Cross River Rail Project

[ozbob]

The busway is on the surface at Park Road, the Boggo Road tunnel is out of the way.  I think it could be got around by curving next to the other section --> http://download.translink.com.au/maps/090801_boggo_locality.pdf

[colinw]

The logical place for the tunnel to emerge is on the bank between Fairfield and Dutton Park towards Fairfield, there is sufficient space in the rail corridor for the additional two tracks with minimal resumptions except for the length through the existing station sites at Fairfield, Yeronga and Yeerongpilly.

Thank you mufreight, that is what I have been trying to say.  From the Denham St overbridge going north, the line climbs a quite steep bank, which will make it possible to put in a tunnel dive in a much shorter distance than doing it on the level.  Furthermore, if - as seems to be the case - the plan is to build an underground station to the west of the Park Road busway stations under the Boggo Road Urban Village site, then that area is the ideal place to start tunneling as the new tunnels would be pointed straight at the first underground station.  Map here.

The corridor going south is just as wide as other corridors that now have four tracks, wider than Oxley or under the Alibion overpass for that matter.  Denham St and Venner Road overbridges will have to come down and be rebuilt with new abutments.  Fairfield & Yeronga stations likewise will need to be rebuild from scratch.

A good look around the rest of the system, or Sydney and Melbourne, will show what is actually feasible in a limited space, versus what people claim is impossible.  Also note that for much of the way from Dutton Park to Yeerongpilly, the dual gauge track is separated from the suburban pair of tracks by more than the required distance.  Additional room could be created by slewing the existing two tracks across to minimum separation, allowing an additional track on the east of the corridor if various cuttings & embankments are extended to the limit of the rail corridor.

As for east-west access across the line, if the portals are sited correctly I see no need to close any roads, and if anything you might be able to add in an additional overpass between Wilkins St east & west (assuming the residents are happy with that).

I'm going to have to disagree with Bob on this one. I am not in favour of tunneling anywhere to the north of Dutton Park.  Dutton Park & Park Road stations are quite a bit higher than Fairfield - and that much closer to Woolloongabba and the river.  The end result would be a line with worse gradients & curvature than would be otherwise necessary, and we do not want to repeat the errors of Epping - Chatswood here.  In my opinion, it makes far more sense to start toward the bottom of the bank just to the north of Wilkins St, giving a more benign grade & curve to meet the line's ultimate objective of passing under the river to the north of the 'Gabba.

We have to get this project right!

cheers,
Colin

[#Metro]

Any chance that Dutton Park can be rebuilt? That is a horrible station IMHO.
One of the things about the ipswich line upgrades was the removal of the "heritage look" buildings on the platform.
I would like to see the current buildings preserved some way rather than being demolished.

[colinw]

I would like to see the current buildings preserved some way rather than being demolished.

That can be done.  Take a look at Sunnybank.

Just don't let a sentimental attachment to a bunch of weatherboard shelters get in the way of providing the public transport system we need.

[ozbob]

I hear you Colin.  Good to look at all options.  Fairfield is 13 metres above sea level, Dutton Park 21 metres.  I think the portal can be closer to Dutton Park than current thinking is.  The max grade on the Beenleigh line is UP at LoganLea 1:49 DOWN 1:48 Kuraby.  The Ferny Grove line has 1:37 UP Keperra for example.  There is enough room to achieve that easily from Dutton Park particularly with positioning between Fairfield and Dutton Park. 

I am not a real fan of extending the tunnel to the other side of Yeerongpilly. 

[Golliwog]

The busway is on the surface at Park Road, the Boggo Road tunnel is out of the way.  I think it could be got around by curving next to the other section --> http://download.translink.com.au/maps/090801_boggo_locality.pdf

The tunnel mufreight was talking about would be the one under the Beenleigh line between Boggo Rd station and the PA Hospital, but I don't think that would be an issue as the rail tunnel should be further west under what is marked on the map as the Boggo Rd Goal.

[Golliwog]

I believe the 5th track they want would be so there are 2 tracks for each of the Beenleigh and GC lines, plus one extra as a freight line.

[paulg]

If they decide it is necessary to extend the tunnel to Yeerongpilly or Moorooka to allow for a dedicated freight track, perhaps it might be sensible to revise the alignment of the extended tunnel?

eg they could choose an alignment under Ipswich Road, which has the benefit of a potential stop at PA Hospital:

[Golliwog]

A stop at PA Hospital is not needed, even if it was possible. Change to a bus (routes 109, 139, 169 and 209) which come far more frequently than the train and go one stop down the busway.

[paulg]

A stop at PA Hospital is not needed, even if it was possible. Change to a bus (routes 109, 139, 169 and 209) which come far more frequently than the train and go one stop down the busway.

Not needed, but perhaps desirable. Additional stations at Annerley and Moorooka North would serve new catchments that need high capacity service. A spur could connect to the Tennyson line.

[#Metro]

eg they could choose an alignment under Ipswich Road, which has the benefit of a potential stop at PA Hospital:

This is a very interesting idea. But on the other hand, I am very skeptical that the tunnel would go all the way to clapham yards, its just so far away.
The second issue is that a network of shuttle feeder buses to these stations could do the same job. Why the government seems 100% unaware or unable to action this idea of local feeder buses, I don't know. The bus connections are very poor in this area, and almost everywhere else in Brisbane at the moment IMHO.

A nice idea though. A station at PA hospital could work--- maybe if you closed down Dutton Park, or substituted it for the new station. Its been done before- there used to be a station between South Bank and Park Road, I can't remember what it was called then, but it was shut down. I am only discussing this idea, not campaigning for it.

[ozbob]

For interest .. Gloucester Street railway station was a former railway station on QR Citytrain suburban network in Brisbane, the state capital of Queensland, Australia. It was located between Vulture Street (South Bank) and Park Road stations on the Beenleigh and Cleveland lines. All that is left of the station is the 3 tunnel entrances leading to South Bank.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gloucester_Street_railway_station,_Brisbane

[somebody]

You could add a platform on the DG track at Yeerongpilly by realigning the track from Tennyson.

Sorry but there simply is not enough room on the Fairfield Road side of Yeerongpilly station to build a platform on the dual gauge.

You aren't kidding there.  And besides, the platform can't go on that side due to the third track for the SG being in the way.  What I meant was the towards Dutton Park track from Tennyson which takes a long time to join up with the DG.  If this turnout was moved 200m south or so, there would be a blank space where the platform could go.

I don't think there needs to be new underground stations on Ipswich Rd.  A BUZ 100 would cover that service, and there's also the 110/115, plus the 113/117/124/125 all stop services.

Regarding the feasibility of emerging north of Dutton Park, does anyone have the depth of the new underground station at Park Rd below sea level?  With the ECRL, the real problem was that it needed to do about 160 degrees (OTOH) of a loop to attain the required depth.

[someone who cares]

If they decide it is necessary to extend the tunnel to Yeerongpilly or Moorooka to allow for a dedicated freight track, perhaps it might be sensible to revise the alignment of the extended tunnel?

eg they could choose an alignment under Ipswich Road, which has the benefit of a potential stop at PA Hospital:

This alignment looks better.
1. takes advantage of the natural lay of the land.  The tunnel comes out of a hill, and it avoids the creek.
2.  you get minimal residential resumptions
3.  new stations as opposed to the destruction and rebuilding of Fairfield and Yeronga
4.  Rail would take some of the congestion out of Ipswich Road, ie feeder into CLEM7.
5.  potential for 5 tracks, plus redundancy built in
Cheers

[mufreight]

Really great thinking here, spend twice the money and end up with two lines in two separate corridors with half the frequency, I might be critical of the present Public Transport administration and the current Government attitudes to funding for public transport infrastructure but it is a relief that they are heading this project up and not some of those whose ill-advised less than practical efforts here would have the state bankrupt just on the preliminary reports and studies alone without any actual construction having been carried out.

[colinw]

Rather amusing considering moving the main rail services to a different corridor, bypassing the Yeerongpilly TOD entirely.

There is no way the Government would consider rail beneath the A7 Ipswich Road corridor, as it would take the underground space for any future road tunnel from the Clem7 to the start of the Ipswich Motorway, Ipswich Road being a "missing link" in the freeway system.  If rails ever run along Ipswich Road, they will be of the standard gauge variety, underneath 750V DC light rail catenary, the major road traffic having been moved underground.

Like it or not, this upgrade is happening within the confines of the current rail corridor.  And I'll be amazed if the tunnel surfaces any further south than Fairfield station, given the advantage for putting in a tunnel dive that the Fairfield bank provides between Fairfield & Dutton Park.

cheers,
Colin

[#Metro]

There is no way the Government would consider rail beneath the A7 Ipswich Road corridor, as it would take the underground space for any future road tunnel from the Clem7 to the start of the Ipswich Motorway, Ipswich Road being a "missing link" in the freeway system.

I think a Public Transport line on Ipswich road is a no-brainer. But I think it would be best done using BUZ buses or Light Rail rather than heavy rail. Why there is no BUZ 100, we can only wonder. There is also a geographical barrier preventing access to rail stations on the Beenleigh line and the lack of a local feeder bus network means that people who would catch trains can't access the station. The solution for now has been a handful of low quality, infrequent routes that do not connect to rail, running in the suburban back streets around this area.

Freeways: I see merit in a freeway connection between Ipswich Road and the SE Freeway, possibly in a tunnel somewhere around Rocklea/Salisbury. I know this might be unusual to read coming from my quarters, but if that could be done then all those trucks could be taken off Ipswich Road, making it safer. The road then could be re-claimed for public transport: BUZ buses, bus lanes or Light Rail.

Of course, this will only work if TWO things are done: (1) connection built, and then (2) Ipswich road reclaimed. Goverments are good at doing (1), but extremely poor at following through with (2).

[somebody]

Really great thinking here, spend twice the money and end up with two lines in two separate corridors with half the frequency, I might be critical of the present Public Transport administration and the current Government attitudes to funding for public transport infrastructure but it is a relief that they are heading this project up and not some of those whose ill-advised less than practical efforts here would have the state bankrupt just on the preliminary reports and studies alone without any actual construction having been carried out.

Must side with this comment.

Ipswich Rd doesn't need a train line.  What it needs is a BUZ 100, supplemented by the Beaudesert Rd services for an 8 minute frequency on the inner part.  Should be more than adequate.

[somebody]

It's still an interesting question as to whether CRR1 at the north end attaches to the mains or the suburbans.  If it attaches to the mains, then there is no increase in capacity for trains from the north.  If it attaches to the suburbans, then CRR2 would need to attach to a 5th track to Northgate.  I think it would be better if it attaches to the suburbans as I have grave doubts as to where we will see CRR2 by 2030, so this one needs to be gotten right.

[paulg]

I'm actually in favour of putting the CRR portal between Dutton Park and Fairfield, and trying to accommodate 4 tracks south of that point within the existing surface reservation where possible. This will keep the overall project cost down. If a dedicated freight line to the port is necessary, it should be put on a new alignment following the Logan and Gateway Motorways from Larapinta to Murrarie. This has the added benefit of removing noisy freight trains from  built up areas (obviously noise barriers will be needed on some parts of the new alignment though).

Paul

[somebody]

You mean track east from Yeerongpilly, south of Tarragindi, tunnel through Mt Gravatt, through the park, tunnel under Carindale Heights and then along the Gateway Motorway?  Seems too expensive to me.

[mufreight]

Sorry Somebody but you have misread the possible alternative route to the Port of Brisbane.
The logical and most cost effective route is to turn off the SG corridor just before where the Logan Motorway passes under the SG line at Parkinson then follow the Logan Motorway alignment to its junction with the Gateway Motorway at Drewvale where it would then follow the Gateway Motorwayto rejoin the dual gauge line to the port at Murarrie.
This line would be entirely within transport corridors with better grades than the present route and if the southern freight bypass is constructed from the main western line at Ebenezer to the SG line at Kagaru then all coal and grain trains could be routed that way bypassing most of the residential development at present affected by this traffic on the present route through Ipswich then via Corinda - Yeerongpilly- Dutton Park and Buranda to Murarrie and the port.

[#Metro]

The logical and most cost effective route is to turn off the SG corridor just before where the Logan Motorway passes under the SG line at Parkinson then follow the Logan Motorway alignment to its junction with the Gateway Motorway at Drewvale where it would then follow the Gateway Motorwayto rejoin the dual gauge line to the port at Murarrie.
This line would be entirely within transport corridors with better grades than the present route and if the southern freight bypass is constructed from the main western line at Ebenezer to the SG line at Kagaru then all coal and grain trains could be routed that way bypassing most of the residential development at present affected by this traffic on the present route through Ipswich then via Corinda - Yeerongpilly- Dutton Park and Buranda to Murarrie and the port.

A very interesting idea. Though the freight trains that use the Ipswich line and Tennyson- they would still have to go via Park Rd?

[ozbob]

Though the freight trains that use the Ipswich line and Tennyson- they would still have to go via Park Rd?

No, they would be going via Kagaru and then to the port along the corridor outlined by mufreight.  Which further highlights the illogicality of not electrifying the 4th line between Corinda and the Brickworks at Darra ... 

[somebody]

Ahh, Ok.  That route has merit, although you would want to keep the existing route as it is shorter Tennyson-port in times that it is open.

[mufreight]

In fact there is little difference in the distance from Ebenezer to the Port on either route but the route via Kagaru and the Gateway would be faster with easier grades and take freight movements out of the present areas of passenger operations removing conflicting movements and freeing up train paths.

[somebody]

The Ebenezer - Kagaru - Murrarie track would probably be cheaper than the 5th track Yeerongpilly-Dutton Park too.  Although this is something they could look into.

[colinw]

This "freight rail along the Logan & Gateway" proposal has been around for a while, and IMHO has not received the attention it deserves.

Here's a 2005 mention in parliamentary committee records :-
http://www.aph.gov.au/House/committee/trs/networks/subs/sub126.pdf

I'm sure I first heard about the idea around 1993-4 when the Gateway extension was under construction.  It was proposed as an alternative to the dual gauge to the port from Dutton Park that was built.  I'm sure a search of Hansard & house committee records from the period would turn up something.  I'm fairly sure it received coverage in the Courier-Mail and southside local papers at the time as well.

Such a dedicated freight line would be enormously useful, as it would remove the need for more than 4 tracks inbound from Yeerongpilly, and would also permit electrification & passenger use of the 3rd track on the Cleveland line as far as Murarrie.

cheers,
Colin

[mufreight]

The alternative route was proposed as a stand alone standard gauge link.  If my memory serves rightly I proposed this link in about 2000 in a letter to the then Transport Minister and received a note back that the traffic on such a line would not justify the costs. 
As a SG line with no connection to the NG western lines would have at that time been a fair response as it pre-dated the southern freight corridor proposal.

[Jonno]

Would be interested in the response now with significant coal being moved, southern corridor and making it DG?

[ClintonL94]

The Ebenezer - Kagaru - Murrarie track would probably be cheaper than the 5th track Yeerongpilly-Dutton Park too.  Although this is something they could look into.

Somebody, there is currently 3 tracks from Yeerongpilly to Dutton Park, are you saying that after the 4th track from Fairfield to Banoon there should be another track? Correct me if I've missed something please.

[somebody]

The Ebenezer - Kagaru - Murrarie track would probably be cheaper than the 5th track Yeerongpilly-Dutton Park too.  Although this is something they could look into.

Somebody, there is currently 3 tracks from Yeerongpilly to Dutton Park, are you saying that after the 4th track from Fairfield to Banoon there should be another track? Correct me if I've missed something please.

I believe that's something that they are looking into.  It has some merit.

[STB]

There was a news article on Ch 10 this evening that said that since there is such a minority government now that is settled on country independents, getting federal funding for Cross River Rail, even the Kippa Ring project may be much more difficult than previously.

[O_128]

There was a news article on Ch 10 this evening that said that since there is such a minority government now that is settled on country independents, getting federal funding for Cross River Rail, even the Kippa Ring project may be much more difficult than previously.

What a surprise, usual labor backflip. I doubt there would be an issue securing funding for redcliffe as both parties are in favor

[Derwan]

The opposition rightly pointed out that CRR should be given a higher priority than Kippa Ring.

[#Metro]

OK residents of Kippa Ring, you had better get out the BBQ and start fund raising for the railway line, by the way it looks, it might be the faster option!!!

Why can't the QLD build this thing? They can build Airport Link and Gateway duplications!

[ozbob]

The MBRL will go ahead, no doubt.  CRR is a IA funding project and still has a way to go in terms of feasibility study completion and business case.

MBRL has already started effectively, according to the Premier's comments yesterday. 

[ozbob]

From the Courier Mail click here!

Urban infrastructure could suffer because of Julia Gillard's rural sweetheart deal

Urban infrastructure could suffer because of Julia Gillard's rural sweetheart deal

    * Emma Chalmers and Steven Wardill
    * From: The Courier-Mail
    * September 09, 2010 12:00AM
    * 6 comments

JULIA Gillard has been warned she must govern for all of Australia as concerns emerge Labor will shortchange the cities while it courts the country crossbenchers.

The backlash against Labor's $10 billion deal with the two rural Independents began yesterday with fears critical urban infrastructure projects may be delayed to pay for more promises to the bush.

However, Labor insisted the historic minority government pact with NSW Independents Rob Oakeshott and Tony Windsor would not jeopardise its election commitments nor leave the cities wanting.

Key projects to tackle Brisbane's growing congestion are still fighting for federal funds. These include the Cross River Rail link, Kingsford Smith Drive upgrade, Darra-to-Springfield rail line and the expansion of the busway network.

While the Opposition warned the political pact with the Independents would put Labor's election promises in Brisbane at "serious risk", Premier Anna Bligh insisted she would not let Ms Gillard shirk her commitments to the cities.

"I expect to see Julia Gillard lead a government that is looking at and governing for all Australians, whether they live in the city or in the bush," Ms Bligh said.

"If they live in regional Queensland I think it is good news we are going to see a focus on regional Australia.

"But we have also got a lot of people living in cities and they need to be attended to."

Deputy Prime Minister Wayne Swan insisted voters could be confident all Australians were getting an equitable deal.

"What we would want to see over time is a roughly proportional distribution, and that's what we have agreed to with the Independents – their fair share, not necessarily a lot more, their fair share," he said.

However Lord Mayor Campbell Newman said he was worried the cities could be shortchanged.

"Brisbane is at the heart of southeast Queensland and we have some massive infrastructure projects that can only be delivered with the financial support of other levels of government, such as the Cross River Rail project and the upgrade of Kingsford Smith Drive," he said.

"Regional areas have their needs but we've lobbied hard to get a better deal and I would be concerned if there was money unfairly redirected away from capital cities.

"I will be watching with great interest to see what the Federal Labor Government delivers for Brisbane."

Opposition frontbencher Peter Dutton questioned how Labor could now meet its Budget and election commitments and warned projects promised in Brisbane like the Redcliffe rail link "are at serious risk".

Chamber of Commerce and Industry Queensland president David Goodwin said Labor's deal for the regions could put Brisbane infrastructure projects in jeopardy because the budget wasn't big enough.

"The practical reality is there's not really enough money to go around," he said.

[colinw]

Let me be clear about this.  The major parties will ignore our urban infrastructure - in particular CRR, Kippa-Ring and the recently announced 2031 vision - at their own peril.  Public transport planning is one of the issues that determines my vote, and the votes of several of my friends - and we are not rusted on to any particular party by antiquated loyalties.

[ozbob]

Building the portal out at Clapham will be very expensive.   I still think it could be done between Dutton Park and Park Road, with minimal residential resumptions.

When Springfield, Ripley, Coolangatta, CAMCOS, Beaudesert, Kippa Ring,  North Western etc. all come in to play it would be very useful to have the capacity of the additional 4 tracks.  Melbourne went for the bigger option in the 1970s.  It is now very handy, but I bet they would like more.

The main western line quad could then feed into the surface CBD rail axis at a very high rate.  The quad CRR will take a lot of the southern line stuff out of conflict.  Roma St underground could also be a terminating station under this scenario for some services.  Run in reverse back to origin.  There will be many changes  I expect.

Merivale is a double track and that's all it will be.  If CRR doesn't get up I suppose the only hope is to put another bridge beside it and so that will be all folks.  Time for the mono-rail system