Cross River Rail Project

[Golliwog]

Why does the new rollingstock have to have a limit of 80km/hr? Don't know about the Cleveland line but FG has a few spots over 80. So we get yet another slowing of services, because they don't want to provide stock that can handle the existing alignment properly.

[O_128]

Why does the new rollingstock have to have a limit of 80km/hr? Don't know about the Cleveland line but FG has a few spots over 80. So we get yet another slowing of services, because they don't want to provide stock that can handle the existing alignment properly.

I would expect driverless or at least one driver trains would be a given ( and start a case to DOO the other lines)

I was thinking about the speed limit to and Im assuming that as the trains would be lighter and smaller they would be able to handle the curves at higher speeds and as such cut travel times. I think with the new bridge and faster lighter trains you could cut 10 min off the cleveland line (33 min to manly would be quite competitive)

[Gazza]

Why does the new rollingstock have to have a limit of 80km/hr? Don't know about the Cleveland line but FG has a few spots over 80. So we get yet another slowing of services, because they don't want to provide stock that can handle the existing alignment properly.

What about acceleration though? And dwell times (3-4 doors per train)?

[dwb]

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!

Sorry who do you think has done all the work so far??

It hasn't been government!

[HappyTrainGuy]

ICE trains are a different story. They were never designed to be used as all stopper CityTrain services but for the limited stopping long distance TravelTrain routes (Which is why they have so many machenical problems, longer dwell times because of the door operation, they are one of the handful of rollingstock that can operate that route with 2 people, even with overspeed they can't match the posted speed on the new upgraded track, they are heavier with less powerful traction motors compared to other rollingstock and so on and so on). Anyway, they are in quite a high use considering the line length they are abled to be run on. ~12 cars operate the two daily Roma Street-Gympie North route. 2 Power pairs operate the Caboolture-Nambour-Caboolture shuttle. While the remaining two power pairs are kept seperated in the Mayne yard for use as a ICE-EMU hybrid (not done anymore due to OH&S IIRC)/backups/replacment of the power pair.

The trains share the same parts and they also have their own parts relating to that generation spec but they are all capable of running on every line at any time. If they can all keep to the posted speed and scheduled timetable of the upgraded/faster track is another story (Beenleigh-Varsity Lakes and Caboolture-Beerburrum is 140kph running which only IMUs and SMU260s can acheive. EMUs/SMU200/220 can run to a top posted speed of 100kph - Yes they can go faster but other problems arise such as aggressive wheel wear, vibration, excessive noise issues both inside and outside and temperature problems).

[O_128]

Anyone else find it interesting that wilbur smith helped plan the Hong Kong metro....Sigh What could have been.

[BrizCommuter]

If the Wilbur Smith plan had been built, then the Merivale Bridge, and the mid-90s quadruplication of the existing rail corridor may not have been built. Thus we would now be in exactly the same situation of requiring another track pair through the CBD.

[dwb]

If the Wilbur Smith plan had been built, then the Merivale Bridge, and the mid-90s quadruplication of the existing rail corridor may not have been built. Thus we would now be in exactly the same situation of requiring another track pair through the CBD.

If you do a little research I think you'll find that the Wilbur Smith Plan was built... just option 2b, not option a.

I'd prefer not to go down this silly path of "Cleveland Solution" only to find out, that in 10 years time another solution, by then more complicated and expensive needs to be found. Let's solve this issue we have now with a forward looking city building project... what project is that? Cross River Rail.

[Golliwog]

What I don't like is cementing in Cleveland as a via Park Rd route. Eventually there is going to be enough demand to warrant a quicker trip and cut off the dogleg by crossing the river at Bulimba.

I also don't see why you have to make the FG-Cleveland pair completely seperate. Sure, get new rollingstock that can take sharper corners and have better acceleration, but do they need to go so far as to propose it needing a new yard all to itself?

[Gazza]

So, if we got the extra 9tph or whatever by segregatign Cleveland, how long would these extra train paths "last"? 5 Years? A decade?

[#Metro]

So, if we got the extra 9tph or whatever by segregatign Cleveland, how long would these extra train paths "last"? 5 Years? A decade?

Well apparently PT transport usage is supposed to double by 2031 so how long will it take to double services -- 9 trains is 9000 pphd, but assume that they are 80% full at peak that gives about 7-8000 more people to catch the service, assuming that 10% of people will catch PT, that implies the time to have population grow by 100 000 in the corridor (Beenleigh/GC).... say a decade of capacity? 2022??

[aldonius]

The thing about making it completely separate IIUI is that the city section requires special rollingstock, because compared to the rest of the network it's a rollercoaster - look at the Roma St approach.

Quickie edit: you're right, it could share a yard somewhere - the restriction isn't where the special new trains (TM) can go, it's where the existing fleet can go.

[Gazza]

For safety reasons, if the new trains were driverless then they might need their own yard.

[BrizCommuter]

Why does the new rollingstock have to have a limit of 80km/hr? Don't know about the Cleveland line but FG has a few spots over 80. So we get yet another slowing of services, because they don't want to provide stock that can handle the existing alignment properly.

I would expect driverless or at least one driver trains would be a given ( and start a case to DOO the other lines)

I was thinking about the speed limit to and Im assuming that as the trains would be lighter and smaller they would be able to handle the curves at higher speeds and as such cut travel times. I think with the new bridge and faster lighter trains you could cut 10 min off the cleveland line (33 min to manly would be quite competitive)

Driverless on at grade lines would be unlikely, but cannot be completely ruled out (e.g. DLR).

[Gazza]

Surface driverless tracks:

Tolouse:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/72/Val_206_incoming.png/320px-Val_206_incoming.png

Vancouver:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Templeton_Stn_3488.JPG

Paris L1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Metro-Paris-ligne-1-Pont-de.jpg

Copenhagen: http://g.co/maps/4tud8

Lille


Etc
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/92/Lille_VAL_208.jpg

[BrizCommuter]

2 of those photos are in the vicinity of the depots.

The vast majority of driverless metros are completely grade separated (elevated, underground, bridges, deep cuttings) for obvious safety reasons.

There are still examples of grade level running on driverless systems, such as the Stratford branch of the DLR, around depots, and transition from elevated to underground sections, but they are by far in the minority.

In the reasonably unlikely event of "The Cleveland Solution" actually being built, BrizCommuter very much doubts that it would be driverless. There would however a very high chance of automation with driver supervision, as automatic train operation tends to have a better safety case than manual driving.

[HappyTrainGuy]

ARGHHHHHHH MY BEAUTIFUL EYES!!!!!!!!! WHAT HAVE YOU DONE!!!!!!!

[Gazza]

The vast majority of driverless metros are completely grade separated (elevated, underground, bridges, deep cuttings) for obvious safety reasons.

I think it's the other way around. The fact they chose to build a 100% grade separated line has enabled a choice of not having drivers.

The reason they built a tunnel or elevated sections was not for safety (talk about gold plating!), it is because urban form dictated this is how the line gets built.

[paulg]

Calling all rbot members!

Please support my question to Campbell Newman at oursay.org: http://oursay.org/s/xw

If it gets enough votes (top three), he will respond to the question. Let's show him how much support there is out there for CRR.

Cheers, Paul

[Stillwater]

The question is poorly worded.  Mr Newman will be able to escape your noose by saying he supports 'A cross river rail solution'.

[paulg]

The question is poorly worded.  Mr Newman will be able to escape your noose by saying he supports 'A cross river rail solution'.

I'm not really trying to trap Mr Newman. I know his answer already. I'm just hoping to show him that a lot of people support the current proposal.

[Stillwater]

Okay, I get you now.

[Cam]

Calling all rbot members!

Please support my question to Campbell Newman at oursay.org: http://oursay.org/s/xw

If it gets enough votes (top three), he will respond to the question. Let's show him how much support there is out there for CRR.

Cheers, Paul

Each user can vote up to 7 times & all of these votes can be for the same question.

[Fares_Fair]

I know this will not be popular, but I fear we are missing the point in that as an $8 billion project, the CRR may not happen due to the costs, or IA funding or lack of Federal and State Government funding.
If the State cannot afford it, then let's look at the alternative - constructively.

None of us are experts, we'll I'm not anyway, which is why I steer clear of these areas of discussion.
This group does not proclaim to be experts on transport, we are a commuter group, though there may be many professionals within our ranks.

Time and again it has been reiterated that we need to work with whomever or whatever is on the table.
Can we constructively look at the proposal, and see where we get?

If we cannot afford the Taj Mahal of rail projects, then we need to seriously look at the alternatives.

The LNP may well be the next State Government in Queensland, lets try to build bridges, not burn them before they are built.

Regards,
Fares_Fair.

[ozbob]

CRR is a precursor to any upgrade on the Sunshine Coast line.  It is essential.  If the LNP cannot grasp that they should not be in government.

Simple really.

[paulg]

The current CRR proposal is the result of a large amount of technical work aimed at solving the long term network capacity issues while trying to make it acceptable in terms of social and environmental impacts.

If Campbell Newman walks away from it now it will take years to get another option worked out fully (just look at how half-baked the GHD "Cleveland solution" is!! http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=7475.0).

The current proposal does a good job of balancing priorities while actually solving the problem (which cheaper "solutions" will not). Queensland needs a leader that will get behind it.

Innovative funding options need to be explored. The business case is yet to be released and I expect there will be some good ideas in it, especially involving value-capture in the areas surrounding the new stations. The government also needs to find a way to make these projects attractive to superannuation funds.

Cheers, Paul

[#Metro]

The current CRR proposal is the result of a large amount of technical work aimed at solving the long term network capacity issues while trying to make it acceptable in terms of social and environmental impacts.

If Campbell Newman walks away from it now it will take years to get another option worked out fully (just look at how half-baked the GHD "Cleveland solution" is!! http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=7475.0).

The current proposal does a good job of balancing priorities while actually solving the problem (which cheaper "solutions" will not). Queensland needs a leader that will get behind it.

Innovative funding options need to be explored. The business case is yet to be released and I expect there will be some good ideas in it, especially involving value-capture in the areas surrounding the new stations. The government also needs to find a way to make these projects attractive to superannuation funds.

Cheers, Paul

There is one other alternative. Can you guess what it is?  

CONVERT EVERYTHING TO BOGOTA BUSWAYS         - cut off

Cleveland line - cut - busway
Ferny Grove Line - cut - busway
Shorncliffe line - cut - busway
Doomben line - cut - busway
Kippa Ring - cut - busway

(just joking too, ROFL)

Now every suburb can have a bus and a rocket (or ~10 rockets like Mt Ommaney!) with every variation under the sun ALL DIRECT TO THE CBD
Every North-South street in Brisbane would be excavated and turned into a bus tunnel.

[Mr X]

I know people who legitimately think that is a good idea. Combine the bus and QR systems. Replace Gold Coast line with highway buses terminating at Beenleigh. Same for North Coast. Convert all lines to busway or high speed trams operating 100km/h in the suburbs. Freight can be moved by trucks.

They walk among us  

[Jonas Jade]

The current CRR proposal is the result of a large amount of technical work aimed at solving the long term network capacity issues while trying to make it acceptable in terms of social and environmental impacts.

If Campbell Newman walks away from it now it will take years to get another option worked out fully (just look at how half-baked the GHD "Cleveland solution" is!! http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=7475.0).

The current proposal does a good job of balancing priorities while actually solving the problem (which cheaper "solutions" will not). Queensland needs a leader that will get behind it.

Innovative funding options need to be explored. The business case is yet to be released and I expect there will be some good ideas in it, especially involving value-capture in the areas surrounding the new stations. The government also needs to find a way to make these projects attractive to superannuation funds.

Cheers, Paul

There is one other alternative. Can you guess what it is  

CONVERT EVERYTHING TO BOGOTA BUSWAYS         - cut off

Cleveland line - busway
Ferny Grove Line - busway
Shorncliffe line - busway
Doomben line - busway
Kippa Ring - busway

(just joking too, ROFL)

Now every suburb can have a bus and a rocket (or ~10 rockets like Mt Ommaney!) with every variation under the sun ALL DIRECT TO THE CBD
Every North-South street in Brisbane would be excavated and turned into a bus tunnel.

don't forget the City Precincts as well!!!!

and Gold Coast Line, through to Gold Coast Light Rail - BUSWAYS that way we can have services from Broadbeach through to City Precincts via SEB! 

[Arnz]

While we are at it let's replace the entire Australian rail network with busways!!! Trucks carrying freight can run in-in-between the buses.  

The XPT, Tilt trains, V-line, etc can be replaced by high speed maglev buses!!!!!1111!!!

USA has got on board.  Australia can too   
Toss the railway, go maglev busway today! 

[Golliwog]

Calling all rbot members!

Please support my question to Campbell Newman at oursay.org: http://oursay.org/s/xw

If it gets enough votes (top three), he will respond to the question. Let's show him how much support there is out there for CRR.

Cheers, Paul

Hey, the website has a countdown timer: Campbell should love that...

[Stillwater]

As Lord Mayor, Campbell Newman is quoted in this article as being 'right behind' the state government's Connecting SEQ 2031 strategy, which has CRR as its centrepiece.

"I am right behind this and I really am ready to support it," Cr Newman is reported as saying.

He goes on:  "People want to know: 'what is going on, what are you going to do?'and he even urged the state government to move quickly on the proposed rail project.

"It is about time that they started to talk about how they are actually going to do it," he said.

Read more: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/racq-council-back-new-rail-line-20100831-14fih.html#ixzz1jhs11Qtu

[SurfRail]

It quotes $400m to remove open level crossings.

What farce.

[dwb]

Calling all rbot members!

Please support my question to Campbell Newman at oursay.org: http://oursay.org/s/xw

If it gets enough votes (top three), he will respond to the question. Let's show him how much support there is out there for CRR.

Cheers, Paul

Done. Will spread on my networks.

[dwb]

I know this will not be popular, but I fear we are missing the point in that as an $8 billion project, the CRR may not happen due to the costs, or IA funding or lack of Federal and State Government funding.
If the State cannot afford it, then let's look at the alternative - constructively.

None of us are experts, we'll I'm not anyway, which is why I steer clear of these areas of discussion.
This group does not proclaim to be experts on transport, we are a commuter group, though there may be many professionals within our ranks.

Time and again it has been reiterated that we need to work with whomever or whatever is on the table.
Can we constructively look at the proposal, and see where we get?

If we cannot afford the Taj Mahal of rail projects, then we need to seriously look at the alternatives.

The LNP may well be the next State Government in Queensland, lets try to build bridges, not burn them before they are built.

Regards,
Fares_Fair.

There's plenty of money if we start spending it on different things. Borrowing/debt should also not be out of the question.

It is needed, it is affordable.

Campbell is still going to the election with full TransApex, yet that when fully costed would be more than CRR. If only they'd gotten it right earlier.

[dwb]

CRR is a precursor to any upgrade on the Sunshine Coast line.  It is essential.  If the LNP cannot grasp that they should not be in government.

Simple really.

Plus infinity!

[dwb]

Calling all rbot members!

Please support my question to Campbell Newman at oursay.org: http://oursay.org/s/xw

If it gets enough votes (top three), he will respond to the question. Let's show him how much support there is out there for CRR.

Cheers, Paul

So after Daylight Savings 84 votes and fluoridation 54, comes CRR on 29 votes. Come on guys, we're third out of a three horse race at the moment, but what about when some cool new questions are asked and there is a bit more media coverage?

[ozbob]

From the Brisbanetimes click here!

Back to the future for Brisbane transport planning

Back to the future for Brisbane transport planning
Tony Moore
January 18, 2012 - 3:00AM

It seems the more Brisbane pitches futuristic transport plans, the more it borrows from a 1965 plan put together by US traffic consultants, Wilbur Smith and Associates.

The company, headed by Mr Smith, was hired by then-lord mayor Clem Jones to produce the 1965 Brisbane Transportation Study.

Among some of its more controversial recommendations was to close down Brisbane's tram network, which in hindsight have been replaced by its network of busways since the 1990s.

However, as plans obtained by brisbanetimes.com.au show, the Wilbur Smith study recommended several freeways and public transport projects that are firmly part of modern planning schemes.

The first is an underground rail project similar to Cross River Rail across from Woolloongabba.

The second proposal is to run an underground rail network under Queen Street, similar to a concept put forward late last year by Brisbane Lord Mayor Graham Quirk.

In December, Cr Quirk put forward plans for a $2 million study into an underground bus line under Adelaide Street, similar to Mr Smith's 1965 underground rail line.

The Queensland Council of Mayors' recent concept of a light rail package, the "Cleveland solution", also includes a new train station in Queen Street, again part of the Wilbur Smith plan.

Rail Back on Track spokesman Robert Dow said much of the public transport side of Mr Smith's 1965 and 1970 transportation plans for Brisbane still made sense.

In 1970, Mr Smith envisaged a rail line from the then-existing Woolloongabba train station across a bridge to Gardens Point by 2000.

"He actually designed the early version of Cross River Rail," Mr Dow said.

"In those days we still did have a rail line existing through into Woolloongabba."

In the 1970 plan, a road tunnel would have been drilled through the Kangaroo Point cliffs and a bridge constructed to where Queensland University of Technology sits today.

Mr Dow said a bridge concept would still work and it formed part of the Council of Mayor's concept for a Cleveland line solution.

"The bridge would come out with the same clearance as the Go Between Bridge, then back down to the QUT/Gardens Point area," he said.

Mr Dow said the Cross River Rail team had looked at the idea and rejected it.

"The best thing about a bridge is that it is a lot cheaper than it is to tunnel under [the river]," Mr Dow said.

"The second thing is that it can be used as a bus bridge as well and that was an advantage of that and I am sure that that was considered in the early design feasibility work for Cross River Rail.

"But they decided they would go tunnel all the way through."

Mr Dow said the main advantage of a bridge was reduced cost and the ability to carry both rail and buses.

"The bridge idea (across from Woolloongabba to QUT's Gardens Point) has always appealed to me since Wilbur Smith first proposed it in 1970," Mr Dow said.

"Because I think it could always be dual purpose and take the buses off the nightmare called the Captain Cook Bridge and the Story Bridge."

Transport Minister Annastacia Palaszczuk said the Council of Mayors' proposal was not an alternative to the Cross River Rail project and was "simply not viable".

"In fact, it is a scenario that was assessed by our Cross River Rail team almost three years ago and rejected," she said.

Read more: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/back-to-the-future-for-brisbane-transport-planning-20120117-1q4il.html

[curator49]

I agree with dwb and others. It is essential that you post your vote on the Our Say website as shown above. I have - so why don't you?

There are many negatives with the "alternative" put forward by GHD and the SEQ mayors. There are probably many more than those already listed by Bob Dow. Remember if you buy something cheap it usually results in a "lemon". I do not agree that CRR is a "Rolls Royce" proposal but I certainly think that the GHD proposal is a "clunker" - not even close to the quality of a Holden or a Falcon as I think Cr Quirk espoused.

[O_128]

Slightly off topic but I had a horrible thought, If CRR goes through in its current form our next challenge will be to stop a band of people wanting gold coast and beenleigh trains to run through central as they don't want to walk or transfer. Last thing we need are the same lines running through different routes. Like our Bus system.