Cross River Rail Project

[aldonius]

I assume it's related to air conditioning. The Busway ones have a fumes rationale as well, AFAIK.

[longboi]

All the visual promo material I've seen for the long-awaited CRR, seems to indicate glass platform "walls" will be erected on the edge of the platforms of the new stations - like they've put in the inner-city bus way stations (ie, KGS and Myer Centre).

My question - why?

I've travelled "subways" here in Australia and overseas and can't readily recall, even on relatively modern systems, such platform walling.  Do the QR designers believe Queeeeenslanders have "balance issues" and regularly fall off platforms more than other people, in way larger cities do around the globe?

Also, might sound silly, but nothing adds to the "romance" or "feel", call it what you want, of the wind rush generated in undergrounds - hopefully fellow rail fans will know what I'm talking about.

Do we reaaallllyyyy have to have the platform walls???    :conf

Firstly, this is a TMR project, not QR's.

Secondly, they're in use in 16 countries around the world http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platform_screen_doors

[petey3801]

All the visual promo material I've seen for the long-awaited CRR, seems to indicate glass platform "walls" will be erected on the edge of the platforms of the new stations - like they've put in the inner-city bus way stations (ie, KGS and Myer Centre).

My question - why?

I've travelled "subways" here in Australia and overseas and can't readily recall, even on relatively modern systems, such platform walling.  Do the QR designers believe Queeeeenslanders have "balance issues" and regularly fall off platforms more than other people, in way larger cities do around the globe?

Also, might sound silly, but nothing adds to the "romance" or "feel", call it what you want, of the wind rush generated in undergrounds - hopefully fellow rail fans will know what I'm talking about.

Do we reaaallllyyyy have to have the platform walls???    :conf

It's a forced yellow safety line, basically. They are actually platform 'doors' which will line up with the doors on the train and only open when the train stops. Same thing exists in some places overseas (Japan mostly AFAIK) and is also used in Sydney at Olympic Park station.

[HappyTrainGuy]

Bus stations have the doors due to the excessive exhaust fumes created under acceleration.

[#Metro]

I think PSDs are important.

1. It keeps clowns out of the tunnels - very important given their extreme lengths
2. It stops people falling on to the platform - disruptions on the core affect the whole network
3. It is just a civilised thing to do.

[Stillwater]

The discussion around design is pointless.  As we are told, the CRR Business Case went to IA in November and a decision will be forthcoming.  (The Bligh Government would hope that the green light is given before the election is held.)  Three possible outcomes: (1) yes, the federal government will meet all the government cost, as requested, (2) the project is over-engineered and the BCR is too low, rejected, and (3) the feds will put in two thirds of the projected cost to government, with the state government to find the remaining funds.

Response 3 would threaten the state government's schedule for returning Queensland Budget surplus to black.

Question:  What happens if IA agrees to fund CRR entirely and Campbell Newman becomes Premier.  Will he go ahead and build it?

[dwb]

I think PSDs are important.

1. It keeps clowns out of the tunnels - very important given their extreme lengths
2. It stops people falling on to the platform - disruptions on the core affect the whole network
3. It is just a civilised thing to do.

Ditto.

[Gazza]

PSDs often exisit for the purposes of controlling smoke in an emergency.

They are a worthwhile feature, and might as well be there on any new underground line built for the other reasons mentioned.

[dwb]

PSDs often exisit for the purposes of controlling smoke in an emergency.

They are a worthwhile feature, and might as well be there on any new underground line built for the other reasons mentioned.

Yep completely agree. Safety and aircon... think how hot the underground is in london in winter, then imagine what our (deeper) platforms would be like in summer!

[SteelPan]

It's a forced yellow safety line, basically. They are actually platform 'doors' which will line up with the doors on the train and only open when the train stops. Same thing exists in some places overseas (Japan mostly AFAIK) and is also used in Sydney at Olympic Park station.
[/quote]

Yeah, but all their other underground stations don't!   :conf

Chatswood/Epping line, new line and pretty sure they don't have them, tunnel lengths are long - maybe their people can be trusted to act like adults on train station platforms and not stroll off into the tunnels wwwwwwooooooooo, obviously the TMR boffins need to protect (ie, control) us all...mind you, we are talking about Queensland boffins.....enough said!   

(see their brothers in the Qld Health Dept have 14 days or so to hand back all the gifts they took, as the upstanding professionals they clearly are, from the south pacific "royalty" co-worker who ripped off the taxpayers money intrusted to the boffins care - mind you, as the paper said, the Qld public sector will employ pretty much anyone  )

[O_128]

Not to mention when the platforms get absolutely packed it stops people getting pushed onto tracks.

[Gazza]

PSDs often exisit for the purposes of controlling smoke in an emergency.

They are a worthwhile feature, and might as well be there on any new underground line built for the other reasons mentioned.

Yep completely agree. Safety and aircon... think how hot the underground is in london in winter, then imagine what our (deeper) platforms would be like in summer!

They'd be exactly the same. When you are underground, temp is not dependent on the surface temperature.
Coober Pedy for instance.

[ozbob]

From the Couriermail click here!

Cut-price river rail the Cleveland Solution explored


http://resources2.news.com.au/images/2012/01/13/1226243/948842-cross-river-rail.jpg

Cut-price river rail the Cleveland Solution explored

   by: Sarah Vogler
   From: The Courier-Mail
   January 14, 2012 12:00AM

AN ambitious Cross River Rail alternative for a third of the price is being investigated.

Named the Cleveland Solution, the $2.5 billion plan involves building a rail bridge beside the Captain Cook Bridge, two tunnels, underground stations and line duplications for a third of the cost of the $8 billion Cross River Rail plan.

The new plan, developed by engineering consultants GHD for the Council of Mayors (Southeast Queensland), will relieve 50 per cent of the capacity of the Merivale Bridge by diverting the Cleveland line and freeing up nine tracks.

The Merivale Bridge is expected to reach its choke point by 2016.

The Cleveland line would instead run along a new rail line from Park Rd to Roma St via a tunnel to a new station at Woolloongabba and then a new bridge beside the Captain Cook. It would then run through a tunnel under Herschel St to a new platform beneath Roma St Station. Elevated stations would be built at Gardens Point and Queen St. After Roma St, the line would run above ground along the Exhibition Line to a new Exhibition Station and Bowen Hills West station before joining the Ferny Grove line at Breakfast Creek.

The solution, which would utilise light rail as well, could free up 24 trains back to the Citytrain network.

Council of Mayors chair Cr Graham Quirk said the mayors would determine their position after the March council elections.

"At the moment while there is a Rolls Royce proposal on the table, there is no money to fund that Rolls Royce proposal," Cr Quirk said.

[ozbob]

Wilbur's plans resurface, surprised?  No, not at all ...

Wilbur Smith Plan 1970! (Cross River Rail 1970)
http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=3304.0

[Stillwater]

Not surprised.  This is the concept that Campbell Newman will support while spruiking that the ALP is wasting money with its CRR proposal.  This announcement now puts in context the LNP plan to extend platforms at South Brisbane and Southbank to buy time while it works up a new cross-river rail relief route (assuming the LNP wins government).  The assumed lower cost is as rubbery as buggery and can't be relied upon.  The Council of Mayors alternative would take another five years to work up (feasibility study, EIS, public consultation, land purchase, consultations with industry and bankers) -- basically the same process just gone through for the current CRR proposal, now with IA.

Wow, where to now?

IA approves the CRR Business Case, agrees to put up all the government money (ALP's preferred position), ALP re-elected and project proceeds.
IA rejects Business Case, puts an offer on the table that requires a monetary contribution from an ALP government.  An ALP government holds its ground, demands full amount and project stalls.
IA postpones a decision on federal funding for CRR until after the state election in the light of an alternative project emerging, saying it will discuss the future of CRR with whatever government emerges after the election.
IA dismisses the current CRR project as being too expensive, declares that Bligh Government ignored the hints and signals it has been sending out during the CRR feasibility negotiations.  It announces it is prepared to consider alternatives and seeks a briefing from the Council of Mayors about that body's cheaper alternative.

We could have a situation where Campbell Newman, as Premier, receives news that IA has approved the ALP's current proposal for CRR, but rejects the money.  IA is likely to delay any decision on the CRR Business Case and let the games play out.  The ALP took a long time to finalise the Business Case.  Had the state government submitted it earlier, it might have been able to go to the election with a firm proposal.  Mind you, that outcome might have been a firm rejection by IA -- highly politically damaging and allowing opponents to accuse Bligh and Co. of incompetence and mismanagement.

What today's news of the tunnel and bridge option does is that it allows Mr Newman to go to the polls supporting the, let's say, $3 billion cheaper alternative, leaving $5 billion 'change' yet still remain within the budget umbrella that the ALP has factored into the forward estimates (future state Budgets).  He then has the flexibility to promise that $5 billion towards other PT projects in SEQ.

In that case -

ALP position:  Vote for us and we will spend $8 billion of federal government and private sector money on CRR.
LNP position:  The ALP is a wasteful government.  We can achieve the same outcome for much less and, by the way, we will do this, and this other thing, and that thing over there for a total budget of $8 billion.  We can make your tax dollar stretch further.  Vote for us.

Either way, Queenslanders will soon get a government that backs extra rail capacity across the Brisbane River.

[BrizCommuter]

From the Couriermail click here!

Cut-price river rail the Cleveland Solution explored


http://resources2.news.com.au/images/2012/01/13/1226243/948842-cross-river-rail.jpg

Cut-price river rail the Cleveland Solution explored

   by: Sarah Vogler
   From: The Courier-Mail
   January 14, 2012 12:00AM

AN ambitious Cross River Rail alternative for a third of the price is being investigated.

Named the Cleveland Solution, the $2.5 billion plan involves building a rail bridge beside the Captain Cook Bridge, two tunnels, underground stations and line duplications for a third of the cost of the $8 billion Cross River Rail plan.

The new plan, developed by engineering consultants GHD for the Council of Mayors (Southeast Queensland), will relieve 50 per cent of the capacity of the Merivale Bridge by diverting the Cleveland line and freeing up nine tracks.

The Merivale Bridge is expected to reach its choke point by 2016.

The Cleveland line would instead run along a new rail line from Park Rd to Roma St via a tunnel to a new station at Woolloongabba and then a new bridge beside the Captain Cook. It would then run through a tunnel under Herschel St to a new platform beneath Roma St Station. Elevated stations would be built at Gardens Point and Queen St. After Roma St, the line would run above ground along the Exhibition Line to a new Exhibition Station and Bowen Hills West station before joining the Ferny Grove line at Breakfast Creek.

The solution, which would utilise light rail as well, could free up 24 trains back to the Citytrain network.

Council of Mayors chair Cr Graham Quirk said the mayors would determine their position after the March council elections.

"At the moment while there is a Rolls Royce proposal on the table, there is no money to fund that Rolls Royce proposal," Cr Quirk said.

Half-baked idea in so many ways.  Blog post coming!



Back to the PSD conversation. London Underground's PSDs apparently paid for themselves just in reducing litter collections!

[Derwan]

This idea offers absolutely no redundancy.

Also, if there is an elevated station at Queen Street, how on earth is the line supposed to go under Roma St?  How many inner city buildings will they have to demolish to build the tunnel portal?  What about the gradient?

This is exactly like the 7-car trains.  (I.e. dumb idea that won't work.)  LNP will push this idea as a "cheaper alternative".  If they win the election, it'll end up taking several more years only to "discover" that the option is not viable.

If you're voting on transport policies, you'd be crazy to vote LNP.

[#Metro]

Why not just divert the Beenleigh and Gold Coast line into the tunnels and leave the Cleveland Line as is.

That would be a fair alternative.

[#Metro]

The solution, which would utilise light rail as well, could free up 24 trains back to the Citytrain network.

Light Rail as well? Okay. Need to see detail though.

[ozbob]

No doubt the timing of this ' different CRR ' proposal is not happen chance.

A bridge instead of a tunnel (as Smith first proposed) is achievable.  The other aspects need to remain though, the southern line is the tunnel line that will give the most benefit.

The bridge could also be used for bus as well.  But I don't think it will get up, the real CRR is well designed and documented.

[somebody]

This idea offers absolutely no redundancy.

Also, if there is an elevated station at Queen Street, how on earth is the line supposed to go under Roma St?  How many inner city buildings will they have to demolish to build the tunnel portal?  What about the gradient?

This is exactly like the 7-car trains.  (I.e. dumb idea that won't work.)  LNP will push this idea as a "cheaper alternative".  If they win the election, it'll end up taking several more years only to "discover" that the option is not viable.

If you're voting on transport policies, you'd be crazy to vote LNP.

+1

[Mr X]

+2

I don't understand how light rail links into this.   
I think it's a little bit silly that we'd build all those city stations just for one 2tph line to use it. Their map is a bit confusing, do the Cleveland trains connect with the network at Park Rd or not? Can other lines use this tunnel?

The Cleveland line would instead run along a new rail line from Park Rd to Roma St via a tunnel to a new station at Woolloongabba

[Derwan]

Why not just divert the Beenleigh and Gold Coast line into the tunnels and leave the Cleveland Line as is.

That's only half of it.  The line needs to connect to the other lines north of the city (i.e. Caboolture, Shorncliffe, Doomben and Airport).  Having it connected to the Ferny Grove line is dumb.

But of course - it would appear that this "solution" is proposing a completely separate system:

The solution, which would utilise light rail as well, could free up 24 trains back to the Citytrain network.

WHAT??  Dumb! Dumb! Dumb!   

In fact, I think this idea is DUMBER than 7-car trains!

[Gazza]

Why not just divert the Beenleigh and Gold Coast line into the tunnels and leave the Cleveland Line as is.

That would be a fair alternative.

My immediate thought too. If they are doing it all for 2.5 Bil, then surely they can splash out on the connection from the GC and beenleigh line Park Rd to the new line, and still be coming in cheaper.

And 2.5 Bil does sound about right. There are no deep level stations, bridges are cheaper than tunnels, and the actual tunneled distance is much less due to not going all the way south to Yeerongilly.

I do really need more info, but as I have said earlier, CRR has always been a capacity project for me. If this does the same thing then I'm happy for the remaining 6 bil saved over the current alternative to go towards SC Duplication, GC extension, etc.

With the elevated stations, again need more info (Eg the actual document), but would it go over north Quay at that end of Queen St? 

Though, this propsoal actually has to be workable for this to happen 

[Mr X]

That map is really useless at explaining the proposal. Is the purple line on the right the Doomben line? Why is it terminating at Eagle Junction?

[O_128]

What a pathetic plan, 3 billion to run trains ever half hand one of those lines is constrained by single track

[Gazza]

Why is it terminating at Eagle Junction?

Haha, I reckon Doomben trains should anyway!

one of those lines is constrained by single track

Named the Cleveland Solution, the $2.5 billion plan involves building a rail bridge beside the Captain Cook Bridge, two tunnels, underground stations and line duplications for a third of the cost of the $8 billion Cross River Rail plan.

Again, not trying to be Quirk/Newman Booster or anything of the sort, but I'd rather wait to see the specifics then dismiss it outright. That goes for details like how an elevated line gets down into Roma St and so forth.
AFAIK a solutuion like this was never even put on the drawing board.

All we have to go by is the CMs interpretation of the plan, and with random stuff like "Light rail" referred to, then I'm guessing the Journo has kind of slaughtered what they read in the process of writing the article.
Journos aren't transport nerds, and they are writing for a broad audience.
Happens with articles on any specialised area...As you have probably seen from my avatar, I'm interested in theme parks too, and it is always hillarious reading an article on the topic in the mainstream media...They always get many details wrong and use odd wordings.

[Gazza]

So, could it work if Merivale was used for GC and Beenleigh, with 'CRR Alt' line used for Cleveland.

Then in the future, do a connection from the Beenleigh line to the CRR Alt to accomodate Flagstone/Beaudesert trains?

Still dont get why Beenleigh/GC doesn't just use this new line...Makes more sense!

[BrizCommuter]

http://brizcommuter.blogspot.com/2012/01/another-half-baked-cross-river-rail.html
The BrizCommuter word on the silly season's latest CRR alternative.

[O_128]

So, could it work if Merivale was used for GC and Beenleigh, with 'CRR Alt' line used for Cleveland.

Then in the future, do a connection from the Beenleigh line to the CRR Alt to accomodate Flagstone/Beaudesert trains?

Still dont get why Beenleigh/GC doesn't just use this new line...Makes more sense!

I guess one benefit is the complete separation of the cleveland line and Ferny Grove lines. However for it to truly work something will still need to be done at roma st junction to allow more trains through.

Light rail down Wynnum road ?

[somebody]

Positives:
Cheaper
Removes conflict at Park Rd

Negatives:
Entrenches indirect nature of Cleveland line for decades - no significant speed improvement
No speed improvement for Beenleigh or Gold Coast lines
Adds capacity only on the less busy of the branches beyond Park Rd
Constructibility of the Gardens Point to Roma St section particularly remains a question mark
Unclear about issues with existing freight and out of services trains on the Exhibition line

[Jonas Jade]

Why the Cleveland line? That's a ridiculous kink in the line to go Coorparoo -> Buranda -> Park Road -> Woolloongabba? The Beenleigh or GC line makes more sense, drop it under before Park Rd to avoid the junction.

If they're really so intent on "fixing" the Cleveland line like this it would make more sense to just go Coorparoo -> Gabba (but then you lose the Buranda and Park Road connections). Otherwise if its going to Park Road, GC/Beenleigh should be it.

How will an elevated line alongside the Riverside Expressway go? Like other people mentioned where is the tunnel portal going to be?

Anyway more details required to make a proper judgemnt. It sounds like either the journalist is confused, or this is the 'original' idea that the council of mayors had (not properly assessed by GHD).

[O_128]

Cut out park road and its not an issue transfer at woolongabba or buranda. If a bus bridge is included it will at least knock out the other bus bridge.

Connecting the SEB over a new bridge joining it to KGS, other routes that still use CC terminate at QSBS

[ozbob]

This latest alt CRR is a political stunt, designed to FUD the proposed CRR in light of the looming election.

I have seen draft plans for a variation of CRR that like Wilbur Smith's 1970 concept forgoes the tunnel underneath the Brisbane River, uses a bridge.  This bridge would have the same clearances as the Go Between bridge.  It is achievable.  If a bridge was used it would mean 'Gabba not as deep, and money saved as a lot cheaper to bridge the river rather than tunnel it.  The line comes out of the cliffs, bridge and then back down under.

Seems some political players have got hold of the bridge idea and have churned it into a Cleveland/Ferny Grove non-solution.

I rather like the bridge option to cross the river though as it would also provide a bus bridge.  However no doubt this was considered as the design for CRR was progressed, and rejected.  

[#Metro]

A combined bus and rail bridge would be amazing!

Buses and trains combine!!

You could have dual stations at Wooloongabba and Queen Street. However this will increase costs too.

No more Captain Cook Bridge delays!

[Gazza]

http://www.councilofmayorsseq.qld.gov.au/docs/Publications/COMSEQ-Public-Transport-in-SEQ_LOW-RES.pdf

P24

-Not light rail but light metro.
-Tunneled under Hershel St
-Existing rollingstock on the cleveland and FG line migrated to the rest of the network.
-Line could possibly be run by another operator.

-In the same document, GHD wants to do Beerburrm-Landsbourough in the next 1-5 years.

[ozbob]

Thanks Gazza.

The fundamental flaw is the claim that 50% of the services across Merivale are Cleveland trains.  Clearly false.  I think the costings are too light as well.

Does nothing to address the longer term capacity issues that CRR and eventually Trouts Road corridor will enable.

[Gazza]

will relieve 50 per cent of the capacity of the Merivale Bridge by diverting the Cleveland line and freeing up nine tracks.

sfdjkfdhsdakfkjaskjdkjas journalist!

Frees up 9 train paths.

I'm just trying to put my head in the LNP universe for a second, but perhaps the reason they chose to put Cleveland and FGY in the metro is because they have the lowest line speeds (Matches the 80km/h speed of Light Metro stock) and because under an LNP scenario, the South Bris cordioor would be the one with the 'capacity' due to the extra platforms and signalling they want to put in.
Could do 24 tph over the merivale right under their scenario wasn't it?

[ozbob]

The ' LNP Universe ' can be scary place ....  

I am further convinced after looking at the document that this is just a desperate attempt to neutralise the ' CRR Wedge ' that was created when Mr Newman had is dummy spit about CRR when announcing he would be the new ' man ', although previously indicating the CRR was the most important project moving forward.

[Gazza]

Uploaded with ImageShack.us