Cross River Rail Project

[ozbob]

--> http://www.transport.qld.gov.au/Home/Projects_and_initiatives/Projects/Cross_river_rail/

Key findings

The key findings of the Inner City Rail Capacity Study are:

    * passenger demand in peak periods to the inner city is forecast to increase from more than 44 000 in 2006 to 70 000-80 000 by 2016 and 105 000-130 000 by 2026
    * to support the forecast passenger demand and the consequential increase in train services, the inner city?s rail track capacity needs to be doubled by 2026
    * two new rail links will be required to double the inner city?s rail capacity, the first by 2016 and the second by 2026
    * the first of these new rail links is expected to cost up to A$8.2 billion in 2008 dollars, and will connect the northern (Caboolture/North Coast) rail line to the southern (Beenleigh/Gold Coast) rail line
    * the second of these new rail links is expected to cost up to A$6 billion in 2008 dollars, and will connect the northern (Caboolture/North Coast) and western (Ipswich) rail lines.

[#Metro]

I'm a bit worried about the XRiver-Rail Project. BCC is doing planning for the Metro. How are these going to mesh with each other? Avoid duplication/conflict with tunnel paths in the CBD?

[ozbob]

Please explain what you mean by metro?  As far as I understand the "metro" is in fact the cross river rail project.  This project has sometimes been promoted as a metro.

Cheers
Bob

[stephenk]

A metro is usually defined as a self contained (running on it's own tracks), frequent (10 min or better off-peak), urban railway.
Of course there are plenty of exceptions to this rule.

Brisbane's Cross River Rail will not technically be a metro, it's still a suburban rail system. However it should offer a metro like service in the peaks for most lines.

[#Metro]

Please explain what you mean by metro?  As far as I understand the "metro" is in fact the cross river rail project.  This project has sometimes been promoted as a metro.

Cheers
Bob

I'm a bit surprised that people haven't heard of this. The in the 2007 Lord Mayor's Mass Transit Report were:
(a) Trams/Light rail be rejected for now, in favour of the superbus lines.
(b) Investigation of a cut and cover metro system underneath Brisbane Streets, with lines like "University Line", "Hospitals Line", "Sports Line" etc... I'm not sure how far they have got, but there was talk of preserving corridors etc.

1.5 Consideration of a Metro system for Brisbane
The feasibility of an underground Metro system, with a possible commencement date of
2026, is worthy of further investigation. An underground Metro system would reduce the
impact of surface based public transport and improve pedestrian amenity in the CBD. The
Metro system would distribute passengers across the CBD and surrounding areas and
minimise the number of local buses needing to access the CBD.
Linking the key demand drivers of education centres, hospitals and sporting venues, the
Metro would support adjacent commercial and residential centres. Three lines are proposed
in concept for consideration.
Figure 1-3 illustrates a conceptual network for the Metro:
University line: Linking University of Queensland, West End, South Bank. Queen Street
Mall, Fortitude Valley and Newstead.
Hospital line: Linking Royal Brisbane Hospital, Exhibition, Spring Hill, Queen Street
Mall, Eagle Street, Kangaroo Point, and East Brisbane.
Sports line: Linking Woolloongabba, Parliament/Queensland University of Technology,
Queen Street Mall, Roma Street, Suncorp Stadium, Normanby and Kelvin Grove Village.

The link is here: http://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/bccwr/about_council/documents/sept07_final_report_brisbane_mass_transit_investigation_lmt.pdf

and also:
(c) That key cross city routes be established
(d) That feeder services be established
(e) An orbital inner-city, but non-CBD service be established.

[ozbob]

Thanks Tramtrain,  I recall that now.  I think it was in the context of an election.   We will eventually get a ramp up through the cross river rail project.  It would be great if we eventually got a lightrail network as described too! 

Cheers
Bob

[david]

A CBD metro line should definitely be considered, if they decide not to connect the new underground line at Central

[stephenk]

A CBD metro line should definitely be considered, if they decide not to connect the new underground line at Central

It would be a mistake for the Cross River Rail to not provide interchange at Central.

The two cross river rail lines would cover most parts of Brisbane that could justify a metro system anyway. Due to Brisbane's large size and low population density, increased suburban rail capacity is more beneficial than building a self-contained inner city metro.

[somebody]

It would be a mistake for the Cross River Rail to not provide interchange at Central.

The map shows interchanges at Park Rd & Bowen Hills.  That means that the only line not properly interchanged with is the Ipswich Line.  Perhaps a full time service to Corinda via Tennyson allieviates this, but Chelmer, Graceville and Sherwood would be poorly served.  For the City-Indooroopilly corridor you might as well use a bus.

I do see the problem here, Central is in a pretty bad location.  Do we really want to live with that location for the city services on the new line?  Two city stations would have to be very close together.  Would an interchange at Fortitude Valley be acceptable?

I think an opportunity is being missed here.  The new line should provide connection to RB&WH and Wilston train station, the Ferny Grove line and also Bowen Hills.  Windsor rail station could close and pax could just use the frequent bus service, like they probably already are.  This would fix the slow point to point times that the Ferny Grove line commuters endure.  It's faster to catch a bus from Enoggera!!  What's that?  Possibly with connection to the Cleveland line at the south end.

[Jon Bryant]

The second phase of the Cross River Rail Project provides the extra capacity for the Ipswich line.  I think it should all be done at once to allow all line to operate at 25 tpa.  I also think there should be capacity for a new line to Alderley along Enoggera Road and then continue alongside Trout Road to connect to the now called Moreton Bay Rail line to Redcliffe.   

As many regular readers and contributors know I believe that transport planning is a supply process not a demand process.  Currently the process of planning transort is the assume that demand for public transport will grow rapidly but only to 15 or max 18% of trips and then supply enough road space for the other 85% or so to travel at peak hour.   Our approach to transport planning should be the reverse starting with identifying the maximum % of trips physically able to be made by public and active transport (approx 60-70%) and then build a public/active transport system to suport that and road space/parking to cater for the rest.  If the business case stacks up to build a road then PT should always beat it as it is a more efficient mode of moving people. 

Until we make this fundamental change in approach the PT system will always be under pressure and our road ways forever encouraging poeple to drive first.

[ozbob]

http://www.transport.qld.gov.au/Home/Projects_and_initiatives/Projects/Cross_river_rail/Publications_cross_river_rail

[Jon Bryant]

Just to harp on my point.  If you go to the Appendix A - Passenger Demand.pdf the first point in the Methodology is

1. Service numbers were calculated using patronage compound annual growth rate (CAGR) by line from 2006 to 2016, and 2016 to 2026.

This is a flawed Methodology.  It assumes that growth is demand based when it is in fact supply based.  Supply the correct service (location, price, sfaety and frequency) whilst not over supplying road space/car parks and the demand will change mode.  The only demand growth should come from population growth.

Chris Hale put it beautifully in his article in yesterday's Courier Mail

"Sustainable places" will mean nominating a challenging target for the amount of travel we need occurring by walking, cycling and public transport in particular locations ? then designing and delivering the infrastructure and services required to support that aim

I also find the other Methodology point strange

3. Effort was made not to add services to corridors that are already at maximum capacity until absolutely necessary, as this would bring the requirement for new investment forward.

Can not have that now can we?

The planning for our transport systems is broken and will never deliver sustainable outcome because we are not defining sustainable targets. Chris Hale for Lord Mayor!!!

[O_128]

I also find the other Methodology point strange

3. Effort was made not to add services to corridors that are already at maximum capacity until absolutely necessary, as this would bring the requirement for new investment forward.

Can not have that now can we?

The planning for our transport systems is broken and will never deliver sustainable outcome because we are not defining sustainable targets. Chris Hale for Lord Mayor!!!

yes that would require to much planning and foresight

[#Metro]

Thanks for posting links to the report.  

Looks like a good piece of work. Pity the area was restricted to a very small patch.

Nice Tunnels- RAIL tunnels!

[paulg]

I think the key issue that is not addressed in the study up to now is the connectivity issue with existing rail AND BUS in the CBD. The pre-feasibility study even goes do far as to say that it is not necessary to consider interchanging with CBD bus stations (section 5.3.2.3). This is clearly wrong, and needs to be addressed.

A solution might be to make use of the existing under-utilised Exhibition Loop as part of the new line. A tunnel would begin at Park Road Station and proceed to Wooloongabba and under the river to a new CBD station, and then continue to new underground platforms at Roma St (providing connectivity with the existing rail and bus network). The line would then surface and use the Exhibition Loop to connect with the North Coast Line. Bowen Hills Station would need to be rebuilt with a new concourse between the two sets of rail lines.

Map here:


I fear that the new study will not consider use of the Exhibition Loop and may instead decide on the eastern alignment with a second Fortitude Valley station. I think that an upgraded RBH/Exhibition Station is a much smarter proposition.

Cheers, Paul

[paulg]

Another advantage of the above proposal is it would be MUCH cheaper. About half the length of tunnel required.

[ozbob]

Good idea Paul.  I have long thought that the Exhibition loop line is just waiting to be used.
Some flyovers might be needed as well.

The original concepts not connecting directly with the surface transport was less than desirable.

[Derwan]

One of the issues with train tunnels going under the river is that they need to commence a long way from the river.  For the north, it's likely to commence between Eagle Junction and Wooloowin⁽¹⁾.  For the south, it's just south of Fairfield⁽²⁾.  Unfortunately this rules out using a half-surface and half-tunnel approach.  It is also further out than what the diagrams to date suggest - particularly on the north side.

(1) http://www.transport.qld.gov.au/resources/file/eb11994f5bffeba/Pdf_inner_city_rail_update_north.pdf
(2) http://www.transport.qld.gov.au/resources/file/ebc6d24faa0fc7a/Pdf_inner_city_rail_update_south.pdf

[paulg]

Yes, if a deep tunnel is adopted it would not be possible to surface near Roma Street. The design they have adopted is extremely deep by world standards:
http://img3.imageshack.us/img3/2916/crrlongsection.jpg

The pre-feasibility ruled out a shallow tunnel (ie immersed tube construction under the river) due to concerns that it would be damaged in a flood (due to scour). I think with appropriate design they could mitigate this risk (there are plenty of examples of immersed tube tunnels under rivers - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immersed_tube) and it would cut the cost of the stations considerably (extremely deep excavations otherwise). Or another option is a rail bridge beside the Captain Cook - emerging from the Kangaroo Pt Cliffs! (I know, that idea might upset a few people).

I hope they do a thorough analysis of all the options before deciding on an unnecessarily expensive and sub-optimal solution.

[Jon Bryant]

My concern remains that they have based the original study and now the feasibility study on existing low % of trips being by public transport.  There is absolutely little attempt to set sustainable targets.  Futher they have actually excluded a whole range of ideas for new lines such as the Kelvin Grove - Everton Park - Trout Road - Redcliffe lne,  a line linking Newstead/Bulimba/Ascot and impacts from new lines such as Beaudesert line, etc.    Route D (Toowong to Bowen Hills) appears to have a route heading west from Toowong and hopefully linking up to the Kenmore Transport Corridor and then Ipswich.  No holding breath I know.

I just fear that by 2016 with petrol prices no doubt to return to the 1.75/litre mark that there is going to be so much demand for PT that the city is going to come to a stand still across road, bus and rail. 

The current feaibility study should be designed to cater for a significant increase in public transport usage.  At a minimum both phases (2016 and 2026) should be being planned and designed for and designed so that these extra lines which will be built at some stage can be incoproated. 

Connecting to the busway stations is also critical to allow for connect between services.  It might make sense to place a station in between Central and King George Sq and link with travelators as they do in London rather than straigh under Central.  I like the Spring Hill Station location.

[O_128]

My concern remains that they have based the original study and now the feasibility study on existing low % of trips being by public transport.  There is absolutely little attempt to set sustainable targets.  Futher they have actually excluded a whole range of ideas for new lines such as the Kelvin Grove - Everton Park - Trout Road - Redcliffe lne,  a line linking Newstead/Bulimba/Ascot and impacts from new lines such as Beaudesert line, etc.    Route D (Toowong to Bowen Hills) appears to have a route heading west from Toowong and hopefully linking up to the Kenmore Transport Corridor and then Ipswich.  No holding breath I know.

I just fear that by 2016 with petrol prices no doubt to return to the 1.75/litre mark that there is going to be so much demand for PT that the city is going to come to a stand still across road, bus and rail. 

The current feaibility study should be designed to cater for a significant increase in public transport usage.  At a minimum both phases (2016 and 2026) should be being planned and designed for and designed so that these extra lines which will be built at some stage can be incoproated. 

Connecting to the busway stations is also critical to allow for connect between services.  It might make sense to place a station in between Central and King George Sq and link with travelators as they do in London rather than straigh under Central.  I like the Spring Hill Station location.

honestly who does these kind of studys the studys should be using say a 2020 estiamte of PT patronage only an idiot would base it on today then again, single track GC line,Kuraby triplication and only duplicating the line to keperra must have been decided by these very smart people.

On another note i would like to see city stations at KGS or Queen street, QUT and Central though Jon Bs idea would work just aswell i also beleive it is critical that the tunnel connects not just to the beenleigh line at the south but also the cleveland line and at the north not jsut the caboolture line but also the ferny grove and exibition lines.

[stephenk]

l i also beleive it is critical that the tunnel connects not just to the beenleigh line at the south but also the cleveland line and at the north not jsut the caboolture line but also the ferny grove and exibition lines.

Why is it critical to link the tunnel with multiple lines? It would increase cost considerablys. To run services on both routes to all destinations would complicate operations, decrease relaibility, and confuse the hell out of passengers. Simplicity is the key to good rail operations.

[O_128]

l i also beleive it is critical that the tunnel connects not just to the beenleigh line at the south but also the cleveland line and at the north not jsut the caboolture line but also the ferny grove and exibition lines.

Why is it critical to link the tunnel with multiple lines? It would increase cost considerablys. To run services on both routes to all destinations would complicate operations, decrease relaibility, and confuse the hell out of passengers. Simplicity is the key to good rail operations.

Passengers can understand the tube and japans suburban rail or must we dumb everything down over here we may aswell build these things to start with than add them at a higer cost later on

[stephenk]

l i also beleive it is critical that the tunnel connects not just to the beenleigh line at the south but also the cleveland line and at the north not jsut the caboolture line but also the ferny grove and exibition lines.

Why is it critical to link the tunnel with multiple lines? It would increase cost considerablys. To run services on both routes to all destinations would complicate operations, decrease relaibility, and confuse the hell out of passengers. Simplicity is the key to good rail operations.

Passengers can understand the tube of japans rail or must we dumb everything down over here we may aswell build these things to start with than add them at a higer cost later on

What?
The Tube you are referring to is in London, not Japan. The Sub Surface Lines and the Northern Line operate along the ideas that you see fit for Brisbane - i.e. everywhere to everywhere service. This results in the these services being complicated and unreliable.
Japans railway system is actually quite simple to understand, with limited branching of services, if you want to change lines you usually have to change trains. The only thing that can be confusing is the mix of stopping patterns.
I don't quite understand your point (again). 

[mufreight]

Proven points with public transport,
1. Keep it simple, consistent routes and stopping pattens.
2. operate reliably
3. Provide good service fequency
4. Keep it clean
5. A reasonable, simple and affordable fare structure.

[somebody]

By 2016 the inner city rail system will be a basket case and unable to cope with the demand, one has to wonder where all of these new train sets will operate as once saturation point is reached there will not be room to operate more services regardless of how many train sets there are avaliable

While inner city rail capacity is far from infinite, I don't think it is squeezed nearly as tightly as CityRail in Sydney.  More logical timetabling could reduce a lot of the problems.  Limits to the number of northbound trains in the AM peak could be increased by terminating trains on the suburbans at Central rather than Bowen Hills.  That would make the principal capacity reducing movement southbound trains returning to Mayne from the suburbans via Roma St platform 7.  Couldn't these trains swap to the mains north of the Ferny Grove flyover?  Even at present 10tph operate South/West off peak and 24tph come from the North (9tph from Caboolture, 6tph from Ferny Grove, 3tph from Shorncliffe, 2tph from Doomben and 4tph from the Airport).  There is capacity on the Mains for most, but not quite all of the trains which need to use the Exhibition loop.  Increasing to 4tph off peak on Beenleigh & Cleveland would make it fit if no more trains operate from the north in the peak.

[O_128]

By 2016 the inner city rail system will be a basket case and unable to cope with the demand, one has to wonder where all of these new train sets will operate as once saturation point is reached there will not be room to operate more services regardless of how many train sets there are avaliable

While inner city rail capacity is far from infinite, I don't think it is squeezed nearly as tightly as CityRail in Sydney.  More logical timetabling could reduce a lot of the problems.  Limits to the number of northbound trains in the AM peak could be increased by terminating trains on the suburbans at Central rather than Bowen Hills.  That would make the principal capacity reducing movement southbound trains returning to Mayne from the suburbans via Roma St platform 7.  Couldn't these trains swap to the mains north of the Ferny Grove flyover?  Even at present 10tph operate South/West off peak and 24tph come from the North (9tph from Caboolture, 6tph from Ferny Grove, 3tph from Shorncliffe, 2tph from Doomben and 4tph from the Airport).  There is capacity on the Mains for most, but not quite all of the trains which need to use the Exhibition loop.  Increasing to 4tph off peak on Beenleigh & Cleveland would make it fit if no more trains operate from the north in the peak.

terminating at central would be a pain if you were going to the valley though. Though this would hugely conflcit with services ive always wanted northbound trains to do a loop via the exhibition then go to central and terminate at roma street

[Arnz]

24tph come from the North (9tph from Caboolture, 6tph from Ferny Grove, 3tph from Shorncliffe, 2tph from Doomben and 4tph from the Airport). 

You mean 26tph from the North.  Nambour is 2tph during morning and afternoon peaks.

[stephenk]

While inner city rail capacity is far from infinite, I don't think it is squeezed nearly as tightly as CityRail in Sydney.

Is it?

Sydney CityRail CityCircle (clockwise am peak) - 14tph
Sydney CityRail CityCircle (clockwise am peak) - 17tph
Sydney CityRail Eastern Suburbs & Illawara Line (Northbound am peak) - 17tph
Sydney CityRail Northshore Lines (Southbound across Harbour Bridge am peak) - 18tph
Brisbane CityTrain (Northbound Suburban am peak) - 19tph

More logical timetabling could reduce a lot of the problems.  Limits to the number of northbound trains in the AM peak could be increased by terminating trains on the suburbans at Central rather than Bowen Hills.

That's idea is not logical. Are you taking in NB trains out of service at Central and them continuing Northbound? If so, what about people travelling to Fortitude Valley or Bowen Hills? Or are you taking them out of service at Central and reversing them Southbound? That would just add to the congestion on the Southbound direction. Track layout also prohibits reversing at Central.

That would make the principal capacity reducing movement southbound trains returning to Mayne from the suburbans via Roma St platform 7.

These movements need to reduced. There are plenty of other conflicting movements which collectively limit capacity, the most obvious being Park Rd junction.

Couldn't these trains swap to the mains north of the Ferny Grove flyover?

Thats a conflicting move. These movements should be avoided.

Even at present 10tph operate South/West off peak and 24tph come from the North (9tph from Caboolture, 6tph from Ferny Grove, 3tph from Shorncliffe, 2tph from Doomben and 4tph from the Airport).

In the am peak the numbers are more like Caboolture/North Coast Line 13tph, Ferny Grove 7tph, Shorncliffe 3tph, Doomben 2tph ish, Airport 4tph.

Edit: I've just counted 27tph arriving from North at Central between 8:02am and 9:01am.

There is capacity on the Mains for most, but not quite all of the trains which need to use the Exhibition loop.

Not really. 13tph peak service. 6tph Ekka service. 19tph max capacity according to ICRCS. 13+6=19tph=no spare capacity.

[#Metro]

What a mess. You may as well dump spaghetti on the map and declare that the preferred alignment.
Future demand and network characteristics should determine what goes where.

Grade separation and sectorisation should be built in. Keeping routes and lines separate should be key.
Decentralisation to a metro like service should be considered. If there is an apocalypse on one line, all the other services can still run.
Central is getting full, and becoming a critical choke point in the network. Have another nearby city station take the load, but don't make it so far that people will wonder why the station is so far from the CBD.

[O_128]

i dont get why the line isnt aiming at areas not serviced by trains like bulimba and newfarm.

[stephenk]

i dont get why the line isnt aiming at areas not serviced by trains like bulimba and newfarm.

The Cross River Rail line has to link up with existing lines for the purpose of increasing capacity. The locations of New Farm and Bulimba are not suitable for the routing of new cross city lines. To serve these areas would result in a line with a poor cost/benefit ratio.

[#Metro]

(As a separate plan) I think that there is merit in a New Farm/Newstead-Bulimba link.
whether it be by heavy rail or some other means (light rail, busway, tramtrain, Green Bridge).

A closed loop around the inner city suburbs would form, and act as a distributor.
Cars currently go from the Story Bridge onto Shaftson Ave. A New Farm/Newstead link would have an absolute advantage over the car (and the current Cleveland Line) because it would be a direct link.

Distance Measurements
Distance Central to Oxford St (via S'Bridge) by car: 7.75 km
Distance Cannon Hill to Central (via current line/M'vale bridge) by train: 12.3 km
Distance Cannon Hill to Central via proposed direct connector # by train 1: 8 km (stations at Balmoral, Bulimba, Newstead, Valley, Central)
Distance Morningside to Central via proposed direct connector #2 by train : (one new station at New Farm): 5.4 km
Measurements are approximate, using Google Maps distance measurement tool.

It would also be consistent with the plans expressed in the Mass Transit Report.
The bizzare situation where the Cleveland line passengers have to go all the way around in an arc (12 km) to get to the CBD, would end (and increase in patronage).

At the moment these links are (partially) served by routes 227 and 232 (City-Bulimba via Storey Bdge), Route 393 and the Tennerife Ferry. It is also interesting to know that the Wilbur Smith Plan (yes, that infamous plan) had earmarked a freeway connection to run from Bulimba to New Farm (along with demolishing the Brisbane Powerhouse).

If it were viable then, it might be worth having a look at again (a PT option, not a freeway).

[somebody]

Sydney CityRail CityCircle (clockwise am peak) - 14tph
Sydney CityRail CityCircle (clockwise am peak) - 17tph
Sydney CityRail Eastern Suburbs & Illawara Line (Northbound am peak) - 17tph
Sydney CityRail Northshore Lines (Southbound across Harbour Bridge am peak) - 18tph
Brisbane CityTrain (Northbound Suburban am peak) - 19tph

CityRail capacity is generally regarded as 20tph, as they don't have the twin track/platform idea on any lines like our suburbans do.  Also, the double deck trains tend to make dwell times long in the city.  Therefore, only one of the lines mentioned has equivalent spare capacity to Brisbane

Are you taking in NB trains out of service at Central and them continuing Northbound? If so, what about people travelling to Fortitude Valley or Bowen Hills?

Yes.  The (relatively) few pax doing so could change for a frequent service.

That would make the principal capacity reducing movement southbound trains returning to Mayne from the suburbans via Roma St platform 7.

These movements need to reduced. There are plenty of other conflicting movements which collectively limit capacity, the most obvious being Park Rd junction.

Couldn't these trains swap to the mains north of the Ferny Grove flyover?

Thats a conflicting move. These movements should be avoided.

While I fully agree with your points here, you didn't propose any better alternative.  If you had some spare money you might want to build a flyover from Roma St platforms 5 & 6, but that would not be cheap.

I believe that my suggestion is the best compromise, but you could also run via Tennyson: It's just that would take more time and therefore cost more money.

Regarding Park Rd junction conflicts, the obvious way to mitigate this is to have a predictable pattern of Beenleigh line express trains running on the third track.

Edit: I've just counted 27tph arriving from North at Central between 8:02am and 9:01am.

Doesn't change the general thrust of what I'm saying.

There is capacity on the Mains for most, but not quite all of the trains which need to use the Exhibition loop.

Not really. 13tph peak service. 6tph Ekka service. 19tph max capacity according to ICRCS. 13+6=19tph=no spare capacity.

Wouldn't you just extend the existing Roma St terminators to exhibition during Ekka rather than running extra services?

[stephenk]

Are you taking in NB trains out of service at Central and them continuing Northbound? If so, what about people travelling to Fortitude Valley or Bowen Hills?

Yes.  The (relatively) few pax doing so could change for a frequent service.

Fortitude Valley is the 3rd busiest station, and Bowen Hills is the 4th/5th busiest depending on time of day. The increase in dwell time for trains being taken out of service at Bowen Hills compared to through trains is minimal. Your idea causes more inconvenience with no benefit. Seriously, some of your ideas are so illogical that they make me think that you just trying to wind up other forum members?

That would make the principal capacity reducing movement southbound trains returning to Mayne from the suburbans via Roma St platform 7.

These movements need to reduced. There are plenty of other conflicting movements which collectively limit capacity, the most obvious being Park Rd junction.

Couldn't these trains swap to the mains north of the Ferny Grove flyover?

Thats a conflicting move. These movements should be avoided.

While I fully agree with your points here, you didn't propose any better alternative.  If you had some spare money you might want to build a flyover from Roma St platforms 5 & 6, but that would not be cheap.

I believe that my suggestion is the best compromise, but you could also run via Tennyson: It's just that would take more time and therefore cost more money.

Regarding Park Rd junction conflicts, the obvious way to mitigate this is to have a predictable pattern of Beenleigh line express trains running on the third track.

A flyover from platforms 5&6 to the Ekka loop is almost impossible. There is not enough room to build a ramp unless you expect the trains to do an impression of a funicular. I'm sure if a flyover was practical it would have been suggested in the ICRCS.

To reduce the need for suburbans to cross the main tracks at Roma Street, more stabling is required on the suburbans. Suitable locations for these would be Clapham yards and Thorneside. Stabling is recommended in the ICRCS at both of these sites.

Your Park Rd junction conflict solution would not work in the pm peak, as trains accessing the 3rd track still have to make a conflicting move between South Bank and South Brisbane. Whilst good timetabling can solve some junction issues, poor infrastructure elsewhere on the network (such as single track sections and lack of reversing capacity) means that timetables cannot always make effective use of the junction. As recommended in the ICRCS (pages 126-128), a grade separated junction will eventually be required at Park Rd.

[somebody]

Fortitude Valley is the 3rd busiest station, and Bowen Hills is the 4th/5th busiest depending on time of day. The increase in dwell time for trains being taken out of service at Bowen Hills compared to through trains is minimal. Your idea causes more inconvenience with no benefit.

No benefit?  You've said yourself that headways are a function of: dwell time + platform re-occupation time + margin; and that Bowen Hills is the principal capacity constraint.  Now the attractive dwell time (0s) of running empty through Bowen Hills and more rapid platform re-occupation time, it seems obvious to me how headways are reduced.

You would still like to service FV as much as possible, though.

Seriously, some of your ideas are so illogical that they make me think that you just trying to wind up other forum members?

I wouldn't go that far.  I want to see if the overall idea can be improved into something workable.

To reduce the need for suburbans to cross the main tracks at Roma Street, more stabling is required on the suburbans. Suitable locations for these would be Clapham yards and Thorneside. Stabling is recommended in the ICRCS at both of these sites.

That would work.  But I feel it may be some time before we see Clapham stabling.  Thorneside stabling beats it in so many ways and to my knowledge the decision to proceed on that project hasn't been taken yet.

So what are you going to do in the meantime?  Continue runing to Mayne via Roma St #7?

Your Park Rd junction conflict solution would not work in the pm peak, as trains accessing the 3rd track still have to make a conflicting move between South Bank and South Brisbane. Whilst good timetabling can solve some junction issues, poor infrastructure elsewhere on the network (such as single track sections and lack of reversing capacity) means that timetables cannot always make effective use of the junction. As recommended in the ICRCS (pages 126-128), a grade separated junction will eventually be required at Park Rd.

It would be less effective in the PM peak, but (a) the AM peak is the most critical time: for some strange reason frequency is less in the PM peak. and (b) There's still some benefit for the PM peak.  It's better for capacity purposes to have two moderately congested junctions than one really congested junction and one slightly congested junction.  Of course, eventually you could need the flyover, but if the Fairfield-Bowen Hills tunel goes ahead, I'd think that would push it back a long way.

Whilst good timetabling can solve some junction issues, poor infrastructure elsewhere on the network (such as single track sections and lack of reversing capacity) means that timetables cannot always make effective use of the junction.

EDIT: Definitely agree with this point.  It definitely would have been nice to have the bi-di track at South Brisbane as the centre track and a flyover from the Cleveland line at Park Rd.

EDIT: One problem with the Clapham stabling that I didn't think of at first is that it does put more pressure on the Park Rd junction in both peaks, and more pressure on the South Brisbane junction in the PM peak.

[O_128]

one issue with terminating at bowen hills and roma street is that it eats up capacity even termianting at central would do this we need a station like  southern cross that is the end of the line for trains to terminate at.

[stephenk]

Fortitude Valley is the 3rd busiest station, and Bowen Hills is the 4th/5th busiest depending on time of day. The increase in dwell time for trains being taken out of service at Bowen Hills compared to through trains is minimal. Your idea causes more inconvenience with no benefit.

No benefit?  You've said yourself that headways are a function of: dwell time + platform re-occupation time + margin; and that Bowen Hills is the principal capacity constraint.  Now the attractive dwell time (0s) of running empty through Bowen Hills and more rapid platform re-occupation time, it seems obvious to me how headways are reduced.

You would still like to service FV as much as possible, though.

Whilst I see your argument, the benefits would not outweigh the costs. Bowen Hills is the 4/5th busiest station on the network, and the nearest station to one of Brisbane's largest employers, it would be silly for trains to non-stop there. Trains not stopping at key stations rather defeats the purpose of public transport. On the mains, Roma Street is a more headway limiting station. On the suburbans other things could be done to improve the headway through Bowen Hills such as improved signalling (if possible), and educating train crew to make speedier changeovers (within reason, as a sufficient handover is required for safety reasons).

The Northbound suburban track may be nearing it's capacity in the am peak, but some of the services still have capacity (as some services are still 3-car, and Gold Coast services are not exactly bursting at the seams upon arrival at South Bank). Maybe timetabling changes to make more efficient use of each service is required? Efficient use needs to be made of the existing track capacity before the track capacity needs to be increased. 

[somebody]

Whilst I see your argument

You were starting to get me worried there.  Next time you accuse me of being illogical, make sure I've at least said something half baked or impractical.

On the mains, Roma Street is a more headway limiting station.

I only said that northbound terminators on the suburbans could terminate at Central instead of Bowen Hills.  Obviously, for the mains that would be illogical.

On the suburbans other things could be done to improve the headway through Bowen Hills such as improved signalling (if possible), and educating train crew to make speedier changeovers (within reason, as a sufficient handover is required for safety reasons).

Or move the crew changes to Central for the suburbans.  Improved signalling would be nice.

Maybe timetabling changes to make more efficient use of each service is required? Efficient use needs to be made of the existing track capacity before the track capacity needs to be increased. 

There's probably some scope for this.

I noticed that you didn't respond on what we should do in the AM peak with Roma St terminators on the suburbans until we have the Clapham stabling.  Is there an ETA for the Clapham stabling?

[stephenk]

I noticed that you didn't respond on what we should do in the AM peak with Roma St terminators on the suburbans until we have the Clapham stabling.  Is there an ETA for the Clapham stabling?

This is a difficult one. With current infrastructure there are not a lot of alternatives to making conflicting moves across 3 busy tracks to Roma Street or 1 busy track towards Corinda/Tennyson. To avoid the conflicting moves the trains should carry on along the suburbans across the Merivale Bridge. But where can they be sent to for stabling or reversing? More stabling along the Cleveland Line (which would avoid a conflict at Park Rd), Beenleigh (preferably at Clapham as it is before the restrictive double track section), or even Beenleigh or Robina. Sadly none of this extra stabling is in place, but some of the existing stabling may still have space between the peaks? The other alternative is to reverse the services back into the city at available reversing points, which would create post peak empty runs back into the city, or maybe be incorporated into an improved shoulder-peak frequency? Again this has track/reversing capacity issues - the lack of reverse peak capacity on the Beenleigh Line being a major issue as trains cannot overtake.

Realistically to make the maximum use of the suburban tracks we need more infratructure to make the above possible - more stabling to the South of Brisbane (Thorneside, Clapham), more reversing capacity (? Manly, Kuraby), and more tracks (Cleveland duplications, Kuraby-Loganlea triplication). All of this is outlined in the ICRCS.

I don't know of a ETA for Clapham stabling, the ICRCS states that it is required by 2015. It could be implemented reasonably quickly.