tph could be achievable since all other trains only need to operate at all stations speed (Though not ideal in the long term to have Flagstone trains running all stations speed IMHO, and Flagstone should be the trigger for upgrades.)

-The blue line represents a turnback movement, which would be a fairly low cost piece of infrastructure to unlock an extra 4 paths,
.....but it does mean the peak direction then loses 4  slots for what effectively becomes a CRR shuttle.
But with GC at 12tph and Beenleigh at say 8tph this may not be a problem, the turnback would more be for the benefit of the crowded northern lines.

-Could it be possible to exploit ETCS to 'massage' the speed of non passenger trains between Dutton Park and clapham to ensure they hit interval at the portals?....In other words it doesn't matter if non passenger movements are not clock face.

The upper diagram is the basic idea showing 24tph using a turnback, or 20tph if you ignore the blue line.

The lower diagram is the massaged version, with the speed of clapham trains adjusted to better stagger arrivals into the yard.

[BrizCommuter]

So how about this....A way to do 24tph.

Key points:

-Have reversed the direction of the graph to make it easier to visualise....Trains coming out of the tunnel southbound and needing to be dealt with.

-Agree that expresses wont stop at Dutton Park, I'm just nominating that as the common start/end point for analysis.

-Between Dutton Park and Clapham, we can take it as a given that an express will take 2 paths.

-The Gold Coast is unlikely to need more than 4tph express contra peak for many years.

-Thus 20tph could be achievable since all other trains only need to operate at all stations speed (Though not ideal in the long term to have Flagstone trains running all stations speed IMHO, and Flagstone should be the trigger for upgrades.)

-The blue line represents a turnback movement, which would be a fairly low cost piece of infrastructure to unlock an extra 4 paths,
.....but it does mean the peak direction then loses 4  slots for what effectively becomes a CRR shuttle.
But with GC at 12tph and Beenleigh at say 8tph this may not be a problem, the turnback would more be for the benefit of the crowded northern lines.

-Could it be possible to exploit ETCS to 'massage' the speed of non passenger trains between Dutton Park and clapham to ensure they hit interval at the portals?....In other words it doesn't matter if non passenger movements are not clock face.

The upper diagram is the basic idea showing 24tph using a turnback, or 20tph if you ignore the blue line.

The lower diagram is the massaged version, with the speed of clapham trains adjusted to better stagger arrivals into the yard.

When the Salisbury to Beaudesert Line opens there will be no spare am peak paths. Thus the turnback would be pointless. Anything less than 4 tracks on this section is mediocrity.

[Gazza]

Yes, and when is Salisbury to Beaudesert opening?

Im not denying the need for quad tracks, remember I said:

(Though not ideal in the long term to have Flagstone trains running all stations speed IMHO, and Flagstone should be the trigger for upgrades.)

What I'm saying is that Flagstone is the reason to have a quad, why not do the quad as part of that project?

[MTPCo]

There are a lot of questions here which would take time and effort to answer fully, so I'm afraid I will have to come back to them in detail later in the week. However, short version comments/answers as follows:

• We don't know what CRR will operate at Day 1, but if it is less than 20tph it isn't providing any benefit from the north. If it is 20-24tph, then previous comments hold true, because even 20tph will present as 3 minute service gaps (otherwise you are arbitrarily penalising the north to save a few minutes at best on contra-peak services).
• Wherever the line is being used at max capacity (or even close to), all services - dead, stopping, express - will run at the slowest service's speed. There is no way around that.
• A Fairfield turnback may save 2 minutes for contra-peak express services, but at what cost and disruption? You also have to assume that there is spare capacity going back into the tunnel to make use of that approach, as well as stabling capacity at Mayne for whatever services are being turned back. This isn't to say that it couldn't be made to work as you've suggested, but I personally don't see the merit and it is unclear how it would fit into any long term plan either.
• Flagstone doesn't need quad tracks, nothing technically does if you're prepared to completely sacrifice the operations of the network (e.g. Flagstone peak via Subs, contra-peak via CRR, everything else mystery). I (personally) have never said Flagstone is a trigger, and have always advocated for the long tunnel (or equivalent) for the purposes of both freight and segregation of express running and overall increased capacity.

[BrizCommuter]

Yes, and when is Salisbury to Beaudesert opening?

Im not denying the need for quad tracks, remember I said:

(Though not ideal in the long term to have Flagstone trains running all stations speed IMHO, and Flagstone should be the trigger for upgrades.)

What I'm saying is that Flagstone is the reason to have a quad, why not do the quad as part of that project?

It would have been easier to do the quad now, not later. The new 3 platform stations make it very difficult to add an extra track in the future.

[Gazza]

Yes, and when is Salisbury to Beaudesert opening?

Im not denying the need for quad tracks, remember I said:

(Though not ideal in the long term to have Flagstone trains running all stations speed IMHO, and Flagstone should be the trigger for upgrades.)

What I'm saying is that Flagstone is the reason to have a quad, why not do the quad as part of that project?

It would have been easier to do the quad now, not later. The new 3 platform stations make it very difficult to add an extra track in the future.

That all said, quadding the existing surface corridor is mediocrity.
Perhaps leaving at 20tph initally is a fair tradeoff if a better alignment comes in the future, for example a tunnel extension.


*****

In a blooper, it appears the new stretton reserve estate has lots that will be impacted by the new alignment
https://strettonreserve.com.au/location/

[matlock]

At the risk of sounding foamy, maybe future plans for express Gold Coast services involve two bored tunnels from Park/Boggo Rd to Kuraby, thus eliminating the need for a fourth track on the existing section. The third existing track can then be used to allow Beenleigh trains to run express peak-direction while any Beaudesert trains run all stops.

[aldonius]

Tangent: if you're running trains all the way to Beaudesert then I think they'd be better on an express pattern, but if they only go to, say, Boronia Heights in the first stage then that's fine to go all-stops.

[Gazza]

That's what I think too.
You could run quite a 'clean' service to Flagstone if it was express Yeerongpilly to Boggo Rd (Note that I think the interchange station should be Yeerongpilly not Salisbury)

Why mess up a good new line by introducing a slow crawl into the city?