Cross River Rail Project

[O_128]

Saw the consultation at Morooka today.  Seems that the current thinking is to connect the new tunnel to the mains.  Didn't think about this at the time, but that means there is no increase in capacity for trains from the north until the 5th track to Northgate is built.  The 5th track is really unnecessary if the new line attaches to the suburbans, unless the "new river crossing for the Cleveland line" is done.

Someone that worked for QR heard my suggestion for the Beenleigh line trains to route through the new tunnel, and said: "You can't do that because they wouldn't be able to continue to Ferny Grove and everyone would bitch about that."  This cracked me up, and I had to bite my tongue to refrain from making rude comments about QR.

Ive been thinking this aswell, connecting beenleigh to the tunnel and having the gold coast go via southbank would be beneficial for everyone especially as tourists use the gold coast train which would then stop at south brisbane and south bank

[somebody]

CRR1 will not help KR or CAMCOS as currently being proposed in the slightest without the 5th track to Northgate.  Only a single pair of tracks will head from Northgate, and then branch to the current mains or new tunnel.

What's funny about someone saying that is that is a completely stupid reason to say "You can't do that."  Anyone that would bitch about such a thing needs a life, or at least needs to look at the effect of the change on the overall network.  You might as well say: "You can't build CRR1 because South Bank will see less trains than they otherwise would".

No wonder Sir Joh always said "Don't you worry about that!"

Ive been thinking this aswell, connecting beenleigh to the tunnel and having the gold coast go via southbank would be beneficial for everyone especially as tourists use the gold coast train which would then stop at south brisbane and south bank

And in fact there is far more percentage in those trains going through the new tunnel and gettting it's time saving on a trip which is shorter.

[colinw]

What an extraordinary comment on the part of that QR person.  Who cares if the current system of line pairings is not retained, if the end result is faster & more frequent services.  I'd hate to see the benefit of CRR diluted for a dumb reason like that.

Then again, it would not be unprecedented for billions of dollars on new infrastructure to spent for no net increase in service.  Its happened several times already.

[somebody]

What an extraordinary comment on the part of that QR person.  Who cares if the current system of line pairings is not retained, if the end result is faster & more frequent services.  I'd hate to see the benefit of CRR diluted for a dumb reason like that.

Then again, it would not be unprecedented for billions of dollars on new infrastructure to spent for no net increase in service.  Its happened several times already.

Wish I could say that I was surprised though.

[colinw]

I get kind of grumpy about that, because I live near a shiny newly completed section of triple track with great new stations. But the service standard is no better than when I moved to the area in 1992, with bigger gaps in the morning peak and most trains are 3 minutes slower than the early '90s timetable.

I always thought that the point of an "upgrade" was to run more & better services.  In Queensland it seems to be to issue lots of "feel good" press releases, leave the service as is, and use the extra capacity & fat in the timetable to make your on-time running stats look better.

Yes, I am cynical.  Life has taught me to be that way.  And don't even get me started on he bollocks that goes on in some of the  projects I work on!

[somebody]

I get kind of grumpy about that, because I live near a shiny newly completed section of triple track with great new stations. But the service standard is no better than when I moved to the area in 1992, with bigger gaps in the morning peak and most trains are 3 minutes slower than the early '90s timetable.

You and me both.  But I get equally grumpy with Qld'ers who commend such carry ons.  I'm sorry, but that's just the way I feel.

[colinw]

Eh?  Not following sorry, who would commend such a project outcome?  (Besides a mealy mouthed Government press release).

[somebody]

Perhaps "commend" is the wrong word.  But to advocate infrastructure and then remain silent, even relatively, on services sends the same message.

[somebody]

I suppose Sydney isn't that different.  A while ago the "ECRL" went through.  This resulted in a service upgrade from 2tph to 4tph, but a number of the services don't continue to the city and you must wait 10 minutes or so for your connection.  I haven't heard too much complaining about this one.

[somebody]

If the tunnel extends past Yeerongpilly, what about the possibility of pairing the current Ferny Grove trains with a inner Beenleigh via Tennyson service?  Then the Beenleigh trains ought to be able to fit in the new tunnel without limitations so long as the tunnel portal still allows serving Moorooka.  Seems to be something of a win-win scenario actually.

(Mostly for colinw's benefit, there was a short thread along similar lines, here: http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=3646.0 )

[Golliwog]

I would prefer your suggestion somebody if the tunnel was to come up before Yeerongpilly. That way those from the outer part of the Beenleigh line can transfer there instead of at Park Rd which depending on where they are trying to get could mean back tracking. Also given the TOD going in at Yeerongpilly I think having it served by both would be optimal.

[somebody]

I would prefer your suggestion somebody if the tunnel was to come up before Yeerongpilly. That way those from the outer part of the Beenleigh line can transfer there instead of at Park Rd which depending on where they are trying to get could mean back tracking. Also given the TOD going in at Yeerongpilly I think having it served by both would be optimal.

An alternative would be a station underground at Yeerongpilly for the new line.  Either way, the new tunnel needs to not conflict with the via Tennyson line for this proposal to be a goer.

[Golliwog]

Underground at Yeerongpilly would be interesting. Would make the overpass over the road they are building now pointless as they could just put underpasses under the road in when the underground platforms are built. Possibly not though, they don't like underpasses for safety reasons.

[somebody]

One more point, although I would want interchange, even if it is not offered, the service is really no worse than at present.  Still, it would be a missed opportunity.

[mufreight]

To extend the tunnel beyond the present suggested location between Dutton Park and Fairfield achieve nothing other than to add something like another $1.5 to $2 billion to the cost of construction and at least a year to the construction timeframe and would provide a credible excuse not to proceed with the construction based on cost.
Ok the present project  is not all that everyone desires and in reality it never will be so instead of seeking all the add ons that are simply in reality beyond the budget lest get the bones of this project built and in operation, add ons can be done at a later time and in practice it might prove that they were not needed anyway.

[#Metro]

Agree with mufreight. No need for the tunnel to go all the way to Yeerongpilly.
BUT I really hope they put more tracks than just one in, one out!

[somebody]

To extend the tunnel beyond the present suggested location between Dutton Park and Fairfield achieve nothing other than to add something like another $1.5 to $2 billion to the cost of construction and at least a year to the construction timeframe and would provide a credible excuse not to proceed with the construction based on cost.
Ok the present project  is not all that everyone desires and in reality it never will be so instead of seeking all the add ons that are simply in reality beyond the budget lest get the bones of this project built and in operation, add ons can be done at a later time and in practice it might prove that they were not needed anyway.

Sorry mufreight, that part wasn't my idea.  It's something that they suggested was being considered at the CRR consultations.  The problem is that the Dutton Park/Fairfield portal requires resumptions to allow for track amplifications down to Salisbury/Bannoon.

EDIT: Thought I'd mentioned this previously, but I now see that I didn't.  Oh well.

[Golliwog]

I agree it would be way expensive, and I don't think it would actually be built like that. I was just commenting on the idea. I do like the idea of FG being paired with inner Beenleigh and run via Tennyson though. Assuming of course that the outer Beenleigh line is being run through the tunnel of course.

[somebody]

I agree it would be way expensive, and I don't think it would actually be built like that. I was just commenting on the idea. I do like the idea of FG being paired with inner Beenleigh and run via Tennyson though. Assuming of course that the outer Beenleigh line is being run through the tunnel of course.

Well, it was the cross river rail team themselves that said it was something they were looking at.

[mufreight]

Perhaps they would have saved half the costs of their scoping studies if they confined themselves to what was needed to do the job rather than numerous peripheral issues that in reality have no bearing on the delivery of the project other than to provide justification for the extended employment of needless seat polishers but provide the politicians with another report that in all probability they will never read but looks impressive.

[somebody]

But track amplifications as one project make a lot of sense.  If they didn't do it, we'd say they should as there is a need for some quadding somewhere to get the coasties off the Beenleigh line's tracks.

EDIT: I would go so far as to say that I am heartened by them doing this as one project, rather than the piecemeal efforts to date.

[colinw]

Where would resumptions be needed to quad from Fairfield to Banoon?  Most of the corridor appears to have sufficient space for four tracks, although some of the stations are a bit tight and it looks to me like that long, narrow carpark at Yeronga might have to go.

I'm also interested as to whether the plan is for 3 x suburban tracks and one dual gauge bidirectional main, or 2 x dual gauge main and 2 x suburban?  i.e. is there going to remain only a single dual gauge track?

[mufreight]

The piecemeal approach in this case is one hell of a big bit as the starter, that being the underground rail link through the CBD and under the river, get that done then sort out the problems that undoubtedly will arise as the traffic density increases rather than price the project out of the ball park with peripheral bells and whistles at this time.

[somebody]

I believe they may be thinking of laying down two more NG tracks Fairfield-Salisbury so that the DG can be left for freight + XPT.

I can only speculate on where they are thinking about resumptions, but how about:
around Fairfield station, from Venner Rd to the portal
the corner of Yeronga TAFE to Cardross St
may run through the car park at Yeronga
along Wilkie St, Yeerongpilly as this may need to be moved away from the train line
between Station Rd and Moorooka station

The above assumes that the new tracks are using the east side of the existing corridor.  It may be possible to use the west side, but I expect that to be challenging around Yeerongpilly station/Fairfield Rd.

The piecemeal approach in this case is one hell of a big bit as the starter, that being the underground rail link through the CBD and under the river, get that done then sort out the problems that undoubtedly will arise as the traffic density increases rather than price the project out of the ball park with peripheral bells and whistles at this time.

We need to make up our mind if we want to argue for them to do it once and do it right, or if we want to argue for the piecemeal approach to get them to do something.  So far, we have gone for the former option, and I support this continuing.  We cannot oppose everything.

[mufreight]

The optimum would be for two additional ng tracks as far as Sailsbury and a third line from Sailsbury to Banoon or possibly to Kuraby.
By taking the four tracks to Sailsbury it would make provision for a future ng line along the standard gauge alignment to Flagstone or Beaudesert

[Jonno]

Terminology question. What is difference between a Mains line and Suburban?

[mufreight]

Just that terminology,
Where there is more than one operating line they are termed up and down lines even when they are as is frequently the case now bi directional.,
Where there are more than two lines there still remains a need to be able to differentiate which line is which, the they may be called suburban and main, or in the case of three lines the third line might be called a relief road, when there are six adjoining lines as in Sydney they are labeled as Local up and down, suburban up and down and main up and down, then from Redfern into Central where there used to be a further four tracks the additional tracks were called up and down Illawarra suburban and up and down Illawarra main, but it is all only a logical treminology to identify the particular track.
Hope that helps a little, each system varies but the basic purpose remains the same.

[somebody]

In Brisbane, the main tracks run through platforms 5 & 6 at Central, with the suburbans through 1-4.  Not sure what the additional names for the tracks are in the Roma St-Central section where the suburbans are quadded.  These names carry through to Northgate and Corinda AIUI.

[mufreight]

Roma Street to Corinda all platforms numbered 1 and 2 are served by the up and down suburbans while platforms 3 and 4 are on the mains, as a throwback to the start of QR trains towards Ipswich are up trains and from Ipswich they are down trains, from Roma Street north trains towards the City are up trains and going away from the city they become down trains,     

[somebody]

You mean Milton to Corinda.

Does that mean at Rosewood, a city bound train is "UP" but becomes "DOWN" after it passes Ipswich?

[mufreight]

Yes

[colinw]

Roma Street to Corinda all platforms numbered 1 and 2 are served by the up and down suburbans while platforms 3 and 4 are on the mains, as a throwback to the start of QR trains towards Ipswich are up trains and from Ipswich they are down trains, from Roma Street north trains towards the City are up trains and going away from the city they become down trains,     

Are you sure?  The Line Diagrams on http://www.queenslandrail.com.au show UP as being Roma St -> Toowoomba , i.e. no change at Ipswich.

Ref: http://www.queenslandrail.com.au/NetworkServices/Documents/Southern%20Queensland%20-%20Line%20Diagrams.pdf

Specifically, Sheet 7 on page 9 of the PDF file.

I was always led to believe that - with the exception of the Kingaroy Branch - UP was towards south & west, thus Cairns to Cunnamulla via Roma St is UP the whole way.

Kingaroy is the exception - UP is from Kingaroy to Theebine (and, before the NCL, was Kingaroy to Maryborough).

cheers,
Colin

[someone who cares]

To extend the tunnel beyond the present suggested location between Dutton Park and Fairfield achieve nothing other than to add something like another $1.5 to $2 billion to the cost of construction and at least a year to the construction timeframe and would provide a credible excuse not to proceed with the construction based on cost.
Ok the present project  is not all that everyone desires and in reality it never will be so instead of seeking all the add ons that are simply in reality beyond the budget lest get the bones of this project built and in operation, add ons can be done at a later time and in practice it might prove that they were not needed anyway.

Somebodys' and MU Freights' assertion that it will cost an additional $1.5B to $2B to take the tunnel further than Fairfield to Yeerongpilly does not stand up.   The tunnelling machine will already be insitu, you are saying it will cost almost a quarter of the budget to extend the tunnel less than a fifth of the way?  Comeon.   Simon Finn, local MP, has stated that it will be more like $300m.  Obviously the figure you are quoting does not include the rebuilding of critical road infrastructure in the Fairfield to Yeerongpilly section.  Venner Road is a national road freight route.  This main road flyover must be demolished and rebuilt if the Fairfield option is chosen.  Other important roads or rail overpass' include Denham St, Park Road, Cardross St.   Also the F to Y section includes about 75 local residential streets which support great community.  Many are Demolition Control Preceints/Character listed due to the treasured 'timber and tin' houses.  Going under and not through saves these communities, so you can't say it's achieves nothing.

[mufreight]

Seems that many would rather price this project out of construction than see it built, there is room under Venner Road for an additional line, more in fact than there was under the seventeen Mile Rocks Road at Oxley for the additional two tracks that were squeezed through there.

[somebody]

Somebodys' and MU Freights' assertion that it will cost an additional $1.5B to $2B to take the tunnel further than Fairfield to Yeerongpilly does not stand up.   

I did not say that.

[colinw]

This is starting to become silly.  The corridor is plenty wide enough for four tracks most of the way, better suited than Corinda to Darra in fact.  Furthermore, in 1994-1995 when the standard gauge was dual gauged & electrified, tracks were slewed in places and full four track width portals installed to accommodate the future quadruplication.  This was clearly documented in articles at the time (read ARHS Sunshine Express from the period).

We cannot just tack on additional requirements & costs and expect this project to proceed.  It will become utterly unaffordable.

IMHO the Fairfield proposal is fine, including changes to road overbridges if necessary.  Just as was done at Mains Road, Sunnybank when the 3rd line came through to Kuraby.

No matter where the tunnel surfaces, or the corridor needs to be altered, there will be some kind of work or resumptions, and somebody will have a whinge & a moan about it.

[somebody]

This is starting to become silly.  The corridor is plenty wide enough for four tracks most of the way, better suited than Corinda to Darra in fact.  Furthermore, in 1994-1995 when the standard gauge was dual gauged & electrified, tracks were slewed in places and full four track width portals installed to accommodate the future quadruplication.  This was clearly documented in articles at the time (read ARHS Sunshine Express from the period).

We cannot just tack on additional requirements & costs and expect this project to proceed.  It will become utterly unaffordable.

IMHO the Fairfield proposal is fine, including changes to road overbridges if necessary.  Just as was done at Mains Road, Sunnybank when the 3rd line came through to Kuraby.

What exactly are you thinking of though?  An NG track on the west or east of the current tracks, with all current tracks remaining where they are?

I'm especially interested in how you think it can easily be done around the stations.

One more thing, we're only discussing that the CRR team themselves raised here.  If it's silly, then it's the CRR team which are silly.  I think it is pretty clear that they are silly to suggest that the northern end of the tunnel to the mains, although a 5th track here would mitigate that criticism.

[colinw]

Ok, my thinking goes along these lines :-

1.  The reserved corridor is wide enough for four tracks for the entire distance from Dutton Park to Salisbury.  Scroll along the line from Dutton Park to the south and you will find that the actual rail reservation is quite wide and the existing 3 tracks do not occupy anywhere near the full space already owned by QR.

2.  In some locations, earthworks will be required to cut back cuttings to the corridor boundary and put in vertical concrete retaining walls.  This is no different in nature to work that was performed between Bowen Hills to Northgate when it was quadded, e.g. here at Albion where four tracks now squeeze through a < 20 metre corridor that is narrower than Dutton Park to Salisbury.

3. The existing stations at Fairfield & Yeronga are an obstruction.  I'd suggest knocking them down entirely & rebuilding new stations similar to the Salisbury to Kuraby upgrade stations.  It is possible that there may need to be resumptions and street relocations to accommodate three or four platform stations at these locations, similar to what was done at Altandi where Gundooee St was resumed & relocated. Google maps coverage is old enough that it actually shows the work at Altandi in progress.  That long, narrow carpark at Yeronga will have to go.

4. To my way of thinking, the junction & tunnel dive should go between Dutton Park and Fairfield in this area or further north. Denham St is a nuisance, either the junction & portals will have to go north of Denham St, or Denham St under the railway will have to be closed (and Wilkins St West & East joined by an overbridge instead?)

5.  If a junction & dive between Fairfield & Dutton Park is not feasible, then we are constrained in the direction of Yeronga by the railway bridge over Park Road, and by Venner Road overbridge (which I think will need to be rebuilt for four tracks anyway).

As to whether the new track goes to the east or west, I'd say "different sides on different parts of the corridor depending on what fits".  If necessary slew the existing track as well. When Salisbury to Kuraby was tripled, the new line went on the west from Coopers Plains to Mains Road, Sunnybank, then on the east from Altandi to Kuraby. I suggest scrolling along the whole line from Salisbury to Kuraby in Google Maps, as the current imagery on there shows the triplication under construction and provides a good overview of the corridor works that were required.  Before the triplication, Salisbury to Kuraby had stations similar in nature to Fairfield & Yeronga that spanned the entire available corridor.

cheers,
Colin

[somebody]

You'd probably also need to knock down Salisbury-Moorooka.  Probably need resumptions at Yeerongpilly.  I'd like 4 platforms there.  There will need to be some track re-alignments too to fit all this in.

The highly annoying aspect is that this still means that the XPT needs to run in the wrong direction on the extra track in the AM peak.  One possible solution is running the coasties on the wrong side of the alignment (far east of 4 tracks) although I do not like this.

The other thing is that I suspect they are wanting to allow freight to use the existing DG track while adding 2 new tracks.  This is probably where the idea for the tunnel to Yeerongpilly comes in.

[mufreight]

They would have little choice but to maintain the DG in service for freight operations on both gauges, it was after all built to provide SG access to the port at Fishermans Island.
The construction of a third NG line from the tunnel portal to Yeerongpilly would provide sufficient track capacity for the present but with expected increases of traffic both from normal growth and to provide for a future passenger service along the SG alignment to Flagstone and possibly Beaudesert it would be logical and cost effective to build the four tracks from the tunnel portal, wherever it eventually is constructed, to a point beyond Sailsbury where the SG alignment heads south with an additional track continuing to Kuraby.
The problem is simply funding and if this work is added on to the CRR project it will itself inevitably be put in the can not afford basket for many more years.
Even if the infrastructure at the southern end is less than desirable the project will provide presently needed track capacity and demand will then itself force the issue.