Cross River Rail Project

[ozbob]

This plan to use the TBM on the CRR project has been very well researched by a number of engineers.  Has also been presented at the ATS conference, and in effect peer reviewed by those engineers. Expect to hear more of this, as it is very sound.  The tunnels would be changed from twins to a single double, but that is not an issue at this point, and would also actually lower costs.  Progress with the TBMs on Legacy Way has been rapid, it would be a real shame to not tap into that capability.

The issue with it is the political layers and serfdoms, and the funding issue.  From an engineering point of view it is a no-brainer. 

Watch this space ..

[somebody]

Sydney's airport line is a single double width tunnel, with side platforms.  I doubt that islands would be feasible with a single tunnel.  Makes the station excavation cover a much longer distance.

It's probably not a big issue unless they were planning a concourse-less station design.

[BrizCommuter]

The Legacy Way boring machine would only dig a single, twin track tunnel (requiring side platforms). All of the design work has been around twin, single track tunnels (with centre platforms).

Is your issue with the change to the platform arrangements, the redesign costs, or both?

The answer to your question is explained in the last two dot points in the blog post.
http://brizcommuter.blogspot.com.au/2013/03/a-boring-diversion.html

[Gazza]

Why does it save money to have the TMB stay in the ground and turn, versus come out of the ground to finish the first tunnel and go back underground at the start of the tunnel where it is supposed to be used?

And why does it save $500 mil, versus saving $400 mil or $600 mil?

[mufreight]

Why does it save money to have the TMB stay in the ground and turn, versus come out of the ground to finish the first tunnel and go back underground at the start of the tunnel where it is supposed to be used?

And why does it save $500 mil, versus saving $400 mil or $600 mil?

The boring machine is considerably larger in diameter than the finished tunnel that it would have to be taken back through is part of the reason.
The reasoning behind stripping reusable components off the TBM then burying it is that again that is the most cost effective means of clearing the site allowing the other works to complete the tunnel to commence much sooner without the extraction pit works and the need to dismantle the main body of the machine.

[The Reaper]

The answer to your question is explained in the last two dot points in the blog post.
http://brizcommuter.blogspot.com.au/2013/03/a-boring-diversion.html

It doesn't answer the question about whether you considered the changes to the platform arrangement an issue beyond the fact that there would be redesign work required.

[red dragin]

Why does it save money to have the TMB stay in the ground and turn, versus come out of the ground to finish the first tunnel and go back underground at the start of the tunnel where it is supposed to be used?

And why does it save $500 mil, versus saving $400 mil or $600 mil?

The boring machine is considerably larger in diameter than the finished tunnel that it would have to be taken back through is part of the reason.
The reasoning behind stripping reusable components off the TBM then burying it is that again that is the most cost effective means of clearing the site allowing the other works to complete the tunnel to commence much sooner without the extraction pit works and the need to dismantle the main body of the machine.

Legacy Way TBM's are to be dissasembled, not buried.

The prelim works, accoustic shed, transportation, storage, purchase of two TBM's vs hiring one would start to add up to $500 mill. New the 12+m dia ones are $50+ mill each.

[HappyTrainGuy]

For reference sake the Airport TBMs were stripped of parts that could be removed and the bulky parts that couldn't be removed were then burried.

[BrizCommuter]

The answer to your question is explained in the last two dot points in the blog post.
http://brizcommuter.blogspot.com.au/2013/03/a-boring-diversion.html

It doesn't answer the question about whether you considered the changes to the platform arrangement an issue beyond the fact that there would be redesign work required.

Well that would depend on 1) How advanced the design work is 2) Is there enough space for a side platform layout.

Given that a 2 tunnel design was chosen, there must be advantages over a single tunnel design. This may be more related to vertical alignment.

[Gazza]

At one of the info sessions I asked an apparently they went for twin tunnels as it allowed them to be closer to the surface than a single bore (Or the optopn I secretly wanted to see, the wide single bore containing double deck tracks, crossovers, and stations all within the envelope)

Edit: Actually, L10 in Barcelona was done with a 12m TBM, and that  tunnel is wide enough to contain everything (so no station boxes need to be dug, only escalator/lift shafts, to the side)...I'm unsure how QR trains compare in terms of height to the Barcelona metro trains...though both do use overhead current collection.

[The Reaper]

It doesn't answer the question about whether you considered the changes to the platform arrangement an issue beyond the fact that there would be redesign work required.

Well that would depend on 1) How advanced the design work is 2) Is there enough space for a side platform layout.

Given that a 2 tunnel design was chosen, there must be advantages over a single tunnel design. This may be more related to vertical alignment.

It sounded as though you may have had a preference one way or the other regarding the platform layout, island as opposed to side. I know I do.

I'm not sure of advantage to the actual trains and track with single vs double. But from safety point of view I think 2 x single has some advantages incase of fire or derailment, but station wise, I would have thought the island has significant cost savings in providing station access and services. Such as one lift verus two etc etc.

Agreed, FLS considerations would appear to favour the twin tunnel scenario.

[BrizCommuter]

At one of the info sessions I asked an apparently they went for twin tunnels as it allowed them to be closer to the surface than a single bore (Or the optopn I secretly wanted to see, the wide single bore containing double deck tracks, crossovers, and stations all within the envelope)

Edit: Actually, L10 in Barcelona was done with a 12m TBM, and that  tunnel is wide enough to contain everything (so no station boxes need to be dug, only escalator/lift shafts, to the side)...I'm unsure how QR trains compare in terms of height to the Barcelona metro trains...though both do use overhead current collection.

Barcelona Series 9000 - 2710mm W x 3859mm H
Brisbane Class 160/260 - 2740mm W x ?mm H

The huge delays due to construction issues in Barcelona L9/10 doesn't make the double deck tunnel design appealing!

[Gazza]

At one of the info sessions I asked an apparently they went for twin tunnels as it allowed them to be closer to the surface than a single bore (Or the optopn I secretly wanted to see, the wide single bore containing double deck tracks, crossovers, and stations all within the envelope)

Edit: Actually, L10 in Barcelona was done with a 12m TBM, and that  tunnel is wide enough to contain everything (so no station boxes need to be dug, only escalator/lift shafts, to the side)...I'm unsure how QR trains compare in terms of height to the Barcelona metro trains...though both do use overhead current collection.

Barcelona Series 9000 - 2710mm W x 3859mm H
Brisbane Class 160/260 - 2740mm W x ?mm H

The huge delays due to construction issues in Barcelona L9/10 doesn't make the double deck tunnel design appealing!

Were the issues in Barcelona due to the tunnel design,  or due to outside factors though?

[HappyTrainGuy]

3.9m. Panto extension is 4.2-5.6m.

[Gazza]

Hmmm, so the Barcelona trains are only 50mm shorter (That dimension doesn't include the panto)...I reckon we could do it here.

[HappyTrainGuy]

The two tunnel option might be better because it can allow for a higher track speed in terms of taking corners/banking along with passing other trains and the associated clearences required for safeworking. What the TBM would be going through could also be a factor in cost. The Spaniards might have wanted 2 tunnels but the cost of going through thick rock outweighted the cost benefit.

[Gazza]

^The barcelona option has up and down trains on separate levels so avoids the issue you speak of.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ca/Secci%C3%B3_t%C3%BAnel_L9.svg

[HappyTrainGuy]

Ah so no side by side running.

[Golliwog]

Not directly CRR related, but discusses some different funding ideas.

Harnessing power of a crowd is less taxing
Date March 20, 2013
Alan Stokes
Columnist


I enjoy paying tax. Reassures me we live in a caring society. Puts something back in return for the good fortune I've had. Would happily pay much more.

Except . . . I like to know my taxes are being spent well on people who need it more than I do.

There's no guarantee.

And not everyone shares my zeal for handing any money to governments, let alone ones with a different world view or sketchy record.
Advertisement

So membership of my Willing Taxpayers Afternoon Tea and Bikram Yoga Discussion Group has gone the way of public phone boxes.

With tax-paying on the nose, other budget revenues struggling and too much middle class welfare to dole out, there's going to be less money for a caring society.

There'll be more cases of having to ditch projects like the ones the Gillard government so laudably talks about but sometimes stumbles with.

The danger is, once the pay-less-tax mantra takes hold, we risk becoming a culture of ''keep what you have and the rest can fend for themselves''. What we need is a tax for people who don't like paying tax or the governments that survive on tax or even the very word tax.

Luckily, we can pay less tax and still improve social programs and infrastructure.

We just need community spirit, a tad less self-indulgence and a drive to put your money where your mouth is.

This Clayton's ''tax when you're not having a tax'' is called crowd-funding.

It's an old trick - like passing round the plate or a school raffle - but it uses that worldwide internet thingo the young 'uns talk about. If you want a project funded, you set a target sum, ask for donations via a crowd-funding site, and donors pay up only when the target is reached.

Crowd-funding raised an estimated $US3 billion last year globally through almost 500 ''platforms'' and is spreading into new areas.

There's no reason it can't replace taxes as the source of funds for some government-run policies - especially innovative ones that scare risk-averse politicians.

Unlike the tax on bank deposits to bail out Cyprus, crowd-funding is voluntary.

One devotee is social media guru Jordan Raynor, who spruiked at a TED (Technology, Education and Design) conference recently. He calls crowd-funding the ''democratisation of philanthropy''.

Readers of good repute would have noticed the Herald editorial last week proposed crowd-funding to finance the morphing of the Art Gallery of NSW into the ''Sydney Modern'' - assuming trustee Steven Lowy is a bit short of cash. Sydneysiders might donate a few dollars in return for, say, discounted entry or a brick in the new wing.

Others would have seen how ''marshmallows'' - fans of the cult US TV series Veronica Mars - used crowd-funding to raise $2 million-plus in 10 hours to fund a movie version of the show.

Australians dug deep to help fund movie animation short A Cautionary Tale, while myriad bands, painters and festivals have raised the odd thousand. Wineries and citizen journalists have as well.

President Barack Obama even had Congress pass a crowd-funding law - the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act, or JOBS Act. (It's awaiting regulatory safeguards. The watchdog here is also alert to investor risk as crowd-funding expands into equity raisings.)

The Gillard government is also on board, offering last week to go 50:50 with crowd-funders of certain cultural projects.

Crowd-funding's real potential as a tax alternative, though, began through social justice and social enterprise programs. These have been worthy causes or programs too small, risky or politically uncouth to attract traditional funding.

But why stop there?

Faced with shrinking budgets but growing social need - thanks to a new government or otherwise - crowd-funding offers an egalitarian version of public-private partnership, with investors - you and I - wanting little or nothing in return.

Raynor cites a crowd-funded bridge in Rotterdam.

But any new infrastructure project with a public benefit outweighing any short-term private return is a crowd-funding candidate.

Likewise, democratic philanthropic foundations to fund scholarships, medical research and social justice projects: created by millions, not rich individuals.

The visionary things like Gonski are a big ask but not out of reach.

At $6 billion a year, that's $6000 from 1 million of us - and that's without any of his money!

If 10 million of us each paid $600, then it's done for a year. For $1200 you get two years. Then assess whether it's worthy of tax dollars.

With a government safety net, crowd-funding can also support public programs targeted for closure, buying them time to find a better business model.

It's a way to empower people to own solutions and share the load; to lock in the feeling we live in a society that cares. Just like paying taxes once did.

Such is life ...

astokes@fairfaxmedia.com.au

[ozbob]

From the Brisbanetimes click here!

Rail link a heavy cross to bear for Abbott

Rail link a heavy cross to bear for Abbott
April 5, 2013 - 12:01AM Tony Moore

The future of Brisbane's Cross River Rail project has become more uncertain after Opposition Leader Tony Abbott's announcement his government would prioritise federal funding for roads ahead of commuter rail projects.

Mr Abbott says roads contribute more to national productivity and that state governments should fund commuter rail projects.

The Labor Party has questioned where that leaves Brisbane's two major public transport rail projects – the Moreton Bay Rail Link and Cross River Rail – if the Coalition wins the federal election.

Federal funding for CRR would ultimately be a decision for the existing infrastructure organisation, Infrastructure Australia, if the Coalition won office.
Advertisement

Work on the Moreton Bay Rail Link, linking Petrie to Kippa-Ring, has started, while Infrastructure Australia classes Cross River Rail as "shovel ready", but the Labor government has not yet promised any funding.

The Coalition has promised a new 15-year infrastructure plan would be started by Infrastructure Australia if it wins this year's federal election.

"The commonwealth government has a long history of funding roads," Mr Abbott said on Thursday.

"We have no history of funding urban rail and I think it's important that we stick to our knitting, and the commonwealth's knitting when it comes to funding infrastructure is roads."

Fairfax Media asked for clarification on the issue after Mr Abbott made these comments in Melbourne yesterday.

A spokesman for Mr Abbott said the Coalition supported funding for transport projects that "affect interstate commerce, export industries and the productive capacity of the economy".

The spokesman said the Coalition would continue to support "the interstate rail freight network," but commuter rail improvements should be funded by state governments.

"Commuter rail projects are the responsibility of the states and territories. This has traditionally been the case," he said.

Federal Infrastructure Minister Anthony Albanese said Mr Abbott's emphasis on funding road projects over rail projects would worsen congestion.

"Such an unbalanced approach would lead to more gridlock, worsening congestion and a poorer quality of life in our cities," Mr Albanese said.

The Labor Party has committed $742 million in federal funding to the Moreton Bay Rail Link, which is under way, and $20 million for pilot funds to investigate the Cross River Rail.

Mr Albanese said the debate showed the "great divide in Australian politics between Labor and the Coalition".

Rail Back on Track spokesman Robert Dow questioned the emphasis on roads.

"Congestion is chaotic in Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane particularly. The way forward is improved public transport, not more of the failed 1960s roads policies," he said.

Mr Abbott last year promised $1 billion for improvements to the northern section of the Gateway Motorway.

A spokesman for Queensland's Transport Minister Scott Emerson said Queensland's transport authorities were lobbying both political parties for funds for Toowoomba's Second Range Crossing, the Cross River Rail and the Bruce Highway upgrade.

[ozbob]

From the Couriermail click here!

Opposition leader Tony Abbott backtracks on 2010 election promise taking Brisbane cross river rail off list

Opposition leader Tony Abbott backtracks on 2010 election promise taking Brisbane cross river rail off list

    by: Robyn Ironside
    From: The Courier-Mail
    April 05, 2013 12:00AM

BRISBANE's much-needed Cross River Rail has almost no chance of being built if Tony Abbott is elected prime minister, after he declared a coalition government would not invest in urban rail projects.

The bombshell comments were made in Melbourne, where Mr Abbott ruled out providing funding for the proposed Melbourne Metro tunnel, to the dismay of the Victorian Government.

He said the Commonwealth did not usually invest in metropolitan rail and that situation would continue under an Abbott-led government.

"The Commonwealth Government has a long history of funding roads and no history of funding urban rail," he said.

"It's important that we stick to our knitting, and the Commonwealth's knitting when it comes to funding infrastructure, is roads."

The statement was at odds with Mr Abbott's position before the 2010 federal election when he promised a coalition government would provide $750 million towards the Moreton Bay Rail Link.

The first new bridge of the link was opened yesterday at Mango Hill, putting the Petrie to Redcliffe connection on track for 2016 completion.

Late yesterday Mr Abbott's spokesman said "commuter rail projects were the responsibility of the States and Territories".

"The Coalition supports commonwealth funding for major transport infrastructure projects that affect interstate commerce, export industries and the productive capacity of the economy," he said.

"This is the approach taken by the Howard Government. The Coalition will continue to support the interstate rail freight network."

The stance shocked Australasian Railway Association CEO Bryan Nye, who said it appeared Mr Abbott "did not understand public transport".

"We need more investment in rail and other forms of public transport to keep our cities from grinding to a standstill over the next 20 years, not less," Mr Nye said.

"Cross River Rail is one of Infrastructure Australia's top priorities. It would be wrong for the Federal Government to only look at funding road projects."

Queensland Transport Minister Scott Emerson, who is currently seeking $4.5 billion in funding for Cross River Rail, said it remained one of the State Government's top three infrastructure priorities.

"Without Federal funding these projects cannot proceed," he said.

"We are lobbying both the federal Coalition and federal Labor ahead of the next election to get the best deal possible for Queenslanders."

[colinw]

Yep, playing out about as I expected once Newman was elected, and with Abbott in the mix this project will be utterly impossible to get off the ground as these mega projects are beyond the financial means of any State Government.

CRR will die of complete inaction & disinterest at both levels of Government. I bet the cross river bus tunnel gets built 'though.

The standard mode of transport planning in Australia appears to be one of deliberate, engineered failure.

I will go further and predict that we will be lucky if suburban rail on the Doomben line, or beyond the NGR facilities at Wulkuraka survives.  Wouldn't even be surprised to see services beyond Nambour go.

I don't think most people realise just how little interest in public transport, and rail in particular, the Liberal party has in its modern incarnation.  In my work it was very clear just how rapidly the pipeline of projects dried up once Newman was elected - it died practically overnight.

With Abbott in Federally it is only going to get worse.

[ozbob]

Twitter

Robert Dow ‏@Robert_Dow 1m

Rail link a heavy cross to bear for Abbott http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/rail-link-a-heavy-cross-to-bear-for-abbott-20130404-2h9ww.html ... via @brisbanetimes @TonyAbbottMHR read the blog comments ... #auspol

[Mr X]

You'd think that the party obsessed with surpluses and economic efficiency would love to fund a rail project with a positive BCR, but nooope let's continue this stupid legacy of ROADS ROADS ROADS. Didn't work well for Clem 7 and Airport Link hey..

[somebody]

I hear what you are saying colinw.  But are we really worse off PT-wise under a Newman govt than we were under a Bligh govt?

If Abbott gets in then we are screwed regarding getting CRR funded whoever was in in the state.

Re:Doomben, apparently the Libs brought that back so it doesn't seem that likely that they will remove it now.

[ozbob]

Twitter

Robert Dow Robert Dow ‏@Robert_Dow

Abbott:"I think it is important that we stick to our knitting ...." your future with Tony #auspol #qldpol #vicpol http://twitpic.com/cgunfw

[ozbob]

Twitter

Robyn Ironside ‏@ironsider 2m

Transport Minister Scott Emerson says he's disappointed with Tony Abbott's refusal to fund urban rail projects.
https://twitter.com/ironsider/status/319982479123574784/photo/1

[ozbob]

Twitter

Stephen Mayne  ‏@MayneReport 6m

Good to see this former Murdoch journalist turned QLD Transport Minister hopping into Abbott's anti-train ideology: http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/2013/04/05/12/09/coalition-qld-at-odds-over-rail-project ...

[ozbob]

From Nine MSM click here!

Coalition, Qld at odds over rail project

Coalition, Qld at odds over rail project
12:05pm April 5, 2013

Opposition Leader Tony Abbott has announced the coalition will not fund suburban rail projects around the country if it wins government, with the money to be directed instead towards roads.

Infrastructure projects that would miss out on funding include Brisbane's Cross-River Rail project.

Queensland Transport Minister Scott Emerson says the federal government, be it Labor or coalition, must commit at least 80 per cent of funding for the Cross River Rail project to go ahead.

"The reality is if there is not federal funding for these projects, they cannot proceed, we cannot afford to do them alone," he told ABC radio.

"We'll continue that process of lobbying the federal coalition and federal Labor."

His federal counterpart Anthony Albanese on Friday said Mr Abbott's views on infrastructure were out of date.

"Tony Abbott has nothing but thought bubbles when it comes to infrastructure and they are thought bubbles based on an ideological assessment that roads are good and public transport is bad," he told ABC radio.
Any federal government, Labor or coalition, must help fund a vital Brisbane rail project, the Queensland government says.

[#Metro]

Time to leave australia I think. Hopeless government at all bloody levels from council up...

[ozbob]

Hang in there LD,  we got fare gates at Nambour rail station!   And a nice new blue water bubbler at Goodna rail,  and I can catch 161 bus!!

If you want a lift to the spirits,  catch a Richlands train from Darra in the morning peak, one gets a nice view of the Ipswich car park ... and often the Centenary Highway is locked up as well. 

WTG Bro!!

[ozbob]

Tony's transport planning ...

[colinw]

I bloody give up.  Time to get out of the city entirely I think. Colinw's transport future:


Australia's transport future:

[hU0N]

While I agree that this an extremely retrograde step, let's try and resist the temptation to make this an argument about congestion.

Congestion has been a fact of life in advanced economies since the industrial revolution.  What is more, in that entire time congestion has remained relatively static.  As an example, average vehicle speeds in Central London are apparently the same today as they were 150 years ago.

The discredited idea that you can forecast the transport needs of an economy and then simply build infrastructure to cover it (whether it's freeway, busway, tramway, light rail or heavy) should be left in the 1960's where it belongs.

Instead, transport policy should focus on the real issues.  It shouldn't focus on the question "What can we build to solve congestion?" but rather on the question, "Since congestion will never go away, how can we minimise the disruption that it has on our economy?"  On this score, Cross River Rail is an important project.  Not because it will solve congestion on the citytrain network (it won't), or on the road network, but because it will remove a significant bottleneck that limits the economic activity and growth of the CBD and the companies, businesses and employers who are located therein.

[ozbob]

Thanks!

Yes,  hope Tony understands ...  but he clearly doesn't at the moment ... 

[SurfRail]

I think it all comes down to semantics.  The reality is that it will lessen congestion on the inner part of the rail network ...until it accumulates again.  I don't think anybody has ever really claimed that it is a once-and-for-all fix, just that it does a better job than the alternatives (ie nothing, more road capacity in the inner city) given a variety of factors such as cost, energy consumption, use of public space and built environment, social equity etc.

Bottomline - without CRR, it will be harder to travel around SEQ.  With it, things won't be as bad, whether that means worse than now, the same or better.  Impaired travel means lessened productivity and economic output, and loss of opportunities to better run and provisioned cities.

The solutions to congestion are to have less people, less economic activity or both.  Neither will be happening, even with Ruddy's Big Australia now a distant memory.

[colinw]

Except for extreme cases, public transport does not alleviate congestion, however if the right of way is separate to general traffic it does provide the alternative allowing you get around the congestion.

Remove that alternative, or render it ineffective, and the true cost of the congestion will bite you.

Yep, its semantics.  Key point is that without CRR the rail system is going to be unable to do any "heavy lifting" and will become increasingly irrelevant to Brisbane, although a bit more can be squeezed out with other measures like higher capacity signalling.

[mufreight]

Tony's transport planning ...

Obviously Tony has dropped a stitch or ten   

[SurfRail]

Except for extreme cases, public transport does not alleviate congestion, however if the right of way is separate to general traffic it does provide the alternative allowing you get around the congestion.

Remove that alternative, or render it ineffective, and the true cost of the congestion will bite you.

Yep, its semantics.  Key point is that without CRR the rail system is going to be unable to do any "heavy lifting" and will become increasingly irrelevant to Brisbane, although a bit more can be squeezed out with other measures like higher capacity signalling.

Congestion is a bit like pregnancy I suppose.  A pregnant woman can be carrying one child or more than one child.  A road is congested once it hits a certain point where the flow degrades significantly but is still congested if there is more demand.

Moving people onto public transport doesn't alleviate the fact of congestion, just how many people are included in it.  (The example above doesn't work so well on this point...)

[hU0N]

Congestion is a bit like pregnancy I suppose.  A pregnant woman can be carrying one child or more than one child.  A road is congested once it hits a certain point where the flow degrades significantly but is still congested if there is more demand.

Moving people onto public transport doesn't alleviate the fact of congestion, just how many people are included in it.  (The example above doesn't work so well on this point...)

Nope.  I quite like your analogy.