Cross River Rail Project

[#Metro]

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.

I agree with this. Is it possible to move that rail operations depot next to PA and put the tunnel portal there?
http://www.nearmap.com/?ll=-27.497009,153.030791&z=18&t=k&nmd=20100720

Dutton Park station may have to go though... this option would mean PA to Park Road access by foot would have to be improved.

When Springfield, Ripley, Coolangatta, CAMCOS, Beaudesert, Kippa Ring, 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.

More tracks in the CRR tunnel would be better. Even 3 tracks with one reversible.
If Perth (and the huge latent demand in the Browns Plains/Algester area) is anything to go by, you never know, you might be running trains every 5 minutes from each line in peak!

[somebody]

Ok, but why would 4 tracks at once be much cheaper than 2 tracks now and 2 tracks later?  At least given that it would be 1 track/tunnel.

Not that familiar with Melbourne, but I'm pretty sure their CBD loop has 2 tracks, so you must be thinking of something else unless I am mistaken.

[#Metro]

Ok, but why would 4 tracks at once be much cheaper than 2 tracks now and 2 tracks later?  At least given that it would be 1 track/tunnel.

I think I calculated somewhere in another thread that the price of delaying the CRR project was huge, than had it been done in the 1970s... (to be fair, it was a bridge then, not a tunnel).

http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=2034.msg22167#msg22167

Page 116 of the 1970 Wilbur Smith Plan details that the cost in 1969 dollars was $53 999 000 for the bridge & viaduct option. This included the line, all stations above and below ground, river/road tunnel and bridges, signaling and communications, electrification and land resumptions.

Using the Reserve Bank of Australia's Inflation calculator (http://www.rba.gov.au/calculator/annualDecimal.html)
the 1970 option if done as directed  if done would have cost a mere 528 million dollars (2009 dollars, inflation adjusted).

I think that makes it 2462% cheaper... (estimate) than the current proposal. Wow!

Edit: It makes it about 16x cheaper, not 24x,  to have done it in the 70's, oh well.

[#Metro]

On the other hand, its not always wise to spend too much or overcook the project either.

This is not the first time Melbourne has faced the choice between massive investment in expanding inner-city rail capacity, and extending the rail system to new regions of Melbourne that have grown up since 1930. Almost 40 years ago, another transport study released plans for the underground City Loop, plus suburban rail extensions. The loop was built, but the extensions were not, because by the time the underground opened, there was no money left for anything else, as the loop had cost the equivalent of $5 billion in today's money.

Does Melbourne need another central city rail tunnel? (PDF 36p 6.8Mb), Paul Mees
http://mams.rmit.edu.au/ccdyb1pnnt1f.pdf

[ozbob]

Melbourne Loop proper is four single track tunnels.  

The Loop comprises four single-track  tunnels on two levels, and the use of four pre-existing elevated tracks between Flinders Street and Spencer Street stations. A new double track concrete viaduct was erected beside the existing quadruple track Flinders Street Viaduct in order to replace capacity for non-loop trains. Construction began in 1975 and was completed in 1978.[7] Of the three new stations, Museum was built using the cut and cover method in a 26 metre deep box,[7] while Flagstaff and Parliament were excavated using mining methods. During the excavation of Museum station, La Trobe Street and its tram tracks were temporarily relocated from December 1973 to the south onto the site of what is now the Melbourne Central Shopping Centre, and was moved back in 1978.[7]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_Loop,_Melbourne

They built it, and are they fortunate they did.  The lack of further rail investment was due to the general  rail transport infrastructure failure that gripped the nation!  Complicated by the privatisation/franchise setup.  

Cheaper to build 4 tunnels together, economy of scale, machines are available, construction crews available and so forth ..  I am reminded of a story about maintaining F111s, one costs $25 M per year, 12 $50M total per year to maintain or something like that.  The same argument about electrification of the UP sub Corinda to the Darra Brickworks.  Costs if done now $18M or so, in three years estimated to be in the order of $100 million.   Track and signals would have to be done then.  If done now much more cost effective.

[ozbob]

I agree with this. Is it possible to move that rail operations depot next to PA and put the tunnel portal there?
http://www.nearmap.com/?ll=-27.497009,153.030791&z=18&t=k&nmd=20100720

I reckon it is.

Look at the tunnel portals at Melbourne, crikey it is ducking down in a few carriage lengths ...

[somebody]

Must have been thinking just of the Flinders St-Parliament and Spencer St-Flagstaff bits which aren't quadded.

Reading TT's link now.  Has a lot of interesting stuff actually.  It is also against the "concrete fetish" which is (IMHO) probably not as bad as the QLD one.

[mufreight]

Unfortunately there is not enough room to surface the CRR link in the Dutton Park perway depot area due to other existing infrastructure that got in first such as the bus tunnel and the Buranda - Dutton Park leg of the junction.

[ozbob]

Bit of engineering can solve those issues.  Be a lot cheaper than all the resumptions and longer tunnels.

[somebody]

Unfortunately there is not enough room to surface the CRR link in the Dutton Park perway depot area due to other existing infrastructure that got in first such as the bus tunnel and the Buranda - Dutton Park leg of the junction.

That would be your opinion though wouldn't it?

I'd think that passing under Park Rd station would avoid the bus tunnel.

Not sure if that spur near the hospital is still in use or if it needs to stay.  Could complicate things.

Bit of engineering can solve those issues.  Be a lot cheaper than all the resumptions and longer tunnels.

But not if 5 tracks are required.  An idea they seem pretty set on.

[ozbob]

Plenty of room.  This is a blow up of down Dutton Park.  Tracks could be positioned, drop, underneath Park Road and onwards.  No resumptions at all.  Melbourne achieved it in less space and distance.


Nearmap

Approach to Dutton Park from Fairfield, again heaps of room for positioning.
(there is an interesting train in this photograph)


Nearmap

[#Metro]

It might be possible to get the GC line to dip under those Beenleigh tracks and over to the right hand side to enter the tunnel, especially if that road bridge was removed and re-aligned.

One potential effect might be that Dutton Park station is shut down and a new station opened closer or underneath Park Rd.
You probably could get tunnel portals at just before Park road as well.

[somebody]

Plenty of room.

Do you mean for 5 tracks?  Perhaps at Dutton Park, but not all the way to Salisbury.

[#Metro]

Just a question.
Does the CRR really need 5 tracks? Is that all the way to Clapham, or just for the entrance bit?

There are only 4 tracks between Central Station and Fortitude Valley, so my guess is 4 tracks is more than enough for the Beenleigh line.
http://www.nearmap.com/?ll=-27.457516,153.032309&z=19&t=k&nmd=20100720

From what I can see in Nearmaps, it looks like someone thought ahead and left space for a 4th track. Some embankments might need cutting at, some stations re-built, the odd place might find their backyard a little shorter, but overall, IMHO the space is there for 4 tracks on the surface of Beeleigh line, at least all the way to Clapham yards.

[mufreight]

Perhaps if all the NIMBY's had a look at nearmap they would realise that there is not as much disruption as they think, as for the additional trains being operated diminishing the value of their properties they will find the the opposite will be the case.
Yes there will be resumptions but again this has been exaggerated out of proportion as in most cases they will only be for a strip of the properties actually adjoining the existing rail corridor not the entire properties although the Government may to simplify the resumption process offer to resume the entire properties but the owners can negotiate this anyway.
All part of the price of progress.

[colinw]

Another comparison, here's the tunnel dives at Epping for the Epping - Chatswood line. click here.

[Golliwog]

Much longer than the Melbourne ones. I think part of the question though is are such short portals ideal? Yes we could use them, but as we keep saying this is a one off project so is putting a steeper rise on the end of it going to restrict its use? With respect to the trains power I think they should be able to get up it, but how slow will it be going if say it has to stop on the slope due to a red signal?

[somebody]

Just a question.
Does the CRR really need 5 tracks? Is that all the way to Clapham, or just for the entrance bit?

Seems some people think so.  Seems that RailBoT's view is that it doesn't, which is interesting.

4 tracks are needed to have a 15 minute service to Beenleigh, the 5th track is for freight.  If all 4 tracks are to have continuously operating traffic, then getting freight through on the DG track to the port would be difficult.  One possibility might be to have the overtaking move northbound south of Salisbury, although I'm guessing that would be difficult to timetable.

[ozbob]

I don't think anyone has a particular view at this time until the portal location is confirmed.

At the moment there is no standard gauge stuff going to the port, although there is the potential for more I guess in the future.  The line is used by the daily XPT and thats about it for 4 8.5" stuff.

It all hinges on where the portal is to be.  Around Yeerongpilly nothing needs to be done to the existing corridor at all.  Disadvantage is the cost increment for the extended tunnel but that will be offset with the corridor savings.  If you look at Yeerongpilly carefully there is room to go down there, no resumptions.   http://www.nearmap.com/?ll=-27.523862,153.013941&z=18&t=k&nmd=20100821

Apparently there are some major sewerage pipes in the way at Dutton Park as well which may make it difficult in that location, apart from the busway stuff and that around Park Road (which I think could be got around, but not sure about the pipes).

The other consideration is the possibility of a freight line in the gateway corridor, but that is probably dependent on the southern rail corridor being done which is just a distant blink ..

[ozbob]

Much longer than the Melbourne ones. I think part of the question though is are such short portals ideal? Yes we could use them, but as we keep saying this is a one off project so is putting a steeper rise on the end of it going to restrict its use? With respect to the trains power I think they should be able to get up it, but how slow will it be going if say it has to stop on the slope due to a red signal?

Not an issue in Melbourne.  I think it was done that way with the particular example from NSW as there was the room.  Look at the Ferny Grove line flyover.  I have not heard of a sparks not making that, although one day a DD17 stalled on it I vaguely recall. 

[somebody]

Huh? If there doesn't need to be 5 tracks, then why on earth would we go with the southern portal location?

[ozbob]

I think we need to see what is actually planned. All that is really confirmed at the moment is the central section - Park Road, Gabba, Albert St Roma St.  Broadly as I understand it seems that there is desired to be 4 plus the dual gauge from Salisbury to where the the tunnel portal is.  The dual gauge being the freight line, the other 4, two into the tunnel.  So in effect the three roads now plus two more roads. The corridor could generally take four roads with minimal resumptions, the 5th would mean more significant resumptions.

Where are the present choke points?  Park Road and Merivale Bridge ...  3 + 1 would be adequate from Salisbury to the tunnel portal where ever it is as the tunnel commences before the choke points.  Freight can be kept out of the peaks, so in effect you have 4 tracks for the peak.  You can park them all the way from Darra .. LOL then push them through out of peak.  Crikey, you want to see the procession past my place some days, coalies 5 minutes apart.

[somebody]

Well, you heard the 5 tracks being mentioned at the CPTF.

Without the 5 tracks, can the Beenleigh line go to 15 minute frequencies beyond Kuraby?  Not in any way I can see.  So, if we are saying 4 tracks is sufficient, then we are saying we can accept 30 minute frequency beyond Kuraby, are we not?

[ozbob]

I don't think it matters if 4 or 5 from Salisbury, the problem is at Kuraby and beyond.  The Premier was talking about 5 tracks the other day too.

[somebody]

I don't think it matters if 4 or 5 from Salisbury, the problem is at Kuraby and beyond.  The Premier was talking about 5 tracks the other day too.

Sorry, with a 15 minute service to Beenleigh it is necessary for the Coasties to overtake the Beenleigh trains somewhere.  Where are you suggesting this occur?  If only 4 tracks Yeerongpilly-city, then that would mean a train is frequently using the freight track all day.

[ozbob]

If only 4 tracks Yeerongpilly-city, then that would mean a train is frequently using the freight track all day.

They do now,  plenty of  extra capacity with the 4 tracks.  Works fine at peak loadings with the three now with the XPT counter peak as well.  Let's see what is actually planned.

[mufreight]

For the sake of the exercise forget that the Dual gauge line between Salisbury and Dutton Park exists then working on that premise consider what is required and possible, if a service is extended towards Bromelton/Beaudesert down the interstate corridor four tracks will be required from Salisbury to the junction point for the CRR link

[ozbob]

Pay that ... 

[somebody]

If only 4 tracks Yeerongpilly-city, then that would mean a train is frequently using the freight track all day.

They do now,  plenty of  extra capacity with the 4 tracks.  Works fine at peak loadings with the three now with the XPT counter peak as well.  Let's see what is actually planned.

Only in peak!  If they use the DG off peak, then there is no reason in the timetable for that to be necessary.  Perhaps for points cleans on weekends for example.  That XPT must be a real nuisance.

For the sake of the exercise forget that the Dual gauge line between Salisbury and Dutton Park exists then working on that premise consider what is required and possible, if a service is extended towards Bromelton/Beaudesert down the interstate corridor four tracks will be required from Salisbury to the junction point for the CRR link

Thank you mufreight.  That is what I have been trying to say.

One possibility is that the freight gets between the coasties which are only running every half an hour on the DG.  But that means that the Gold Coast line needs an expensive infrastructure mod to go to 15 minute frequency off peak.  The via Kagaru line which has been suggested is one possibility.

[ozbob]

Media Release 15 September 2010

SEQ:  Cross River Rail Southern Portal location welcomed

RAIL Back On Track (http://backontrack.org) a web based community support group for rail and public transport and an advocate for public transport commuters has welcomed today's announcement by the Minister for Transport of the preferred location for the Cross River Rail southern portal at Yeerongpilly (1).

Robert Dow, Spokesman for RAIL Back On Track said:

"The preferred portal location is innovative and means resumptions will now be minimal.  Locating the southern portal at Yeerongpilly is a win, win, win. It means that modifications to the surface rail corridor from Yeerongpilly will now no longer be required.  It further provides real mass transit options for the Transit Oriented Developments planned for the Tennyson/Yeerongpilly precinct, as well as servicing the Tennis Centre."

"Locating at Yeerongpilly means that access to Cross River Rail from the western line via the Tennyson loop line will be achieved.  For example football specials from Rosewood/Ipswich, Richlands/Springfield will be able to run direct to Woolloongabba.  Travel time from Yeerongpilly to Albert St Station in the Brisbane CBD will be in the order of 10 minutes.  This highlights the superb utility of the project."

"High capacity sustainable mass transit will be a reality through Brisbane City with this underground heavy rail network extension.  The flow on effects of this underground extension to the rest of the Queensland Rail suburban and interurban network will also be significant.  New train paths and increases in frequency and capacity will be possible on all lines."

"Cross River Rail is an urgently needed project to move past looming inner Brisbane rail congestion. We welcome today's announcement and congratulate the project team on the success of community consultations."

Reference:

1.  Queensland Parliament  Minister for Transport Hon Rachel Nolan MP 15th September 2010

Contact:

Robert Dow
Administration
admin@backontrack.org

[ozbob]

I don't think anyone has a particular view at this time until the portal location is confirmed.

At the moment there is no standard gauge stuff going to the port, although there is the potential for more I guess in the future.  The line is used by the daily XPT and thats about it for 4 8.5" stuff.

It all hinges on where the portal is to be.  Around Yeerongpilly nothing needs to be done to the existing corridor at all.  Disadvantage is the cost increment for the extended tunnel but that will be offset with the corridor savings.  If you look at Yeerongpilly carefully there is room to go down there, no resumptions.   http://www.nearmap.com/?ll=-27.523862,153.013941&z=18&t=k&nmd=20100821

Apparently there are some major sewerage pipes in the way at Dutton Park as well which may make it difficult in that location, apart from the busway stuff and that around Park Road (which I think could be got around, but not sure about the pipes).

The other consideration is the possibility of a freight line in the gateway corridor, but that is probably dependent on the southern rail corridor being done which is just a distant blink ..

Nearmap Yeerongpilly --> http://www.nearmap.com/?ll=-27.523862,153.013941&z=18&t=k&nmd=20100821

[Golliwog]

Bob, do you have a link to the press release? Does it say how the portal will be set up at Yeerongpilly? Basically, will trains running through CRR be stopping at the station or will they have to run express?

[ozbob]

Statement still coming ( I was listening to Parliament ).  Expect an update on the CRR web site today.

As I understand it, trains will be stopping at Yeerongpilly  (history repeating   )

CRR stations will be Yeerongpilly (surface), Park Road/Boggo Road, 'Gabba, Albert St, Roma St, Exhibition ...

10  minutes or thereabouts  from Yeerongpilly to Albert St Station ...  

[#Metro]

OK it is all over Brisbane Times now!

[ozbob]

From the Brisbanetimes click here


http://images.brisbanetimes.com.au/2010/09/15/1927760/Southern-Tunnel-map-420x0.jpg

Rail line to wipe out 66 properties

Rail line to wipe out 66 properties
Tony Moore
September 15, 2010 - 10:22AM

More than 60 properties will be resumed at Yeerongpilly as part of the Cross River Rail project.

A new four-platform train station will serve as a tunnel portal, allowing for a 10-kilometre rail line to service the centre of Brisbane.

It will be constructed to the north-east of the existing Yeerongpilly train station.

Transport Minister Rachel Nolan today said it was necessary to build the new facility because the number of trains using the station will almost double.

"Both Cross River Rail services and surface services would stop at the new station," she said.

"By 2016 the number of trains at Yeerongpilly would almost double in the two-hour morning peak period– that's a train about every 5 minutes bound for the CBD."

The government predicts 66 properties will be resumed on the opposite side of the station to the tennis centre.

This compares to the 197 properties that would have been required if the tunnel was to surface in Fairfield, Ms Nolan said.

She said 84 per cent of the required land is industrial.

The minister said she understood the decision would be difficult for some landowners.

"The project team will be working closely with property owners whose properties have been identified as required for the southern portal and new station," she said.

"I understand this may be a difficult time for the owners and I strongly encourage them to contact the project team if they have any questions."

Local residents have expressed concern over the possible locations for the tunnel portal.

Ms Nolan said the site was chosen because it had the lowest impact on residences.

"Many areas were considered, including Fairfield, Yeronga, Yeerongpilly and Moorooka," she said.

"Yeerongpilly was found to be the preferred location as it provides the best balance between cost, community impact, community benefit and rail operations."

Local councillor Nicole Johnston said the decision was an "absolute tragedy".

"Yeerongpilly is one of the most exciting tin and timber suburbs in Brisbane," she said. "There is only about 800 homes there. This is just so sad."

Cr Johnston said most residents preferred the southern tunnel portal to be located at the Clapham Rail Yards, in nearby Moorooka.

South-east Queensland rail lobby group, Rail: Back on Track, said the site choice was "innovative".

"Locating at Yeerongpilly means that access to Cross River Rail from the Ipswich line via the Tennyson loop line will be achieved," spokesman Robert Dow said.

"Travel time from Yeerongpilly to Albert St Station in the Brisbane CBD will be in the order of 10 minutes."

Public consultation is planned for October and November.

Source: smh.com.au

[ozbob]

http://statements.cabinet.qld.gov.au/MMS/StatementDisplaySingle.aspx?id=71577

Minister for Transport
The Honourable Rachel Nolan
15/09/2010

Yeerongpilly next stop for Cross River Rail as Southern portal announced

A new four platform surface station at Yeerongpilly has been added to the Cross River Rail project to cater for more services from Yeerongpilly to the CBD.

Transport Minister Rachel Nolan has announced that the preferred location for the southern tunnel portal for the project will be just north-east of the existing Yeerongpilly train station.

"Both Cross River Rail services and surface services would stop at the new Station," Ms Nolan said.

"That means that by 2016 the number of trains at Yeerongpilly would almost double in the two-hour morning peak period- that's a train about every 5 minutes bound for the CBD.

"Cross River Rail services would get from Yeerongpilly to the new underground station in Albert Street in just 10 minutes - less than half the 21 minutes it now takes to get to Central today.

"In the off-peak period, services would increase from a service every 30 minutes to a service at least every 15 minutes."

Cross River Rail was named as the linchpin of the draft Connecting SEQ 2031: An Integrated Regional Transport Plan for South East Queensland - because of the project's potential to revolutionise the SEQ rail network by adding more capacity to the inner city rail network.

The new station would be on the eastern side of the existing station and would be the last station Cross River Rail trains use before entering the north-south tunnel, which is expected to be about 10 kilometres long.

"The main reason for the location for the southern portal here is because it was the best option for maximising new services while minimising property impacts," Ms Nolan said.

Investigations were undertaken between Fairfield and Moorooka along the existing train line to determine where the tunnel could surface in the south.

"Many areas were considered, including Fairfield, Yeronga, Yeerongpilly and Moorooka," she said.

"Yeerongpilly was found to be the preferred location as it provides the best balance between cost, community impact, community benefit and rail operations.

"For example if we were to portal at the Clapham Rail Yard we would need to find another 15 hectare land site for stabling on or close to the rail line.

"That's equivalent of 15 hectares of land, which would be about the size of three Suncorp Stadiums.

"The location that has been chosen will also service the proposed Yeerongpilly transit oriented development, which was identified in the 2010 Growth Management Summit as a location where high quality and frequent public transport is required."

Ms Nolan said with the preferred location for the southern portal now determined, potential property requirements had also been identified.

"Based on the current design of the southern portal and new station, 66 properties (125 land owners) will be required, compared to the 197 properties (376 land owners) that would have been required if the tunnel was to surface in Fairfield," she said.

"Of the land required for the current design, about 84% is industrial land further south than Yeerongpilly.

"The project team will be working closely with property owners whose properties have been identified as required for the southern portal and new station - I understand this may be a difficult time for the owners and I strongly encourage them to contact the project team if they have any questions."

Member for Yeerongpilly Simon Finn welcomed the decision of a new station and transport options.

"Today's announcement will provide greatly improved public transport services for local residents," he said.

"It provides a balance between property impacts, future growth demands and project cost."

Ms Nolan said the project's final reference design was expected to be completed later this year, which will include details of the full tunnel route, what new infrastructure will be needed and how the project could be constructed.

Consultation events planned for October-November will be an opportunity for the community to provide feedback on the reference design and I encourage people to get involved," she said.

Events will be advertised in due course in The Courier-Mail, mX and local Quest papers as well as in the next edition of the Cross River Rail newsletter, which will be out in October.

"To keep informed about planning for Cross River Rail visit www.crossriverrail.qld.gov.au or call the project team on 1800 462 730."

==============================================================

[#Metro]

... don't forget to build a bus bay or something as well there! With frequency like that, it opens up a world of feeder bus and cross town bus opportunities linking in with the express rail service.

[shiftyphil]

... don't forget to build a bus bay or something as well there! With frequency like that, it opens up a world of feeder bus and cross town bus opportunities linking in with the express rail service.

Don't be silly, that would take up room that could be used for car parks.

[somebody]

Hate to harp, but still with the annoyance of up-down-up-down tracks.  There will need to be service on the surface lines with this option for Yeronga/Fairfield/Dutton Park stations.

I wonder what they are thinking here.  One possibility would be a Corinda (or Richlands) to Ferny Grove via South Brisbane service combined with a Beenleigh and Gold Coast via Albert St.  Which would make UDUD logical.  Although I doubt this.

... don't forget to build a bus bay or something as well there! With frequency like that, it opens up a world of feeder bus and cross town bus opportunities linking in with the express rail service.

An interesting suggestion, although I really only see the 100 and 105/108 using said bus bay.  If Beaudesert Rd services could use it via Green St, that would be different.

[ozbob]

Courier Mail --> Cross River Rail's new Yeerongpilly entrance will resume 66 properties in Brisbane's south