Cross River Rail Project

[Fares_Fair]

Gold Coast line does not carry one kilo of freight to Acacia Ridge or the Port of Brisbane.  SCL has a greater call for funding of prokect that address national economic and trade/commerce objectives promulgated by IA.

Are you implying that carrying passengers is not a nationally significant issue to the economy? I mean really!

As much as I am pasionate about passenger services, to be realistic, it is nothing when compared to the money that freight brings in.

Regards,
Fares_Fair.

[somebody]

Ongoing failure to develop a business case for the NCL is shameful though.

Agreed.  Perhaps we should put something out on this one.

Gold Coast line does not carry one kilo of freight to Acacia Ridge or the Port of Brisbane.  SCL has a greater call for funding of prokect that address national economic and trade/commerce objectives promulgated by IA.

Are you implying that carrying passengers is not a nationally significant issue to the economy? I mean really!

As much as I am pasionate about passenger services, to be realistic, it is nothing when compared to the money that freight brings in.

Regards,
Fares_Fair.

Enjoyment of life is not about money. 

Costs of traffic congestion are paid by all.  Reducing traffic congestion is the major reason for public transport.  It requires subsidies generally, but that is fair enough.

[ozbob]

A possible general route would be Caboolture, Dayboro, Fernvale, Ipswich, Bromelton.  Bromelton is ideally situated for a major freight interchange distribution centre as it is on the standard gauge railway from the south.  It is interesting to note that both Dayboro and Fernvale were once serviced by Queensland Railway branch lines.

Dayboro to Fernvale!  That would have to be in tunnel nearly the whole way!

Yes it would.  What is your plan?

Around this time there was also talk of a western by pass road system.  Doing as a joint rail / road corridor was discussed as well.

The only other options I can come up with are to widen the existing rail corridors (expensive and prone to NIMBYism, and still has mixed traffic),  or take another line down the coastal strip (probably not achievable now on environmental and water level issues).  So actually an inland loop could be viable.  Other nations can manage to build very long rail tunnels.

As befits Queensland, nothing will happen at all of course.  It will remain a basket case until the gridlock becomes permanent.  And then they will say, gee how did we get into this mess ..

[SurfRail]

Rail to Coolangatta is not needed anytime soon.

I would qualify that as HEAVY Rail to Coolangatta is not needed anytime soon.

Light rail to Coolangatta is a different story, and would do much to create a better public transport culture in the Gold Coast.

+1

[Fares_Fair]

Ongoing failure to develop a business case for the NCL is shameful though.

Agreed.  Perhaps we should put something out on this one.

Gold Coast line does not carry one kilo of freight to Acacia Ridge or the Port of Brisbane.  SCL has a greater call for funding of prokect that address national economic and trade/commerce objectives promulgated by IA.

Are you implying that carrying passengers is not a nationally significant issue to the economy? I mean really!

As much as I am pasionate about passenger services, to be realistic, it is nothing when compared to the money that freight brings in.

Regards,
Fares_Fair.

Enjoyment of life is not about money.  

Costs of traffic congestion are paid by all.  Reducing traffic congestion is the major reason for public transport.  It requires subsidies generally, but that is fair enough.

The post is not discussing enjoyment of life, it is discussing the national economic and trade commerce objectives of IA.
Fully agree with your second sentence.

Regards,
Fares_Fair.

[Stillwater]

dwb, each level of government has a different role to perform.  You don't see the BCC producing a list of blocked sewers and claiming that it won't get round to unblocking them until 2031 unless the federal government gives it money.  The federal government invests its money in infrastructure based on that section of the Constitution that says it is responsible for promoting and facilitating interstate trade and commerce,  A whole body of constitutional law has been built around this.  From that has come development of 'interstate freight routes' that can include railways and highways, generally linking the cities and ports and major freight hubs.  These are the routes the feds believe are important to national commerce and trade, or the earning of a buck so Australia pays its ay in the world.  On that basis, SCL rates ahead of the GCL.  The extent that the federal government's investment in freight routes benefits passenger rail, well and good, but the usual scenario is that it is a by-product of freight-based or freight-focussed infrastructure planning.  That is not to say that passenger rail to Gold Coast isn't important -- it is just that, constitutionally speaking, it is of greater importance to the Queensland Government (which has principal responsibility for passenger rail) than it is of importance to the federal government.

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 51

Legislative powers of the Parliament [see Notes 10 and 11]

The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to:

(i) trade and commerce with other countries, and among the States;
(ii) taxation; but so as not to discriminate between States or parts of States;
(iii) bounties on the production or export of goods, but so that such bounties shall be uniform throughout the Commonwealth;
(iv) borrowing money on the public credit of the Commonwealth;
(v) postal, telegraphic, telephonic, and other like services;

Etc etc, and lots more, including

(xxxi) the acquisition of property on just terms from any State or person for any purpose in respect of which the Parliament has power to make laws;
(xxxii) the control of railways with respect to transport for the naval and military purposes of the Commonwealth;
(xxxiii) the acquisition, with the consent of a State, of any railways of the State on terms arranged between the Commonwealth and the State;
(xxxiv) railway construction and extension in any State with the consent of that State;

In other words, the Constitution makes clear that railways are the prime responsibility of the states.  The states can't opt in or opt out of the responsibility.

[colinw]

A possible general route would be Caboolture, Dayboro, Fernvale, Ipswich, Bromelton.  Bromelton is ideally situated for a major freight interchange distribution centre as it is on the standard gauge railway from the south.  It is interesting to note that both Dayboro and Fernvale were once serviced by Queensland Railway branch lines.

Dayboro to Fernvale!  That would have to be in tunnel nearly the whole way!

Yes it would.  What is your plan?

Around this time there was also talk of a western by pass road system.  Doing as a joint rail / road corridor was discussed as well.

The only other options I can come up with are to widen the existing rail corridors (expensive and prone to NIMBYism, and still has mixed traffic),  or take another line down the coastal strip (probably not achievable now on environmental and water level issues).  So actually an inland loop could be viable.  Other nations can manage to build very long rail tunnels.

As befits Queensland, nothing will happen at all of course.  It will remain a basket case until the gridlock becomes permanent.  And then they will say, gee how did we get into this mess ..

I cannot see a line with at least one 20km+ tunnel getting up for the reasons you suggest, so FREIGHT ONLY amplification of existing corridors combined with appropriate grade separations is the way to go.  By which I mean a dedicated freight track (with long loops) from Caboolture or Beerwah all the way to Northgate, then a 5th track Northgate to Albion (or else keep it as quad and use Trouts Road corridor for most of the longer distance pax services).  Then a grade separation onto the Ekka Loop and a 5th track around the corner through Roma St West to near Milton.  Finally a grade separation from the mainline tracks toward Tennyson, and another from the west toward Tennyson for the coalies.  At the Yeerongpilly/Moorooka end, CRR should have taken care of things and we would have dedicated freight only use for the dual guage both toward Acacia Ridge and toward the port.  Of course if the South West bypass from near Rosewood to Kagaru goes ahead, you can dispense with the western leg of grade separation at Corinda (which would become a stranded investment).

Another possibility I have considered is rail along the Bruce Highway corridor from near Bald Hills up to the north, either as a freight line or as a "fast line" to the Coast (instead of building CAMCOS from Beerwah).  Then amplify south of Bald Hills.

The alternative is a very expensive western bypass like the one you proposed a few years ago, and I simply cannot see that getting up.

Although I must say a western bypass would be a good thing if a suitable corridor could be found.  The southern half HAS been found, with the longest tunnel less than 1km.  The north is far more difficult.

Sadly this is all probably foaming.  If asking for 15 minute services requires us to get a dose of 'reality' salts through us, then massive freight bypasses of Brisbane is in foamer fantasy land.

[ozbob]

The western by pass proposal was in the context of a wider discussion, frankly I never thought it would fly either.  But it was a way of trying to highlight the looming issues 4 years ago now, which are really now starting to bite.  

I don't think they will do much, some possible track amplifications here and there and that will be it.  

CRR is touted as a freight relief valve as well.  It will in the sense that will allow better access to the port but will that do much for freight access from the north side?  Not really.  As the train frequency ramps up the same issues are there.

[SurfRail]

dwb, each level of government has a different role to perform...

The bigger issue in the Constitution is section 96, which relevantly provides:

96  Financial assistance to States

During a period of ten years after the establishment of the Commonwealth and thereafter until the Parliament otherwise provides, the Parliament may grant financial assistance to any State on such terms and conditions as the Parliament thinks fit.

This enables Canberra to more or less get around the section 51 heads of power and give away money for whatever state project takes its fancy, hence the Commonwealth Grants Commission (and also pork-barrelling on the MBRL and Epping to Parramatta line.)

[aldonius]

From the northside, what might be good is a bypass of Northgate running down to Pinkenba.
http://maps.google.com.au/maps/ms?msid=216289273027223499293.0004b1e8794ce7c00e830&msa=0&ll=-27.412233,153.08547&spn=0.05204,0.090551

EDIT: also a mini-Bromelton (remember the suggestions about something like Rocklea up near Caboolture?)

[colinw]

I can see some gain for freight on the southside, with the dual gauge being returned to exclusive freight use (except for the XPT), and even the potential for some more Merivale Bridge freight paths in the short term.

But any gains will be short lived as lines like Flagstone and CAMCOS come online and the pressure for fulltime 4TPH service to Ipswich builds.  The boundaries for mixed freight & passenger operation will eventually need to be pushed to Ipswich & Caboolture, if not Rosewood and Beerwah.

Perth, as always, shows the way, but with suburban boundaries much closer in than Brisbane and a far easier environment to build freight bypasses through.

I think the best case scenario we can hope for is:

1.  Southern Freight Bypass (Rosewood to Kagaru) - kicks freights & coalies off the section Rosewood to Corinda but somewhat increases the length of haul to the port - plus
2.  A dedicated freight line from Beerwah to Northgate, plus
3.  Trouts Road corridor taking the weight of longer distance passenger services off the existing line via Northgate
4.  A dedicated freight line from Normanby to Milton, plus
5.  A grade separation from the main line tracks around Sherwood towards Tennyson, plus
6.  An intermodal yard on the northside to "short circuit" some of the freight that runs right through to Acacia Ridge (but how much is trans-shipping to/from SG?)

Is freight to Pinkenba likely to be a factor in the future?

[HappyTrainGuy]

Last I heard a couple years ago some of the rail lines are still leased to the respective businesses there. Freight can return but its unlikely at the moment. In the future.... its anyones guess.

[somebody]

dwb, each level of government has a different role to perform...

The bigger issue in the Constitution is section 96, which relevantly provides:

96  Financial assistance to States

During a period of ten years after the establishment of the Commonwealth and thereafter until the Parliament otherwise provides, the Parliament may grant financial assistance to any State on such terms and conditions as the Parliament thinks fit.

This enables Canberra to more or less get around the section 51 heads of power and give away money for whatever state project takes its fancy, hence the Commonwealth Grants Commission (and also pork-barrelling on the MBRL and Epping to Parramatta line.)

Well put.  It's very unfortunate IMO.

[Jonno]

The western by pass proposal was in the context of a wider discussion, frankly I never thought it would fly either.  But it was a way of trying to highlight the looming issues 4 years ago now, which are really now starting to bite.  

I don't think they will do much, some possible track amplifications here and there and that will be it.  

CRR is touted as a freight relief valve as well.  It will in the sense that will allow better access to the port but will that do much for freight access from the north side?  Not really.  As the train frequency ramps up the same issues are there.

No one will blink at the cost of a western bypass ROAD when they finally decide to it but a rail line instead is just preposterous?   Why?

[Arnz]

Gold Coast line does not carry one kilo of freight to Acacia Ridge or the Port of Brisbane.  SCL has a greater call for funding of prokect that address national economic and trade/commerce objectives promulgated by IA.

Are you implying that carrying passengers is not a nationally significant issue to the economy? I mean really!

As much as I am pasionate about passenger services, to be realistic, it is nothing when compared to the money that freight brings in.

Regards,
Fares_Fair.

+1

Lets face it, Freight does indirectly subsidise a part of the passenger rail network via the state government (via the government's part ownership in the now privatised QRNational, usage fees from the freight operators to the state-owned Queensland Rail, then through the government channels to TransLink).  Considering the state likes to harp on how much in debt they are when it comes to other Transport projects, you would think they'd be smart enough to see where the revenue opportunities lie.  

[dwb]

dwb, each level of government has a different role to perform.  You don't see the BCC producing a list of blocked sewers and claiming that it won't get round to unblocking them until 2031 unless the federal government gives it money.  

Thanks for the lecture... but um, what exactly would you say that BCC did about riverwalk? And even now the feds are funding it, it's not going to happen for several years.

Besides, that was not the point, the point was, that if Australia wishes to be internationally competitive it will continue to have more and  more to do with our intellectual productivity based in cities than it will in moving coal from the regions. That is our place in the world... providing services, not manufacturing/mining, some people just don't see it yet.

[Stillwater]

I don't see too many container ships sailing up the Broadwater to the Port of Southport.

Re boardwalk - federal money to BCC came from the natural disaster recovery arrangements among governments.  Just because money came from a federal source for that disaster-affected project does not mean the responsibility for funding the boardwalk is that of the federal government.  It is a council responsibility, first and foremost, for which the federal government provided a helping hand under long-standing financial arrangements.

[dwb]

I don't see too many container ships sailing up the Broadwater to the Port of Southport.

Re boardwalk - federal money to BCC came from the natural disaster recovery arrangements among governments.  Just because money came from a federal source for that disaster-affected project does not mean the responsibility for funding the boardwalk is that of the federal government.  It is a council responsibility, first and foremost, for which the federal government provided a helping hand under long-standing financial arrangements.

I think you'll find they did it out of the goodness of their heart bc local govt wouldn't have met its obligation to rebuild it. NDRRA doesn't strictly cover that type of infrastructure.

Ed. But again, that was not really my point. My point was that

if Australia wishes to be internationally competitive it will continue to have more and  more to do with our intellectual productivity based in cities than it will in moving coal from the regions. That is our place in the world... providing services, not manufacturing/mining, some people just don't see it yet.

[colinw]

+1.  There seems to be this perception that Australia is one giant mine.  Recently the (French) CEO of the company I work for said that "all he knew about Australia was that it has Kangaroos, Koalas and big mines"!

In reality mining is only about 8.5% of our economy, and represents something under 1% of direct employment.  The financial services industry in Sydney, for example, is far larger. Australia is also home to one of the largest clusters of non-Government owners of infrastructure & property in the world - companies like Macquarie, Westfield, etc.

I find it quite sad that the whole national economic debate is being framed in terms of one industry, while many others with equal or greater potential go overlooked.

Having said all that, I still firmly believe that getting the Sunshine Coast Line / NCL up to standard for passenger AND freight services is a much higher NATIONAL priority than tacking another 15km on beyond Varsity Lakes.

[dwb]

Having said all that, I still firmly believe that getting the Sunshine Coast Line / NCL up to standard for passenger AND freight services is a much higher NATIONAL priority than tacking another 15km on beyond Varsity Lakes.

Sure, but I personally never said that SCL was lower, I just said passengers are more important than most really acknowledge. And a GC passenger isn't necessarily worth any more than a SCL. But wrt CRR... then I think it's weakness is that it poses it's main economic advantage in flow on freight benefits, not in passenger movements and general time savings.

[O_128]

Having said all that, I still firmly believe that getting the Sunshine Coast Line / NCL up to standard for passenger AND freight services is a much higher NATIONAL priority than tacking another 15km on beyond Varsity Lakes.

Sure, but I personally never said that SCL was lower, I just said passengers are more important than most really acknowledge. And a GC passenger isn't necessarily worth any more than a SCL. But wrt CRR... then I think it's weakness is that it poses it's main economic advantage in flow on freight benefits, not in passenger movements and general time savings.

WRONG, A GC passenger is politically worth more.

[dwb]

WRONG, A GC passenger is politically worth more.

Maybe but I don't care for politics, I'll leave that to others.

[Arnz]

WRONG, A GC passenger is politically worth more.

Maybe but I don't care for politics, I'll leave that to others.

Neither do I, but I do know the GC does have some ALP "marginal" seats in Northern GC.  It helps for the residents in "marginal seat" areas, one example being the Redcliffe railway in the Northern Region.

The rest of the GC is traditionally LNP territory.

[SteelPan]

Another "must have" for this state is the western inner orbital tunnel.  It'll be toll funded, so it's dynamic is likely different, but the current road is beyond breaking point - in fact it is already breaking apart!   

[Jonno]

Yes what we need is more roads because we have solved congestion problems to date!!!!

[mufreight]

Yes what we need is more roads because we have solved congestion problems to date!!!!

Are you sure Jonno?
The bureaucrats would look at it from a different perspective, from their perspective it would be a case of what is needed is more transport planners and this is using their YES MINISTER logic of we had some money left last time and actually had to construct some road infrastructure (which achieved little) so this time it is obvious that all the funds need be expended to ensure that we do not construct any more road infrastructure.   

[BrizCommuter]

WRONG, A GC passenger is politically worth more.

Which supports BrizCommuter's theory that we may not see a draft Gold Coast Line timetable until after the election.

[Arnz]

The uproar of 1k Sunshine Coast peak commuters over the stopping pattern changes was pretty bad,  Imagine the thought of a large part of the 3.2k for Gold Coast peak commuters when a few more stops are added to the peak timetable to maximise capacity on the Beenleigh line in the busiest part of the peak, thus creating the Gold Coast "Slow Express" for selected trains.

If the maximising of capacity on the Beenleigh/Gold Coast doesn't happen to support some 1.5k affected GC commuters on the 'slow express' timeslots, this would only confirm the theory of a number of Sunshine Coast commuters' thoughts, the marginal seats on the Gold Coast region is politically worth more.

[SurfRail]

WRONG, A GC passenger is politically worth more.

Which supports BrizCommuter's theory that we may not see a draft Gold Coast Line timetable until after the election.

I wonder how many timetables we will see at all until then?  QR has said they will only be collecting feedback and explaining what they want to achieve until they have gauged public sentiment.

I think us GC passengers can be safely ignored for the time being.  If there is a change of government, I doubt the people who keep voting LNP will be rewarded for it in any way - 1996 to 2007 showed just how gracious and hard-working federal government Lib MPs were for their constituents...

[Set in train]

I think us GC passengers can be safely ignored for the time being.  If there is a change of government, I doubt the people who keep voting LNP will be rewarded for it in any way - 1996 to 2007 showed just how gracious and hard-working federal government Lib MPs were for their constituents...

Indeed, voters are not rewarded for loyalty, the more fickle the electorate, the great the political cost.

[ozbob]

From the Brisbanetimes click here!

Car ban a bridge too far

Car ban a bridge too far
Tony Moore
November 22, 2011 - 3:00AM

Neither the state government nor Brisbane City Council plan to ban cars from Victoria Bridge, despite expert opinion it would help ease the build-up of buses in the area.

There are now more than 200 buses on the bridge between South Bank and the CBD an hour in the morning and afternoon peak periods.

It has increased by 15 buses an hour in the past two years.
Advertisement: Story continues below

Two public transport experts have recommended planners close the two car lanes across the bridge to give buses extra lanes.

Professor Peter Spearritt from University of Queensland and Rail - Back on Track's Robert Dow said that step would provide the space for growth the city needs.

However neither council nor the government consider the move necessary.

Lord Mayor Graham Quirk said council had no plans to remove cars from the bridge, but conceded there was increasing congestion near the Cultural Centre busway.

"The Go Between Bridge was opened in July 2010 and has provided an alternative river crossing for motor vehicle users that has cut travel times by up to 15 minutes between South Brisbane and the northern suburbs," he said.

Council's 2006 City Centre Master Plan recommended a feasibility study into an Adelaide Street bridge start, but set no timelines or targets.

Cr Quirk said there had been no talks between the government and council over the past 12 months about a future Adelaide Street bridge.

He said a new Adelaide Street bridge was a recommendation in a 20-year timeframe.

The government said it would tackle the congestion around the Victoria Bridge bus station by using Go Card machines, bus stop supervisors and expanding the busway network.

However a spokesman for the Department of Transport and Main Roads said it was pinning its hopes on the federal government approving its Cross River Rail project to free up traffic across the river.

"Cross River Rail remains our top priority when it comes to funding for extra public transport crossings of the river," a spokesman said.

"That's why we put it at the top of our Infrastructure Australia wish-list."

Infrastructure Australia last week rated the $6.9 billion project as "ready to proceed" and a business case for the project is close to being finalised.

A Translink spokesman said the Riverside Expressway was recently used for two new services: the 205 Carindale Heights to City bus and 217 Carindale to City bus.

Read more: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/car-ban-a-bridge-too-far-20111121-1nqx2.html

[#Metro]

All of these are non-answers. CC handles 9000 pphd in peak hour!
Perhaps when major Ottawa-style bus jams start happening regularly their hands will be forced.

It is also not clear how CRR will free up space. CC is already at capacity with 180 buses/hour, and this will only grow further.

What is needed:

* All door boarding instituted at CC and other busway stations. Buses have two doors and yet we come up with fanciful excuses and insist on only using one. Doesn't make sense.

* Send non-BUZ routes over the Captain Cook Bridge full time.
I'm thinking things like 110/124/125/116/117/184/185/460/172/203/204/135 etc etc.

* I am against Simon's 15 minute BUZ plan personally, but I would concede that more rockets might provide relief.

* Bus lane on Captain Cook Bridge

Something to note: All these ideas (more rockets) or sending buses over C/Cook Bridge all require the network to move closer to one based on interchange. If I'm heading for Mater Hill, I'm going to have to change buses...

[ozbob]

Bus discussion here too TT  --> http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=3356.msg76362#msg76362

[Jonno]

The lack of polical leadership on transport from both major parties makes me cringe, cry, get angry and left in a state of depression just in one article!!!!

[#Metro]

I'd be against this.  Speeding up the all stoppers makes little sense.

Disagree. Sending non-BUZ routes over C/Cook bridge full time frees up 'bus slots' at CC, which can then be used on other routes
or to reduce delays and jams.

They can't say that they didn't know that this would happen.
Happened in Ottawa, and spelt out in black and white in the Mass Transit Report of 2007 (5 years ago!).

Building another bridge would cost around 50 - 120 million dollars and when the bus gets off it it will land straight into Adelaide street bus congestion. Useless! Re-arranging the timetable and cutting non-BUZ routes out of CC plus spray can of paint and signs on Captain Cook Bridge is much cheaper and logical but not much logic around these days.

Don't worry.  I'm sure federal funding will pay for our mismanagement of our own infrastructure.  /sarcasm

Agreed. Sometimes I think they purposely make the situation SO bad that they try to force the gov to "do something". Let's be clear here- that bottleneck at CC is a state/BCC responsibility.

The other issue is bus space within the CBD. Even if you can get more buses into the CBD, you need somewhere for them to stop and layover. Turning Adelaide Street into a bus only street is unlikely if this is the response we get from the Victoria Bridge lane proposal.


Part of me thinks that Grey Street outside South Bank Station should be looked at for closing down. This would create a T junction where 199/CityGlider and 4xx routes could use the 2 car lanes of the Victoria Bridge. Although I doubt even that would provide enough relief- the bulk of the buses are headed for the SE Busway.

[Mr X]

Part of me thinks that Grey Street outside South Bank Station should be looked at for closing down. This would create a T junction where 199/CityGlider and 4xx routes could use the 2 car lanes of the Victoria Bridge. Although I doubt even that would provide enough relief- the bulk of the buses are headed for the SE Busway.

Outside South Bank or CC stations? 199 doesn't go near South Bank station 

[dwb]

Part of me thinks that Grey Street outside South Bank Station should be looked at for closing down. This would create a T junction where 199/CityGlider and 4xx routes could use the 2 car lanes of the Victoria Bridge. Although I doubt even that would provide enough relief- the bulk of the buses are headed for the SE Busway.

Outside South Bank or CC stations? 199 doesn't go near South Bank station 

He means stop cars running across the busway in grey st. That way you could have four lanes for buses and almost get rid of the red cycle... Although not entirely as pedd still need to cross.

[Stillwater]

Here is IA's appraisal of CRR Business Case, as far as publicly available material is concerned.  There would appear to be great focus by IA of inclusion in the original project scope of the North-West Corridor tunnel, its subsequent deletion, but continued claiming of the benefits of this discontinued aspect of the project in the final project BCR.  There would also appear to be a 'fiddle' in the construction costs, which would seem to be unrealistic, given the demand for labour, steel, concrete etc in the current economic climate.

I would love colinw or someone else to give a layperson's explanation of the IA concerns raised in this documentation.

http://www.infrastructureaustralia.gov.au/2011_coag/files/Cross_River_Rail_Appraisal2011.pdf

http://www.infrastructureaustralia.gov.au/2011_coag/files/Cross_River_Rail_Brief2011.pdf

[Golliwog]

I think those are the same files they had up back in June or whenever it was they first put them up?

If theres some things in there you're not sure about, maybe post it up here as a quote and list the page number? Those files are pretty long to go through and explain every thing that may or may not be understood.

[colinw]

Here is IA's appraisal of CRR Business Case, as far as publicly available material is concerned.  There would appear to be great focus by IA of inclusion in the original project scope of the North-West Corridor tunnel, its subsequent deletion, but continued claiming of the benefits of this discontinued aspect of the project in the final project BCR.  There would also appear to be a 'fiddle' in the construction costs, which would seem to be unrealistic, given the demand for labour, steel, concrete etc in the current economic climate.

I would love colinw or someone else to give a layperson's explanation of the IA concerns raised in this documentation.

http://www.infrastructureaustralia.gov.au/2011_coag/files/Cross_River_Rail_Appraisal2011.pdf

http://www.infrastructureaustralia.gov.au/2011_coag/files/Cross_River_Rail_Brief2011.pdf

Don't know if I can add anything, well outside my area of expertise (which is ATP & ATO systems, CBTC, ERTMS, in-cab signalling, etc.).

However, having read that appraisal it looks to me like they are querying whether the full cost/benefit ratio claimed for the project is contingent on the North West Transit Corridor connector tunnel being built, and whether dropping of the NWTC tunnel dilutes the benefit of CRR. (I thought the CRR reference design included splaying of the tracks and a stub tunnel to connect to NWTC).

It also looks to me like IA may have the "wrong end of the stick" with respect to dedicating the dual gauge from Salisbury to Dutton Park to freight, as they keep asking whether the costs for this have been factored in and do not appear to show any recognition that it is an existing line and CRR would merely bring about a change to operating pattern that would remove passenger services (bar the XPT) from the line.