Cross River Rail Project

[colinw]

QR would like to apologise to passengers who have been standing from Varsity Lakes, this is due to a policy failure by idiotic politicians.

What is the greatest source of angst for a commuter:

1. Power Failure
2. Track Failure
3. Police Incident
4. Boom Gate incident
5. Policy Failure

Good one TT. 

1 - 4 take minutes to hours to resolve.

5 takes years.

However the vast majority of the population have a very good 5 point work around workaround for item #5.

1. Pick up keys
2. Walk to car
3. Open door
4. Start vehicle
5. Drive to destination

[Golliwog]

Colin, you forgot:
6. Complain when you get stuck in traffic with everyone else who did the same, so the pollies build you more roads...

[ozbob]

From the Brisbanetimes click here!

Rail deal in time for election?

Rail deal in time for election?
Daniel Hurst
December 8, 2011 - 3:00AM

The prospects of Brisbane's $8 billion cross-river rail project securing federal funding could become clearer in February, potentially in the lead up to the state election.

brisbanetimes.com.au understands the federal government's funding advisory body, Infrastructure Australia, will consider the Queensland government's underground rail plans at its February meeting.

Infrastructure Australia expects to receive the completed business case shortly and is poised to finalise its advice to the organisation's council in early to mid February.
Advertisement: Story continues below

The group is due to meet in the second half of that month and will assess whether various projects are ready to proceed and backed up by rigorous cost-benefit evidence.

The meeting's outcome could be important given a state election is expected to occur in the first few months of 2012 and Liberal National Party leader Campbell Newman has predicted the federal government will not stump up adequate cash to deliver the "grandiose, unfunded" cross-river rail project.

"It is never going to happen. There is no money for that. The federal government are not going to bail them out," Mr Newman told brisbanetimes.com.au last Friday.

The LNP has proposed several measures it says will address looming capacity issues, including introducing new signalling systems to reduce the gap between trains and adding an extra platform at South Bank and South Brisbane stations to help ensure trains did not have to wait as long before loading and unloading passengers.

The Labor state government argues the cross-river rail project is transformative and will address the key north-south capacity issue with an extra inner-city rail crossing in addition to the existing Merivale Bridge.

The project would include an 18 kilometre north-south railway line, of which 10 kilometres would be in underground tunnels from Yeerongpilly to Victoria Park.

The project would feature four new underground train stations at Boggo Road, Woolloongabba, Albert Street and Roma Street, two new surface stations at Yeerongpilly and the RNA Exhibition Grounds, and upgrades to the Rocklea and Moorooka stations.

The government in January delayed construction of the project by two years, citing the budgetary impact of the floods, with completion now not expected until 2020.

This is despite advice to the government that the only inner-city rail bridge over the Brisbane River would reach full capacity in 2016.

Infrastructure Australia is an independent statutory body set up by the federal government in 2008 to provide advice on funding priorities.

Its council, headed by chairman Sir Rod Eddington, meets every two months and usually submits its annual list of funding priorities and assessments to the Council of Australian Governments in June.

However, it is understood federal Infrastructure and Transport Minister Anthony Albanese may ask for Infrastructure Australia's latest advice on any project at any time, if he wishes.

Yesterday, a spokesman for Mr Albanese said Infrastructure Australia was assessing cross-river rail and insisted funding decisions would be made in the normal way.

"Infrastructure [funding] decisions, if there are any, will be taken as they always have been as part of the May budget," he said.

Mr Albanese yesterday joined with NSW Premier Barry O'Farrell to announce a joint funding deal for a $1 billion rail freight upgrade between Sydney and Newcastle.

LNP transport spokesman Scott Emerson last night refused to say whether a Newman government would even consider proceeding with the cross-river rail project if the federal government stumped up the cash needed.

"That's a hypothetical question because so far, twice before, Infrastructure Australia has not provided any funds and there's no indication they're going to do it any time in the future," he said.

"The state government is broke and the federal government is looking to save every dollar possible at the moment."

The federal government has previously chipped in $20 million to fund the cross-river rail planning and feasibility assessment stage.

In June last year, Infrastructure Australia found the project had "real potential" but was not yet ready to proceed.

In June this year, Infrastructure Australia acknowledged extensive work had been done since the last submission and upgraded the project's status to "threshold", meaning it was still not quite ready to go ahead but the nod was a step closer.

Last month, the state government announced it had again placed cross-river rail at the top of its priority list as part of its latest submission to Infrastructure Australia. It argues the project will now be "ready to proceed".

On Tuesday, Queensland Transport Minister Annastacia Palaszczuk said the finalised business case would go to Infrastructure Australia in the "next few weeks".

Ms Palaszczuk argued the project had the capacity to move up to 120,000 people into the inner-city in the two-hour morning peak period, doubling the capacity of the inner-city rail network and allowing extra services to come from the Gold Coast, Sunshine Coast and Brisbane suburbs.

Ms Palaszczuk was coy last week when asked what discussions she may have had with the federal government about a potential election eve funding agreement.

"I can't reveal that at the moment," she told reporters at a media event heralding preliminary drilling tests underway in the Brisbane River.

Mr Emerson said Ms Palaszczuk would not even say how much money the state was seeking from the federal government and insisted the focus should be on what the government would do to address the 2016 rail capacity crisis point.

It is understood there could be some "toing and froing" between Infrastructure Australia and the state government to clarify aspects of the project in the lead up to the February meeting.

Robert Dow, from commuter lobby group Rail Back on Track, said he was confident the case for the project was strong, given it would provide network-wide benefits for rail commuters and free up lines for freight trains.

Mr Dow said the project would also drive transit-oriented developments at places such as Woolloongabba and Bowen Hills, where new rail stations were planned.

He called on the LNP to "take the opportunity with both hands" if the federal government offered funding towards the project.

Read more: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/rail-deal-in-time-for-election-20111207-1oj99.html

[HappyTrainGuy]

If CRR goes ahead you wouldn't really need to do much work to Bowen Hills/South Brisbane-Park Road-Yerongpilly for decades because of the extra capacity/multiple route options now available via underground tunnel or via bridge. Extra stations does increase capacity to a point but it doesn't increase innercity capacity or future growth. However freight via the DG and issues at Yerongpilly-Coopers Plains with freights to FI/Acacia Ridge via Sailsbury/Yerongpilly, express and all stoppers could cause issues. Idealy it would be best to quad and straighten the whole Beenleigh line past Yerongpilly with 2 side platforms with the two middle roads for dedicated express movements with a 5th line Yerongpilly-Sailsbury via Acacia Ridge for dedicated freight movements and to get rid of that pesky XPT movement in the middle of peak. As I type I just saw a pig flying (Sorry if my post doesn't make sense. It's 5am. I'm cold, worn out, tired and about to go to bed )

[ozbob]

I am very optimistic that CRR will go ahead, despite the LNPs apparent position (for now).  It is the transforming project for the network, everything that LNP has put up, except for the additional platforms is already happening in any case.  It is a con job of the highest order.

RAIL Back On Track strongly supports CRR.  

[mufreight]

"Can Do" Newman has almost certainly lost my vote.
He just doesn't seem to get it. If it is a busway or a road tunnel it must be a winner. NOT.
He says the Government is wasting $8b on CRR yet his scheme with a new signalling system, allowing for shorter sections between signals and thus trains running closer together, longer platforms and longer trains will be the answer. It will still cost billions of $ anyway and even he is seemingly suggesting that his concept is a short term "fix" (but it will take years to implement) and still some form of CRR will be needed in the medium term.
Four platforms at Southbank? Where? It will need a new tunnel beside the current standard gauge one. He wants to terminate trains at South Brisbane so commuters will have to walk into the city or catch a bus at the already congested Cultural Centre. A lot of space will be taken up with the installation of crossovers and other infrastructure. The building of a fourth platform at South Brisbane will also be a tight squeeze.
Many trains will still have to go into the city to continue their journeys to Shorncliffe, Ferny Grove and the Airport. What about the already congested Central Station, not to mention Roma Street.

I think the southern line needs quading through Sth Brisbane and Sth Bank and its doable, won't be cheap but cheaper than CRR which state won't have cash for for probably 10 years to pay off Bligh's bills. I have spent a bit of time looking around both stations in the past to see how doable it is. At Sth Bris, the SG and Plat 3 lines spacing is fairly wide compared on google earth compared tracks 1 and 2 and the one time I saw an XPT go past, it is a fair bit off compared to normal. The platform won't be very wide, but I believe doable and potentially slewing nth or sth may give you space to make a shorter wider section.

St Bank is the harder of the two and basically I think everything on western side would need rebuilding inlcuding Vulture St Bridge. The track will fit on existing access track alongside Plat 3, but platform is tricky, probably take advantage of height to bridge the bus way. Alt you go east side and make an Island of Plat 1 and this maybe easier as the underpass of Vulture St maybe able to be built without touching the bridge, just close to two lanes at a time. They did that here in Dubai for Metro. The Nth side of platforms would need to be slewed to the left a bit so Plat 3 track is closer to alignment of proposed 4th road.

Headed South there is sufficent room for 4 tracks until tunnels. I assume a 4th tunnel can be built between the existing.

Continuing to head south there appears sufficent space between the 3rd track and existing pair of tracks until the bridges over Annerley Rd as if it was built to allow a 4th track. The bridges are however a problem, there is not enough room for a 4th.

Option 1: Remove existing DG bridge and replace, should be ok but will need more space from west

Option 2: Leave as is and have all tracks bi-di with 4 tracks into 3 configuration on each side.

Rebuild Plat 4, either move nth cross over further nth and then move platform nth away from curve or run the track around the outside of platform and rebuild nth part of platform to enable sufficent room. Maybe overall move all platforms further nth to get off the tighter part of the curve.

The tricky part is the cross overs, either Sth Brisbane or Park Rd. For example  Sth Brisbane to stop the cross over you make the current suburbans Sth bound only and 3rd and SG roads would be Nth bound. Both pairs of directional tracks would simply merge with a set of points each. (not sure how this fits with XPT).

This this pushes the crossings to Park Rd where track speed for Cleveland Junction is painful due to curve. A flyover would be nice, but difficult to fit in unless you push station Nth a fair way, perhaps you could sink the under tracks a bit to help speed up vertical height change.

OR

You make existing eastern pair of tracks Cleveland dominate and Western pair Beenleigh/GC dominate, but then back to cross over at Sth Brisbane
OR as above but have a flyover cross over of middle tracks somewhere before South Bank.  

Anyway, Sth side is now ready for at least 2min headways.

Nth side
extra island platform at Valley to replicate Central/Roma St
Bowen Hills, Mmm, all those shops along Aborbsford Rd would need to go to fit an extra Island platform.

Regards
Shane

Absolute piffle, this proposal does not address the key operating capacity restriction that being the capacity through the CBD itself, you selectively ignore the fact that CRR will provide four new stations three of which will be located in areas not presently served by rail and in doing so will considerably reduce the the already overtaxed capacity needs of the bus system and provide the rail capacity needed for the operation of Kippa Ring, Sunshine Coast and CAMCOS services.
Time for many to take the blinkers off and face reality.
The funds expended on your proposal are simply a waste of taxpayers money to buy a bandaid with a life expentancy measured in months rather than resolve the this critical problem for the rail network for the next 50 or more years.
Overall the actual cost of this proposed band aid would be more than 50% of the cost of CRR

[O_128]

I am very optimistic that CRR will go ahead, despite the LNPs apparent position (for now).  It is the transforming project for the network, everything that LNP has put up, except for the additional platforms is already happening in any case.  It is a con job of the highest order.

RAIL Back On Track strongly supports CRR.  

After rewatching Campbells interview he  technically supports CRR, but doesn't due it not being funded, I get the feeling that if IA gives the funding then he will change his position and build the thing or possibly find a way to shave 2 billion off it and deliver the busway tunnel as well (might be the stupidest piece of PT infrastructure ever delivered but hey if we are going to get it lets take it). Its going to be very interesting especially considering this is a project of national significance. I really do believe that IA will give the funding and for all we know the state may only be asking for 5 billion for the project.

I urge every member here to email Scott Emerson and Campbell Newman urging them to change there position on CRR. Anyone willing to write a template?

[#Metro]

Behind Every Excuse is the Real Reason.

Cross River Rail (indeed anything in SEQ 2031) will not fly unless there is funding. This is a valid point, but Mr Newman's plans or ideas pre-empt the outcome of that bid. It is that simple.

The Government also needs a back up plan lest they don't get the funding. At the moment there is silence on that too.

[somebody]

I think the southern line needs quading through Sth Brisbane and Sth Bank and its doable,

Err, no.

[Stillwater]

If you read the tea leaves of what Campbell Newman is saying, when he says 'Cross River Rail' he has in mind the concept of getting more trains moving faster across/over/under the Brisbane River, and not the infrastructure project known as CRR.  Again, I am no spokesperson for Mr Newman, but he would appear to recognise the problem, and wishes to overcome it, even pledging to do something about it.  He believes that CRR (the project we all know and love) is too expensive and won't get the backing of IA.  He thinks there is an alternative, he doesn't know exactly what it is, he'll put in a stop-gap measure for the time being to fix the problem that will emerge in 2016 and, once in government, will get moving on a fix that won't be what is envisaged by the words 'Cross River Rail.'

Is that what you mean, Mr Newman?

[ozbob]

Funding outcomes for CRR will ultimately rest on the business case and IA.  It is not the quantum up front, it will be amortised over a number of years.

The cost of not proceeding with CRR will be considerable in the longer term, arguably a lot more than proceeding now.

Another encouraging development is that the authorities are gaining some valuable corporate knowledge in terms of value capture around rail based projects from the Gold Coast with the light rail project. (In fact, this is one reason why the extensions may well be brought forward, funding may not be the issue it once was.) I am sure the CRR business case will reflect that as well.  

The article today in the Brisbanetimes, is an excellent addition to the information available publicly.  I don't think it is off the mark at all.

[Gazza]

Re extra platforms at Southbrizbank, how does it really help anyway?
It already has two in the peak direction.
We could get a forth in with a squeeze, but certainly not 5 or 6.

[SurfRail]

Re extra platforms at Southbrizbank, how does it really help anyway?
It already has two in the peak direction.
We could get a forth in with a squeeze, but certainly not 5 or 6.

Moreover, what would this do to your track layout?  How will the XPT be accommodated?

Honestly, with platforms 4/5 at Roma Street and 2/3 at Southbrizbank doing exactly what he intends the new platform(s) to do (ie allow trains to overtake), what actual benefit is there?

[Gazza]

Re the XPT... Relay a stretch of track so the DG 3rd rail is on the far side, not the platform side.

XPT should bugger off and depart some other time. It's absurd we have a welfare train service mucking up peak hour.

[Mr X]

If we're trying to reduce rail headways, won't that make the whole system unreliable?
CRR I think is also a must for reducing impacts of delays, remember that day when power went off to the inner city rail tunnel so all trains had to terminate at Roma St or Bowen Hills? Under that scenario, some of the trains could have gone via CRR.

[mufreight]

Absolute piffle, this proposal does not address the key operating capacity restriction that being the capacity through the CBD itself, you selectively ignore the fact that CRR will provide four new stations three of which will be located in areas not presently served by rail and in doing so will considerably reduce the the already overtaxed capacity needs of the bus system and provide the rail capacity needed for the operation of Kippa Ring, Sunshine Coast and CAMCOS services.
Time for many to take the blinkers off and face reality.
The funds expended on your proposal are simply a waste of taxpayers money to buy a bandaid with a life expentancy measured in months rather than resolve the this critical problem for the rail network for the next 50 or more years.
Overall the actual cost of this proposed band aid would be more than 50% of the cost of CRR

Hi
Actually I didn't selectively leave it out. I do acknowledge this benefit of extra stations, and I do support the CRR in principle and it will be great for Brisbane but from Day 1 when I heard the price, my thinking has purely been this is a pipe dream project. This cost more than they sold QRN for. Where is the money coming from? 3 years of construction before it carries first body and looses money from this day forward. How do you fund this in the current climate?

The above proposal I agree is limiting but it does allow current train capacity to be lifted from current 20'ish trains per hour to 30. On the south side you don't have to have 4 tracks between stations, the key is four tracks at stations so you have a train arriving as a train departs. Something that can only happen now at Central and Roma St so of little benefit. Also the 3rd track on south side was done poorly so its actual benefit is further limited.

Do I agree with CRR yes. But where is money coming from? Qld is already excessively in debt thanks to Anna, the QRN sale and Motorways etc was to help keep the credit rating. Very little was available for other projects.

Regards
Shane

Again sorry Shane but in reality to quote you the current 20'ish trains per hour to 30 is simply not realistic regardless of signaling system upgrades and the provision of additional platforms at South Bank and South Brisbane.The money that you propose be used on your proposal is simply wasted and would be more cost effectively expended on the CRR proposal which resolves the capacity problems not only for rail services from the south of the river but also makes possible the capacity needed through the CBD for the expansion of all rail services on the NCL and the proposed Kippa Ring and CAMCOS lines.
The flow on benefit for bus commuters is that the provision of the four additional stations of which three are in areas currently not serviced by rail would soak up a reasonable proportion of the current bus passenger loadings into the CBD.
The reality is not if CRR is affordable but if we can afford not to build it as early as possible.

[O_128]

Simply put no CRR means no flagstone line. No GC/beenleigh/Cleveland service improvements. Flow on effects mean congestion on all the northern lines an inability to add further services to the Ipswich/springfield lines. The fact that CRR is supposedly on 1.1 cost recovery is absurd. When you work it out on a line by line basis per line its only $720 million for massive service improvements not to mention the gabba and ekka stations, extra network redundancy and ability to build more lines.

I'm sure you could easily cut 2 billion off the cost of this project through other means as well as getting developers contribute to albert st, woolongabba and ekka stations.

[SurfRail]

Let's be frank - the Alderley/Trouts Road link would be nice to have, but is nowhere near as crucial as just getting Ekka to Yeerongpilly done.  Given they have factored that in, I expect a sum more commensurate with the cost of Airport Link plus a bit would be what they actually need (ie $5-6bn).

The public and private funding used to build Clem 7 and Legacy Way would have paid for most of it even with the bulked up estimate.

[somebody]

In NSW, only the Museum leg of the city circle has bifurcated platforms at Central.  I guess at Strathfield 1/2 and 4/5 it sort of applies.  Can't think of anywhere else.

How does quadding Sth Brisbane increase capacity at Central 3+4 or Bowen Hills?

More than half the capacity on the south side of the river is already able to use Sth Brisbane #3, so I don't don't see any capacity advantages to extra tracks in this area in the AM, only in the less busy PM.

[ozbob]

In NSW, only the Museum leg of the city circle has bifurcated platforms at Central.  I guess at Strathfield 1/2 and 4/5 it sort of applies.  Can't think of anywhere else.

How does quadding Sth Brisbane increase capacity at Central 3+4 or Bowen Hills?

More than half the capacity on the south side of the river is already able to use Sth Brisbane #3, so I don't don't see any capacity advantages to extra tracks in this area in the AM, only in the less busy PM.

+1

[HappyTrainGuy]

I assume your referring to the tripple from Acacia Ridge/Sailsbury-Park Road? That was more to do with minimising freight conflicts with the passenger network. Any passenger services travelling along it is just a pure extra benefit. Remember it makes up part of a 14km crossing loop Yerongpilly to Maurie or the 19km loop to the Fishermans Island junction. There are still times when freighters get slotted onto the passenger line because another freighter is using the DG. Those services sometimes (Very rare though) get a higher priority than the passenger trains as not to have futher delays to the passenger network while blocking entire lines/junctions futher along the line ie Park Road junction and the epically fast 25kph Yerongpilly junction.

[Gazza]

So if we're talking CRR 'lite', could you do this?


Uploaded with ImageShack.us
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/202/crrlite2.jpg/


-Quad Park Rd - South Bris. No need to detail this part really. You all would understand it. Does require a 200m tunnel, and the Vulture St bridge would need to be knocked down and rebuilt. No worries there though, because a detour via Grey and Tribune st is easy, and a repogramming of the traffic lights to reflect that diversion would be simple.


-2nd Merivale, lets assume it would cost reasonably similar to Go Between...$300 Mil. The narrower width of the bridge and no ped/cycle ramps offsets the cost of the track and overhead.

-The apartment block by the track o the north bank has the units directly facing the new bridge bought out because it is much closer to them now (Reduces liveability). Rough count says 20 apartments. Assume $1 Mil each, so $20 mil...Chicken feed in a project this big. At the conclusion of the project, the devalued apartments get sold back (To students etc), with double glazing fitted. Loss might now only be $10 mil.

-424 Upper Roma St (Office Block) gets bought and knocked down for a tunnel portal. At the conclusion of the project, this cost could be at least partly recouped by designing a building to use airspace above the line. Govt could build the block as part of the project, and sell it back rather than expecting a private developer to take the risk.

-The nitty gritty. Basically, off the northern end of the 2nd Merivale tracks immediatley head downhill, whilst ensuring enough clearance above Exford St. The Goal is to ensure it gets low enough to pass under the Ipswich line in a tunnel. The good thing is, because the curve is in a tunnel below, it can be less tight.

-From there, its a 1.65 km tunnel to the Ekka Loop, with an underground platform set at Roma St. Line surfaces just east of Brisbane Girls Grammar. Continues to Bowen hills exactly as per the Current CRR with all planned stations and flyovers.

If there's any major oversights, let me know?
You'd lose Gabba and Albert St, but still have Ekka station. It has the extra CBD capacity since its two new track pairs Roma St to Bowen Hills.

Technically, 9 Car trains would be out, unless you extended the platforms at Southbrizbank and Park Road.

You drastically cut the length of tunnel needed, and it doesn't have to pass under the river. It also implies that stations no longer need to be deep level.

But I guess the mindset is about the opportunity cost.
To me, it's always been a capacity project and so long as it achieves that , and the opportunity to serve Gabba and Albert St is a bonus that we could do for the sake of it cos it was on the way.
Basically, so long as it gets the same increase in TPH through the CBD, then its a winner.

But if a (mostly) above ground option comes in at a few billion cheaper or whatever, then that essentially puts the price of serving Gabba and Albert street at that 'few billion'.

And of course, even saving one or two billion pays for the SC duplication in full for instance, so keep that opportunity cost in mind.

I'm not trying to play devils advocate, the current CRR plan is pretty darn good.
But how well would this work?

Is it better to spend $8 Bil on CRR, or $4 Bil on CRR lite, with the rest going towards fixing every last current bottleneck, and getting other new lines and extensions started?

[#Metro]

Is it better to spend $8 Bil on CRR, or $4 Bil on CRR lite, with the rest going towards fixing every last current bottleneck, and getting other new lines and extensions started?

Cross River Rail is a capacity project. Urban development blah blah can take a back seat. I think the gradients may be an issue in getting the line to pass into a tunnel under roma street. Are you disconnecting the beenleigh/gold coast lines as well or would there still be a connection there?

Thanks for posting this! I love constructive discussion!

[Golliwog]

I like it. I like the current CRR more, purely because it allows for so much more urban development near the Botanic Gardens and at the Gabba. However, as a bare minimum I could live with this. Of course, as you have the extra capacity from this, it pretty much guarantees you won't be serving the Gabba or southern CBD by rail for decades to come (unless there is a massive mode shift).

That said, I would think this could be doable. My main concern is going from the duplicated rail bridge to under the Ipswich line tracks. Though I think you could probably remove Exford St altogether, and lower Quay St under the duplicated track (remove the dogleg). Also, I think you would want to take care in positioning your new underground Roma St platforms, to allow for access to deeper ones that may occur if the original CRR was to occur at some later stage. You would want all three sets of platforms (the existing above ground, plus the two sets of underground ones) to feed from the existing concourse under the platforms, as IIRC theres a few places on the Underground/Paris Metro (can't recall which) where to get to one set of platforms, you basically have to go via another set of platforms, and it's just confusing for passengers.

See, if Campbell had proposed something like this, I would be less annoyed with him.

[Gazza]

Of course, as you have the extra capacity from this, it pretty much guarantees you won't be serving the Gabba or southern CBD by rail for decades to come (unless there is a massive mode shift).

Aha, well perhaps this is where TTs driverless SEB Metro comes in. It has its own CBD access condition, so that would run via Gabba, Albert St, Roma St, then in the future surfaces and follows the Northern Busway.
The tunneled segment through the CBD would be double stack, Barcelona style.
Build it cheap because the stations are based around a steady stream of smaller trains every 2 mins all day long, rather than having to deal with a 9 car set dumping its guts of 1500 pax in one hit.
The logic too is that if you are trying to drive urban development, a Metro is the right technology.  CRR in that environment is sort of retrofitting that usage on the inner part of a long distance commuter line (Since GC, SC etc are using it)...Not that im criticising CRR by the way, to be clear.

My main concern is going from the duplicated rail bridge to under the Ipswich line tracks. Though I think you could probably remove Exford St altogether, and lower Quay St under the duplicated track (remove the dogleg)

Agreed about changes to the streets. They are a couple of backstreets anyway. Nothing special. The Busway projects have/will seen a lot of changes to local street layouts anyway, so the precedent is there.

I count 200m from where the line crosses Coro Drive to Where it has to get under the Ipswich tracks.
Just a quick example, but check out the Thornlie line "fly under". http://www.nearmap.com/?ll=-32.035474,115.963043&z=19&t=k&nmd=20110908

The length of the ramp into the tunnel is closer to 230m, so you could push it a bit I guess. Building a tunnel at shallow level under the Ipswich line tracks shouldnt be too hard anyway. The INB passes under at very shallow depth too, so just use the same method.

Also, I think you would want to take care in positioning your new underground Roma St platforms, to allow for access to deeper ones that may occur if the original CRR was to occur at some later stage

Just remember, I'm a PT advocate, just like everyone else on here. Of course I care about making sure forward thinking like that gets done in the first place

[#Metro]

IF this works, with the money we save we could bundle the two projects together and solve both the Core Rail Capacity and Core Bus Capacity at the same time. Metro services can also be run over steep gradients, so tunnels can be cheaper (think Vancouver Sky Train or Montreal rubber tyred metro).

[Golliwog]

TT:
I'd rather do this cheaper CRR and fix the sunshine coast line. Buses can do done by a route change and feed rail at Park Rd or something (hey, they could finally use the donut just inside the tunnel there!). It's a decent enough distance from the CBD that you shouldn't have too many people complaining about having to change close to their final destination, especailly with the frequency in peak.

Gazza:
I'd still build the new station to take 9 car trains. It may not happen soon, but I see it as something that will be inevitable, especially on the long distance lines. It'd be an absolute bitch to try to retrofit to an underground station. I do see your point about metro being better for urban development, though if you're running 9 car GC trains, I can't see how you would have much of a standing load (or if you do, there are bigger problems!) so it being used as a defacto metro in the inner segment (and here I'm talking about the current CRR, or the cheaper one really) wouldn't be such a problem. If they don't get a seat then they're only standing for 10 minutes or so, no biggie.

Talk about precedent with the busway. Go have a look at Panitya (may be spelt wrong) next to the Langlands station on the new section of the EB. It used to go straight out onto OCL, now it does a 90 degree turn and runs across to Main Ave. Also, I'm guessing your 200m measurement is in a straight line? Also, depending on your reo arrangement, you could potentially get a thinner slab coming off the bridge and so start lower. And hell, going from the google maps streetview image, the existing bridge is high enough they haven't bothered putting any form of height marker on it, so you could probably lower it a bit anyway, I mean the Kurilpa bridge just down the Rd limits trucks etc to somewhere around 5m anyway doesn't it?

[Cam]

Gazza's proposed route for CCR "lite" has some merit but the underground platforms at Roma St will be further away from the CBD than the current surface platforms at either Central or Roma St. It may provide extra capacity but commuters will be walking even further to their work in the CBD than they already do & many already walk considerable distance because of the poor placement of the current CBD stations.

[Gazza]

^Cam, that was just the path I drew, you could always swing the line around a bit more and move the platforms closer to be more underneath platform 3.

Or just follow the kiss principle and put a moving walkway along the Roma St concourse to help the pax.

CBD commuters wanting to walk less can always change trains and go to Central, or get a bus to KGS etc.
Its not as if the CBD is gonna get any geographically bigger. The current growth to 2016 is based around these CBD station locations anyway. Again, it comes back to that if it comes in billions cheaper, then the pax can suck it up and walk.
Plus the problem might not be forever....Again, TTs metro.

Another option, but with a roughly 2km tunnel and an altered allignment, you could do a Spring Hill station. As the saying goes when one door closes another opens. Didn't bother posting this because I was avoiding gold plating.

[O_128]

Let's be frank - the Alderley/Trouts Road link would be nice to have, but is nowhere near as crucial as just getting Ekka to Yeerongpilly done.  Given they have factored that in, I expect a sum more commensurate with the cost of Airport Link plus a bit would be what they actually need (ie $5-6bn).

The public and private funding used to build Clem 7 and Legacy Way would have paid for most of it even with the bulked up estimate.

I never knew trouts road was included, I assumed it was a totally different project and the 8 billion was just for CRR.

Although CRR is purely capacity I think some people are underestimating how detrimental this is to urban development. Woolongabba is going to be our equivalent of north sydney and the ekka a residential and commercial hub. These areas need Rail from get go not in 2030.

I'm very interested to see what the cost benefit is just for the CRR it will surely be higher than 1.1

[Gazza]

I dont think it is included. It's just the tunnel stubs.

Or else the CRR website would be trumpeting a much longer project, and talking about benefits for people in that part of the city.

[Golliwog]

Another thing about CRR "lite" is that you now have a grade seperated pair of tracks from the Ekka loop to Merivale bridge. If you kept the gradient low enough, freight might be able to use it, though ventilation in the tunnel, etc would probably be an issue.

[Stillwater]

Tunnel to Alderley and Trouts Road corridor are not part of the CRR business case that is going to Canberra within weeks.

[BrizCommuter]

Based on current track configuration you can get 20 trains an hour on the southern lines with some GC expresses in peak flow heading down the 3rd track (which is actually underuterlised for reasons mentioned above). With 4 tracks you can get 30 with 2min headways and upgraded signally to allow closer running. The issue is the BRIDGE is not the problem, its the route/stations the bridge is on. there are two tracks between Roma St and Central and beyond. Cityrail runs 3min headways with slow dwell high pax volume DD stock. But places like Central still have two platforms for one line for same reason and you can see this in action.

Even with extra platforms (including FV and BH which appear to be out of Campbell Newman's scope), 30tph will not be possible without:

• Ironing out all the other network infrastructure issues so that trains arrive at junctions in on time and in an regular pattern - re: duplicate Cleveland, quad and triplicate parts of Beenleigh/Gold Coast corridor, Park Rd grade separation, new stabling locations to take pressure of Roma Street conflicts, Coomera to Helensvale duplication, Sandgate to Shorncliffe duplication - this bill (including extra platforms) could come to far more than $4b !
• A change in QR culture with high resolution timetables, and very accurate timetable adherence
• Raised platforms for shorter dwell times when wheelchair passengers need to board, and better dwell time management

CRR would be better value for money i.e. more extra tph per $$$.

Here is a link to a case study that BrizCommuter blogged in February, for one of the very few suburban rail lines in the world that can achieve 30tph.
http://brizcommuter.blogspot.com/2011/02/signalling-case-study-paris-rer.html

[Gazza]

I cannot see building a 2nd rail system incompatible with current network a benefit to Brisbane and its costs per km will not be alot cheaper. What I saw of Vancouver Metro (which is good) spoke "cheap". Only the Vancouver HR peak flow only West Coast Railway is a cheap way of introducing commuter rail. Its only there because the track is there and the track owner sees the commerical benefit of allowing pax trains to have sole access for 3hr morning and afternoon.

Why is compatibility a be all and end all?

The advantage of metro is.
- Truly off the shelf.
- Lower labour costs, because it's driverless.

So it's actually cheaper in two ways, up front, and long term.

[#Metro]

Why is compatibility a be all and end all?

The advantage of metro is.
- Truly off the shelf.
- Lower labour costs, because it's driverless.

So it's actually cheaper in two ways, up front, and long term.

If we are talking high capacity inner city service, go metro. High frequency, I think a service every 70-80 seconds is possible (Vancouver).
High capacity (30 000 pphd to 45 000 pphd depending on exact configuration) and also automatic (whole city can't be shut down due to industrial action).

ANY interconnection with the existing QR system is a waste of time because the moment you connect to that, you immediately get all the negative
effects of station spacing, pyramid-era signalling, freight and long distance service interactions, curvy platforms and blah blah which will immediately
reduce ultimate capacity. The bus system is
incompatible with rail already anyway, so I don't see how a metro being incompatible with the existing QR system is anything we should worry about.

[Gazza]

Agreed, Its not as if the Copenhagen Metro was made compatible with the S-Tog, was it?
Hasn't caused an issues.

Plenty of cities use different tech, even on the same mode.
It should be horses for courses.

I am of the opinion that we should do CRR, and use that to support CAMCOS, Flagstone, Trouts Rd yada yada.

Any future new lines (Beyond 2031) should be metro.

[#Metro]

It is all about unblocking the core.

Service Level Improvements
Core Frequent Network (Rail)
Core Frequent Network (Bus)

Infrastructure Level Improvements
Core Rail Capacity (Cross River Rail)
Core Bus Capacity (North-South Subway)

Special
Freight and long distance passenger separation from the network

There should also be a rolling, yearly fund to iron out inefficiencies across the rail network.
This is things like track crossings, flyovers, flyunders, duplications of single track, and so forth.
There is a lot of work so the best approach is a slow one spread over many years.

If you don't have the core sorted out, anything that feeds into it is going to be useless.

LOL, So anyone in DTMR want to offer me a job in the policy section  

[Dean Quick]

This latest statement by little mister big comes as no surprise to me. He has already proven his car-centric credentials by the rabbit warren of ROAD tunnels we now have. When it comes to public transport this is an opposition driven by cheap pathetic band aid solutions and cost cutting but mention ROAD tunnels and they foam at the mouth!!   HOW PATHETIC!!

[somebody]

My memory could be failing but Nth bound and Sth bound plats, first ones on suburban side 16/17 and 18/19 at Central.

Platform 16 is Harbour Bridge bound, 17 is City Circle bound.  18 is from the Harbour Bridge, 19 is from City Circle.  These are completely segregated from each other until the points near Macdonaldtown, which are planned to be disused.

I think your quad @ Sth Bris might, possibly allow more AM peak trains from the north on the subs (ignoring the possibility of running direct to Milton on the subs).  If you don't do anything to improve Central #4, I don't see much capacity benefits here.  The approach to Central #4 takes a good portion of the time of a platform dwell, ignoring the recovery time.

I really don't see why you are so enthusiastic about squeezing Merivale bridge paths.  You don't get the travel time or station location benefits.

I support CRR, other than the ridiculous plan for half baking at Salisbury station and the plan to operate Kuraby trains via South Bank.