Cross River Rail Project

[#Metro]

This deletes the Cleveland and Ferny Grove Lines from the network. I like that idea.
Doomben and Shorncliffe Lines could also be looked at for deletion from QR and transfer to some other new network.

The first step to achieve this could be to extract some lines from the core and reintroduce them as independent lines crossing the core – this is the basis of the "Cleveland Solution"

Lines Crossing the Merivale Bridge would be Bowen Hills (formerly Ferny Grove) and Gold Coast Lines.

I would rather though the Gold Coast and Beenleigh lines disappear into the Tunnel while Cleveland Line trains are retained. I guess that would mean that

The Light Metro operation on the Cleveland Line will include the duplication of the track from Manly to Cleveland. The Light Metro will also be segregated from freight movements to the Port of Brisbane and an additional freight line passing loop will be provided at Norman Park.

The issue here is that freight has one line and it uses commuter lines to return - how will this be handled if there are two different modes on the line?

[#Metro]

Light Metro technology is used extensively in mid-sized European cities such as Frankfurt, Lisbon and Vienna and is ideally suited to the steeper grades and tighter curves of the "Cleveland Solution".

They've had to use different technology to get around the gradient issue!

[Gazza]

Cleveland gets locked into a sh%t alligntment for now, but hey, at least they'll wait 3 min for a train, instead of 15 min under urbanlink.

Yeah, I can see it now. They have been able to do it cheap by doing some tight turns in the CBD. exactly the same thing happens on the DLR in London:
http://g.co/maps/sb7ra

I don't really see why the turn at Wooloongabba has to be so tight though...Why not just run the platform to be perpendicular to the Busway one and eliminate the curve?

[#Metro]

The problem in brisbane is simple to describe:

Everything runs to the core. Almost all buses start out in the suburbs, pass through a main interchange (Carindale/Garden City/Toowong/Indro/Brookside/Cannon Hill/Toombul) and then EVERYTHING flows into the CBD.

The same with the rail network. Everything starts out at the branches and then EVERYTHING flows to the CBD!

No wonder there is no capacity!

[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.

All this suggests to me that an announcement on IA funding for CRR is imminent ...  the ' Cleveland Solution ' is the counter-attack.

Will never be built is my guess. 

[O_128]

This deletes the Cleveland and Ferny Grove Lines from the network. I like that idea.
Doomben and Shorncliffe Lines could also be looked at for deletion from QR and transfer to some other new network.

The first step to achieve this could be to extract some lines from the core and reintroduce them as independent lines crossing the core – this is the basis of the "Cleveland Solution"

Lines Crossing the Merivale Bridge would be Bowen Hills (formerly Ferny Grove) and Gold Coast Lines.

I would rather though the Gold Coast and Beenleigh lines disappear into the Tunnel while Cleveland Line trains are retained. I guess that would mean that

The Light Metro operation on the Cleveland Line will include the duplication of the track from Manly to Cleveland. The Light Metro will also be segregated from freight movements to the Port of Brisbane and an additional freight line passing loop will be provided at Norman Park.

The issue here is that freight has one line and it uses commuter lines to return - how will this be handled if there are two different modes on the line?

I can see the thinking behind this.

Postives.. Allows sectorisation of cleveland and ferny grove
Allows these 2 lines to be metrofied (inner cleveland line has huge untapped potential.
Bus bridge
Building shelter for the homeless in the CBD 

Negatives.
Requires quading to lindum to separate freight
park road detour
Does nothing for gold coast and beenleigh lines (though you can argue the same for CRR doing nothing for cleveland)
cost

[Gazza]

Entrenches indirect nature of Cleveland line for decades - no significant speed improvement

Though I guess the frequency helps a bit.

No speed improvement for Beenleigh or Gold Coast lines

Taking a bit of a zen view, but essentially its a matter of 2.5 bil versus 7.7 Bil. If it were say 7.0 Bil for the metro versus 7.7 Bil for CRR, i'd say yeah spend the little bit extra and do it via the faster underground alignment from Yeeronpilly.

But if its 1/3 of the price, there really do have to be some value judgements over the time savings of the full CRR proposal, and the aspects of an elevated line being an eyesore.
Is 5 bil the price we put on a 5min time saving and the avoidance of an eyesore?
Or even "train paths gained per billion"

Constructibility of the Gardens Point to Roma St section particularly remains a question mark

Tight curves and gradients done with the light metro. Question answered now.

Does nothing for gold coast and beenleigh lines (though you can argue the same for CRR doing nothing for cleveland)

Something I'm pondering, but with the demand forecasting on the Merivale, that was taking into account all 3 lines right?
Essentiallly under the Cleveland solution, any future demand will come from only GC and Beenleigh (And Flagstone)
So that assists a bit right?

[dwb]

This deletes the Cleveland and Ferny Grove Lines from the network. I like that idea.
Doomben and Shorncliffe Lines could also be looked at for deletion from QR and transfer to some other new network.

The first step to achieve this could be to extract some lines from the core and reintroduce them as independent lines crossing the core – this is the basis of the "Cleveland Solution"

Lines Crossing the Merivale Bridge would be Bowen Hills (formerly Ferny Grove) and Gold Coast Lines.

I would rather though the Gold Coast and Beenleigh lines disappear into the Tunnel while Cleveland Line trains are retained. I guess that would mean that

The Light Metro operation on the Cleveland Line will include the duplication of the track from Manly to Cleveland. The Light Metro will also be segregated from freight movements to the Port of Brisbane and an additional freight line passing loop will be provided at Norman Park.

The issue here is that freight has one line and it uses commuter lines to return - how will this be handled if there are two different modes on the line?

I can see the thinking behind this.

Postives.. Allows sectorisation of cleveland and ferny grove
Allows these 2 lines to be metrofied (inner cleveland line has huge untapped potential.
Bus bridge
Building shelter for the homeless in the CBD 

Negatives.
Requires quading to lindum to separate freight
park road detour
Does nothing for gold coast and beenleigh lines (though you can argue the same for CRR doing nothing for cleveland)
cost

Sorry O_128, it seems to me that you fundamentally do NOT understand the thinking behind this....

Whether a cheaper solution is required or not, this is politicking in its purest form, no more, period.

[O_128]

Anyone know what the sunshine coast connect is in the doc? And Gazza, The cleveland line would go gangbusters with a proper frequency.

I can see the thinking but I guess one of the biggest issue is freight on the cleveland line.

And DWB of course I see what it is, but considering we are going to have a LNP gov this solution will have a much greater chance of getting built so its better to analyse it and provide feedback then just toss it in the bin.

[dwb]

Entrenches indirect nature of Cleveland line for decades - no significant speed improvement

Though I guess the frequency helps a bit.

No speed improvement for Beenleigh or Gold Coast lines

Taking a bit of a zen view, but essentially its a matter of 2.5 bil versus 7.7 Bil. If it were say 7.0 Bil for the metro versus 7.7 Bil for CRR, i'd say yeah spend the little bit extra and do it via the faster underground alignment from Yeeronpilly.

But if its 1/3 of the price, there really do have to be some value judgements over the time savings of the full CRR proposal, and the aspects of an elevated line being an eyesore.
Is 5 bil the price we put on a 5min time saving and the avoidance of an eyesore?

Constructibility of the Gardens Point to Roma St section particularly remains a question mark

Tight curves and gradients done with the light metro. Question answered now.

Does nothing for gold coast and beenleigh lines (though you can argue the same for CRR doing nothing for cleveland)

Something I'm pondering, but with the demand forecasting on the Merivale, that was taking into account all 3 lines right?
Essentiallly under the Cleveland solution, any future demand will come from only GC and Beenleigh (And Flagstone)
So that assists a bit right?

Is that really all you think CRR is?!

What about from an economic perspective... the gain that is, over the next 50-100 years. Try imaging the two compared, if you have any sense you won't want CoMs cr*p anymore even if it does come in at bargain basement price.

[Fares_Fair]

Anyone know what the sunshine coast connect is in the doc? And Gazza, The cleveland line would go gangbusters with a proper frequency.

I can see the thinking but I guess one of the biggest issue is freight on the cleveland line.

And DWB of course I see what it is, but considering we are going to have a LNP gov this solution will have a much greater chance of getting built so its better to analyse it and provide feedback then just toss it in the bin.

the where ?

[#Metro]

This is such an awkward alignment that unsettles me. Look at this thing - it is weaving through the Riverside expressway by the looks of it.

[dwb]

Anyone know what the sunshine coast connect is in the doc? And Gazza, The cleveland line would go gangbusters with a proper frequency.

I can see the thinking but I guess one of the biggest issue is freight on the cleveland line.

And DWB of course I see what it is, but considering we are going to have a LNP gov this solution will have a much greater chance of getting built so its better to analyse it and provide feedback then just toss it in the bin.

Under LNP it might have a 100x better chance of getting built than CRR.... but if CRR has zero percent chance, where does that leave us!?

[dwb]

This is such an awkward alignment that unsettles me. Look at this thing - it is weaving through the Riverside expressway by the looks of it.

I'd be less unsettled if they were talking about building it ON the riverside expressway lol

[dwb]

I'd be less unsettled if they were talking about building it ON the riverside expressway lol

Would be cheaper too!

(sorry to quote myself :S)

[#Metro]

Eastern Busway Future Stages | Stage 2 Main Ave to Bennetts Rd
The 1km Stage 1 of the EasternBusway-Burandato Main Avenue, Coorparoo, was recently completed at a cost of $466M. A section of this project known as 2A has been funded in the 2011-12 Budget and the $25M allocation has been included in the 2012-2017 Program.
The next stage from Main Ave to Bennetts Road is understood to also be in tunnel at a cost of $690M.
This cost for approximately 1.5 km of busway is considered extravagant given the congestion downstream in the busway network (discussed above) and the localised congestion on Old Cleveland Road.

Eastern busway gets blasted- and I agree. What is the point of spending this money if the core is clogged?

[ozbob]

Sent  to outlets  

14th January 2012

'The Cleveland Solution ...'

Greetings,

Just in time for the looming state election, a report titled ' Public Transport in SEQ
Options to deliver value and innovation in future South East Queensland public transport infrastructure'  http://www.councilofmayorsseq.qld.gov.au/docs/Publications/COMSEQ-Public-Transport-in-SEQ_LOW-RES.pdf  has appeared.

The report is interesting reading.  Unfortunately the whole premise of the Cleveland Solution is false.  Merivale bridge capacity constraints will not be reduced by 50% by taking out Cleveland services.

Most services on the Merivale bridge are Gold Coast and Beenleigh lines, together with specials and freights.  And both of these lines will have significant demands on them, far more so than Cleveland.

The document does raise issues that we too have highlighted for years and does have some merit with project priority identification and background.

The real Cross River Rail project, together with the Trouts Road Corridor will actually give the real capacity needed for all lines.  Cross River Rail is a realistic and appropriate response to positioning Brisbane and South East Queensland for a sustainable transport future.

This report appears to me to be a political response to the Cross River Rail wedge  created when Mr Newman changed from being a strong supporter of Cross River Rail to an alternative view, at the time he resigned as Lord Mayor.

Will be an interesting campaign,

Best wishes
Robert

Robert Dow
Administration
admin@backontrack.org
RAIL Back On Track http://backontrack.org

[O_128]

I'd be less unsettled if they were talking about building it ON the riverside expressway lol

Would be cheaper too!

(sorry to quote myself :S)

I think thats the plan though can be sure, Makes sense.

Light Metro rolling stock has a capacity of approximately 600 passengers per train and would operate at 3 to 5 minute headways to service the demand on the Cleveland Line. Consequently, the Cleveland and Ferny Grove Lines would enjoy a much more frequent service.

Cant argue with frequency, The biggest issue Ive had with CRR after cost was what will the frequency be....This is something I would like to know from both parties for there solutions.

The Light Metro operation on the Cleveland Line will include the duplication of the track from Manly to Cleveland. The Light Metro will also be segregated from freight movements to the Port of Brisbane and an additional freight line passing loop will be provided at Norman Park.

I don't really get this, you would need a new track, and something needs to be done about the alignment from norman park to morning side.

The proposed rolling stock is project specic light metro rolling stock which can operate at 80kmh, particularly with higher oors and larger wheels. This is the same speed as heavy rail travels on the Cleveland Line.

Ehh If you say so, Other than the the hemmant-lindum this makes sense.

[Cam]

Surely, if you are going to spend billions on any CRR project it needs to be accessible by at least one of the Gold Coast, Beenleigh & the proposed Flagstone services. What happens when the Merrivale Bridge reaches capacity from these lines in a couple of decades? It may only cost one third of current government's CRR proposal, but provides something in the order of one tenth of the benefit for the overall network.  

If such a proposal was ever built, decades later people would be saying why wasn't the river crossing for the Cleveland Line built from Morningside to New Farm & more directly to the CBD. There would be the possibility of a Kangaroo Point station using such a route.

BTW, I'm no ALP supporter.

[ozbob]

Whether a cheaper solution is required or not, this is politicking in its purest form, no more, period.

Spot on ...

[ozbob]

Surely, if you are going to spend billions on any CRR project it needs to be accessible by at least one of the Gold Coast, Beenleigh & the proposed Flagstone services. What happens when the Merrivale Bridge reaches capacity from these lines in a couple of decades? It may only cost one third of ALP's CRR proposal, but provides something in the order of one tenth of the benefit for the overall network. 

If such a proposal was ever built, decades later people would be saying why wasn't the river crossing for the Cleveland Line built from Morningside to New Farm & more directly to the CBD. There would be the possibility of a Kangaroo Point station using such a route.

Exactly ....

They must think we all came down in the last shower ...   

[Gazza]

The bit around the Gabba should look like this IMO:


Uploaded with ImageShack.us

As for the curve around to get under Hershel St, its about a 50m radius. By comparisons the turns on the DLR are as tight as 30m.

[Derwan]

This deletes the Cleveland and Ferny Grove Lines from the network. I like that idea.
Doomben and Shorncliffe Lines could also be looked at for deletion from QR and transfer to some other new network.

Are you serious?  What would this achieve?

While sectorisation is a good idea, creating completely separate networks (even different modes and proposed here) is NOT a good idea.

Having a single network creates flexibility and redundancy. 

This whole idea of freeing up rollingstock is hogwash.  It's freed up by building MORE.  So why not build more of the current rollingstock?

[Gazza]

Having a single network creates flexibility and redundancy.

Flexibility to send an EMU to Nambour 'cos you can. It's a double edged swoard.

I've never really seen it as that big of advantantage really. Its not as if there are any other major cities that run 100% homogenous rail networks. Quite often rollingstock is line bound, and entirely different technologies are used, and that is entirely fine. In Paris you've got rubber tyred lines, steel wheeled lines, wide tunnel RER lines, and light rail.

[Derwan]

Flexibility to send an EMU to Nambour 'cos you can. It's a double edged swoard.

So would you rather that or for services to be cancelled and replaced by buses?

[Gazza]

Other topic got locked, but can we have one purley to deal with the proposals contained within here: http://www.councilofmayorsseq.qld.gov.au/docs/Publications/COMSEQ-Public-Transport-in-SEQ_LOW-RES.pdf

There is a LOT to it, and much of it is not related to CRR at all, but defintley worthy of pages of discussion in its own right, eg the Flagstone DMU proposal.

[Derwan]

Other topic got locked, but can we have one purley to deal with the proposals contained within here:

I've messaged Bob about it.  Hold off on discussion regarding anything that isn't to do with CRR.  We should have another thread to discuss the report soon.

Edit: Here we go... http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=7475.0

[SteelPan]

I support CRR as it seems to provide a true long term solution.

IF, as the BCC and LNP claim, there are more affordable "subway" options to be had - GREAT, let's build them post CRR too - if the proponents really stand behind their own figures, it shouldn't stretch the budget much at all.

I think it is also healthy to have open, robust and frank discussion - no group has a monopoly on suggestion making.  People who suggest alternate routes or even say alternate public transit fare structures, should not be laughed at or have it claimed their proposals are "laughable".  People within govt depts are also not above criticism - look at the public sectors repeated departmental management performance over the last 12yrs or so!

The "Cleveland Alternative/Proposal" should be given careful analysis - I, personally, believe it may not offer the long-term solution the CRR proposal attempts to - yes, CRR comes with a Rolls Royce price tag, but, we want a project that really delivers long-term.

Again personally, IF the powers that be do decide to push ahead with CRR, I believe as much of the remainder of the projects planning should be contracted out to private sector public transit management.  I simply do not believe the Queensland bureaucracy can deliver the best planning for this type of project, certainly not at the most competitive price.  At the very least, there needs to be a detailed, independent cost analysis of the project.  The price has always seemed at the high end of the spectrum and a set of new independent figures would not hurt anyone!

After project planning is complete, it will as per normal, be private sector constructed under contract, with firm delivery timeframe and specifications - with approporiate failure to deliver penalties!

Understanding and controlling the costs of CRR will be critical to how the Qld taxpayer views future rail proposals in this state!

[Gazza]

My gut feeling at this stage is that CRR is the best option, but the Cleveland Solution is "OK".

Proportionally, they deliver somewhat equivalent for the dollars spent. Cleveland  Solution gives 9tph instead of 30tph....Basically about 1/3 of the train paths for about 1/3 of the cost, though at the same time it does some other things 'out of step' like getting Cleveland duplicated sooner.

It could be a bit more of an honest proposal if they included the price of signalling upgrades through South Brisbane etc.

[Derwan]

Something like this could be done down the track - but with heavy rail.  Actually - it's not unlike a suggestion we've seen here before.  Was it Tramtrain who suggested it?  The main difference was that it was spur off the Cleveland line, rather than coming from Park Rd.

[Gazza]

Quick question, but once CRR is up and running, what services would continue to use the Merivale Bridge?

[aldonius]

According to Connecting SEQ 300051 (draft version but whatever) it's UrbanLink services from Loganlea and everything from the Cleveland line.

Quickie edit: Flagstone line (ExpressLink) is unclear one way or the other.

[somebody]

Something like this could be done down the track - but with heavy rail.  Actually - it's not unlike a suggestion we've seen here before.  Was it Tramtrain who suggested it?  The main difference was that it was spur off the Cleveland line, rather than coming from Park Rd.

My suggestion, unless you are thinking of something else, but this doesn't have the same advantages of speeding up the Cleveland line as that, or at least not to the same degree.

[Gazza]

ccording to Connecting SEQ 300051 (draft version but whatever) it's UrbanLink services from Loganlea and everything from the Cleveland line.

Quickie edit: Flagstone line (ExpressLink) is unclear one way or the other.

So basically, its a bit of a switcheroo under the Cleveland Solution, though the Merivale would be burdened with Loganlea Urbanlink.

I guess with the proposal to start Flagstone off as a 4tph DMU shuttle they don't intend to deal with the CBD capacity of that one yet. 

[O_128]

ccording to Connecting SEQ 300051 (draft version but whatever) it's UrbanLink services from Loganlea and everything from the Cleveland line.

Quickie edit: Flagstone line (ExpressLink) is unclear one way or the other.

So basically, its a bit of a switcheroo under the Cleveland Solution, though the Merivale would be burdened with Loganlea Urbanlink.

I guess with the proposal to start Flagstone off as a 4tph DMU shuttle they don't intend to deal with the CBD capacity of that one yet. 

Agreed, But at least it will be a shuttle rather than not existing until 2100. I quite like some of the reasoning within the report, It shows you can improve the system without having to spend 10 billion dollars every year for the next 50

[Gazza]

At the same time, non compatible stock is gonna happen in the future with the Brisbane Metro.
I don't see any real disadvantages with non compatible stock either, and I think it's overly conservative to be saying it's a bad idea...It's done everywhere and the important stuff like lathing wheels and so forth can be done at shared facilites.

It's not like EMUs and SMUs share mechanical parts, do they?
I think its literally only stuff like hand straps and door buttons.

[O_128]

If you read between the lines it pretty much states that the recommendation would be for a new operator to run the cleveland and ferny grove lines.

[Gazza]

Maybe the intention with the 'competitive tension' aspect is to say "Well, this light Metro is running just fine with 1 driver, explain why you need 2 staff per train, QR?

[#Metro]

Insert Quote
Maybe the intention with the 'competitive tension' aspect is to say "Well, this light Metro is running just fine with 1 driver, explain why you need 2 staff per train, QR?

Or completely automated with NO staff on board!

[Gazza]

I think there is a degree of "strength in numbers though"....A handful of small ICE trains is pretty useless.
A full fleet of 30 light metro trains is more like its own little ecosystem, and will be used because they have a line to work full time.

My big concern at the moment is grade sepping all of the FG and Cleveland lines to allow light metro frequency. Theres 8 to do on Cleveleand, and 7 on FG.
Potentially 1.5 Billion (@ $100 mil each).
Some might be cheaper
Is this included in the scope of the project?

Would it be a case of fast tracking level crossing funds to these two lines as a separate budget?

I guess the LNP would be happy to do so, since grade sepping benefits motorists.