Cross River Rail Project

[#Metro]

"The reason we chose Roma Street over Central station was because it connects with the busway network, it connects with the interstate coach network, the interstate trains," he said.

"It it is the most central location in the transport system."

In the longer-term, the Albert Street station could link to an east-west rail link, the Premier said.

Ms Bligh said that was a post-2016 option, which had not been studied in any detail.

"That would give you a loop and that might come in from Toowong through to Newstead," she said.

My thoughts exactly. 

[colinw]

Make that Indooroopilly -> UQ -> West End -> CBD -> Valley -> Newstead -> (where?) and I'd be a very happy man.

Not too thrilled with branching off at Toowong.

But that is an argument for another day ... lets get the first underground line up & running first.  Where at the "hopes & expectations" point right now.  We've been there before with inner city public transport - remember BrizTram?  The current state of play - while positive - is still very far from a "shovel ready" project with committed funding, so the game now moves to the lobbying, etc. to get the Feds on board.

If that Federal funding fails to materialise, its either a case of back to the drawing board, or say goodbye to the 2016 date as the state goes it alone with a longer running or de-scoped project at a rate that QLD alone can afford.

[somebody]

One of the other aspects of the 2026 tunnel which I don't like is the notion of looping west from after Taringa to get to the required depth to get under the river.

[colinw]

One of the other aspects of the 2026 tunnel which I don't like is the notion of looping west from after Taringa to get to the required depth to get under the river.

An issue which is neatly avoided by coming off the Ipswich line at Indooroopilly and curving away to the east to run underneath Swann Road & Carmody Road before turning toward the CBD to cross under the river roughly at Boundary St, West End, thence South Brisbane, Albert St, ...

A junction at Indoroopilly and route via St Lucia gives plenty of room to get to the required depth, and has the huge advantage of adding UQ St Lucia to the rail network with a rapid transit to UQ from CBD / South Brisbane and points Indooroopilly & south west.

[Golliwog]

Where/how would you tunnel at Indooroopilly? Being just after the river crossing you would have to go into the tunnel between Indro and Taringa, which then throws up issues as to how you could extend the line past Indro towards Kenmore as has been suggested. If it was to be continued as a tunnel, then I don't see how you would include an underground station at Indro which linked well with the existing station but could continue west without a sharp and therefore slow speed turn.

[colinw]

Golliwog raises a good point, and that may in fact be the reason why Toowong is being suggested as the junction.

My thoughts - very rough preliminary - on this are :-

1. A dive between the existing tracks toward Taringa from Indooroopilly, I'd suggest somewhere in the section of line between the Allwood St & Keating St overpasses.   Trains using this dive would use the current above ground platforms at Indooroopilly, allowing through routine of services from further out on the Ipswich line via UQ / West End.

2. An underground junction somewhere around where the new line first passes under Swann Road.  From this an underground pair of tracks will descend toward Indooroopilly, leading toward a new Indoroopilly station that is somewhat to the East & North of the present Indooroopilly station, under Coonan Street.  This station would be oriented such that it runs roughly from under the intersection of Coonan St & Belgrave/Allwood at the north eastern end through to around the intersection of Station Rd & Riverview Tce at the south western end, giving enough room for a still comparitively tight curve to the west toward the Witton Rd area thence Kenmore.

Access between old & new stations would be a roughly 120 metre underground walkway from the current Indooroopilly Station subway to the Station Rd end of the new station, and a somewhat shorter underground walkway from the Westminster Rd end of the current station toward the centre of the new station.

Again - very rough & preliminary kite flying, and the arrangment at Indooroopilly needs a lot more thought than I have given it.  Note - I would be willing to accept a less than ideal 100 metre plus pedestrian connection between new & old stations, and a tighter than ideal curve towards Kenmore, in exchange for a UQ route and Indooroopilly station that is closer to Shopping Town than the present one.

[Golliwog]

Yeah with the underground station (if they do actually extend the line towards Kenmore) I was thinking that given the area having a direct link with the current Indro station isn't 100% necessary. Even if you had it roughly parallel to and under Station Rd somewhere between the current station and the shopping center, with access only to Station Rd, given the current pedestrian subway under Coonan st to the platforms that would be fine as there wouldn't really be any roads to cross, and it would give a closer link to the shopping center (would give a better bus feeder to the rail network than the current setup).

Depending on the gradient needed they might be able to have the tunnel come up directly after the station, however that would limit which platforms trains going to/from the tunnel could access. Would the tunnel portals be able to be constructed within the current rail corridor though, or would resumptions be required? Another alternative could be to enter the tunnel near the Swann Rd overbridge as isn't the rail line there in a big cutting already so depending on the soil/rock of the cutting you could be able to just tunnel straight into the side of the cutting. Would definatly need to look at the geotechnics involved though.

[colinw]

The rail corridor is plenty wide enough in the Keating St overpass area.  Take a look at this map : Linky

In particular, note the large amount of space to the west of the current four tracks just toward Taringa from Keating St.  Then click over to the Map view and you can see that the rail easement extends right to the back of those warehouses.  Looks like more than enough room to skew the existing tracks and make room for a dive.

[somebody]

I can't see getting under Keating St if the dive starts after the Allwood St overpass, and I also can't see getting under Allwood St from Indro station.  That means the dive has to start after Keating St and then track east unless you are closing at least one of those roads.  But if you are going to Kenmore, I don't see a need for a rail connection to the existing route.

Note: The Ciana apartments shown as green space on that map have now been built.

[colinw]

Looking at the map, and where there is space in the rail corridor, you are correct that the logical place to start the dive is after Keating St.

Now the question is - what is the purpose of the 2nd underground line?  Amplification of the inner parts of the Ipswich / Springfield line, or a new corridor entirely?  If the former then you need a connection somewhere, if the latter then as you say there is no need for a track connection and the route can be engineered for an optimal Indooroopilly station location and route through to Kenmore, etc.

Remember this started with a line coming off at Toowong as suggested by the studies already performed, so I believe the current planning objective is "more tracks for the Ipswich line" and then "another underground corridor through the city".

The Indooroopilly / UQ suggestion is our own hijack of the concept. 

Oh, and thanks everyone for the interesting discussion.  

[somebody]

Now the question is - what is the purpose of the 2nd underground line?  Amplification of the inner parts of the Ipswich / Springfield line, or a new corridor entirely?  If the former then you need a connection somewhere, if the latter then as you say there is no need for a track connection and the route can be engineered for an optimal Indooroopilly station location and route through to Kenmore, etc.

Yep, the idea of the ICRCS 2026 tunnel proposal is to amplify an already quadded corridor.  I feel that a better proposal can be found for my tax dollars.

[SteelPan]

Good to see this ambitious and overdue project solidering on.  A couple of points:

1. A little disappointed only one new CBD station proposed    ONE CBD station does not a serious underground corridor make!

2. Let's not forget the 2016 project is only half the cake - let's all keep the pressure on the pollies to deliver in 2026 (or earlier).

Good to see something (probably) happening in any case!  

Also, remember, when wet-blankets are going on and on and on about the "cost of these projects" - please remind them, not to forget to trade off the cost against the positive impact to lifestyle, property values and economic stimulous benefits - they always seem to leave that bit out!

[longboi]

1. A little disappointed only one new CBD station proposed    ONE CBD station does not a serious underground corridor make!

There's no need for any more stations along the route,.this proposed station is already going to span Alice - Margret Streets. If you had any more stations you would effectively end up with less than 500m between stations which is just plain silly.

[mufreight]

Ok, we have taken a step further towards the Cross River Rail link so at this stage where is the relevance in this thread to the second underground line which is at this time not only not scheduled until 2016 but is not intended as a cross river line except by the fantasy brigade.
It would make sense that the next step in this case is to get this line built then move on to the next step rather divirt attention and funds from the present immediate needs.

[ozbob]

Cross River Rail - July update

Welcome to the July update for Cross River Rail. Our second newsletter will be distributed to more than 600,000 households, businesses and post office boxes in South East Queensland in the next couple of weeks.

Since our last update, we have finalised initial technical investigations and evaluated feedback from the community and key stakeholders to determine the preferred tunnel route and station locations for Cross River Rail.

      The preferred tunnel route and station locations

      What we know now:

      The Premier Anna Bligh has announced that the preferred tunnel route for Cross River Rail will run from a location south of the existing Dutton Park Station, connect to four new underground stations in Brisbane's inner city, and then surface in the north at the Exhibition line in Victoria Park.

      New underground stations in the CBD will be located under Albert Street and Roma Street Station, providing better access to more places in the CBD including Queen Street Mall, the Botanic Gardens, QUT and Roma Street Parklands.

      New underground stations in Woolloongabba and under the Boggo Road Urban Village have also been determined, providing important interchange opportunities with existing public transport and linking to key inner city destinations such as the Gabba Stadium and Princess Alexandra Hospital.

      What we're still investigating:

      We are interested to receive your feedback on the proposal and current investigations as we develop the reference design for the project, which will be available in late 2010.

      Initial investigations into where the tunnel could surface in the southern section of the study corridor were focused between Dutton Park and Fairfield. The outcomes of further technical and environmental investigations, as well as valuable community feedback, have led us to expand our investigations as far south as Moorooka.

      We are also considering where new surface tracks south of the tunnel entrance will be required.

      Investigations are continuing in the north about how two new train tracks north of the tunnel entrance could be incorporated into the existing Exhibition line.

      Possible upgrades to the Exhibition and Bowen Hills stations are being considered as part of the project. These upgrades would benefit people travelling to the Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital precinct.

      Once the reference design is finalised in late 2010 we will have an understanding of the project cost and what property may be required for the project.

      Consultation – get involved

      Get involved in the planning of Cross River Rail by providing feedback on the preferred tunnel route, station locations, the areas still under investigation and the potential benefits and impacts of Cross River Rail.

      Members of the project team will be available to discuss your questions and comments at the following upcoming consultation events:

Area   Date   Time   Location

South   

Saturday 24 July 2010   
9am - 12pm   Dutton Park State School
112 Annerley Road - Dutton Park

Saturday 31 July 2010   9am - 12pm   Moorooka State School
Sherley Road, Moorooka

Thursday 12 August   11am - 2pm   Fairfield Gardens Shopping Centre
180 Fairfield Road, Fairfield (smaller display)

Central   

Monday 26 July 2010   4pm - 6pm   Roma Street Station (smaller display)

Wednesday 28 July 2010   11am - 2pm   Queen Street Mall Stage

Brisbane City

Tuesday 3 August 2010   12pm - 2pm   
QUT Gardens Point - inside Main Drive entrance
George Street (smaller display)

North   

Saturday 7 August 2010   9am - 12pm
Holy Cross Catholic School40 Morris Street, Wooloowin

Thursday 12 August 2010   
5pm - 8pm   Brisbane Girls Grammar School
Gregory Terrace, Spring Hill

Alternatively, you can visit our website www.crossriverrail.qld.gov.au, email info@crossriverrail.qld.gov.au or phone 1800 462 730* to speak with a member of the project team.

      We look forward to your feedback and keeping you informed about planning for Cross River Rail.

      Kind regards


      Cross River Rail

      Department of Transport and Main Roads

      _________________________________

       Phone 1800 462 730*

      info@crossriverrail.qld.gov.au

      www.crossriverrail.qld.gov.au

      GPO Box 213 Brisbane QLD 4001

      * Free call from fixed lines in Australia. Charges may apply from pay phones and mobile phones.

[colinw]

Ok, we have taken a step further towards the Cross River Rail link so at this stage where is the relevance in this thread to the second underground line which is at this time not only not scheduled until 2016 but is not intended as a cross river line except by the fantasy brigade.
It would make sense that the next step in this case is to get this line built then move on to the next step rather divirt attention and funds from the present immediate needs.

Agree about focusing on getting stage 1 funded, but there's no need to insult people!  This is after all a discussion forum, and the purpose of "New Lines" is, and I quote, "Discussion, comments and suggestions.". It is perhaps unsurprising then that people enthusiastically use it to discuss ideas that they are interested in.

Perhaps we should move the stage 2 discussion to a separate thread and keep this one for the immediate proposal?

[O_128]

looks like the gov is moving away from the toowong-bowen hills to a toowong-newstead line so while your at it may aswell connect it to cannon hill  

[#Metro]

Toowong-Bowen Hills?
is this via West End.

Toowong-Newstead, that would be interesting... Its a good place for a rail station. Catch it while the land is still not built on.

[colinw]

looks like the gov is moving away from the toowong-bowen hills to a toowong-newstead line so while your at it may aswell connect it to cannon hill  

I very much suspect that any proposals beyond stage 1 will change quite a bit over the years as the initial project rolls and out and experience is gained with such things.  Still, it is the stage 1 project that is critical to get funded and under construction, because - in the words of the Government's own hype - it is indeed "game changing".  Without the stage 1 project there will be no paradigm shift toward rail as the principal public transport mode in Brisbane, nor will there be the momentum to  allow these ambitious later projects we dream of ...

In my opinion, funding and a decision to commit to construction of Cross River Rail will mark the turning point where Brisbane chooses rail over the current bus & busway based planning model. (Not that they don't have their place!).  The political & cultural shift that this project brings is as imporant as the actual infrastructure that it provides.

[mufreight]

The reality is that without the cross river rail link to provide additional rail capacity the entire rail commuter system will strangle itself and without additional rail commuter capacity Brisbane will descend into commuter gridlock.
The financial costs of such a situation and its effects Statewide are unthinkable, this project is a must do and if a Government does not provide this essential infrastructure this will be at the cost of that Government remaining in power.

[colinw]

The reality is that without the cross river rail link to provide additional rail capacity the entire rail commuter system will strangle itself and without additional rail commuter capacity Brisbane will descend into commuter gridlock.
The financial costs of such a situation and its effects Statewide are unthinkable, this project is a must do and if a Government does not provide this essential infrastructure this will be at the cost of that Government remaining in power.

Yep, completely agree with that.  We can't just keep bunging extra buses on congested roads, so rail HAS to take the load.

I hope the Federal Government agrees, because it'll be a long long haul if the state has to go it alone.  I'm also not encouraged by opposition rhetoric about the project to date (e.g. Langbroek on the news yesterday characterising it as a distraction, etc.).

[somebody]

Ok, we have taken a step further towards the Cross River Rail link so at this stage where is the relevance in this thread to the second underground line which is at this time not only not scheduled until 2016 but is not intended as a cross river line except by the fantasy brigade.
It would make sense that the next step in this case is to get this line built then move on to the next step rather divirt attention and funds from the present immediate needs.

Agree about focusing on getting stage 1 funded, but there's no need to insult people!  This is after all a discussion forum, and the purpose of "New Lines" is, and I quote, "Discussion, comments and suggestions.". It is perhaps unsurprising then that people enthusiastically use it to discuss ideas that they are interested in.

Perhaps we should move the stage 2 discussion to a separate thread and keep this one for the immediate proposal?

I agree with that, although the OP did mention both phases of the project.  I think that makes both phases fair game for this thread, even though phase 2 isn't so much a "cross river rail project".

[Derwan]

The thread was originally titled "Inner City Rail Upgrade Project", which incorporates both Stage 1 and Stage 2.

Stage 1 is titled "Cross River Rail", which is what the thread was renamed to when it was announced.  Stage 2 doesn't have its own name yet.

I'll leave it to Bob to decide whether to split Stage 2 into a separate thread. (I think it makes sense.) 

[colinw]

I think the thread split is a good idea.

Stages beyond the Cross River line are still highly speculative (or fantasy land), so the discussion is not really relevant to the current imperative of lobbying & support for the stage 1 line to proceed.

cheers,
Colin (who is looking forward to catching a train from Kuraby straight to the footy at the 'Gabba)

[ozbob]

Good move, CRR other than stage one --> http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=4092.0

Keep this thread now for stage one.

[ozbob]

Colin (who is looking forward to catching a train from Kuraby straight to the footy at the 'Gabba)

Me three!  I think we might be able to go direct from Darra!   

[colinw]

Me three!  I think we might be able to go direct from Darra!  

We darn well should be able to.  The run-down of the Corinda - Yeerongpilly, desirable as it is for freight, bugs the hell out of me.

If we're building a network - as opposed to a 'starfish' type system focused on journeys to the CBD - then interchanges, connections between lines, and multiple route choices are fundamental.  All of the great systems worldwide provide such journey options, and are not afraid of making people change trains (sometimes more than once).

[mufreight]

Run down as it might be at present the Tennyson line provides a factor of redundancy that allows basic services to maintained if there is disruption on either the Corinda - Roma Street or the Yeeroongpilly - Roma Street sections, a situation that will be vastly improved with the construction of the CRR link.

[colinw]

Ditto the Buranda to Dutton Park curve.  Not long after I moved to Brisbane in '89, one morning my train to the city from Wynnum was diverted to run express from Buranda to Roma St via Dutton Park & Tennyson as a result of a breakdown at Vulture St.  A good example of using routes & junctions that do not normally carry CityTrain services.  I remember thinking at the time that it was just as well the relevant legs of the junctions had been electrified even though they didn't normally carry revenue services.

[O_128]

If it is going to be toowong- newstead while your that close they may as well connect it to cannon hill a station at bulimba would also be great  

Also with Albert street station seeing as the platform will be over 200m long it would be great to have an entrance with underground link from queen street mall

[#Metro]

Ditto the Buranda to Dutton Park curve.  Not long after I moved to Brisbane in '89, one morning my train to the city from Wynnum was diverted to run express from Buranda to Roma St via Dutton Park & Tennyson as a result of a breakdown at Vulture St.  A good example of using routes & junctions that do not normally carry CityTrain services.  I remember thinking at the time that it was just as well the relevant legs of the junctions had been electrified even though they didn't normally carry revenue services.

This is true. Redundancy is very important. The costs have to be weighed against the costs (loss of time, loss of reliability, loss of public confidence) that thousands and thousands of passengers may have to wait 30-60 minutes for services to come back on.

If it is going to be toowong- newstead while your that close they may as well connect it to cannon hill a station at bulimba would also be great

Agreed, it's worth looking at. http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=3789.0

If city stations would be $100 million, would the ones in the suburbs be much much cheaper than that?

[stephenk]

Redundancy is very important.

Just a sec, in another thread you are arguing that redundancy between bus and rail routes is "wasteful competition".

[#Metro]

Fire extinguisher!

[ozbob]

From the Brisbanetimes click here!

Election year support for cross-river rail

Election year support for cross-river rail
TONY MOORE AND DANIEL HURST
July 16, 2010 - 5:23AM

Brisbane's underground rail project has the support of the federal government, but the opposition wants more details on its cost before committing to the project in the lead-up to the 2010 election.

A spokesman for federal Infrastructure Minister Anthony Albanese said the government supported the $8.2 billion cross-river rail project.

"That is why we have put $20 million towards the completion of the feasibility study in last year's budget, to try to bring this project up to the next stage," the spokesman said.

Mr Albanese's spokesman said any further federal government funding depended on the outcomes of a feasibility study to be finished in mid-2011.

"One of the things that the feasibility study is looking at is to try to get a much more accurate costing figure," he said.

The spokesman said the project had been identified by Infrastructure Australia, a body set up by the ALP government to prioritise infrastructure projects.

Coalition infrastructure spokesman Barnaby Joyce said he supported the work being done to test projects which could cut congestion in cities.

"But we can't assess its full merits at this stage because the Labor Party refuses to release the cost-benefit analysis," he said.

The National Party senator questioned the direction of Labor's infrastructure spending and criticised money spent on the ceiling insulation scheme and what he described as "overpriced school halls".

"The question Queenslanders have to ask themselves is this: Did you want insulation and school halls or a cross-river rail project?" Senator Joyce said.

"We could have built the rail from these two programs alone, and still have billions left over.

"Now what I have to do as part of the shadow infrastructure portfolio is work out how do we find the money to build the vital infrastructure Australia clearly needs."

The project needs private finance and federal and state government support.

Queensland Transport Minister Rachel Nolan said the cross-river rail plan was a "tremendously exciting" project that was driven by necessity but would also transform parts of the city.

Ms Nolan said there would come a time at which the Merivale Street rail bridge - the only river crossing for trains near the CBD - would reach full capacity.

She said rail timetables would soon be overhauled in a bid to increase capacity by adopting different stopping patterns.

"Cross-river rail is, however, the long-term solution to that capacity constraint and that's why this government is doing so much work right now in partnership with the federal government to develop the cross-river rail project," she said.

Ms Nolan said it would be the state's biggest ever infrastructure project and would only become a reality with federal government funding and private investment.

A final plan and a business case should be finalised early next year to allow a funding decision to be made, she said.

"The work around cross-river rail is happening right now," she said.

"It is happening at a very detailed level."

State opposition transport spokeswoman Fiona Simpson, who was questioning Ms Nolan at a budget estimates hearing in parliament yesterday, suggested the rail network could reach capacity before the project was completed.

Ms Simpson said the state government first announced a feasibility study for the project in 2005 but the process was still ongoing.

[longboi]

Fire extinguisher!

Stephenk isn't flaming you, he is asking a legitimate question. So far you have stated that bus commuters should be funnelled onto rail services which clearly would not be able to cope and then stated its important to have alternatives. What is your position?

[frereOP]

Seems to me that so long as we continue to expand the existing rail network - underground or overground - the issues of timetabling and congestion will be with us.

The CRRP is needed to alleviate current and future congestion, but talk of other lines (Toowong to Newstead etc) should be on the basis of a Metro-style subway, not an extension of the existing QR Citytrain network.  Rob Dow talks about "BUZification of rail" but this can't happen when timetabling issues restrict the number of trains per hour on given lines - trains will still have to sit and wait for switching and signaling issues.  You can only "BUZify" services that operate on an end-to-end basis like bus routes, subways or ferry services.  It is easy to slot new services in as hardware (buses, trains, ferries) becomes available which is how upgrades to the current City-Cat and "BUZ" services are proceeding.

Any new lines should be end-to-end subway style services that can be easily expanded to meet demand (ie BUZified) and that link in (interchange) with existing bus, train and ferry services.  We simply can't have a situation where more buses are added to address public transport demand because they only add to the congestion, or added QR Citytrain services which are hamstrung in years to come by the very issues that make the CRRP necessary.  Buses are not the answer because places like the Queen St  Bus Station are already approaching (if not at) full capacity now.  We need to think outside the box because this is a VERY long term investment that underpins the very development potential of the inner city itself.  We need subways, not Busways or Clem7's etc.

Oh, and while I'm at it, we also need a direct high speed airport-city link.  The current Airtrain takes 22 mins (on a good day) for a trip that should take about 10.  Lets take a leaf out of London and Singapore and get the kind of Airport-City public transport link we really need.

[colinw]

Fire extinguisher!

Stephenk isn't flaming you, he is asking a legitimate question. So far you have stated that bus commuters should be funnelled onto rail services which clearly would not be able to cope and then stated its important to have alternatives. What is your position?

I think stephenk had a valid point, so I'm jumping in here with my own opinion.

I do not see parallel bus & rail services as a bad thing, provided they are timetabled to be complementary services rather than competing services.  The reason why this kind of operation has a bad name in Brisbane is because for a long time Brisbane Transport & QR have been effectively set up to compete with each other (even if the rhetoric being issued by the pollies & TransLink says otherwise). The reality in Brisbane is that the vast majority of potential bus/rail interchange points outside of the CBD are dysfunctional.

A bus service paralleling a rail line, as happens particularly in the inner Ipswich line area, provides a level of redundancy and choice of service that will attract more people to public transport than either mode alone.

A parallel bus service will be able to provide stops - access to the system - at many locations along a corridor that rail cannot, as rail services are more effective if the stations are not too closely spaced. (Aside: many Brisbane lines have stations too close together - I'd actually consider culling some stations).

While the ideal is frequent and fast rail with feeder buses, the reality in Brisbane is that the rail system does not carry even half of the public transport load, and does not yet have the capacity to cope if you suddenly funneled a majority of the suburbs to CBD trips that are on bus into the rail system.  The chaos at the Roma St & Central go card gates alone would render this idea comical at present, not to mention the fact that the rail capacity to take the extra patronage simply doesn't exists.

Therefore my position is that I am in favour of a dual mode rail/bus public transport system - eventually tri mode (bus/rail and light rail).  I would like to see overt competition between bus & rail eliminated in favour of complementary service, and I would like to see rail and bus-rail co-ordination developed over the years so that rail can progressively take over the line haul function.  But this is a work that will take years, and cannot simply be imposed by decree without causing chaos.

cheers,
Colin

[somebody]

Rob Dow talks about "BUZification of rail" but this can't happen when timetabling issues restrict the number of trains per hour on given lines - trains will still have to sit and wait for switching and signaling issues. 

Beg to differ.  These should be able to be timetabled out of the system.  Yes, they can still happen when trains run late, but they should be able to improve this even if it isn't achievable to eliminate it entirely.

Any new lines should be end-to-end subway style services

Not sure what you mean, but any new line needs to be a QR style line.  We don't need two different styles of rail network.

Buses are not the answer because places like the Queen St  Bus Station are already approaching (if not at) full capacity now. 

No it isn't, it's underutilised.  E.g. stops B3 & A10 are completely unused.  Stop A3 has a 200 every 7 mins in peak - underutilised.  I expect every other stop in QSBS has headways less tight than every 5 minutes in peak except for A8.

Oh, and while I'm at it, we also need a direct high speed airport-city link.  The current Airtrain takes 22 mins (on a good day) for a trip that should take about 10. 

I would agree with this but it is too late to go back and fix it now.  If I were management of the Airtrain business I would have pretty grave misgivings about the viability of the business after the Airport Link opens.

[#Metro]

Stephenk isn't flaming you, he is asking a legitimate question. So far you have stated that bus commuters should be funnelled onto rail services which clearly would not be able to cope and then stated its important to have alternatives. What is your position?

I'll see if I can look up info on this.
What are the capacity constraints for each line in maximum tph? What is the minimum safe signal headway?
For example only, would it be technically possible to run trains on the Ipswich line every 5 minutes during peak hour and every 7.5 minutes in the off peak? Why/Why not? What about every 10 minutes all day?
IMHO the rail system does need major upgrade, something that will not happen so long as the focus is on more buses.

There should be some capacity available in the system, especially during the off peak times when trains on many lines run at just two services every hour.

Rob Dow talks about "BUZification of rail" but this can't happen when timetabling issues restrict the number of trains per hour on given lines - trains will still have to sit and wait for switching and signaling issues.  You can only "BUZify" services that operate on an end-to-end basis like bus routes, subways or ferry services.  It is easy to slot new services in as hardware (buses, trains, ferries) becomes available which is how upgrades to the current City-Cat and "BUZ" services are proceeding.

I agree. What signaling system is in use currently and would it be possible to upgrade it to one that allowed more trains. We have made major investments in buses and busway (billions), why not some money for whole-of-rail network?

I don't agree on the need for end to end, separate and self contained, but it would be helpful if we were starting from scratch. IIRC, there are metro systems that are not self-contained but are still reliable. I don't have time right now to see which ones, but Chicago springs to mind.

It may be possible to convert QR's CityTrain network with upgrades (that it deserves) to a more metro style service. Melbourne wants to be a real metro.

[colinw]

Any new lines should be end-to-end subway style services

Not sure what you mean, but any new line needs to be a QR style line.  We don't need two different styles of rail network.

I completely agree with somebody.  The last thing Brisbane needs is resources split between CityTrain and a new startup metro system.  Far better to upgrade the infrastructure we have to support metro level turn up and go services.

If Brisbane is to get another style of rail network besides QR, it should be surface light rail, and complementary to the QR system.  A metro would simply dilute our spending & efforts and lead to a substandard outcome

Oh, and while I'm at it, we also need a direct high speed airport-city link.  The current Airtrain takes 22 mins (on a good day) for a trip that should take about 10.  

I would agree with this but it is too late to go back and fix it now.  If I were management of the Airtrain business I would have pretty grave misgivings about the viability of the business after the Airport Link opens.

I actually think Airtrain is more than good enough if it was timetabled sensibly and didn't cut out ridiculously early at night.  It is, however, a shame it isn't integrated into the TransLink fare structure - it is a premium fare for an ordinary suburban rail service.

Brisbane is a very long way indeed from needing a Heathrow Express style rail service.