Cross River Rail Project

[O_128]

Wow mufreight 2.5 years is pretty tight, we don't live in china and you havnt added an extra year due to incompetency.

[somebody]

Is it likely to happen,

No.

[somebody]

Looking at the reference design, the quad apparently finishes between Rocklea and Salisbury.  According to the map of the PM peak (bottom of p74), the O/B trains need to conflict to allow this station to be served.  Doesn't this violate every rule of good train operations?

Also, the map for the AM peak has the station with 3 platforms and no platform where the current platform is.  Can we safely assume this is a mistake? EDIT: Yes we can.  Fixed in the update.

[somebody]

The Liberal National Party has signalled it will go to the next state election without a clear decision on Brisbane's $8 billion cross-river rail project.

But it says its plans to provide extra platforms at South Brisbane and South Bank railway stations will provide "breathing space" for a decision on the big-ticket state government project.

...

Robert Dow, of commuter lobby group Rail Back on Track, said he welcomed the document "in the sense that it's a policy of sorts" but more detail was needed.

Mr Dow said he was worried the proposed review of whether to push ahead with cross-river rail after an election would delay the critical project even more.

"Cross-river rail we think it really is getting to crunch time in terms of moving it forward," he said.

Opposition transport spokesman Scott Emerson said the plan to provide extra platforms at South Bank and South Brisbane would prevent trains from having to wait to get across the Merivale Bridge, the CBD's only rail crossing.

That was well put.

It's kind of surprising that the government hasn't seized on this.

[Golliwog]

There was a small article in today CM saying the Newman had clarified his position. Their plan is to lengthen the stations to allow longer trains to run across the Merivale Bridge and increase capacity that way. But to be viable, that would involve lengthening every station on the Beenleigh, Gold Coast and/or Cleveland line, plus those on their paired nothern line, unless you want to break that pairing and terminate trains in the CBD.

Not a bad idea, and as I understand it, this is already being given consideration by QR/TMR/whoever seeing as CRR is planned to be built to allow 9 car trains so it is already an eventuality. But how much breathing room this would give, and whether it is more pressing than CRR is up for debate.

[somebody]

It might be achievable to lengthen South Brisbane, South Bank, Roma St, and (let's assume) Beenleigh-Varsity Lakes.  However, I think lengthening Central is a big ask.

Is this article online or did you see it in print?

[Golliwog]

In print. Couldn't find it online.

[ozbob]

From the Couriermail 3rd September 2011 page 14

LNP draws up rail plan



Nine car trains are already planned for CRR, there would need to be many accommodations made on the existing network for 9 car trains.  Unless stations are lengthened operation becomes complicated and dwell times increase to the point that would be a major problem.
The plan does nothing to gain real capacity on the rest of the network, one of the key benefits of CRR.  Does nothing about giving mass sustainable transit to new areas either.

At least this time the LNP has the correct logic in that 9 car trains are a realistic possibility with the way trains are configured,  compared to the last election effort of 7 car trains ...

Interesting campaign coming up.  Already it seems SEQ moves forward with positioning its rail network for substantial long term growth by including CRR, or a short term expensive and limited plan to run 9 car trains on a narrow segment of the network ..

[SteelPan]

Any move other than CRR is really only dancing around the fire!  Brisbane's inner city rail corridor capacity will, in the next decade, reach crisis point - a second corridor is needed - also, longer trains, more platforms etc may not work in the inner city.  I also want to hear from Newman more on his "metro" plan.  We need both major political parties to nail once and for all, their real intentions regards CRR to the wall - publicly and soon!

[Stillwater]

Yep.      It's the political party dance of the seven veils.  So far Newman has got down to six veils.  Bligh is trying to put one or two veils back on.  We have seen enough of her policies.

[Golliwog]

Lengthening the platforms would work (I think anyway) to relieve the pressure on Merivale, so that if they really needed to they could redesign CRR however they saw fit (I don't see the point as it needs to connect to either the Beenleigh or Cleveland line in the south and wherever in the north to be of any benefit, and any tunnel for the Cleveland line would be better off cutting across around Bulimba somewhere anyway if you were going for real trip time savings) Anyway, the main point though is even if they did lengthen all the stations in time, what about the rollingstock issues? They already don't have enough pretty much now as it is, let alone trying to run a whole bunch of services with 9 cars.

[HappyTrainGuy]

Not to mention units that aren't capable of talking to each to each other in revenue service.

[Gazza]

Well obviously they would make them capable of talking, which they are going to have to do wether it is this option or the full CRR option.

[O_128]

This is another stupid idea like the 7th car. If I have the choice between  A seat on a train or more services but standing I would always choose more services.

[HappyTrainGuy]

Well obviously they would make them capable of talking, which they are going to have to do wether it is this option or the full CRR option.

Doubt it as they have different fundamental systems ie ICE/EMUs, SMU200s, SMU260/IMU160s, IMU100s, NGR. And I personally do not see services operating with more than 6 cars in revenue service as this would limit them to running on certain routes that can accomodate the train length. The only routes I can see that happening on is Roma Street-exp-Petrie-exp-Caboolture in peak and the GCL via CRR but given that Beenleigh-beyond would need some major work and the other would miss several of the big name stops I don't ever see that happening and agree with O_128 that its just a stupid idea like the 7th carriage.

[SurfRail]

Well obviously they would make them capable of talking, which they are going to have to do wether it is this option or the full CRR option.

Doubt it as they have different fundamental systems ie ICE/EMUs, SMU200s, SMU260/IMU160s, IMU100s, NGR. And I personally do not see services operating with more than 6 cars in revenue service as this would limit them to running on certain routes that can accomodate the train length. The only routes I can see that happening on is Roma Street-exp-Petrie-exp-Caboolture in peak and the GCL via CRR but given that Beenleigh-beyond would need some major work and the other would miss several of the big name stops I don't ever see that happening and agree with O_128 that its just a stupid idea like the 7th carriage.

+1

Further to the point, the 9-car consists for CRR are I believe intended to be indivisible sets equipped for tilting. 

The LNP is treading dangerous ground here.

[Jonno]

Despite all this whoha about CRR and/or station lengthening neither of our major parties believe that public transport is

• the only solution to our traffic problems; and
• supply driven and actively support the notion that there is a demand cap at a maximum of 30%

Neither are serious about fixing our transport problems, saving lives and reducing road subsidies.  They are only interested in cutting the ribbon on self-defined world-class infrastructure irrespective of global evidence to the contrary!

Think about this before you given either of the major parties a vote!

[Derwan]

I think Jonno has hit the nail on the head.

[O_128]

We need to remember 2 things.

Brisbane is half the size of sydney, Was sydney having these traffic problems when its population at this size, what will Brisbane be like with 4 million people.

If anyone has read the history of the london underground they'll see it was built to combat the severe congestion on the roads and to an extent worked, While I was in london I saw congestion no worse than brisbane which is pretty good for a city of 5 million+

[Gazza]

Well obviously they would make them capable of talking, which they are going to have to do wether it is this option or the full CRR option.

Doubt it as they have different fundamental systems ie ICE/EMUs, SMU200s, SMU260/IMU160s, IMU100s, NGR. And I personally do not see services operating with more than 6 cars in revenue service as this would limit them to running on certain routes that can accomodate the train length. The only routes I can see that happening on is Roma Street-exp-Petrie-exp-Caboolture in peak and the GCL via CRR but given that Beenleigh-beyond would need some major work and the other would miss several of the big name stops I don't ever see that happening and agree with O_128 that its just a stupid idea like the 7th carriage.

<Bangs head against wall>
Well obviously If you were making 9 car sets you'd use 3 of the same generation.....Isn't that obvious?

Or what, were you suggesting they would say combine and EMU, an SMU and an IMU into a 9 car "Frankenstein" train? What a stupid idea!

[Golliwog]

Further to the point, the 9-car consists for CRR are I believe intended to be indivisible sets equipped for tilting. 

I hadn't heard that one. Where are you getting that from?

HTG: As for station lengthening to allow for 9 car services, when I asked about that at the consultation, I was told it wasn't part of CRR (other than building the new stations to allow for it), but that it was something QR etc were looking at doing to increase capacity. If 9 car revenue services weren't going to be implemented, then why would they bother building CRR to allow for it?

That said, I don't think anyone is expecting 9 car trains on opening.

[O_128]

Further to the point, the 9-car consists for CRR are I believe intended to be indivisible sets equipped for tilting. 

I If 9 car revenue services weren't going to be implemented, then why would they bother building CRR to allow for it?

Because It is impossible to lengthen the CRR platforms once they are built, QR is using the build it right or not at all approach.

[Golliwog]

Nothing is impossible, just more difficult. But I do see your point.

[Derwan]

IIRC, 9-car trains are in the 2031 projection in the EIS.

[O_128]

Has anyone noticed how construction has slipped back on the CRR website? It now says construction may start in 2015, I swear last year it was 2012 and at the beginning of this year 2013

[HappyTrainGuy]

Well obviously they would make them capable of talking, which they are going to have to do wether it is this option or the full CRR option.

Doubt it as they have different fundamental systems ie ICE/EMUs, SMU200s, SMU260/IMU160s, IMU100s, NGR. And I personally do not see services operating with more than 6 cars in revenue service as this would limit them to running on certain routes that can accomodate the train length. The only routes I can see that happening on is Roma Street-exp-Petrie-exp-Caboolture in peak and the GCL via CRR but given that Beenleigh-beyond would need some major work and the other would miss several of the big name stops I don't ever see that happening and agree with O_128 that its just a stupid idea like the 7th carriage.

<Bangs head against wall>
Well obviously If you were making 9 car sets you'd use 3 of the same generation.....Isn't that obvious?

Or what, were you suggesting they would say combine and EMU, an SMU and an IMU into a 9 car "Frankenstein" train? What a stupid idea!

I mistook the below quote when you said "make them capable of talking" as trains of the same generation can already operate in 9 car units. IIRC the first few runs EMUs did were 9 car sets.

Well obviously they would make them capable of talking, which they are going to have to do wether it is this option or the full CRR option.

[Gazza]

as trains of the same generation can already operate in 9 car units

So why did you say this in the first place:

Not to mention units that aren't capable of talking to each to each other in revenue service.

By saying that, you made it sound as if a 6 car train is the "talking limit".

When you go from a 3 car to a 6 car, they always link up identical trains, and not ones from different series, so why suggest they would do anything differently when going up to a 9 car train.

The fact that different trains are incompatible for revenue service, is irrelevant to this discussion, because they'd never dream of doing that anyway.

[HappyTrainGuy]

My original post was referring to the fact that it doesn't help when different series trains don't successfully operate together in revenue service when they are capable of running trains with different series out of service with no problems at all due to their fundamental design.

[Golliwog]

IIRC, 9-car trains are in the 2031 projection in the EIS.

Yeah, 9-car IMU services and HCSMU services. Whether HCSMU's are 9 car SMU's or 6 car SMU's with reduced seating isn't clear though (well I couldn't see anything).

[Gazza]

My original post was referring to the fact that it doesn't help when different series trains don't successfully operate together in revenue service when they are capable of running trains with different series out of service with no problems at all due to their fundamental design.

Yeah, but what they choose to do with non revenue services is irrelevant in this discussion.

[ozbob]

Queensland Parliament Hansard Questions Without Notice 6th September 2011
http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/documents/hansard/2011/2011_09_06_DAILY.pdf

Cross River Rail

Ms GRACE: My question without notice is to the Minister for Transport and Multicultural Affairs.
Can the minister please advise the House on the status of the Cross River Rail project and whether
there are any alternative plans to boost capacity on the network?

Ms PALASZCZUK: I would like to thank the member very much for her question and also for her
commitment to the Cross River Rail project. Members will be aware that last week the government
released its comprehensive EIS on the Cross River Rail project. Here it is; it is very comprehensive. It is
a comprehensive plan for South-East Queensland—a comprehensive plan for our rail network in South-
East Queensland. However, we have had some conflicting views from Campbell Newman. I would like
to share those with the House.

On 6 July last year, Campbell Newman, as Lord Mayor, was supporting Cross River Rail when he
said—
If we don't get the inner-city rail project done, it affects the ability to run rail services right across the region.
Then when he was in charge of the South-East Queensland council of mayors he said—
It is time for all South-East Queensland residents to show their support of the Cross River Rail upgrade.

That is what he said on the public record.

Mr Emerson interjected.

Mr SPEAKER: Member for Indooroopilly, you have had a fair go.

Ms PALASZCZUK: Then last week what did we see? We saw the release of their so-called
infrastructure plan. What did they have to say in relation to that? Well, it was more of a mess. When he
was asked to clarify whether he supported Cross River Rail, Campbell Newman said—

We are totally supportive of a project that deals with the capacity problems across the Brisbane River.
But then he went on to hedge his bets again when he said—

I'm not going to pre-empt our solution. But the point is that we will deal with it at some time.
Yes, but what did they come up with? What was their alternative?

Mr Emerson interjected.

Mr SPEAKER: Member for Indooroopilly.

Ms PALASZCZUK: Their alternative was to upgrade South Bank and South Brisbane stations.

You might think that is a good idea—something that perhaps could be sounded out and looked at. But
guess what? It has been ruled out. The government has completely ruled that out as an option. Why
can't it be done? Because there is something called a busway right next door and something called the
convention centre. So their infrastructure plan simply cannot work.

What we do know about Campbell Newman is that everything he touches does not work. King
George Square is a complete debacle—no-one can use it; no-one can walk across it. The Clem7 is
another complete disaster—no-one can use it. And how can we not talk about CityCycle, Campbell
Newman's vision for getting people active in Brisbane city?

Mr Emerson interjected.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Honourable member for Indooroopilly, I warn you now under the standing
orders.

Ms PALASZCZUK: How successful has that been? Campbell Newman—no can do. Everything
he touches turns to dust. Every infrastructure plan he touches simply cannot work. You cannot risk
Campbell Newman.

[Gazza]

Quick question for those who have read the full report, but for trains serving Dutton park etc, where would these terminate?

[SurfRail]

Quick question for those who have read the full report, but for trains serving Dutton park etc, where would these terminate?

The 2031 paradigm has what appears to be the following sectorisation based on what is in the EIS and what I have seen previously:

UrbanLink - Cleveland/Loganlea via South Bank and Redbank/Springfield via Milton, to Ferny Grove/Strathpine via Windsor and Airport/Shorncliffe/Doomben via Albion; local pattern from Caloundra to Maroochydore

ExpressLink - Ripley-Ipswich to Strathpine via Central; Flagstone/Elanora to Caboolture/Redcliffe via CRR and Ekka

CoastLink - Elanora to Maroochydore via NWTC

Rosewood is still a shuttle with some through-routing via the Ipswich pattern in the peak. Not sure where Nambour/Cooroy/Gympie North services fit in, but it appears most likely via the main line or as a shuttle to CabTown.

From what I gather, the 2 existing trackpairs would continue to have trains going out of service in the CBD at Roma Street and Bowen Hills.  I can only assume the CRR services will go out of service at some combination of Ekka (Roma Street for am peak GC trains) and Boggo Road/Yeerongpilly.

[Arnz]

I would think they'd keep the Gympie North trains as is (currently the only trains apart from possibly Airport to run express on the Bowen Hills - Northgate corridor post stage 2 sectorization).  

As for CAMCOS, they would most likely take the Nambour slots initially, with all Nambour passenger trains eventually shuttling to Beerwah.  There are no Cooroy-only trains as of current (and there shouldn't be IMO, it's not the ideal place to terminate) any expansions of TL funded services beyond Nambour will probably be the 3rd Gympie service if they decide to expand on the current 2 a day to Gympie.  At least it would give the ICE fleet more work otherwise.  The only through services to Nambour will be the Gympielander ICEs and the Tilt Trains (non-TL fares).

An earlier report had Rosewood trains increasing to 2tph, but in this case they are just extensions of the existing Ipswich all-stops service.  Have no idea on the costs of platform extensions west of Ipswich however.

[Golliwog]

Quick question for those who have read the full report, but for trains serving Dutton park etc, where would these terminate?

Do you mean where would they start on the southside, or after they get to the city?

[somebody]

An earlier report had Rosewood trains increasing to 2tph, but in this case they are just extensions of the existing Ipswich all-stops service.  Have no idea on the costs of platform extensions west of Ipswich however.

Not sure why the platform extensions would be required.  Just lock the front 3 cars on O/B trains and the rear 3 cars on I/B trains.  I'm expect the driver can walk through the train at Rosewood to swap ends.

[Cam]

Redbank/Springfield via Milton

Ripley-Ipswich to Strathpine via Central

What's the difference? I read that ExpressLink from Ipswich would run via CRR2.

[SurfRail]

Redbank/Springfield via Milton

Ripley-Ipswich to Strathpine via Central

What's the difference? I read that ExpressLink from Ipswich would run via CRR2.

Redbank and Springfield services combine at Darra, running all stations to the city and then on to Shorncliffe, the Airport or Doomben.  (Slight possibility Doomben may be hooked into a Merivale Bridge pattern or terminate at Roma Street.)

"Ipswich" services would be all stations Ripley to Redbank via Ipswich, then limited stations to the city, then limited stations to Northgate, then all stations to Strathpine and terminate.

CRR2 does not feature in any current proposals.  I also don't see why it should, it appears completely unnecessary.  The existing main line gives a notional 24 trains per hour in the peak with some improvements (ie 40+ trains in the 2-hour peak) - that is surely enough for the western suburbs.  The inner city metro from Toowong to Newstead is a more worthy idea and could form the nucleus of a metro network which will in the long term replace the busways, eg:

-   Capalaba to Indooroopilly via Carindale, Buranda and UQ
-   Loganholme to Bracken Ridge
-   Light metro/light rail to replace the busway from Buranda to RBWH

[HappyTrainGuy]

An earlier report had Rosewood trains increasing to 2tph, but in this case they are just extensions of the existing Ipswich all-stops service.  Have no idea on the costs of platform extensions west of Ipswich however.

Not sure why the platform extensions would be required.  Just lock the front 3 cars on O/B trains and the rear 3 cars on I/B trains.  I'm expect the driver can walk through the train at Rosewood to swap ends.

It takes up too much time to constantly check and clear the carriages, lock them off then continue on the journey. Especially if there are any wheelchair passengers needing assistance, if its running late or if they are running more than 4 thru services a day from the city.

[somebody]

It takes up too much time to constantly check and clear the carriages, lock them off then continue on the journey. Especially if there are any wheelchair passengers needing assistance, if its running late or if they are running more than 4 thru services a day from the city.

I'm sorry, but it takes far more time to reverse the shuttles. Surely that's an axiom.