Cross River Rail Project

[petey3801]

Question for Metro:
Why do you say the introduction of NGR will make extra capacity on the current network, thereby pushing the need for CRR back? If anything, NGR full introduction will bring forward the need for CRR fairly significantly as it will be increasing the number of trains on the network (increase fleet size of 30% allowing more services to run).

[#Metro]

Well, it depends on the vehicle.

Do the NGR trains carry more or less capacity than the train models already in use on the Gold Coast line?

[aldonius]

Well, it depends on the vehicle.

Do the NGR trains carry more or less capacity than the train models already in use on the Gold Coast line?

If there are more people, where are they being put?

Gold Coast services are long distance, therefore it can't be from making short distance passengers stand. (That only works if there are somehow fewer short-distance services running, freeing up slots for long distance - and requires the short distance services to have appropriately configured seating.)

I guess making the trains through-walkable implies another 20 people or so per train.

A substantial win would be upgrading any remaining peak-direction 3 car services to 6 car. I don't have a sufficiently detailed knowledge of the timetable to say what that would gain.

[petey3801]

Any train capacity increase in an NGR vs current stock would be minimal, likely in the range of 10-12 pax per train IMO. The real capacity increase will be making current 3 car trains in to 6car trains, but that is going to happen regardless of whether CRR gets up or not and will (should) be done years before CRR is finished, even if CRR started being built today. (Plus, many of those peak hour 3 car trains are chockers as it is, so the extra 3 cars of capacity will be used up very quickly with little room for growth anyway).

[BrizCommuter]

Question for Metro:
Why do you say the introduction of NGR will make extra capacity on the current network, thereby pushing the need for CRR back? If anything, NGR full introduction will bring forward the need for CRR fairly significantly as it will be increasing the number of trains on the network (increase fleet size of 30% allowing more services to run).

Even with the additional NGR trains compared to the EMUs, the existing infrastructure will not be being used at maximum capacity. For example in the pm peak, many lines are running at 50-75% of maximum line capacity (e.g. Ipswich and Springfield Lines are running 5tph instead of max 10tph, or Gold Coast and Ferny Grove Lines are running 6tph instead of max 8tph). The extra NGR will allow for some more services, but quite a few more than the order are required to maximise use of the existing network.

[#Metro]

I haven't been paying attention because I always thought they would be 9 car trains in the end.

9 car trains then are not on the cards.

So why was that? Is it because they would reduce the benefits?

Interesting to know if a combination of signaling and 9 car trains could substitute.

[petey3801]

PM peak certainly has more capacity available than AM peak, but it will still mean AM peak is basically maxed out.
9 car trains are fairly pointless on the current network. CRR is the catalyst for a small amount of 9 car running, mainly on the Gold Coast line, where not a lot of expenditure would be required to enable it (along with CRR). Shouldn't be anything preventing the NGRs being beefed up to 9 cars in the future if required, but with the current network (particularly the inner city), there is no point.

[Gazza]

Not really, much of the reason for building CRR is to allow new lines to built, so its not at all rubbery to count these benefits, since the long term vision is a well connected SEQ with rail access to Maroochydore, Trouts Rd, Beadesert etc.

When viewed alone, CRR may look skinny in the CBR, but the whole rail vision would be much stronger.

Disagree. A new line and major development out to Flagstone is speculation at the moment and not at all a certainty (unlike say, Springfield or Sunshine Coast).

I would also consider that money would or should be allocated to the Sunshine Coast before a spur line to Flagstone etc.

The second person on this paper is from Brisbane City Council

http://atrf.info/papers/2016/files/ATRF2016_Full_papers_resubmission_181.pdf

In the early-mid 2000s, the CrossRail project in London demonstrated the increase in project
net worth from adding Wider Economic Benefits (WEBs), in particular the benefits from
agglomeration, as derived from the application of new economic geography.
Since CrossRail and with the adoption of United Kingdom (UK) Treasury style 'Business
Case' evaluations in Australia and New Zealand (NZ), the augmentation of benefits for
WEBs in major transport evaluations has become the norm. Nevertheless, despite
approaching ten years of 'practice', WEBs remain poorly understood and not universally
accepted.

The criticisms of WEBs largely concern the validity of the assumptions and their estimation
and application in specific evaluations. For agglomeration benefits, there is confusion over
'static' versus 'dynamic' agglomeration, the concept of effective density, the direction of
causality between transport interventions and agglomeration, the agglomeration elasticities
and the measurement of transport cost. There is also insufficient understanding of the
vertical structure of industries and the inter-relationships between economic activities
including government. Dynamic agglomeration has, for modelling convenience, largely been
assumed away. However the relationship between land use and density and constraints on
land use can be argued to decouple the relationship between transport and the
agglomeration.

In NZ, static agglomeration WEBs have been accepted into the 'official' evaluation
framework. In Australia, Infrastructure Australia's framework requires the exclusion of WEBs
in the central case evaluation with their inclusion as sensitivity tests to add 'texture'.
This paper reviews the basis and application of WEBs and summarises some of the major
studies in Australia and NZ where they have been applied. The aim of the paper is to
stimulate a debate on whether or not WEBs should be used, and help guide where further
research could be undertaken to improve their accuracy and applicability.

But Lapdog, if there isn't some sort of ambition to open new lines then CRR has little reason to exist....You could deal with peak hour growth by just upgrading signalling in the medium term.

Much of the reason for CRR is because if you open a new tine then that is at least 6-8tph you need to allocate straight up.

[HappyTrainGuy]

9 car trains are only planned for the Sunshine Coast-Gold Coast thru services possibly but not needed in connection with a trouts road corridor when higher capacity is needed over frequency. Most stations on said stopping pattern would require minimal upgrades. CRR is what will enable it as the inner city currenty does not have the room to upgrade to 9 car length platforms and thats before you start with other platforms on all stopping lines. That's well down the line.

[#Metro]

But Lapdog, if there isn't some sort of ambition to open new lines then CRR has little reason to exist....You could deal with peak hour growth by just upgrading signalling in the medium term.

Much of the reason for CRR is because if you open a new tine then that is at least 6-8tph you need to allocate straight up.

I think you have just stated the crux of IA's concerns.

IF a new line to Flagstone etc was a serious possibility, did the Queensland Government include that in the business case or as a supplement to it to back up its case? Y/N

It is hard to tell as we have only ever been drip-fed music videos with animated fluorescent wiggly lines snaking across maps and given "the summary" of things rather than the actual whole business case.

My understanding is that a line out to Flagstone etc is just an idea at this stage, and no serious costing/planning/route alignment or political commitment is there to back it up.

IA is not going to pay ~ $3 BN on the basis of a "maybe".

What the Queensland Government must prove is that a combination of ETCS and higher capacity trains (9-car trains) is insufficient to meet demand over the next, say, 30 years.

They need to show that spending say $5 BN on signalling upgrades, 9-car NGR trains and platform upgrades and or DOO is not enough. They also need to show that previous proposals are inferior (CRR1, CRR2/BaT and The Cleveland Solution).

If the Queensland Government can demonstrate this, then I am confident that the business case can be redone and submitted within a reasonable time.

If these things can be demonstrated, then RBOT can certainly take IA to task over these points.

[HappyTrainGuy]

Question for Metro:
Why do you say the introduction of NGR will make extra capacity on the current network, thereby pushing the need for CRR back? If anything, NGR full introduction will bring forward the need for CRR fairly significantly as it will be increasing the number of trains on the network (increase fleet size of 30% allowing more services to run).

Even with the additional NGR trains compared to the EMUs, the existing infrastructure will not be being used at maximum capacity. For example in the pm peak, many lines are running at 50-75% of maximum line capacity (e.g. Ipswich and Springfield Lines are running 5tph instead of max 10tph, or Gold Coast and Ferny Grove Lines are running 6tph instead of max 8tph). The extra NGR will allow for some more services, but quite a few more than the order are required to maximise use of the existing network.

On the Caboolture/Petrie line pre 2010 overcrowding was crazy on particular services because of the random stopping patterns. When the timetable changed suddenly trains that were running empty because passengers were waiting 2-3 minutes for the express service suddenly had people on it. The all stopping Northgate-City saw passengers migrate to the Nambour, Caboolture and Petrie services because it was closer to the parking lots at Albion and Wooloowin. Suddenly there was crush loadings until the train got to Eagle Junction where 3/4 of every train emptied out compared to Bowen Hills. The airport train ran empty. As too did the Doomben services and the Shorncliffe services were pretty relaxed. When the express running was returned trains going on the mains are now evenly loaded. Still plenty of room for extra capacity onboard the trains and spaces to run more on the tracks. There might be a slight reduction in services in the number of trains but the capacity is still there - at least for the MBRL/CBL/SCL.

[Gazza]

Yes, maybe the business case for CRR would be stronger if there was a clear pipeline for extensions to make use of the oodles of capacity, or at least BCR calculations for if the proposed lines in whatever the current transport plan is.

Eg scenario 1, CRR
Scenario 2, CRR with camcos, flagstone
Scenario 3 etc.

Its a complicated issue, and IA aren't seeing the big picture.... Obviously if you just plonk CRR in the current network the additional capacity would be barely used (Rather extra trains gradually added) and the travel time savings are minimal.

[ozbob]

https://twitter.com/CrossRiverRail/status/890690596074962945

[ozbob]

Couriermail --> Editorial: Infrastructure Australia Cross River Rail rejection report loses credibility

IT is hard to place a lot of credibility in a document evaluating a major infrastructure project that cannot get basic geographical features right.

Yet Infrastructure Australia's initial seven-page dismissal of Queensland's business case for the Cross River Rail project, the worst errors have since been rectified, looks as though it was written by someone who has never visited Brisbane, let alone understands the lie of the land and the emerging pressures on public transport the city faces.

Surely a Federal Government body charged with assessing the viability of multibillion-dollar, nation-building investments has the skill sets necessary to read a map, rather than inventing suburbs such as "Hill Gate"? Surely an organisation that can make or break billions of dollars of investment knows where the Brisbane CBD is?

We can cut it some slack, within a block or two perhaps, but, seriously, publishing a map in a report rejecting the business case for a $5 billion project that puts the city centre on the wrong side of the river?

Perhaps Queensland voters should not be surprised that such a shoddy report is in keeping with the equally shoddy treatment the state receives when it comes to federal funding.

There is a long history of Queensland going begging and having to delay or can projects, or further stretch tight budgets to self-fund them, while billions of dollars are poured in the direction of states where the money might generate more political capital, irrespective of the economic and social benefit.

The Auditor-General earlier this year delivered a damning report on funding for the $17 billion WestConnex project in Sydney (the biggest infrastructure project since the Harbour Bridge). In particular, it singled out a $1.5 billion funding commitment before a business case was complete, and questioned generous concessional loans.

In Victoria, the now-canned East West Link (first stage $6 billion in a total cost of at least $15 billion) received a large lick of funding from the Abbott government despite not even submitting a business case. In fact, it has since emerged that the then Napthine government in Victoria decided against submitting a formal business case to Infrastructure Australia because it "may be used as a justification for not supporting the project".

Yet the billion dollar cheques from the Federal Government are forthcoming, and keep flowing elsewhere, few questions asked. Perth receives equally generous funding for MetroNet, and Adelaide receives $50 billion in submarine contracts.

Meanwhile in Queensland we struggle to get a fair go from Canberra when it comes to paying their agreed share of National Disaster Relief and Recovery Arrangements funding for the damage caused by Cyclone Debbie. This is not largesse for shiny new roads with a dubious cost-benefit equation, or hugely expensive warships, but simply enough money to help rebuild existing infrastructure destroyed by the sort of super storm that those in Canberra and Sydney would never experience beyond a television news report.

In Queensland we have wrangled with successive governments for years about Cross River Rail, a project that will help underwrite the viability of southeast Queensland's public transport plan for decades to come.

As Deputy Premier Jackie Trad argued this week, additional information requested by IA had not been included in its final analysis. Further it would appear that the body is basically telling Queensland that the project should not proceed until Queensland Rail reaches a crisis point in the network, with patronage figures increasing to 150 per cent of seated capacity.

The bottom line is this is a project that will reshape Brisbane and deliver for generations to come. It will bring with it urban renewal, less congestion and clean transport, not to mention jobs and ancillary investment.

In fact, it is the sort of long-term thinking, soon to be a necessity, that the Sydney Harbour Bridge investment represented in 1923, or the Snowy Mountains scheme in 1949. As a nation, perhaps we should be thankful that the Federal Government and Infrastructure Australia were not assessing those projects at the time.

" ... As Deputy Premier Jackie Trad argued this week, additional information requested by IA had not been included in its final analysis. Further it would appear that the body is basically telling Queensland that the project should not proceed until Queensland Rail reaches a crisis point in the network, with patronage figures increasing to 150 per cent of seated capacity.  .. "


I will say it one more time.  This IA charade assessment is nothing but slick politics designed to give Nicholls et al a ' get out of jail card '.
Sadly for the LNP the charade is being recognised now by most, and Nicholls himself is now wedged between the LNP BCC with Brisbane Metro and the ALP with CRR.  The LNP State Opposition are bereft of any serious transport policy.  They have lost a real opportunity to establish themselves as real players after their last effort in Government and garner lost votes, and will now pay the price.

[#Metro]

" ... As Deputy Premier Jackie Trad argued this week, additional information requested by IA had not been included in its final analysis. Further it would appear that the body is basically telling Queensland that the project should not proceed until Queensland Rail reaches a crisis point in the network, with patronage figures increasing to 150 per cent of seated capacity.  .. "

1. So what information was Jackie Trad referring to specifically? (Unseen information again)

2. This is the relevant section. IA is questioning the timing and capacity constraints. 100% seems to mean everyone seated, and over that means some standing passengers. It is worth noting that at peak hour there will always be standing passengers. This is why QR measures overcrowding based on the proportion of people who are standing after 20 minutes journey time. A full train that is packed like a sardine can is not classed as overcrowded the moment it leaves the platforms at Central.

Modelling for 2036 shows that extensive sections of the network south of the CBD will have maximum loadings
over 150% of seats during the morning peak. This indicates that capacity constraints would likely become apparent
sometime between 2026 and 2036. However, if patronage growth is lower than currently forecast, capacity issues
will take longer to materialise. As set out in Section 6 below, Infrastructure Australia considers that current
patronage projections are well in excess of rates of growth previously achieved in Australia over an extended
period.

http://infrastructureaustralia.gov.au/news-media/media-releases/2015/2015_03_05.aspx

[Gazza]

So the answer is to do a patronage projection with the peak hour loadings of new lines added in.

Since the justification for CRR is to enable a rail revolution to occur.

http://statements.qld.gov.au/Statement/Id/71316
The 20 year plan outlines 207km of new railway lines including:

15km rail line between Alderley and Strathpine using the predominantly government-owned North West Transport Corridor
Extensions to Maroochydore (38km), Coolangatta (17km), Moreton Bay Rail Link (12.6km), Springfield (16.5km), Ripley (13.5km) and Flagstone (31.5km)
Extending the Gold Coast Rapid Transit project on the Gold Coast to Coolangatta.

[BrizCommuter]

PM peak certainly has more capacity available than AM peak, but it will still mean AM peak is basically maxed out.
9 car trains are fairly pointless on the current network. CRR is the catalyst for a small amount of 9 car running, mainly on the Gold Coast line, where not a lot of expenditure would be required to enable it (along with CRR). Shouldn't be anything preventing the NGRs being beefed up to 9 cars in the future if required, but with the current network (particularly the inner city), there is no point.

PM peak is currently maxed out by train utilisation, but not train services. The AM peak is maxed out in train utilisation (many 3-car services) but with limited scope for more peak of peak services. There is however scope for increasing the frequency of shoulder peak services (in particular earlier) to encourage users away from peak of peak services.

[kram0]

Some feedback from the state opposition, from an earlier email. I will also attach my response to his email.

Mark

Thank you for your email and I apologise for the delay in responding.

Deputy Leader Deb Frecklington has been stating that the LNP fully supports the need for a second river crossing in inner city Brisbane. However, it is becoming increasingly apparent that the assumptions being made by the government for Cross River Rail are flawed and the independent federal agency Infrastructure Australia has agreed.

IA said in the Project Evaluation Assessment "Infrastructure Australia considers that the benefits of the proposed project, as set out in the business case, are significantly overstated, and that the costs of the project as currently presented are likely to exceed its benefits." If the Cross River Rail Business Case stacks up, the Labor Government should release it in full so that you and I, along with industry and experts, can assess the assumptions being made.

There are significant doubts about the patronage projections which haven't been based on actual patronage data and growth. The actual patronage data shows there are 10 million less people on the trains a year compared to 2008. Further, the estimated passenger load on the Merivale bridge is only 65% of the seated capacity and 41% of the design capacity. If we look only at the Capital Costs for the project, the $5.4 billion still doesn't include extra trains (the current new generation rolling stock program is for replacing the existing fleet and maximising the existing capacity).

This is still too expensive to get wrong and we need to the get the infrastructure solution right.

Thank you for your correspondence.

Sincerely

Nelson Savanh
Policy Advisor
Office of the Leader of the Opposition
Level 7, Mineral House, 41 George Street, BRISBANE QLD 4000
PO Box 15057, CITY EAST QLD 4002

_SE18_Email Signature


Date: 14 June 2017 at 22:49:01 AEST

Dear Tim

I am contacting you to gain an understanding on where the state LNP party stand on Cross River Rail.

I am a strong supporter, particularly in the past of the LNP at both State and Federal level. I have helped campaign in the past for my then local member Andrew Lamming at federal level.

I have always kept a close eye on major infrastructure projects in Brisbane, but having moved to the inner city suburb of Yeronga 5 years ago, I have taken a detailed look at the Cross River Rail project and the benefits it offers.

This is a project I strongly believe needs to go ahead, especially considering the limited access available to the CBD from existing stations.

Other key reasons this key infrastructure is needed include the under construction Queens Wharf, The Brisbane Quarter and the planned Brisbane Live development (which the LNP have publicly supported). In addition to this the ongoing delays and limited growth potential the current network has, highlights even further that cross river rail is needed now.

Over the last few days, I have seen yourself and other members of the LNP party degrade this project in particular the costings behind it. Under then Campbell Newman's LNP government, the BAT project had an estimated construction cost of $5-6B.

Why then did the LNP never talk about the total operating costs over the life of the project, but now the Labor government are talking about cross river rail's construction cost of $5.6B, the LNP are quick to mention total operational costs over the life of the project?

Can you please provide me with the LNP's plans for what I and many believe is a critical piece of infrastructure for South East Queensland and one that should be operational within 6 years with no political interference.

A straight forward response with the politics taken out would be much appreciated.

Thank you in advance for your response, I look forward to hearing from you.

Kind Regards

[kram0]

My response to Nelson


Dear Nelson

Thank you for your response. We agree on one thing, Brisbane and South East Queensland certainly needs another rail crossing. The thing we don't agree on is the timing and approach. The amount of studies, investigations and money thrown at looking into options over the last 10+ years on a second rail crossing is embarrassing. While I also have a level of scepticism on many reports that are released from all levels of government, one thing we do need is Cross River Rail. We need to look past the cost and look at the greater benefits it will offer to the economy. Isn't it funny how only a few short years ago, Cross River Rail was the number one project on Infrastructure Australia's list of projects. The two major parties are playing politics at the expense of the economy and travelling public.

For a city the size of Brisbane to have one major station in Central servicing the CBD is ridiculous. While it might have been sufficient in the past, with all the major developments either existing, under construction or planned for the south eastern part of the CBD (Queens Wharf Casino, Brisbane Sky Tower, 1 William St etc), this highlights to me we need Cross River Rail now!! The option the Labor government have put to the people of Queensland will provide additional city stations (like in Sydney and Melbourne) while also reducing significantly travel times into and out of the CBD. There are a number of major organisations and business leaders that support this project such as RACQ and the Infrastructure Association of Queensland and Brisbane City Council to name a few. It is worth noting Cross River Rail will also integrate into Brisbane City Council's Metro Bus project very well with both services complementing each other to provide an even more efficient transport network.

I understand and respect your comments with regards to passenger loads on the Merivale Bridge being only at 65% of capacity, but this is due to a number of failing from both previous Labor and LNP governments with cutting corners and reducing funding on public transport in South East Queensland, leading to a decline in patronage. There is a fine line to be taken to not p%ss off the traveling public with balancing the number of frequencies per hour, with the number of people on board each train. Overcrowded trains leave to frustrated commuters as we have seen on the Gold Coast line. Brisbane already has one of the fewest number of services per hour in peak and off peak, out of the capital cities in Australia. While I only use the network 2-3 times per week, it is very common to catch a late afternoon service from Central back to the suburb of Yeronga where I live, and for this journey to be delayed 5-10 minutes due to the service I am on following other services out of the CBD to the South and Eastern parts of Brisbane.

With the population growth planned for South East Queensland and the additional areas of the city that are likely to be serviced by metropolitan rail in the next 10+ years (such as Flagstone and Redbank) it is paramount that we start the construction of Cross River Rail immediately to facilitate these additional services. This is highlighted further with the lengthy timeframe of construction which is approximately 6 years. The landscape of South East Queensland will change dramatically in the next 5-10 years, and while we have a history in Australia of waiting until the 11th hour to tackle bottlenecks on our road and rail networks, it would be nice to actually be ahead of the problem and be prepared for the future.

While it pains me to say this, unless I see the Queensland LNP supporting the immediate start of Cross River Rail, and by putting the politics to one side and putting the jobs, travelling public and economic growth of Queensland first, I simply cannot support the LNP at the next State Election.

Please don't hesitate to contact me to discuss.

Kind Regards

[petey3801]

They need to show that spending say $5 BN on signalling upgrades, 9-car NGR trains and platform upgrades and or DOO is not enough. They also need to show that previous proposals are inferior (CRR1, CRR2/BaT and The Cleveland Solution).

9 car trains won't happen until after CRR has been constructed, as has already been said several times.
Signalling upgrade will delay the CRR requirement for a short time, but not by much. I wouldn't expect any more than 4 extra slots per hour, per direction through the City with ETCS L2.
What does DOO have to do with track capacity?  Platform upgrades to have all level boarding might save a couple seconds per station, but unlikely to make any material difference in the amount of available track slots.

PM peak is currently maxed out by train utilisation, but not train services. The AM peak is maxed out in train utilisation (many 3-car services) but with limited scope for more peak of peak services. There is however scope for increasing the frequency of shoulder peak services (in particular earlier) to encourage users away from peak of peak services.

Pretty much, yeah. But the problem (AM peak) is getting more people interested in using the shoulder peak period trains, but even then, there is limited extra capacity even in the shoulder peak, much of which will be taken up by the full introduction of NGR (plus, hopefully the top up order that has been talked about!).

[tazzer9]

I don't understand the fascination with 9 car trains.   Each weekday, every 6 car train only gets to capacity at most 4 times.   Most would only get maxed out 2x.   Gold coast and Sunshine coast lines have plenty of room for service expansion once CRR and trouts road come to fruition.  That's excluding any extra track amplification north of petrie or along the beenleigh line.  The overwhelming majority of the time, our trains are running mostly empty, and that is also with plenty of track capacity to spare.


Simple short term fix to the Gold coast and sunshine coast lines is having peak hour frequencies start and end earlier.  This is dependent upon extra stabling at woombye.   Even having a afternoon gympie service would help alot.   

[ozbob]

^^^ thanks kram0

It really is disappointing that politics continues to stuff public transport in Queensland.  Other states have their acts together and are getting their constituencies ready for the transport demands of the future.

Like you, I find it impossible to consider supporting LNP with their stance on Cross River Rail.  The State LNP's previous public transport initiatives in this area have basically been idiotic thought bubbles.  I am sure there will be more thought bubbles in time rolled out for #qldvotes.

[ozbob]

https://twitter.com/CrossRiverRail/status/890789180459974656

[HappyTrainGuy]

I don't understand the fascination with 9 car trains.   Each weekday, every 6 car train only gets to capacity at most 4 times.   Most would only get maxed out 2x.   Gold coast and Sunshine coast lines have plenty of room for service expansion once CRR and trouts road come to fruition.  That's excluding any extra track amplification north of petrie or along the beenleigh line.  The overwhelming majority of the time, our trains are running mostly empty, and that is also with plenty of track capacity to spare.


Simple short term fix to the Gold coast and sunshine coast lines is having peak hour frequencies start and end earlier.  This is dependent upon extra stabling at woombye.   Even having a afternoon gympie service would help alot.

The reason for them is because you can then absorb many routes into a single or couple routes, keep the frequency lower (long vs short haul), keep bottlenecks from forming with and without other associated infrastructure upgrades such as a trouts road corridor to increase capacity going into the city.

For example with CRR and 9 car trains you can run a very similar timetable to now even with a camcos extension/NCL realignment with Caboolture services being extended to camcos with express Petrie-Exhibition running. Nambour services becoming a shuttle service to Landsborough with any peak hour running to/from the city as a 6 car service.

[#Metro]

The reason for them is because you can then absorb many routes into a single or couple routes, keep the frequency lower (long vs short haul), keep bottlenecks from forming with and without other associated infrastructure upgrades such as a trouts road corridor to increase capacity going into the city.

For example with CRR and 9 car trains you can run a very similar timetable to now even with a camcos extension/NCL realignment with Caboolture services being extended to camcos with express Petrie-Exhibition running. Nambour services becoming a shuttle service to Landsborough with any peak hour running to/from the city as a 6 car service.

Agree with HTG.

The question is: Can a combination of 9-car trains and upgraded signalling provide increased capacity for a similar or less amount than $5.6 billion? Assume that funds are used to lengthen platforms, make then DDA/DOO compliant and upgrade signalling etc. This is the case that the QLD Government needs to show does not work.

Let's see:

If we take a 6-car train and add a 3-car carriage to the back, what happens?

If there are 21 trains in the peak hour then that is 21 x 1000 pax/train = 21 000 pphd

If we add on 500 pax (3-carriages) to the end that figure becomes 21 x 1500 = 31 500 pphd. (+ 10 500)

That is an increase of 50% with no new train slots.

Now if we have a signal upgrade that adds 4 new train slots to the timetable:

25 trains x 1500 = 37 500 pphd (+ 16 500) or an increase in capacity of 78.5%.

Infrastructure Australia is doing its job of challenging the proposal. The Queensland Government needs to prove its case.

Sample calculation for percent increase:

Original - 21 000
New - 31 500
Difference = 10 500
Divide by original number (21 000) = 0.5
Multiply by 100 = 50%

[petey3801]

How many times does it need to be said?! 9car trains are NOT going to happen unless CRR happens! The current City stations can NOT handle 9 car trains!
9 car trains are NOT the solution to deferring CRR, as CRR needs to happen in order to get 9 car trains on the network!

[#Metro]

How many times does it need to be said?! 9car trains are NOT going to happen unless CRR happens! The current City stations can NOT handle 9 car trains!

9 car trains are NOT the solution to deferring CRR, as CRR needs to happen in order to get 9 car trains on the network!

I know that the current city stations cannot handle them. But I am not interested in that.

I am interested instead in whether they could be upgraded to accommodate 9-car trains.

Can the current city stations be modified for $5.6 billion worth (or less) of works to accommodate 9 car trains?

That is a possibility that IA will want to explore. So far I have not seen any investigation or documentation that suggests one way or

the other.

[HappyTrainGuy]

The current City stations can NOT handle 9 car trains!

Now now Roma Street does have 3 random platforms that they could use. And we usually see 12 car trains going through the inner city...... they aren't carrying any passengers but they do go through the inner city Im sure for a couple billion we could remove those peaky buildings above central to eliminate that P4 kink haha

I am interested instead in whether they could be upgraded to accommodate 9-car trains.

Can the current city stations be modified for $5.6 billion worth (or less) of works to accommodate 9 car trains?

p%ssing away a cool 5.6 billion..... sure the inner city could be done. Just bore into the existing tunnels at Central,realign the tracks through Central, I'm sure that kick into P4 could be tighter, demolish the buildings above, relocate station and other business services, add more exhaust fans, install new emergency exits. Remove all the cross overs and access roads at Roma Street. Widen and realign the railway corridor at Brunswick Street. Widen the railway corridor at Bowen Hills. You pretty much have to rebuild the entire inner city core. Its just stupid and pointless. Why you still keep mentioning it confuses us.

But just because you could p%ss away 5.6 billion doesn't mean that you should. And to just extend a handful of platforms. Its never going to happen and should never happen. Its just such a stupid thing to even consider. What you are saying is the exact same thing for adding a 7th carriage to trains. IA would reject it faster than they did with CRR. As Petey and I mention the inner city core of the network is not able to cater for 9 car trains. There's just no space for it. You could p%ss away 5 billion extending a few platforms but its just not worth it. You lose a second city crossing. You loose redundancy. You might extend a few inner city platforms but that now means you need to upgrade more overall platforms. Not to mention you are now still limited to what the inner city core will allow. If you do 9 cars on the gold coast line what happens when it gets to the city? does it terminate at Bowen Hills, goes onto the Ferny Grove flyover, enters the balloon loop and blocks the only road into/out of Mayne? Or do you upgrade Park Road-Airport stations. Flip it for the 9 car Caboolture trains. Whats their stopping pattern now? What about other lines. With no CRR what happens to Trouts road? If we want a trouts road line we now have to wait until CRR to enable additional slots through the city. CRR is needed. Not p%ssing away money on extending platforms in the inner city.

Without CRR there will be no 9 car trains operating. Just leave it at that.

[#Metro]

p%ssing away a cool 5.6 billion..... sure the inner city could be done. Just bore into the existing tunnels at Central, demolish the buildings above, relocate station and other business services, add more exhaust fans, install new emergency exits. Remove all the cross overs and access roads at Roma Street. Widen and realign the railway corridor at Brunswick Street. Widen the railway corridor at Bowen Hills. You pretty much have to rebuild the entire inner city core. Its just stupid and pointless. Why you still keep mentioning it confuses us.

But just because you could p%ss away 5.6 billion doesn't mean that you should. And to just extend a handful of platforms. Its never going to happen and should never happen. Its just such a stupid thing to even consider. What you are saying is the exact same thing for adding a 7th carriage to trains. IA would reject it faster than they did with CRR. As Petey and I mention the inner city core of the network is not able to cater for 9 car trains. There's just no space for it. You could p%ss away 5 billion extending a few platforms but its just not worth it. You lose a second city crossing. You loose redundancy. You might extend a few inner city platforms but that now means you need to upgrade more overall platforms. Not to mention you are now still limited to what the inner city core will allow. If you do 9 cars on the gold coast line what happens when it gets to the city? does it terminate at Bowen Hills, goes onto the Ferny Grove flyover, enters the balloon loop and blocks the only road into/out of Mayne? Or do you upgrade Park Road-Airport stations. Flip it for the 9 car Caboolture trains. Whats their stopping pattern now?

Without CRR there will be no 9 car trains operating. Just leave it at that.

It is standard practice to look at a range of alternatives and then disprove their viability in support of a "final solution".

IF what you are saying is true, then that information and whatever evidence to back it up needs to be documented and go to IA.

It would support the construct CRR case.


Frankly, I am starting to think that the Queensland Government did not do their homework. Maybe that is why the full business

case is a secret - is it printed on a napkin??


IA is not going to release ~ 3 BN without being convinced that the alternatives are unworkable. They are a scrutinising agency, that

is their job.

[HappyTrainGuy]

And its been stated over and over again as to why CRR is the preferred option instead of upgrading the current inner city infrastructure.

[#Metro]

And its been stated over and over again as to why CRR is the preferred option instead of upgrading the current inner city infrastructure.

But does it deal with that particular scenario of a high capacity signal upgrade + modifications for 9 car trains?

If it has been stated "over and over again" then it should be easy to come up with the documentation.

So where is it?

Give me the link / reference and I will look at it. If it is true, I will take IA to task over it.

[HappyTrainGuy]

Not my job to have links to everything on hand to suit your annoying needs. Catch a train into P4 at Central - the one with a 10kph speed restriction or look out the window next time to see the corridor requirements.  Measure how long a train is. Measure how long the tunnels are. And you won't find copies of the files as the government would have deleted the old case files it has about it as it went from CRR, BAT, CRR MkII, BAT MkII, CRR MkIII. Maybe you should have saved those documents for yourself.

[#Metro]

Well, if you can't back it up, you can't back it up.

IA is not going to dispense 3 BN on the basis of that.

It is their paid job to block proposals that are incomplete or have poor alternatives analysis.

If the business case is weak because the alternatives analysis is not comprehensive then of course they reject it.

Trad should be asked to provide the documentation showing inner city upgrades aren't enough.

[HappyTrainGuy]

How about you back up that trains can fit then? Go on show us your evidence.

[#Metro]

I don't believe they have done that particular scenario. Which is my point and IA's point.

They need to show that. So I will now suggest RBOT send query to Trads office for said evidence.

I hope you will not oppose that.

I support CRR. IA does not. We need to know why.

I didn't accept the "conspiracy theory" explanation for IA's rejection.

[ozbob]

We have already requested the full business case from Qld Govt and FULL IA evaluation. 

I do not intend to do anything more at this stage.

The project is going ahead under the present Government's auspices.

If they survive and there is a change of Govt in Canberra, I have little doubt that further funding for CRR will be made available.

I will worry about CRR again if these things don't come to pass.

Until then dig Queensland, dig!

[HappyTrainGuy]

It was mentioned ages ago when they did a CRR vs Cleveland bridge vs bridge duplication/inner city upgrade. CRR was the preferred option due to cost, benefits and future upgrades. And its been known ages internally that 9 car trains can not fit Central station economically.

Next time you are at Central have a look towards Roma Street. Look to see why there is a big kink into P4 so trains go at 10kph. From tunnel portal to portal its what? about 350m. 160m of which is mostly straight platform before it goes into a sharp right to make it for the tunnels to Roma Street (the mains go to the right straight away due to building foundations inbetween tunnels 5 and 6). A 9 car train would be approx 220m give or take. So you have approx 120m to put in 4 crossovers as you weave between building foundations along with making all 4 tracks narrow into 2 before you hit the tunnel wall on both ends. Now you have to make the trains slower due to the crossovers into and out of the platforms. The mains you just can not fit 9 car trains at Central.

Summary. Its uneconomical to extend the platforms due to expensive engineering that would need to be undertaken. The subs would need to be closed to undertake these works. Some lines were designed on a 6 car limitation due to building foundations when tunnels were being constructed back in 1994. On some platforms you simply can not extend them which makes 9 cars pointless for the lines that currently use them in which are intended to be upgraded to 9 car trains. You have multiple building foundations to contend with. Trains on the subs are slower due to the crossover speeds. Platform extensions don't match up with future line running. The majority of the rollingstock is currently not configurable for 9 car running. The majority of the network is designed to be 6 car running.

The fact that you keep moaning about something that members here have detailed knowledge about, its been mentioned before about why the innercity upgrades are no fesiable and not to mention is already going to go ahead with state funding is just bloody annoying.

[#Metro]

Thanks for the info HTG.

Good to know that you had the numbers and have now released them.

It will help support the case.

👍

[HappyTrainGuy]

I don't know the exact numbers as they are rough guesses that would be in the ball park area. If anything I am being extra generous with the gaps. You just can not put longer platforms there. Theres just no room. Any platform extension to P3/P4 instantly makes P4 redundant will never see a train again.

[petey3801]

There's nothing at all secret about the numbers that HTG "released", they're common knowledge to anyone with even a vague knowledge of Central station!
Roma St numbers would be just as bad, if not worse, and can quite easily be worked out by simply looking at Google Maps. Same with F. Valley and Bowen Hills.
No matter what people think of them, IA are not imbeciles. Many of them likely also have some experience of the QR network! Even in the off chance that IA requested info about why a network designed around 6 car trains would be unable to extend to 9 car trains, a simple note (if it wasn't included in the business case) saying something along the lines of "9 car trains on the current Brisbane network is not a viable solution due to severe infrastructure constraints in the inner city area".
Not every possibility requires a full blown report, BCR, feasibility study etc conducted.
Do you honestly believe the NSW Gov would have submitted a full blown study/report in to why Sydney Trains can't just extend their trains to 12 car length instead of the second harbour crossing in the guise of the metro before IA handed them billions of $$?

Hopefully the QLD Gov included copies of the past business cases and associated documents detailing why CRR mk1 was the best solution was included in the current documents given to IA. These documents would quickly show why CRR was selected as the best option (even though it has now been shortened/bastardised). Even Campbell Newman's review panel concluded that CRR (mk 1) was the best solution!