Cross River Rail Project

[Derwan]

Having read some more of the study, I'm wondering why the study corridor only extends from Salisbury to Wooloowin. The ICRCS states that a 5th track is required to Northgate, and a 4th track required to Banoon. Are these outside of the scope of the study, or have Cross River Rail neglected these important infrastructure requirements?

This is what I've wondered.  It's pointless adding a 5th track as far as Wooloowin without making it 5 tracks to at least the Airport line.

[somebody]

This is what I've wondered.  It's pointless adding a 5th track as far as Wooloowin without making it 5 tracks to at least the Airport line.

That's not quite right.  The Ferny Grove branches off at Bowen Hills, so extra tracks aren't really needed for capacity reasons.  The reason why you might want track amplfications at least as far as the Airport line is for segregation of services.  Without that delays on the suburban line's trains have the potential to cause delays to trains using the 2016 tunnel and vice versa.  I'm not actually sure what a 5th track would achieve as unless there is a 6th track, it's still not fully segregated.

[Derwan]

That's not quite right.  The Ferny Grove branches off at Bowen Hills, so extra tracks aren't really needed for capacity reasons. 

Then why would you build a 5th track to Wooloowin - where it would just go back to 4 tracks?  It doesn't make sense.

The 5th track (according to the ICRCS) would be bidirectional and used for express services in the peak flow direction.

I guess there would be SOME benefit going part of the way.  It would allow greater flexibility in timetabling.  It just makes more sense (to me) to at least go to a junction.  But I guess that might be part of a future upgrade that will include grade-separation for the Airport line.  (We can only hope!)

[somebody]

Then why would you build a 5th track to Wooloowin - where it would just go back to 4 tracks?  It doesn't make sense.

I don't really know.  The whole 5th track idea seems really wierd without the 2026 tunnel to me.  Perhaps stephenk knows something I don't?

[stephenk]

Then why would you build a 5th track to Wooloowin - where it would just go back to 4 tracks?  It doesn't make sense.

I don't really know.  The whole 5th track idea seems really wierd without the 2026 tunnel to me.  Perhaps stephenk knows something I don't?

The 5 tracks are required between Bowen Hills to Northgate according to the ICRCS for:
-Inbound Shorncliffe/Airport/Doomben to New Tunnel
-Outbound New Tunnel to Shorncliffe/Airport/Doomben
-Peak Petrie to Suburbans (opposite in pm)
-Peak Caboolture/North Coast to Mains (opposite in pm)
-Counter-peak Mains/Suburbans to Petrie/Caboolture/North Coast (opposite in pm)

[Jon Bryant]

 I am interested in the Metro from Toowong to Newstead reference in the soon to be release Connecting SEQ 2031 on page 17.

[ozbob]

Media Release 14 April 2010

SEQ:  Cross River Rail Project

RAIL Back On Track (http://backontrack.org) a web based community support group for rail and public transport and an advocate for public transport commuters has welcomed the next phase of the Cross River Rail Project. Public consultation on the draft terms of reference has now opened (1).

Robert Dow, Spokesman for RAIL Back On Track said:

"The Cross River Rail project will allow increased train frequency on all lines and the introduction of novel train paths.  This is essential in view of the looming capacity constraints through the CBD rail corridor.  The general route outlined we believed is the best of the options considered."

"The benefit of underground rail stations at Woolloongabba and in the southern CBD will be immense in terms of providing mass transit access for citizens to these major public transport journey generator locations."

"Utilisation of part of the Exhibition loop rail corridor for this extension makes economic and operational sense.  Some additional works will be required to ease the Cross River Rail line onto the main northern line but this is relatively straight forward compared to a continuation of the tunnel.  The planned development at the Exhibition precinct will now be directly supported by mass transit."

"The detailed planning for Cross River Rail needs to include provision for subsequent additions to the network."

"The Cross River Rail Project is the most important transport project ever in south east Queensland in our opinion (2).  It is essential to do it now, do it properly and do it once. Doing things on the cheap has never worked for rail infrastructure in the past and will not work on this project; doing things in stages will lead to a cost blow out and will only deliver part of the required infrastructure."

References:

1. http://www.dip.qld.gov.au/projects/transport/rail/cross-river-rail.html

2. http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=2034.0

Contact:

Robert Dow
Administration
admin@backontrack.org

[somebody]

Then why would you build a 5th track to Wooloowin - where it would just go back to 4 tracks?  It doesn't make sense.

I don't really know.  The whole 5th track idea seems really wierd without the 2026 tunnel to me.  Perhaps stephenk knows something I don't?

The 5 tracks are required between Bowen Hills to Northgate according to the ICRCS for:
-Inbound Shorncliffe/Airport/Doomben to New Tunnel
-Outbound New Tunnel to Shorncliffe/Airport/Doomben
-Peak Petrie to Suburbans (opposite in pm)
-Peak Caboolture/North Coast to Mains (opposite in pm)
-Counter-peak Mains/Suburbans to Petrie/Caboolture/North Coast (opposite in pm)

Don't know why they need the bi-di on 3 tracks.

Sounds like I was pretty much on the money when I said that it's more needed for segregation of services than capacity.

[ozbob]

Ad page 7 Courier Mail 14th April 2010

[ozbob]

From Queensland Parliament Hansard 14th April 2010 Questions without notice

Cross River Rail Project

Mr KILBURN: My question is to the Premier. Can the Premier update the House on the progress of the Bligh government's congestion-busting Cross River Rail project?

Ms BLIGH: I thank the honourable member for his interest in this project. This project is critical to the long-term growth and use of public transport in the entire south-east of our state. We have committed to building a stronger Queensland, a Queensland that has infrastructure that anticipates growth, and the Cross River Rail project is a great example of exactly that.

During the last sitting of this parliament I outlined to the parliament that this had now been given a declaration as a project of state significance. It is an enormous project and work is now well underway to keep the ball rolling. Draft terms of reference for the EIS are now available on the Department of Infrastructure and Planning website, and I encourage members with an interest to have a look. Initial survey work of the Brisbane River bed that was being undertaken during the last sitting has now been gathered and will be analysed to give information about the quality of the underground environment in the inner city.

Initial soil testing, which involves the drilling of bore holes, commenced last night. This will help refine options for station locations, the route of the tunnel and, of course, possible tunnel entrances. The drilling has commenced in Cornwall Street, Fairfield, just outside the AAMI building, and will take approximately two weeks to complete. Drilling at busy locations will occur between 7 pm and 5 am and at quieter locations between 7 am 5 pm. Nearby residents and businesses have all been notified of the drilling and traffic management is in place to safely direct traffic around the work. The drilling is also planned in the coming months for the CBD, Woolloongabba, Park Road and other areas in the corridor where geotechnical information at this stage simply does not exist.

The details will be available on the project website and nearby residences and businesses will receive advance notice before any drilling occurs. Some 600,000 newsletters about this project, including a consultation schedule and information about how people can access information sessions, are due to be delivered across Brisbane to both businesses and households in late April. We will be holding information sessions throughout the study corridor. I encourage all members who have an interest in this project, but more importantly those whose electorates will be affected by it, to familiarise themselves with this corridor and with the process by which they can become involved in consultations.

The Cross River Rail project is a project to which we are committed. The outline I have given today of progress just in the last month is an indication that momentum is now starting on this project and we are determined to make it a reality because we understand that infrastructure projects are about creating jobs in the short term but much more importantly in the long term delivering a better quality of life and economic prosperity to people here in this part of the fastest growing state of Australia.

[stephenk]

I am interested in the Metro from Toowong to Newstead reference in the soon to be release Connecting SEQ 2031 on page 17.

I think you will find that this "metro" is the 2nd cross city line which was also mentioned in the report. I would assume that it will have suburban trains running through it, as per the Paris RER and Tokyo Metro. Otherwise Brisbane's rail network will be stuffed (again).

The 5 tracks are required between Bowen Hills to Northgate according to the ICRCS for:
-Inbound Shorncliffe/Airport/Doomben to New Tunnel
-Outbound New Tunnel to Shorncliffe/Airport/Doomben
-Peak Petrie to Suburbans (opposite in pm)
-Peak Caboolture/North Coast to Mains (opposite in pm)
-Counter-peak Mains/Suburbans to Petrie/Caboolture/North Coast (opposite in pm)

Don't know why they need the bi-di on 3 tracks.

Sounds like I was pretty much on the money when I said that it's more needed for segregation of services than capacity.

Actually, only 1 track will be bi-directional. It's all explained in the ICRCS - Rail Operations Review.

Media Release 14 April 2010

"Utilisation of part of the Exhibition loop rail corridor for this extension makes economic and operational sense.  Some additional works will be required to ease the Cross River Rail line onto the main northern line but this is relatively straight forward compared to a continuation of the tunnel.  The planned development at the Exhibition precinct will now be directly supported by mass transit."

I would disagree with this statement. Tunnelling to the north of Bowen Hills would be much simpler than running on the surface, however due to the cost of tunnelling (particularly building an underground Exhibition 2 and Bowen Hills 2 stations) the cost of a tunnel to north of Bowen Hills would be higher.

Using the existing surface alignment will require land resumption through the show grounds and surrounding area for quadruplication, then a grade separated junction (which would almost definitely have to be a fly-under) from before Mayne (to allow trains to enter/exit Mayne from the existing tracks without conflict) to north of Bowen Hills (after passing under the mains and suburbans to avoid conflicting moves). Straight forward? Not really.

[ozbob]

I take your point made Stephen, but there is plenty of room generally and look at both Melbourne and Sydney, flyovers and fly-unders very effective.  The cost is clearly a major factor but I am sure they have examined the requirements and have the solutions.

[stephenk]

I take your point made Stephen, but there is plenty of room generally and look at both Melbourne and Sydney, flyovers and fly-unders very effective.  The cost is clearly a major factor but I am sure they have examined the requirements and have the solutions.

The ICRCS-Pre Feasibility Report by Systemwide dropped this "more surface" route which was suggested by Queensland Transport. However Queensland Transport appear to have ignored this advice. In light of this, I seriously hope that Queensland Transport's latest plans are based on maximising track capacity rather than saving money.

[paulg]

It may be that the new study is reconsidering the maximum grade requirement. The ICRCS assumed 2% maximum grade. If this requirement was relaxed it would allow earlier daylighting (which would probably be cheaper even with the requirement for resumptions and fly-over/unders). They may also be reconsidering an immersed tube tunnel for the river crossing rather than the ICRCS deep tunnel.

In another thread I posted a map of a possible George St alignment with new platforms at Roma St (http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=3622.msg23755#msg23755).

This plan would enable some very connectivity options with the existing concourse and a new concourse built over the existing tracks. Here's a map of how it might work:


There would be two new underground concourses for the Cross River Rail platforms with pedestrian connections to Wickham Tce, Roma St and the new square between the court complexes (via an underpass under Roma St).
These new concourses would link via escalators to the existing Roma St concourse and a new elevated concourse for the existing platforms built over the existing tracks. A similar idea was floated in the Roma Street Precinct Redevelopment Plan in 2007 http://www.publicworks.qld.gov.au/majorprojects/Pages/RomaSttPrecinctRedevelopment.aspx (unfortunately no longer published online).

Here's the Google Map version of the figure: http://maps.google.com.au/maps/ms?hl=en&ie=UTF8&t=k&msa=0&msid=102694311293168528531.0004843e01077cc81cf92&ll=-27.465656,153.021301&spn=0.004017,0.008256&z=18

Cheers, Paul

[#Metro]

Hi Paul,

The map looks great. Which tools did you use to draw it in Google Maps?
Thanks
TT 

[paulg]

It's easy, just click on "My Maps" at the top left of the Google Map window, and then "Create New Map" (you'll need to be signed in to a Google account of course). There are line, polygon, marker and shape tools available. You can also share maps for collaboration with others.
Cheers

[somebody]

It may be that the new study is reconsidering the maximum grade requirement.

That sounds like sanity prevailing.

They may also be reconsidering an immersed tube tunnel for the river crossing rather than the ICRCS deep tunnel.

Was the ICRCS incorrect to rule this option out?

[#Metro]

They may also be reconsidering an immersed tube tunnel for the river crossing rather than the ICRCS deep tunnel.

I am really against this "immersed tube", unless the engineers really make a convincing case that it isn't going to leak!
BTW, that double deck box tunnel with the Brisbane River/Sea on one side of the wall along Kingsford Smith Drive is another idea tempting fate.

Global Warming, cyclones, floods and rising sea levels...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Tunnel_Company
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Flood

[stephenk]

They may also be reconsidering an immersed tube tunnel for the river crossing rather than the ICRCS deep tunnel.

I am really against this "immersed tube", unless the engineers really make a convincing case that it isn't going to leak!
BTW, that double deck box tunnel with the Brisbane River/Sea on one side of the wall along Kingsford Smith Drive is another idea tempting fate.

Global Warming, cyclones, floods and rising sea levels...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Tunnel_Company
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Flood

The San Francisco BART "immersed tube" kept the SF Bay Area running running after an earthquake seriously damaged the Bay Bridge. I wouldn't worry too much about immersed tubes. Anyway, all tunnels leak, you just have to pump out water faster than it comes in.

A can't really see how an immersed tube would be advantageous over a deep level bored tunnel anyway. It's a case of more expensive deeper station costs with cheaper bored tunnel, vs cheaper shallower stations but with higher tunnel construction costs. I would think that the overall financial risk (such as project delays) would be higher with immersed tube.

[O_128]

They may also be reconsidering an immersed tube tunnel for the river crossing rather than the ICRCS deep tunnel.

I am really against this "immersed tube", unless the engineers really make a convincing case that it isn't going to leak!
BTW, that double deck box tunnel with the Brisbane River/Sea on one side of the wall along Kingsford Smith Drive is another idea tempting fate.

Global Warming, cyclones, floods and rising sea levels...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Tunnel_Company
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Flood

The San Francisco BART "immersed tube" kept the SF Bay Area running running after an earthquake seriously damaged the Bay Bridge. I wouldn't worry too much about immersed tubes. Anyway, all tunnels leak, you just have to pump out water faster than it comes in.

A can't really see how an immersed tube would be advantageous over a deep level bored tunnel anyway. It's a case of more expensive deeper station costs with cheaper bored tunnel, vs cheaper shallower stations but with higher tunnel construction costs. I would think that the overall financial risk (such as project delays) would be higher with immersed tube.

There seem to be to many things that can be go wrong with an immersed tunnel

[ozbob]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immersed_tube

[#Metro]

How deep is the Brisbane River?

[somebody]

I thought what they were worried about is significant flow over the top of the tube in a flood event, in either direction.  That wouldn't really happen in a large harbour like SF or Sydney, but could in a river.

I'm guessing damage by rocks or some such?  They called it "scour".

[#Metro]

Update

Received Cross River Rail fold out leaflet recently.
Very glossy. Interesting piece of information, printed on the second page.

"Cross River Rail will be able to move up to 120 000 people in the morning peak into the inner city from the north and south.
It would take a 30 lane motorway to match this."

I thought "that sounds a bit high".

30 trains per hour x 2 tracks x 1000 pax per train = 60 000 pax/hr/dir
maybe they included the merivale bridge in that calculation?

The trains would have to carry 2000 passengers for this capacity to be reached
30 trains per hour X 2 tracks x 2000 pax per train = 120 000 pax/hr/dir
But I'm not aware of any QR trains capable of 2000 pax in a train.

Community Info Sessions
There will be a community info session in the Queen Street Mall (stage area) on Wednesday 29th April 2010 (11am-2pm)
and a staffed display at Brisbane Square Library 5pm-7pm, Wednesday 5th May 2010.

[#Metro]

Just for reference- Yamanote Line 165 000 passengers/dir/hr
Rail Transit Capacity

Some interesting comments about streetcars and LRT on the same page...

[Golliwog]

From what I've heard they were planning on building platforms that would allow for 9 car trains, so that would increase the capacity per train. Not sure by how much though.

[#Metro]

A 9 car train would take capacity to 1500 passengers approx.
2 tracks x 1500 x 30 trains per hour = 90 000 pax/hr/dir

9 car trains sound good, I would like to see the platforms longer than other stations, but the logistics of how and which services/stations have their platforms lengthened should be considered by QR.

I suspect the Gold Coast trains would be the ones to get the longer platforms as they do fewer stops.

PS: Rail has HUGE capacity, it blows freeways, tunnels, busways etc out of the water!

[STB]

Have just come back from the Cross River Rail Consutation and made a few suggestions. 

It was raised that they are currently having a bit of concern with gradients from under the river to the City/Wooloongabba.  Ie: Can a train on half power get out of the tunnel from under the river and can older trains cope with steep gradients to get to the stations either side of the river.  Also what happens in event of a fire underground, would new trains with an extra set of doors need to be built to allow efficient and quick evacuation of a train in the tunnel?

[somebody]

It was raised that they are currently having a bit of concern with gradients from under the river to the City/Wooloongabba.  Ie: Can a train on half power get out of the tunnel from under the river and can older trains cope with steep gradients to get to the stations either side of the river.  Also what happens in event of a fire underground, would new trains with an extra set of doors need to be built to allow efficient and quick evacuation of a train in the tunnel?

Why do we need to cater to the older trains?  Just banish them from the new tunnel.  Is the requirement to get out of the tunnel on half power reasonable?  Are they thinking of a failed panto or something (which would stop a 3 car train in its tracks at present).

Regarding the fire safety, the part about getting out of the train is no different to the tunnels between Roma St & Fortitude Valley.  Not sure why this presents any new requirements.

I was just looking up the info on where this was to be?  Is it too late to go now?

[STB]

They are thinking of what would happen if a lead unit would have to pull/push a failed trailing unit up the gradient and out of the tunnel.  The depth underneath the river I was told is 38 metres - this would actually make a potential impact on having a train station at Government House/QUT - it'd be quite deep, and they are currently modelling a gradient of a 3% rise.  A 4% rise would be pushing it.

They mentioned that according to Bombardier the new gen units (IM160/SM260) would be able to cope with it but it was currently unsure on the older units.

Regarding the fire safety, you are talking about a 7-10km tunnel compared with a 2km tunnel, and quite deep underground, so I can see why they are looking into it.

They are currently in the Queen St Mall for another 17mins (finish at 2pm).  Next one will be at Dutton Park.

[O_128]

I have a few photos of the gradients in Sydney especially leaving central where there are quite steep gradients that the trains have to get up within 50m from the platforms also if the tunnel starts at salisbury the gradients would be less of a problem as the tunnel can be less steep

[somebody]

A 4% rise would be pushing it.

Only for an EMU.

[STB]

What makes you say that?  The only type of EMU I know of that would potentially have a problem is the 60 series EMUs, which struggle already!

Why wouldn't the SMU Is or IIs have a problem?

[somebody]

What makes you say that?  The only type of EMU I know of that would potentially have a problem is the 60 series EMUs, which struggle already!

Why wouldn't the SMU Is or IIs have a problem?

I posted some calculations on this site some time ago that showed (unless I'm getting something wrong) that a fully loaded SMU would be able to maintain 60km/h up a 1 in 20 grade.  So long as you don't have a steep upward grade as you are pulling away from a station, you should be fine.

The SMUs 180kW motors blow away the EMUs 135kW.

[ozbob]

612 ABC Brisbane Interview with Project Director Mr Luke Franzmann CRR

--> Where do you want a new CBD train station?

[Golliwog]

Just as a random side note, is anyone else interested to see how they try and fit the CRR line onto the current rail and busway maps? The map already got crowded once they added the busway to UQ in.

[O_128]

612 ABC Brisbane Interview with Project Director Mr Luke Franzmann CRR

--> Where do you want a new CBD train station?

Is anyone else a bit nervous that someone who has run translink is managing this project 

[ozbob]

I think Mr Franzmann brings an excellent background to the project, and so far I think it is going very well.

I have regular communication with CRR and this is project being taken very seriously indeed, as a befits a project of state significance.

[mufreight]

That Mr Franzmann has had previous connections with Translink is doubtless cause for concern for many who have had the misfortune to have dealings with Translink in the past but he is a political appointee and as such is a figurehead.
It would have possibly been better had someone with an engineering and project management background such as Mr Steele who was the project manager for Trackstar on the Corinda - Darra project who was unfortunately promoted away from that project had been appointed to the position.

[frereOP]

That Mr Franzmann has had previous connections with Translink is doubtless cause for concern for many who have had the misfortune to have dealings with Translink in the past but he is a political appointee and as such is a figurehead.

CEO's are not figureheads.  They are the ones ultimately responsible for the performance of the organization and enuring delivery of outcomes which begs the question why the CEO of Queensland Health is still earning pay.