Cross River Rail Project

[ozbob]

Money for the Bruce Highway is already in train federally.  Money that would have gone to CRR should that scenario eventuate will simply be redirected to other shovel ready IA projects, in other states.

[somebody]

Fairfield is something I can live with.  In some respects, it is operationally better (all trains can use the tunnel, no need for a surface pattern, cheaper to build, provision for trains to come out of the tunnel and go via Tennyson), in other ways less so (more resumptions, need a wider surface corridor to deliver 5 tracks or otherwise we will have to live with 4, access arrangements for the proposed train stabling depot at Clapham etc). 

Just as long as the Cleveland Solution dies a horrible grisly death.

I think 4 tracks is easily enough.  Although it does/may mean passenger trains on the DG through a sizeable part of the peak.  More importantly, they should work out what they want to operate on and work backwards from there - if they can't afford it, start again.  No mid way adjustments.  It is clear that did not happen with Corinda-Darra.

[somebody]

A straight-talking politician is about as rare as the Yowie, but it would be good to hear Anna Palasczcuk admit that Connecting SEQ 2021 was a con job.

When did that happen??

[ozbob]

From Quest City News 14th June 2012 page 7

Public rails for a cross-river result

[Golliwog]

"But a spokesman for State Minister for Transport Scott Emerson said their position had not changed."

Pray tell, what was that position again? They never outlined one before the election stating they'd come to that once they had a look at CRR in government.

[ozbob]

Would not be surprised if at today's Cabinet meeting the CRR ' Review Report ' is brought forward.  A political spin strategy formulated and media unleashed.    It does seem that much of Brisbane media is in the LNP's pocket at the moment (some balanced exceptions) ...

[SurfRail]

^ The issue with keeping to a frequency that won't foul the roads badly is that the innate lower capacity of the vehicles will see you end up with something inferior to just running a train to Manly every 15 minutes (which is possible now, I don't care how many times QR planners tell me it isn't!)

[ozbob]

Would need signalling.  Tunnels plus speed.  This light rail would be just under 60 km in length ...

Level crossings are an issue due to the frequency and speed proposed.  They have proposed traffic lights ...

It would be rather novel a 60 km 3' 6' light rail line but somehow I don't think it will happen ...

[ozbob]

One of the successes in Melbourne was converting St Kilda and Port Melbourne VR 5'3" branches to light rail std gauge.  This works because the lines are relatively short but it was very easy to do in the sense that rolling stock, and all the associated maintenance/service infrastructure was in place for the tram network.

To set up light rail in Brisbane would require all that from scratch.  Also, if they are crazy enough to do it would be best as standard gauge, as it would better enable future expansions and compatibility with the network on the Gold Coast that will expand in time.

And you are still left with a stuffed heavy rail network.

[somebody]

One of the successes in Melbourne was converting St Kilda and Port Melbourne VR 5'3" branches to light rail std gauge.  This works because the lines are relatively short but it was very easy to do in the sense that rolling stock, and all the associated maintenance/service infrastructure was in place for the tram network.

To set up light rail in Brisbane would require all that from scratch.  Also, if they are crazy enough to do it would be best as standard gauge, as it would better enable future expansions and compatibility with the network on the Gold Coast that will expand in time.

And you are still left with a stuffed heavy rail network.

It's also going to a wider loading guage.  So it isn't assured that clearance is available everywhere such a change would be made.  Although I thought the proposal was 3'6" LR.

-
Article from the City South Quest News.  Doesn't tell us anything we don't know but I don't think it's been posted before.  June 14 2012, p3:

[ozbob]

The gauge has never been stated.  People are just assuming ...

[somebody]

The gauge has never been stated.  People are just assuming ...

Add a bit of cost to the project to upgrade to 4'8.5", and also increase the radius of the tightest possible turn AIUI.

[ozbob]

You can turn on sixpence on standard gauge light rail, not an issue.

The only issue is the cost, but that has to be weighed up against the cost of narrow gauge rolling stock versus standard gauge.  Pax capacities and so forth.  Gold Coast is standard gauge for obvious reasons.

Light rail gear is booming at present, it is almost all standard gauge.

[SurfRail]

What is the pissweek excuse claimed by the planners they cannot run 15min to Manly? I believe they can do to Lota, which is probably a bit easier as one platform is reserved for terminators, the other through. Manly, cannot remember if there is a city side of Platform cross over.

Freight using the electric tracks as passing loops from time to time - the other one is the need to run driver tuition trains which apparently take up all the slots. 

Petey will be able to explain it better and with less sarcasm.  (I don't doubt there are issues with it, but I struggle with how they can say it is just not doable.)

[petey3801]

What is the pissweek excuse claimed by the planners they cannot run 15min to Manly? I believe they can do to Lota, which is probably a bit easier as one platform is reserved for terminators, the other through. Manly, cannot remember if there is a city side of Platform cross over.

Freight using the electric tracks as passing loops from time to time - the other one is the need to run driver tuition trains which apparently take up all the slots. 

Petey will be able to explain it better and with less sarcasm.  (I don't doubt there are issues with it, but I struggle with how they can say it is just not doable.)

15min to Manly should be doable IMO. The coalies would still be able to run between the stoppers and tuition trains could still run between the stoppers as well, it would just be a bit slower.

Problems start arising when people suggest fulltime Cleveland express trains coupled with 15min all stoppers to Manly (so 4tph all stations to Manly plus 2 or 4tph express to Cleveland). The line is just too long with no passing opportunities for fulltime express to Cleveland to work while giving the rest of the line decent frequencies (15min at least).

[somebody]

I can remember a poster claiming to be a planner arguing over at failpage that it is too hard to run every 15 minutes to Cleveland which makes it too hard to increase Cleveland line services.  Said poster has also posted on this site.

Shows the culture.

[achiruel]

By the same logic it is not possible to run trains half hourly to Caboolture because they can't be run half-hourly to Nambour (or Gympie North!), therefore the currently 30 minute service to Caboolture is unable to exist. 

[somebody]

Point is that it is a reflex to say that it can't be done.

[colinw]

I'm fairly sure I must have been hallucinating in Madrid.  Copped something funny in my Tapas, or drank too much. No I didn't really see trains running every 8 to 10 minutes off peak even on Sundays, with freights squeezed through in between, and on double track with flat junctions. Can't have happened, because it is just impossible.

[O_128]

I'm fairly sure I must have been hallucinating in Madrid.  Copped something funny in my Tapas, or drank too much. No I didn't really see trains running every 8 to 10 minutes off peak even on Sundays, with freights squeezed through in between, and on double track with flat junctions. Can't have happened, because it is just impossible.

Your totally right. Its just another example of Translink and QRs "can't do" culture.

[BrizCommuter]

^ The issue with keeping to a frequency that won't foul the roads badly is that the innate lower capacity of the vehicles will see you end up with something inferior to just running a train to Manly every 15 minutes (which is possible now, I don't care how many times QR planners tell me it isn't!)

Agree.


I remember modelling the 15min, and there is some sort of tight conflict at Manly, but it wasn't impossible.

What is the pissweek excuse claimed by the planners they cannot run 15min to Manly? I believe they can do to Lota, which is probably a bit easier as one platform is reserved for terminators, the other through. Manly, cannot remember if there is a city side of Platform cross over.

Lat time BrizCommuter had a look, the terminating train would have to wait a minute or two outside of Manly to access the City bound platform. This also means that Lota reversing should just about be possible within QRs generous reversing time allowances.

BrizCommuter used the Cleveland Line today late am and early pm, and off-peak patronage was pretty good - most seats taken.

[colinw]

Meh, we can't even manage it at Kuraby with 3 platforms available.  WTF was that triplication project for again? (Other than racking up debt & generating glossies with pictures of the transport minister).

[STB]

I can remember a poster claiming to be a planner arguing over at failpage that it is too hard to run every 15 minutes to Cleveland which makes it too hard to increase Cleveland line services.  Said poster has also posted on this site.

Shows the culture.

The reason you can't have it every 15mins all the way to Cleveland all day everyday, is due to it eating all of the available paths and not allowing a path for non passengers services eg: tuition trains, which Petey and I have explained numerous times why trainee drivers need to travel down there with their trainers when other normal traffic is running, or for an empty train to rescue or replace another train that has broken down, among other non passenger trains that have to have access to Cleveland, thereby having a free slot to do so. 

However, in saying that, I've done a little bit of study into this, and adjusting the run times to a more realistic timetable, ie: cutting out some of the fat in the Cleveland line timetable, you can run Cleveland trains every 20mins, all day, everyday with crosses at Lota and Wellington Point, including an 8 minute turnback at Cleveland (which allows a free platform for a non passenger train to occupy), while having non passenger services such as the ones I've explained above running also crossing at Thorneside and Cleveland.

EDIT: I've uploaded the file here at: http://www.2shared.com/file/j8k5x4Vf/ClevelandEvery20mins.html

[somebody]

Lat time BrizCommuter had a look, the terminating train would have to wait a minute or two outside of Manly to access the City bound platform. This also means that Lota reversing should just about be possible within QRs generous reversing time allowances.

BrizCommuter used the Cleveland Line today late am and early pm, and off-peak patronage was pretty good - most seats taken.

Perhaps when I looked at it I used the outbound platform for reversing.  It's six of one/half a dozen of the other.  Either way if it takes too long, other trains are delayed.

I can remember a poster claiming to be a planner arguing over at failpage that it is too hard to run every 15 minutes to Cleveland which makes it too hard to increase Cleveland line services.  Said poster has also posted on this site.

Shows the culture.

The reason you can't have it every 15mins all the way to Cleveland all day everyday, is due to it eating all of the available paths and not allowing a path for non passengers services eg: tuition trains, which Petey and I have explained numerous times why trainee drivers need to travel down there with their trainers when other normal traffic is running, or for an empty train to rescue or replace another train that has broken down, among other non passenger trains that have to have access to Cleveland, thereby having a free slot to do so. 

However, in saying that, I've done a little bit of study into this, and adjusting the run times to a more realistic timetable, ie: cutting out some of the fat in the Cleveland line timetable, you can run Cleveland trains every 20mins, all day, everyday with crosses at Lota and Wellington Point, including an 8 minute turnback at Cleveland (which allows a free platform for a non passenger train to occupy), while having non passenger services such as the ones I've explained above running also crossing at Thorneside and Cleveland.

You're missing my point, STB.  Nothing has ever prevented 15 minute frequency to Manly.  It's just that the first thought is "We don't want to do that", then the argument comes out: "It can't be done".  Thinking about what can be done is not encouraged.

Having said that, with your 20 minute proposal I would be far more comfortable with duplication Manly-Lota in such a world.  Thank you for this proposal.

[colinw]

Ok, so how do systems running far more frequent trains than good ol' QR manage to fit in non-revenue services, tuition trains, etc?

[STB]

I've just noticed that after altering and extending the previous Cleveland line file I posted earlier using a 20min frequency across the board, that extending it to Shorncliffe, it actually fits in nicely with a 10min turnback at Shorncliffe back to Cleveland.  At least on paper, with adjusting some of the excess fat in the current timetable, this actually might just work.  Of course at the end of the day it'll come down to funding and political will.

I could personally live with a 20min frequency on the Shorncliffe/Cleveland line corridor.

http://www.2shared.com/file/34oJdzQq/ClevelandShoncliffeEvery20mins.html

[Gazza]

Ok, so how do systems running far more frequent trains than good ol' QR manage to fit in non-revenue services, tuition trains, etc?

Not having single track 

[colinw]

I could personally live with a 20min frequency on the Shorncliffe/Cleveland line corridor.

+1.      If its achievable, then I'd say "go for it!".

I certainly wouldn't whinge if 20 minute service frequency happened where I live.

[somebody]

I've just noticed that after altering and extending the previous Cleveland line file I posted earlier using a 20min frequency across the board, that extending it to Shorncliffe, it actually fits in nicely with a 10min turnback at Shorncliffe back to Cleveland.  At least on paper, with adjusting some of the excess fat in the current timetable, this actually might just work.  Of course at the end of the day it'll come down to funding and political will.

I could personally live with a 20min frequency on the Shorncliffe/Cleveland line corridor.

http://www.2shared.com/file/34oJdzQq/ClevelandShoncliffeEvery20mins.html

Umm, yet again, aren't you ignoring the effect on Beenleigh/Gold Coast?

This would be able to be revisited in a post-CRR world though.

[STB]

I've just noticed that after altering and extending the previous Cleveland line file I posted earlier using a 20min frequency across the board, that extending it to Shorncliffe, it actually fits in nicely with a 10min turnback at Shorncliffe back to Cleveland.  At least on paper, with adjusting some of the excess fat in the current timetable, this actually might just work.  Of course at the end of the day it'll come down to funding and political will.

I could personally live with a 20min frequency on the Shorncliffe/Cleveland line corridor.

http://www.2shared.com/file/34oJdzQq/ClevelandShoncliffeEvery20mins.html

Umm, yet again, aren't you ignoring the effect on Beenleigh/Gold Coast?

This would be able to be revisited in a post-CRR world though.

I'm sure the Beenleigh/Gold Coast stuff could fit in between those trains, the question really is what do you do with the Beenleigh/Gold Coast line itself.  At the very least the third track should be extended beyond Kuraby.

[somebody]

That is incorrect.  I'm dumbfounded that you continue to miss this point.

[#Metro]

Incorrect, go to Europe there is plenty of Single/part single track commuter lines. Munich's western route from the airport is single track, then gets to a junction station with another single line and they couple/decouple (depending on direction) in peak hour with trains to/from another single line track to form a longer train to reduce the number of slots required in peak hour.

The Cleveland Solution
The Fairfield Solution
and now

THE MUNICH SOLUTION 

Just double the length of platforms at certain stations and con-join the trains (This is a joke people!)

[ozbob]

Victory of sorts ...

================

From the Couriermail click here!

Cross River Rail II at half the price

Cross River Rail II at half the price

    by: Robyn Ironside
    From: The Courier-Mail
    June 20, 2012 12:00AM

A BUDGET version of Cross River Rail will be unveiled by the State Government today as it looks to head off a major capacity crisis on Brisbane's public transport network.

Costed at almost half the amount of the previous government's proposal, the plan offers chances for the private sector to contribute in return for commercial space at train stations.

Transport Minister Scott Emerson said the $4.5 billion proposal would still deliver the two underground tunnels of the original, "gold-plated'' plan which carried an $8.3 billion price tag.

It will also include four underground stations at Roma Street, Albert Street, Boggo Road and Woolloongabba  but there will be no station upgrades nor extra train lines south of Yeerongpilly or north of Victoria Park.

Mr Emerson said the plan  prepared by a three-person panel of experts appointed to review the project  would still need substantial funding from the Federal Government.

"We'll be seeking 75 to 80 per cent (from Canberra), which is standard for projects like this,'' Mr Emerson said. ``Then we have to look at how the private sector can get involved.''

He said the State Government would consider commercial opportunities for investors in the project at new train stations, even in the form of paid parking.

"We have to consider what delivers the best result for the dollars we spend,'' Mr Emerson said.
The project cannot be delivered before 2020, so the State Government is also looking at interim measures to increase capacity on the train network before 2016.

By that time, the CityTrain network will be unable to carry any more cross-river services on the Merivale Bridge to meet demand without additional infrastructure.

Mr Emerson said short-term measures proposed by the panel included removing some seats from trains to provide more standing room for commuters, and rescheduling interstate services out of peak periods.

"It's about steps all the way through as we try to build capacity into what's already there,'' he said.

The "short-term'' solutions would cost between $200 million and $300 million to achieve, he said, but deliver an extra 40 per cent capacity.

"We've got to get a solution  there's no point doing what Labor did and bury our heads in the sand, hoping 2016 will go away,'' Mr Emerson said.

"It was the elephant in the room (that) Labor failed to acknowledge.''

He said he would now prepare a submission for Cabinet to consider and continue to engage with Federal Minister Anthony Albanese and Infrastructure Australia.

[ozbob]

These are all things we have suggested .... and it took an ' expert ' committee to conceptualise ...  oh dear ...

[ozbob]

Sent to all outlets:

20th June 2012

Cross River Rail II

Greetings,

The is an article in today's Courier Mail  Cross River Rail II at half the price http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/cross-river-rail-ii-at-half-the-price/story-e6freon6-1226401721396

We welcome this news.  Many of the things suggested by the 'expert review committee' our members  have put forward too.

The benefits of Cross River Rail are network wide, as well as bringing safe mass transit to new CBD and inner suburbs.  It will help relieve pressure on the bus network and provide more redundancy for the rail network.

We have been very strong supporters of Cross River Rail as the benefits are long term and will  position the rail network for the future.

Although short of  specific detail in the article this does seem like a sensible outcome.  Well done.

Best wishes

Robert

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

[Gazza]

nor extra train lines south of Yeerongpilly or north of Victoria Park.

What are the implications of this bit?
Will it still work without the flyovers at bowen hills?

[ozbob]

I think those things will be done progressively.  Getting the core bit started is a good outcome, that in turn will drive the necessary incremental improvements.

[ozbob]

http://www.scottemerson.com.au/media-releases/panel-delivers-rail-capacity-options.html

Panel delivers rail capacity options

Wednesday, 20 June 2012 05:54

Cross River Rail's gold-plated option has been rejected by an expert panel commissioned to review the project.

Minister for Transport and Main Roads Scott Emerson acknowledged the panel for providing clear short- and long-term strategies to address the looming train capacity crisis for the Merivale Bridge and inner city.

"The panel concluded that the full Cross River Rail project was 'beyond the scope required to address the immediate rail capacity problem from the southern side of the river'," Mr Emerson said.

"In other words, the same result could be achieved by delivering the core of the original proposal, involving two tunnels between Yeerongpilly and Victoria Park," he said.

"The earliest this could be delivered would be in 2020 for about $4.445 billion – almost $4 billion less than Labor's proposal prior to the March 2012 election campaign.

"After seven years Labor came up with a gold-plated version of Cross River Rail that was unaffordable and undeliverable with costings ranging from $8.3 billion to $7 billion to $6.4 billion over the six weeks of the election campaign."

The panel was also asked to report back on potential measures to extend the capacity through the CBD beyond 2016.

"The LNP Government has been left with a budget diving towards a $100 billion debt by 2018/19 and a train network driving towards a capacity crisis," Mr Emerson said.

"Unlike the previous government we won't be avoiding the issue, rather we'll be looking at the short-to-medium term options the panel identified."

The short-term options would allow up to 12 per cent increase in capacity during the busiest peak period and require changing the configuration of seating and short starter turn-backs.

"The panel has recommended some additional interim measures, costing $200 to $300 million, which would improve capacity by an additional 28 per cent," Mr Emerson said.

"These included upgrading signalling, additional stabling, and fare incentives for the shoulder peak.

"Timetabling the Sydney to Brisbane XPT away from the morning peak would also create two additional train paths.

"I will now prepare a submission for Cabinet to consider and continue to engage Federal Minister Anthony Albanese and Infrastructure Australia."

Interim Solutions to be considered by the State Government

    Seat reconfiguration to increase capacity by approximately 5%
    Real time information to encourage passengers to choose less crowded services
    Station platform management to control station dwell times in order to maintain a maximum number of trains per hour in association with seating reconfiguration
    Demand management using targeted off-peak discounts to encourage passengers shift to the off-peak and shoulder peak services
    Turning back around 7% of trains to achieve another trip in the 2 hour peak period
    Timetabling the XPT away from the morning peak to create two extra train paths for Gold Coast or Beenleigh services
    Increasing the shoulder services around the AM peak one-hour and encouraging a reduction from 65% of trips in the peak one hour to approximately 60% of peak trips in the peak one hour
    Adding more peak period services up to the limit of the infrastructure which will add capacity but negatively impact reliability
    Undertaking targeted signalling system enhancements to improve the reliability of increased peak services
    Constructing targeted stabling facilities for additional trains at locations that reduce junction conflicts and improve capacity
    Sufficient new trains to support peak spreading and additional peak services

  Long term solution to be considered by the State Government

    Priority delivery of 'Core' Cross River Rail works followed by northern and southern surface works
    'Core' includes
        Construction of two running tunnels from the southern to the northern portal
        Development of four new underground stations at Woolloongabba, Boggo Road, Albert Street and Roma Street
        Connections to the existing northern and southern rail network
    'Core' delivers
        Double capacity of the rail network from the south and improved service and reliability
        Reduced passenger crowding
        Halved inner city journey time (Yeerongpilly to CBD in 10 minutes)
    'Core' costs
        $4.445 billion (2010$s, P90)

[SurfRail]

Big sigh of relief!

At least they won't be half-baking the "good" bit (underground).  The rest can be done a lot more easily than this over time, without anything like the cost or disruption.

Pretty much what we predicted then.

[david]

Oh thank heavens!

The tunnel is the most crucial bit. I like how the media release states that the "gold-plated option" has been rejected. Anything to score some political points I suppose. In any case, time to celebrate!