Cross River Rail Project

[mufreight]

And without CRR rail commuter services in SEQ will overshoot the dead end buffers.

[BrizCommuter]

BrizCommuter comments on the CRR EIS.
http://brizcommuter.blogspot.com/2011/10/cross-river-rail-eis.html

[somebody]

BrizCommuter comments on the CRR EIS.
http://brizcommuter.blogspot.com/2011/10/cross-river-rail-eis.html

Didn't you notice this question:

I'd be very interested in BrizCommuter's thoughts on a full time 4tph via Tennyson service in a post CRR world.  Foaming fantasy, or improvement to cross town links?  This is important as the via Yeronga trains cannot serve both Moorooka and Tennyson obviously.

?

[BrizCommuter]

BrizCommuter comments on the CRR EIS.
http://brizcommuter.blogspot.com/2011/10/cross-river-rail-eis.html

Didn't you notice this question:

I'd be very interested in BrizCommuter's thoughts on a full time 4tph via Tennyson service in a post CRR world.  Foaming fantasy, or improvement to cross town links?  This is important as the via Yeronga trains cannot serve both Moorooka and Tennyson obviously.

?

The 2021 am peak scenario has 19tph running on the via South Bank Lines (7tph ex-Kuraby, and 12tph ex-Cleveland Line), and 17tph on the via CRR Line (11tph ex-Gold Coast, 6tph ex-Beenleigh).

Tennyson services can only run via the South Bank Lines and not via CRR. Thus adding 4tph to the 19tph via South Bank Lines (which would also involve conflicting moves in the outbound direction) would be pushing it somewhat. Looks like Tennyson is dead and buried!

[Gazza]

So under CRR, there would be no way for ex Ipswich pax to shortcut to GC trains via Tennyson?

[O_128]

So under CRR, there would be no way for ex Ipswich pax to shortcut to GC trains via Tennyson?

it would be ridiculous if it isn't possible!

[somebody]

So under CRR, there would be no way for ex Ipswich pax to shortcut to GC trains via Tennyson?

104.

it would be ridiculous if it isn't possible!

That would only add real value when there is a game at W'Gabba.  I don't see how it is worth spending multi-millions to add this capability.

The 2021 am peak scenario has 19tph running on the via South Bank Lines (7tph ex-Kuraby, and 12tph ex-Cleveland Line), and 17tph on the via CRR Line (11tph ex-Gold Coast, 6tph ex-Beenleigh).

Tennyson services can only run via the South Bank Lines and not via CRR. Thus adding 4tph to the 19tph via South Bank Lines (which would also involve conflicting moves in the outbound direction) would be pushing it somewhat. Looks like Tennyson is dead and buried!

I'm a bit more sceptical about that service forecast than you, apparently.  Particularly regarding the 11tph Gold Coast.

I'm not sure what is with the conflicting move at Salisbury.  Surely that should have a third platform (assuming everything else in the plan), allow turning around on the centre platform at Coopers Plains and actually achieve sectorisation.  Current plans break sectorisation.

In spite of the fact that it would limit capacity, I prefer the via Tennyson option for its cross town advantages, as well as the reasonable service to Tennyson, and possibility of an (arguable) additional station Sherwood East.  I can feel your eyes rolling from here.

[BrizCommuter]

I'm a bit more sceptical about that service forecast than you, apparently.  Particularly regarding the 11tph Gold Coast.

Come on, we all know that in reality in 2021 it will be about 5tph!  

[Arnz]

GC at best post CRR in Peak Periods would probably be 6tph.  (every 10 mins with 9 car trains) imo.  Would require less platform extension work, (as opposed to the proposed 9 car trains on other lines) but Beenleigh Station would probably be a bit of a challenge.

[Cam]

So under CRR, there would be no way for ex Ipswich pax to shortcut to GC trains via Tennyson?

it would be ridiculous if it isn't possible!

It would be a massive shame if there is no possibility for Ipswich/Springfield commuters to access direct services to the Gabba, Albert St or even Yeerongpilly to change for a service to Beenleigh/Gold Coast/Flagstone under CRR. The current demand may not warrant it but if such services haven't been provided withinin a couple of decades when the population of Ipswich is similar to the current population of the Gold Coast, there will be plenty of unsatisfied voters who will know that such a connection could have been incorporated in the 2011 design.

[O_128]

So under CRR, there would be no way for ex Ipswich pax to shortcut to GC trains via Tennyson?

it would be ridiculous if it isn't possible!

It would be a massive shame if there is no possibility for Ipswich/Springfield commuters to access direct services to the Gabba, Albert St or even Yeerongpilly to change for a service to Beenleigh/Gold Coast/Flagstone under CRR. The current demand may not warrant it but if such services haven't been provided withinin a couple of decades when the population of Ipswich is similar to the current population of the Gold Coast, there will be plenty of unsatisfied voters who will know that such a connection could have been incorporated in the 2011 design.

a few million is nothing when the project is 9 billion, and if we have learnt anything from the ipswich quad its do it properly now. We keep trying to get people to work out of the city so do it.

[somebody]

I don't think anyone is suggesting that interchange at Yeerongpilly wouldn't be possible.  Might be a 200m walk though.  I'd wonder if it wouldn't be easier just to have interchange at Roma St.  Or perhaps Park Rd.

[Gazza]

it would be ridiculous if it isn't possible!

That would only add real value when there is a game at W'Gabba.  I don't see how it is worth spending multi-millions to add this capability.

What about what I said originally, allowing people heading down to the GC the ability to shave off say 30-40 mins, by being able to go cross country and not having to go all the way to Roma St and back out again.

[Golliwog]

I don't think anyone is suggesting that interchange at Yeerongpilly wouldn't be possible.  Might be a 200m walk though.  I'd wonder if it wouldn't be easier just to have interchange at Roma St.  Or perhaps Park Rd.

The current Y'pilly platforms are planned to be kept. Whether they are used or not, as I understand it, is up to QR. They would be seperate from the new platforms, as detailed in their updated plans. As I have mentioned before, the CRR team have also made sure that if QR wants to, they have enough space to add in cross overs so that the CRR tunnel can be accessed from the Tennyson loop, though my understanding was if that was the case, neither Y'pilly platform could be used and the transfer would occur at Park Rd.

[Arnz]

Makes me wonder, I do recall that QR in the pre-TransLink days had tried this in the 90s with a few Robina bound services going via Sherwood, but didn't go well patronage wise at all.  IIRC the people that did used it to get to Sherwood in both directions (from the City and from Beenleigh) and connected to various Ipswich line stations (namely Indooroopilly).

It was around the time they connected Shorncliffe to Corinda and formed the weekday 15 min off-peak (Corinda weekend frequency was only 30 mins then).  Which was "news" at the time lol.  I stand corrected otherwise if any sources reading the forum was around back then.

[somebody]

Last face to face consultation is today:
Tuesday 11 October 2011    3.30 pm – 5.30 pm    Brisbane Square Library, The Community Room, 233 George Street, Brisbane City

Planning to get there.

[Golliwog]

Last face to face consultation is today:
Tuesday 11 October 2011    3.30 pm – 5.30 pm    Brisbane Square Library, The Community Room, 233 George Street, Brisbane City

Planning to get there.

I won't be able to make it down, but could you just ask them for me, what speeds are the tunnels going to be designed for?

[Gazza]

Remind me to go there and ask why they didn't orignally aim to have to have planning starting sooner, so the whole project was mapped out for a 2015 completion.....1 year before the capacity crunch.
It's a joke that even before the floods it wasn't going to be built until 2018.

[somebody]

Remind me to go there and ask why they didn't orignally aim to have to have planning starting sooner, so the whole project was mapped out for a 2015 completion.....1 year before the capacity crunch.
It's a joke that even before the floods it wasn't going to be built until 2018.

That's not going to be helpful.  The planners are only the executors of govt policy.

Officially, the delay was only announced after the floods.  It may be that the floods were used as a convenient excuse to delay something that they wanted to delay but there is no evidence of that.

[somebody]

Last face to face consultation is today:
Tuesday 11 October 2011    3.30 pm – 5.30 pm    Brisbane Square Library, The Community Room, 233 George Street, Brisbane City

Planning to get there.

I won't be able to make it down, but could you just ask them for me, what speeds are the tunnels going to be designed for?

Didn't ask that specifically, but did ask about the journey time which is to be 10 minutes Albert St-YLY (vs 18-20 YLY-Central at present.)

Having spoken to them, the plans aren't as bad as they first seem.  Doomben conflict present, but low numbers of trains on that line.

Kuraby trains all to city via South Bank - 4tph off peak
Beenleigh trains all to Kuraby, Coopers Plains, Yeerongpilly then all via CRR. - 4tph off peak
Gold Coast to go to 4tph off peak.

So at least you don't have to check your watch to determine what platform you should go to, and frequency increases are still planned.

Major failing is the ridiculous set up at Salisbury station and vicinity.  Why send the Kuraby, Beenleigh and Gold Coast trains via the same platform in the PM peak?  That just restricts the capacity of the CRR tunnel.  It's absurd.  I think I made my point at the consultation.  Perhaps there is a plan to have the Gold Coast and Varsity Lakes trains continue to use the DG there, but I'm not clear on that one, and it does have ugly conflicting moves.

I still think that stations from Coopers Plains out should all go via the CRR tunnel, but at least you can interchange at Coopers Plains, I guess.

[O_128]

And what about the massive developments happening at hamilton and the raceway redevelopment at ascot.

[SurfRail]

And what about the massive developments happening at hamilton and the raceway redevelopment at ascot.

The metro is the answer (it's also the question).

[somebody]

And what about the massive developments happening at hamilton and the raceway redevelopment at ascot.

The metro is the answer (it's also the question).

Campbell Newman's one?  <sarcasm> Why don't we build a monorail from Hamilton to Bulimba? </sarcasm>

[somebody]

I should also mention that the person I spoke to commented that they believed there would be a need for Sth Brisbane termination of some Gold Coast trains approaching 2020.  I suggested adding stops within the 20 minute standing rule.

[Gazza]

Campbell Newman's one?

The one that is in the 2031 plan.

[#Metro]

Groan. Plan 2018...2020...2050...2200...2500..208000



You can plan for anything provided you push the date out long enough. 

[Gazza]

Couple of things I found out at the session.

25% contingency is included in the current construction cost figure! Woah!
I think its absolutley safe to say that it will follow Legacy Way and the Springfield Line, and come in way below original costings. Guess they are paranoid and want to absorb any possible escalation.

They didnt use the Bareclona tunnel configuration because.
-It means the line would have had to have been deeper (Tunnels are generally positioned with a '1 diameter' buffer below the ground level. This would have meant an extra 10m due to the 14m width of the tunnels needed.
-Its less economical in this application, because of the long stretch from Yeerongpilly to Boggo Rd where there are no stations, but still having the larger diameter.
The Barcelona method works better when its a metro and it allows planners to avoid digging large numbers of station boxes, so therefore it becomes economical to run the full width bore all the way through.

[BrizCommuter]

They didnt use the Bareclona tunnel configuration because.
-It means the line would have had to have been deeper (Tunnels are generally positioned with a '1 diameter' buffer below the ground level. This would have meant an extra 10m due to the 14m width of the tunnels needed.
-Its less economical in this application, because of the long stretch from Yeerongpilly to Boggo Rd where there are no stations, but still having the larger diameter.
The Barcelona method works better when its a metro and it allows planners to avoid digging large numbers of station boxes, so therefore it becomes economical to run the full width bore all the way through.

Not forgetting that the Barcelona Line 9/10 config also came in massively late and over-budget. Interesting videos of it on YouTube though.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLXKA8is0-E&feature=related

[Gazza]

Even if it was over budget, it still was pretty cost effective.
The Mandurah line was over budget too, believe it or not!

[Fares_Fair]

Surely not Mandurah, the holy grail of rail transport examples ... 

Regards,
Fares_Fair.

[Gazza]

http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/western-australia/here-comes-the-train/story-e6frg13u-1111115067122

The Perth to Mandurah train line will officially open on December 23, over-budget and a year overdue. But the minister is confident it will be loved by Western Australians.

[Fares_Fair]

Indeed it is ... by Queenslanders also. 

Regards,
Fares_Fair.

[Stillwater]

Sunshine Coast commuters would accept a one-year delay in the original delivery date of the Beerburrum-Landsborough duplication, such that is opened in 2013.  BUT, how is this for a delay .. a project promised to be completed by 2012 now is 'scheduled' (no guarantees) for 2020!  And, of course, dual tracks to Nambour now put off to 2031, but may be delivered even later than that.  It's all in the 'world class' planning.

[colinw]

Sadly, the Government's inaction only extends as far as the rail:

http://statements.cabinet.qld.gov.au/MMS/StatementDisplaySingle.aspx?id=77144

Main Roads, Fisheries and Marine Infrastructure
The Honourable Craig Wallace

Tuesday, October 18, 2011

Have your say when Bruce plans go on display

A draft plan to improve safety and ease congestion on the Bruce Highway at the Sunshine Coast will soon be on display for the community to have its say.

Main Roads Minister Craig Wallace said the draft plan outlined the Bligh Government's vision for upgrading the highway between Caloundra Road and the Sunshine Motorway, and it was important local residents and businesspeople got involved.

"The Bruce Highway is the backbone of Queensland's road network that's helping to build Queensland for the future, and build regional growth," Mr Wallace said.

"Traffic on the Bruce as a whole is growing by 3% a year, driven by our strong population growth, our booming resources sector, and our strong agricultural and tourism industries.

"But on the Sunshine Coast section, traffic is expected to grow by 4% each year, and our planning looks at how to improve efficiency, capacity and most importantly safety.

"This section of the Bruce Highway is carrying about 60,000 vehicles a day and is approaching its capacity."

Mr Wallace said the planning proposed upgrading the connections between the highway and Caloundra Road and the Sunshine Motorway.

"The Sunshine Motorway would be upgraded as a priority, and would include a 20-metre high flyover for motorists travelling from the Sunshine Motorway north onto the Bruce Highway," Mr Wallace said.

"The planning also looks at providing a western service road by extending Frizzo Road to connect with Steve Irwin Way in the south and Tanawha Tourist Drive in the north.

"This will provide an alternative route to the Bruce Highway for local road users, and improve safety by reducing the need for local traffic to mix with highway traffic.

"The planning also proposes widening a 5.2km stretch of highway from four lanes to six lanes between Caloundra Road and the Sunshine Motorway and improving its flood immunity."

The future upgrade is likely to be built in several stages.

Mr Wallace said community feedback would be sought on the draft plan in December 2011 and January 2012.

"We want to ensure our planning is in line with community needs and priorities," Mr Wallace said.

"This is the community's chance to tell us what they want the future Bruce Highway to look like, and I encourage them to get involved and have their say."

Staffed and unstaffed public displays will be held at locations around the Sunshine Coast in December 2011 and January 2012.

Details of the displays and further information on the draft plan will be available on the department's website at www.tmr.qld.gov.au (search "Bruce Highway Planning Study") or by free call 1800 706 917.

Consultation will close in mid-February 2012.

[O_128]

bangs head against wall.

Fares_fare any idea what patronage on SC line is growing by?

[Fares_Fair]

bangs head against wall.

Fares_fare any idea what patronage on SC line is growing by?

No. Not even sure if it is growing in light of all the issues or whether it is going backwards.

Regards,
Fares_Fair.

[Stillwater]

Growth in traffic numbers on the Bruce Highway: 4 per cent
Growth in rail freight on NCL: 3-4 per cent (at 4 p c, causes 'flowover' to road)
Growth in passenger numbers during am peak: was 6-7 per cent at last check

One in four vehicles on the Bruce Highway across the northern Sunshine Coast is a commercial vehicle (van, b-double or semi-trailer), indicating that a lot more freight would travel by train if longer crossing loops were installed.

[Golliwog]

One in four vehicles on the Bruce Highway across the northern Sunshine Coast is a commercial vehicle (van, b-double or semi-trailer), indicating that a lot more freight would travel by train if longer crossing loops were installed.

Thats a big assumption to make. If those commercial vehicles are coming from/to the coast itself rather than just traveling through then you would also need intermodal facilities up there somewhere which as far as I know don't yet exist (happy to be corrected on this one). Theres also a dissincentive to use rail to get to the coast as its a short trip and even at the POB requires a truck to take the contianer from the ship to the rail head (again, thats my understanding from what you can see out there), but it also happens at the coast end as well. Time sensitive goods are also less likely to use rail. That said though, all the offcuts from the pine plantations up there go to Japan via the POB which is something that could go via rail if hte infrastructure was available, and I'm sure there are others as well.

[colinw]

Local rail freight to the Sunshine Coast is unlikely to develop, as there is no significant port there nor any apparent need for an intermodal yard.  I note that despite repeated calls for something around Yatala, no freight traffic on the Gold Coast line has ever developed.

The NCL upgrade (duplication to Nambour, realignment to Gympie & beyond, longer loops) makes sense based on the level of container freight to & from FNQ 'however.

[Golliwog]

Local rail freight to the Sunshine Coast is unlikely to develop, as there is no significant port there nor any apparent need for an intermodal yard.  I note that despite repeated calls for something around Yatala, no freight traffic on the Gold Coast line has ever developed.

The NCL upgrade (duplication to Nambour, realignment to Gympie & beyond) makes sense based on the level of container freight to & from FNQ 'however.

Indeed it does make sense on that basis. Rail freight to the SC could make sense if it was coming from further afield (FNQ, WQ, South of the border) but I doubt the volumes doing so would make it economical.

Would frieght trains be able to operate down to Yatala with the current track arrangments and passenger frequencies?