Cross River Rail Project

[ozbob]

https://twitter.com/railbotforum/status/1276963624062300160

[ozbob]

Facebook ...

[timh]

From the small scrapings of information I have heard or gathered, it is my understanding that all Beenleigh and Gold Coast services go through CRR. I believe they will not service south bank.

As far as I'm aware Scenario 1 that MTPCo is talking about is what the plan is: strict sectorisation. And from a commuter point of view I totally get it, because it means the lines only ever run one way, making network diagrams clear. Far better legibility. I would prefer that personally, not withstanding the fact that it's probably not perfect operationally

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

[BrizCommuter]

Thanks OzBob. Lets hope we get an answer.

I'm also still very concerned about lack of infrastructure on the Gold Coast/Beenleigh Line. The 3rd platform at Loganlea may allow for more GC peak direction services. However there are still constraints around intermediate turn-back points for inner-Beenleigh Line services as turnbacks at Kuraby and Coopers Plains block a track. Beenleigh could have a better layout too, with more turnbacks/sidings added between the running lines. Counter-peak/off-peak services also appear to have no way of allowing 15 minute GC and Beenleigh Line off-peak in both directions. There appears to be no provision for grade separation for the junction with the eventual Beaudesert Line. Plus the counter-peak track between Dutton Park and Clapham Yards will be rather congested if strict sectorisation occurs, likely resulting on express services being stuck behind the all stations. Sending all trains via CRR will also limit the Beaudesert Line (when it eventually opens) to around 6tph, assuming 12tph GC and 6tph Beenleigh. Interesting times.

[timh]

Thanks OzBob. Lets hope we get an answer.

I'm also still very concerned about lack of infrastructure on the Gold Coast/Beenleigh Line. The 3rd platform at Loganlea may allow for more GC peak direction services. However there are still constraints around intermediate turn-back points for inner-Beenleigh Line services as turnbacks at Kuraby and Coopers Plains block a track. Beenleigh could have a better layout too, with more turnbacks/sidings added between the running lines. Counter-peak/off-peak services also appear to have no way of allowing 15 minute GC and Beenleigh Line off-peak in both directions. There appears to be no provision for grade separation for the junction with the eventual Beaudesert Line. Plus the counter-peak track between Dutton Park and Clapham Yards will be rather congested if strict sectorisation occurs, likely resulting on express services being stuck behind the all stations. Sending all trains via CRR will also limit the Beaudesert Line (when it eventually opens) to around 6tph, assuming 12tph GC and 6tph Beenleigh. Interesting times.

I think Gazza has made a good point earlier in this thread that from Day 1, there will still be operational constraints, but that's ok and to be expected. The govt has always pushed CRR as "enabling" further network extensions and upgrades and removing the bottleneck in the "inner city". CRR in its current configuration will do that. It doesn't magically solve all the other problems on the network but it is a start. There is definitely more work to be done but I don't think CRR should be seen as some sort of magical fix that will revolutionise the entire network from day 1.

What it will allow is once it's operational, you can start to make those other upgrades. Quad tracking to Kuraby for example (or at least to Salisbury). Additional platforms at Beenleigh, track amplification or provisioning on the Exhibition loop for NWTC services (as discussed earlier this seems to be the plan for that. It would be a flyover from the Exhibition loop into a tunnel in Victoria Park, kinda like the busway. It won't tunnel straight from Roma street).

I agree that we really need to know how the network will operate once CRR opens in its current configuration, but I don't think we should be expecting a perfect network. There is (understandably) still lots of work to be done.

If I had a wishlist of projects to be done to improve operations post CRR that aren't network extensions, my list would be as such:

1- additional tracks/platforms at Beenleigh
2- 4th track/platform at Salisbury
3- Quad Yeerongpilly to Kuraby
4- duplicate to Cleveland
5- duplicate to Shorncliffe
6- Fix flat junction at Eagle Junction

I don't think any of the above projects need to really be a part of CRR itself. But once CRR is finished, they will help to improve existing services and facilitate future ones.

Regarding long term (10-15yrs) services I have the following thoughts:

1- Gold Coast trains won't be running on the Beenleigh line south of Kuraby. I entirely expect they would build a new alignment from Kuraby-Ormeau, maybe using the M1, meaning additional capacity south of Kuraby isn't a high priority. I think this is realistically the only way to achieve decent fast regional rail speeds.

2- Beaudesert line trains will need to share tracks between Salisbury and Dutton park so I expect Quad tracking will be necessary, at least to Yeerongpilly. You could maybe get away with just squeezing in a 4th track at the stations as a passing loop between Yeerongpilly and Dutton park if space is an issue. You would then have fairly straightforward running operationally through that bit: 2 tracks for all stoppers (Beenleigh line) and 2 tracks for express (gc/Beaudesert). I would assume that Beaudesert line trains would run on the surface through the city (not CRR).

3- Eagle Junction, Airport junction and Northgate should all be looked at for some sort of grade separation of junctions in the long term to really open up the possibilities.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

[ozbob]

https://twitter.com/railbotforum/status/1277007418111623168

[ozbob]

^^

To your list Tim add spark the UP sub from Corinda to Darra East and the build the missing platform at Oxley.

[timh]

^^

To your list Tim add spark the UP sub from Corinda to Darra East and the build the missing platform at Oxley.

Oh yeah definitely forgot about that one. Honestly thought that was so bizarre when I found out it wasn't fully electrified quad to the junction at Darra. Should have been done properly in the first place.
Wasn't even thinking about western lines when I did the list coz they're not directly impacted by CRR

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

[BrizCommuter]

So options seem to be:
1.
24tph GC/Beenleigh/(Salisbury/Beaudesert) to Caboolture/SC/Kippa-Ring via CRR through CBD
24tph Ipswich/Springfield to Bowen Hills/Shorncliffe/Airport/Doomben via Mains through CBD
8-12tph Cleveland to Ferny Grove via Subs through CBD
Most sectorised option, but best potential options for increasing train services on branches, but counter-peak congestion Dutton Park to Clapham. Would limit Beaudesert Line to approx 6tph at opening. Change forced at Park Rd/Boggo Rd. 

2.
12tph Gold Coast to Caboolture/SC via CRR through CBD
6tph Outer-Beenleigh to Exhibition
12tph Ipswich to Kippa-Ring via Mains through CBD
12tph Springfield to Bowen Hills via Mains through CBD (some would have to be extended to either Shorncliffe/Airport/Doomben)
18tph Cleveland/Salisbury to Ferny Grove/Shorncliffe/Airport/Doomben via Subs through CBD
This is based on 2017 operating plan (which assumed line pairings). No possible service increases to many lines. Many conflicting moves. No change forced at Park Rd/Boggo Rd though GC/outer-Been to South Brisbane would still need to change anyway. 

3.
24tph GC/Beenleigh/(Salisbury/Beaudesert) to Caboolture/SC/Kippa-Ring via CRR through CBD
12tph Ipswich to Bowen Hills via Mains through CBD
20-24tph Cleveland/Springfield to Ferny Grove/Shorncliffe/Airport/Doomben via Subs through CBD
Busy flat junction at Roma Street. Change forced at Park Rd/Boggo Rd. Least favourable option.

Looking at these options, then the sectorised option 1 (all Gold Coast/Beenleigh/Beaudesert services via CRR) is probably better operationally and for balancing services. Whether passengers like this idea is another question!

[timh]

Sectorised is best. Easiest for passengers (especially tourists) to understand. That's why others have brought up in earlier discussion in the thread that the platform transfer at Boggo Road/Park Road is so important.

Also I found this map online somewhere. I posted it in an old thread. It's not mine, but it pretty much gives you exactly what you've just described in your "Version 1" plan to a T.

Note it includes all the proposed line extensions (which aren't 100% accurate), including some weird additions like a station at Australia Zoo and at Mayne, but otherwise I think this is a pretty good representation of what the through running will be. It's the option that makes the most sense to me.

[BrizCommuter]

That diagram is more like my option 2. Operationally messy!

[timh]

That diagram is more like my option 2. Operationally messy!

Perhaps I don't fully understand then. The line pairings in this diagram are pretty evenly divided amongst subs, mains and CRR right?

The main difference is the red and yellow lines. The pairings without the extensions would be (imo):
- Beenleigh to Caboolture via CRR
- Gold Coast to Nambour via CRR

If you pair Doomben with Salisbury (future Beaudesert) and run Airport as it's own line (not paired), they're all pretty evenly set on their own tracks right?

[BrizCommuter]

That diagram is more like my option 2. Operationally messy!

Perhaps I don't fully understand then. The line pairings in this diagram are pretty evenly divided amongst subs, mains and CRR right?

The main difference is the red and yellow lines. The pairings without the extensions would be (imo):
- Beenleigh to Caboolture via CRR
- Gold Coast to Nambour via CRR

If you pair Doomben with Salisbury (future Beaudesert) and run Airport as it's own line (not paired), they're all pretty evenly set on their own tracks right?

Salisbury is claimed to have 6-7tph, Doomben 2tph.

[timh]

That diagram is more like my option 2. Operationally messy!

Perhaps I don't fully understand then. The line pairings in this diagram are pretty evenly divided amongst subs, mains and CRR right?

The main difference is the red and yellow lines. The pairings without the extensions would be (imo):
- Beenleigh to Caboolture via CRR
- Gold Coast to Nambour via CRR

If you pair Doomben with Salisbury (future Beaudesert) and run Airport as it's own line (not paired), they're all pretty evenly set on their own tracks right?

Salisbury is claimed to have 6-7tph, Doomben 2tph.

Which I disagree with wholeheartedly. I've said it before, Doomben should be fully duplicated and extended to Hamilton. Induced demand!

[verbatim9]

Bit of Sunday trivia in reference to the the station depths. The deepest station in the world is located in Kiev at a 105m. It takes approximately 5 mins to reach the platforms via the escalators. Albert Street will be Brisbane's deepest at 31 m. The time that it will take to reach the platforms should be around 1.6minutes via the escalators.

[BrizCommuter]

That diagram is more like my option 2. Operationally messy!

Perhaps I don't fully understand then. The line pairings in this diagram are pretty evenly divided amongst subs, mains and CRR right?

The main difference is the red and yellow lines. The pairings without the extensions would be (imo):
- Beenleigh to Caboolture via CRR
- Gold Coast to Nambour via CRR

If you pair Doomben with Salisbury (future Beaudesert) and run Airport as it's own line (not paired), they're all pretty evenly set on their own tracks right?

Salisbury is claimed to have 6-7tph, Doomben 2tph.

Which I disagree with wholeheartedly. I've said it before, Doomben should be fully duplicated and extended to Hamilton. Induced demand!

Agree that the Doomben Line should be extended to Hamilton Northshore (or more cheaply Trade Coast/old Eagle Farm 2). But the reality is that is unlikely to happen, thus it's a bit of a moot point when playing fantasy line pairings.

[BrizCommuter]

Though saying that option 1 allows for a future increase in peak services to FG/Shorncliffe/Doomben/Airport if the infrastructure allows. The 2017 operational plan did not allow this.

[timh]

That diagram is more like my option 2. Operationally messy!

Perhaps I don't fully understand then. The line pairings in this diagram are pretty evenly divided amongst subs, mains and CRR right?

The main difference is the red and yellow lines. The pairings without the extensions would be (imo):
- Beenleigh to Caboolture via CRR
- Gold Coast to Nambour via CRR

If you pair Doomben with Salisbury (future Beaudesert) and run Airport as it's own line (not paired), they're all pretty evenly set on their own tracks right?

Salisbury is claimed to have 6-7tph, Doomben 2tph.

Which I disagree with wholeheartedly. I've said it before, Doomben should be fully duplicated and extended to Hamilton. Induced demand!

Agree that the Doomben Line should be extended to Hamilton Northshore (or more cheaply Trade Coast/old Eagle Farm 2). But the reality is that is unlikely to happen, thus it's a bit of a moot point when playing fantasy line pairings.

Fair enough. Could you still pair Salisbury/Beaudesert line with Doomben if you terminate the ones that don't go onto Doomben at Bowen Hills? Ie. they go into Mayne yards. I don't know enough about the operations of how that would work.

[verbatim9]

That diagram is more like my option 2. Operationally messy!

Perhaps I don't fully understand then. The line pairings in this diagram are pretty evenly divided amongst subs, mains and CRR right?

The main difference is the red and yellow lines. The pairings without the extensions would be (imo):
- Beenleigh to Caboolture via CRR
- Gold Coast to Nambour via CRR

If you pair Doomben with Salisbury (future Beaudesert) and run Airport as it's own line (not paired), they're all pretty evenly set on their own tracks right?

Salisbury is claimed to have 6-7tph, Doomben 2tph.

Which I disagree with wholeheartedly. I've said it before, Doomben should be fully duplicated and extended to Hamilton. Induced demand!

Agree that the Doomben Line should be extended to Hamilton Northshore (or more cheaply Trade Coast/old Eagle Farm 2). But the reality is that is unlikely to happen, thus it's a bit of a moot point when playing fantasy line pairings.

The Doomben line should be converted to LRT from Eagle Junction. Then you would have far more reaching and beneficial route options for the area out to Hamilton and the Airport precinct up to Skygate.

[Arnz]

ETCS (European Train Control System) signalling works has commenced on the Shorncliffe line.

"From July 2020, Hitachi Rail will be working within the rail corridor along the Shorncliffe Line in preparation for the delivery of a new world-class train signalling system as part of the Cross River Rail Project."

https://crossriverrail.qld.gov.au/construction/shorncliffe-line-works/signalling-system-works-on-the-shorncliffe-line/

https://crossriverrail.qld.gov.au/construction/shorncliffe-line-works/

[MTPCo]

As far as I'm aware Scenario 1 that MTPCo is talking about is what the plan is: strict sectorisation. And from a commuter point of view I totally get it, because it means the lines only ever run one way, making network diagrams clear. Far better legibility. I would prefer that personally, not withstanding the fact that it's probably not perfect operationally

Hi Timh. I think the key here is not to conflate 'sectorisation' with 'operational consistency'. Sectorisation is simply that a service pattern stays on its default track pairing, but this doesn't imply or otherwise mean service consistency. By way of example, if Kippa-Ring trains were permanently routed to Cleveland, this would not be sectorised - they would be crossing from the Mains to the Subs - but it would be operationally (including from a passenger perspective) consistent. Conversely, if all Cleveland trains went to Ferny Grove in the morning and to Shorncliffe in the evening, this would be sectorised but inconsistent. They often go hand-in-hand, but not necessarily, and it's not always a good thing.

By way of topical illustration, the 2017 business case proposed a version of the "split" paradigm we have been discussing, sending Kippa-Ring trains through the city Mains and Caboolture and Nambour trains via CRR. This was not sectorised - as two inner city corridors used one track pair between Albion and Northgate - but it was consistent. The major benefit came from running up to 15tph on each of the peak direction tracks between Petrie and Northgate, and then running these express on the shared track to increase the throughput, before splitting them (conflict-free, via the grade separation in Mayne) between CRR and the Mains. So it was not sectorised, but it was operationally/passenger consistent, and allowed up to 30tph to run from north of Northgate, compared to the 24tph which is provide by either CRR or ETCS.

I think Gazza has made a good point earlier in this thread that from Day 1, there will still be operational constraints, but that's ok and to be expected. The govt has always pushed CRR as "enabling" further network extensions and upgrades and removing the bottleneck in the "inner city". CRR in its current configuration will do that. It doesn't magically solve all the other problems on the network but it is a start. There is definitely more work to be done but I don't think CRR should be seen as some sort of magical fix that will revolutionise the entire network from day 1.

What it will allow is once it's operational, you can start to make those other upgrades. Quad tracking to Kuraby for example (or at least to Salisbury). Additional platforms at Beenleigh, track amplification or provisioning on the Exhibition loop for NWTC services (as discussed earlier this seems to be the plan for that. It would be a flyover from the Exhibition loop into a tunnel in Victoria Park, kinda like the busway. It won't tunnel straight from Roma street).

I agree that we really need to know how the network will operate once CRR opens in its current configuration, but I don't think we should be expecting a perfect network. There is (understandably) still lots of work to be done.

While I agree that we shouldn't expect (and we're not going to get) a perfect network at day one, the key thing is that the perfect network is being provisioned for at day one. There is no indication that any future provision is being made in the project at all. Even the classic example of the NWTC connection - in previous designs there were tunnel stubs at/before the portal underground to keep the trains going north without needing to surface. Even if the argument is now that it will need to be made via a second set of tunnel portals from the Exhibition line, there's no indication or allowance for that to occur. Once CRR is operational, those three tracks between the land bridge and Exhibition station are going to be carrying passenger and freight services, so any major track realignment is going to require that corridor to be closed down. If all this is known, then why not provision for it at day one to make the impost lower in the future? The cost of the future closure will be added to the price tag for the NWTC, and will make it harder to be realised.

It has been said before that there are three minor changes that need to be made to the project to properly futureproof it: grade separation at the northern end, tunnel stubs at Roma Street (or provision for a northern extension on surface), and tunnel stubs at the southern end to enable a southern expansion. These are not major imposts to the project, but they would allow it to develop over time.

So options seem to be:
1.
24tph GC/Beenleigh/(Salisbury/Beaudesert) to Caboolture/SC/Kippa-Ring via CRR through CBD
24tph Ipswich/Springfield to Bowen Hills/Shorncliffe/Airport/Doomben via Mains through CBD
8-12tph Cleveland to Ferny Grove via Subs through CBD
Most sectorised option, but best potential options for increasing train services on branches, but counter-peak congestion Dutton Park to Clapham. Would limit Beaudesert Line to approx 6tph at opening. Change forced at Park Rd/Boggo Rd. 

I think this is what the infrastructure is suggesting, but I don't think it's a good outcome. Let's consider where the growth can be from. Cab/SC/Kippa-Ring currently go via the Mains, which has a 24tph capacity once ETCS2 is in place, meaning a net gain of 0tph for this group of services. GC/Beenleigh conceivably have 16tph of capacity available now (two thirds of the 24tph, with one third the 8tph to Cleveland), meaning they have 8tph of additional capacity, or less if you assume the Flagstone branch will take some of this. Shorncliffe/Airport/Doomben currently have 14tph of capacity on the subs, so they end up with 10tph of additional capacity, noting that Airport and Doomben can't use it due to the single line constraints, meaning that Shorncliffe effectively gets all 10tph. The west effectively gets a 0tph increase over what the ETCS2 scenario provides, but that's ok because CRR isn't about the west.

This leaves Ferny Grove getting an additional 16tph of capacity (compared to 8tph today, or a 200% increase), and the same for Cleveland (noting of course the single track limitations). Based on gocard data, between 2017-18 Shorncliffe and Ferny Grove had 2% and 2.5% patronage growth, respectively. The same figure for the Cab/SC/Kippa-Ring group was 9.75%.

2.
12tph Gold Coast to Caboolture/SC via CRR through CBD
6tph Outer-Beenleigh to Exhibition
12tph Ipswich to Kippa-Ring via Mains through CBD
12tph Springfield to Bowen Hills via Mains through CBD (some would have to be extended to either Shorncliffe/Airport/Doomben)
18tph Cleveland/Salisbury to Ferny Grove/Shorncliffe/Airport/Doomben via Subs through CBD
This is based on 2017 operating plan (which assumed line pairings). No possible service increases to many lines. Many conflicting moves. No change forced at Park Rd/Boggo Rd though GC/outer-Been to South Brisbane would still need to change anyway. 

There only conflicting moves are at Mayne and at Park Road, with the former being removed if the grade separation is reinstated. I think the actual possible service plan looks something more like this, with the (bracketed) figures showing what's possible with the Northgate and Wooloowin upgrades from 2017 reinstated as well:
24tph Gold Coast/Beenleigh via CRR to Exhibition/Cab/SC
12(15)tph from Cab/SC via CRR to Beenleigh/GC
12(15)tph from Kippa-Ring via Mains to Ips/Springfield
24tph from Ips/Springfield via Mains to Kippa-Ring and Bowen Hills (into Mayne Yard North)
12tph from Cleveland/12tph from Flagstone via Subs to Ferny Grove/Shorncliffe/Airport/Doomben
24tph from Ferny Grove/S/A/D via Subs to Cleveland and Flagstone

The only contentious point may be between Dutton Park and Salisbury, but the track arrangements would work, as an example in the AM peak, via:
Dual gauge (inbound): 12tph Flagstone to South Bank (and thereafter wherever on the Subs)
Middle road (inbound): 24tph GC/Beenleigh to CRR
Up Sub (outbound): 4tph counter-peak Salisbury from South Bank, 8tph Beenleigh/GC counter-peak from CRR, 7tph empty from CRR to Clapham (total of 15tph into CRR from the north) = 19tph outbound

A similar flow would occur in the reverse in the PM peak.

In this configuration, compared to option 1, you end up with the following delta in service capacity: +6tph Cab/SC/K-R (30tph total), +12tph "South of Park Road" (36tph total), -16tph Ferny Grove (8tph total), -12tph Cleveland (12tph total), -10tph Shorncliffe (8tph total), no change to west, airport, or Doomben.

Perhaps I don't fully understand then. The line pairings in this diagram are pretty evenly divided amongst subs, mains and CRR right?

The main difference is the red and yellow lines. The pairings without the extensions would be (imo):
- Beenleigh to Caboolture via CRR
- Gold Coast to Nambour via CRR


If you pair Doomben with Salisbury (future Beaudesert) and run Airport as it's own line (not paired), they're all pretty evenly set on their own tracks right?

To make that diagram work as shown, would require the following as an absolute minimum:

• 5th track Airport Junction to Mayne (unless everything north of there is to be limited to an aggregate of 24tph)
• At least one flyover at Northgate - either to bring inbound Kippa-Ring trains from the Up Main onto the Up Sub north of northgate, or take contra-peak Kippa-Ring trains from the Down Sub to the Down Main north of Northgate, or both

To fully release capacity and achieve sectorisation, it would require, in addition to the above:

• Fourth track Petrie to Northgate
• Six tracks Airport Junction to Mayne
• Four tracks Park Road to Salisbury

Given the cost of doing some of that work - the land requirements would wipe out half the northern suburbs - you would argue that a better outcome would be to develop the NWTC, which gives the same effect in terms of additional trackwork from Strathpine to Mayne, but also far faster travel times and increased catchment.

As an aside, it's also worth remembering that the 2017 business case had 18tph from Kippa-Ring by 2031. This, in the context of splitting 30tph with Cab/SC, must have been intentional because it would have been far easier to do a 15/15 split. This implies they expect a lot of growth on this service group, meaning that a sharing of corridor with Shorncliffe is unlikely to work from a capacity perspective in the long term.

[timh]

Great post MTPCo. Thanks for helping me understand how this all works!

As I said above I think fixing the junctions at Eagle/Airport/Northgate is something that should definitely be looked at, but I am very much for NWTC for providing better outcomes for the Northern lines.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

[MTPCo]

Great post MTPCo. Thanks for helping me understand how this all works!

Thanks timh, happy to help! 

[kram0]

Thanks everyone for your input on this thread, it is much appreciated.

I have two questions regarding the images that MTPCo has included in the below link.

https://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2034.0;attach=1706

First question: Is there a reason why the Airport line under the expected configuration cannot run to Park Road instead of Roma St to give stations from Roma St to Park Road more services?

Second Question: With regards to the conflict of the outbound main track linking up to the outbound CRR track (and crossing the inbound CRR track), is this setup like this for operational issues (break downs etc)? I am assuming this won't be used on a regular basis due to the constant conflict of tracks that will occur?

I hope this makes sense? 

[Jonno]

^ No, more it's easier to do a cross-platform transfer there if you're going from a CRR service to South Bank.

What they really need to do is put a bridge in to the southern end of Park Road.  Better if they had actually decided to spend some money on the surface platforms so there is a common gated area, but that chance is lost now.

Yep. Judging by all the promo material, the interchange can pretty well be described as "we built a new station next to the old station".

I've made an image to explain it all

https://imgur.com/a/CjhJ8YG

Exactly!! The fact that the 2 stations are not integrated is a complete insult to rail passengers.   It is crazy enough when it is busway station to rail station but makes no sense on earth when it is rail to rail.  No consideration for elderly, young or those with disabilities.  Close enough seems good enough.  The station cavern is already only just short of Platform 2 & 3.  Extend it a bit further and connect each platform and busway. Why is this so hard?

[Paul B]

Will the Gabba station have a walkway over/underpass to the Stadium, or will everyone have to queue at the intersection?

[aldonius]

I don't think it's finalised yet what the pedestrian situation at Main St is going to be for the Gabba.

Of course, temporary road closures are always an option for the hour before and after large events.

[MTPCo]

Thanks everyone for your input on this thread, it is much appreciated.

I have two questions regarding the images that MTPCo has included in the below link.

https://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2034.0;attach=1706

First question: Is there a reason why the Airport line under the expected configuration cannot run to Park Road instead of Roma St to give stations from Roma St to Park Road more services?

Hi kram0. I think it's important here that the train flows in the ppt I attached are not the same as the diagram shared by timh. In the ppt, based on those train flows, the airport would go to the western line somewhere (i.e. Ipswich or Springfield) in option 1, which is assumed to be the default routing currently. In the split version (option 2), the airport trains would be on the Subs, meaning they could go to Cleveland, to Salisbury/Flagstone if that service exists, or be truncated in the city somewhere. In the latter case, it could be conceivably possible to turn those trains back at Park Road as you suggest.

Second Question: With regards to the conflict of the outbound main track linking up to the outbound CRR track (and crossing the inbound CRR track), is this setup like this for operational issues (break downs etc)? I am assuming this won't be used on a regular basis due to the constant conflict of tracks that will occur?

That is the working assumption at the moment, yes. This is really because of what the infrastructure in Change 4 showed, with - IMO - the additions in Change 7 really being there to increase the operational flexibility for breakdowns and the like as you suggest. It would be amazingly unlikely for a major inner city junction with high frequency to be designed to have a 300m wrong road running move as part of normal operations, but again we cannot be 100% certain without them releasing the operating plans.

[timh]

Will the Gabba station have a walkway over/underpass to the Stadium, or will everyone have to queue at the intersection?

I'm fairly sure I've seen renders of a great big pedestrian overpass plaza thing over the road to the stadium. I can't find them right now but I definitely remember seeing them at some point

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

[Jonno]

Will the Gabba station have a walkway over/underpass to the Stadium, or will everyone have to queue at the intersection?

I'm fairly sure I've seen renders of a great big pedestrian overpass plaza thing over the road to the stadium. I can't find them right now but I definitely remember seeing them at some point

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

All just flashy pictures at the moment!! Serious questions remain about how the whole Wollongabba site inc station fits into the surrounding neighborhoods.  I don't like pedestrian overpassed as they are regularly/usually used as an excuse to ignore the remaining pedestrian environment and leave roads aS unsafe vehicle sewers!  If done right, at grade pedestrian connection can be achieved!  Vulture and Stanley Streets need to be turned back into 2 ways streets and Main are made safe for all users not just about through traffic!!

[JimmyP]

I think a Wolli Creek type arrangement could work at Boggo/Park Road. It's a small walk between the two sets of platforms, but nothing that can't be done (and no further than many other places around the world). As long as the platforms can be reached without going out and in fare gates, that's the main thing!

[timh]

I think a Wolli Creek type arrangement could work at Boggo/Park Road. It's a small walk between the two sets of platforms, but nothing that can't be done (and no further than many other places around the world). As long as the platforms can be reached without going out and in fare gates, that's the main thing!

I was thinking of more like Perth/Perth underground, that has a similar layout I think. Again though you're right, it's important they don't need to leave the fare gate area. I think under current designs they do (which is the problem)

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

[BrizCommuter]

Wow, the Boggo/Park Road interchange really is a screw up. Blog post coming soon!

[Andrew]

I don't see major issues with the 2026 projected service plan provided northbound trains from the mains can get to CRR northbound OK.

I think most likely we will see pairings of:
Salisbury to Ferny Grove
Beenleigh to Exhibition
Gold Coast to Caboolture/Nambour
Bowen Hills to Ipswich/Rosewood
Airport to City or Park Road

Other lines would remain the same.

Schrödinger's Bus: Early, on-time and late, simultaneously, until you see it...

[BrizCommuter]

I don't see major issues with the 2026 projected service plan provided northbound trains from the mains can get to CRR northbound OK.

I think most likely we will see pairings of:
Salisbury to Ferny Grove
Beenleigh to Exhibition
Gold Coast to Caboolture/Nambour
Bowen Hills to Ipswich/Rosewood
Airport to City or Park Road

Other lines would remain the same.

Schrödinger's Bus: Early, on-time and late, simultaneously, until you see it...

That plan has quite a few flaws. There have been changes to proposed frequencies in 2019, though not published on a map. These proposed frequencies have now been dropped entirely from CRR's website which along with the changed track layouts at Mayne, makes me thing the operating plan has changed.

It was designed around a grade seperation at Mayne, which now doesn't exist. This any Northbound Mains to Mains will conflict with Southbound Mains to CRR. The Southbound 28tph was reduced to a more realistic 24tph in 2019.

Kippa-Ring services are somewhat overprovisioned. In 2019 it was a 12tph/12tph split between Caboolture and Kippa-Ring.

There is no plan to increase, or be able to increase services on the Suburbans from Ferny Grove, Shorncliffe, Airport, and Doomben.

Services are poorly balanced from each side of Brisbane on each line.

Cleveland Line 10tph is not possible without infrastructure enhancements, and merging 10tph from Cleveland and 6tph from Salisbury is a scheduling headache.

There are plenty of other issues around lacking infrastructure, notably on the Beenleigh Line.

[BrizCommuter]

I've blogged about the rather mediocre interchange at Park Road/Boggo Road.
https://brizcommuter.blogspot.com/2020/06/cross-river-rail-boggo-road-change-for.html

[timh]

I've blogged about the rather mediocre interchange at Park Road/Boggo Road.
https://brizcommuter.blogspot.com/2020/06/cross-river-rail-boggo-road-change-for.html

Great post. A note though that passengers for South bank/south Brisbane coming from GC/Beenleigh inbound trains would have the option to change for a bus (or Brisbane Metro service) to get to their destination instead of a potentially packed Cleveland line train. So if 8tph is not enough to cater for them by itself, could Metro do some of the lifting?

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

[Andrew]

Kippa-Ring services are somewhat overprovisioned. In 2019 it was a 12tph/12tph split between Caboolture and Kippa-Ring.

I dunno.  The Kippa-Ring line has a huge catchment area. I used to catch it to work most days late morning (using car at the moment due to Covid 19 issues) and on a busy day, you'd have almost half the seats taken by the time I alighted at Sunshine.  You also have new development going in at Newport and Mango Hill on top of the existing areas of the general North Lakes area.  It's a huge amount of people.

There is no plan to increase, or be able to increase services on the Suburbans from Ferny Grove, Shorncliffe, Airport, and Doomben.

Generally I'd agree with that.  It won't change without infrastructure improvements.  That being said, I don't know whether there is much increase in people in the catchment area (aside from Hamilton Northshore).

Cleveland Line 10tph is not possible without infrastructure enhancements, and merging 10tph from Cleveland and 6tph from Salisbury is a scheduling headache.

Agree about the Cleveland Line but I don't see the Salisbury train scheduling being a massive issue.  I think the problems will be further out with the Beenleigh and Gold Coast trains. Getting them to match up on one track at Salisbury is easy (leaving the other track for the all stoppers).  Getting (extra) Gold Coast trains around the all stoppers is going to be the tricky part.  They already overtake a train at Bethania twice (iirc) in peak hour in the morning.

As for off-peak, you could offer a 15 min service on all 3 patterns.  Park Road - Salisbury all stops is 14 mins whilst express is approx 8.  Salisbury to Beenleigh limited stops is approx 30 mins whilst all stops is 40.

Station	Sal	GC	BL
Park Road	11:00	11:09	11:12
Salisbury	11:14	11:17	11:20
Beenleigh	-	11:48	12:00

There are plenty of other issues around lacking infrastructure, notably on the Beenleigh Line.

Agreed

[ozbob]

Follow up:

1st July 2020

To: info@crossriverrail.qld.gov.au

Good Morning,

An email was sent to you on the 28th June 2020 subject ' CRR rail service plan '

No acknowledgement of receipt has been received.  In view of previous problems with your email have you actually received this email?

Thanks

Robert

Robert Dow
Administration
admin@backontrack.org
RAIL Back On Track https://backontrack.org

To:

info@crossriverrail.qld.gov.au

cc:

community@crossriverrail.qld.gov.au
Transport@ministerial.qld.gov.au
statedevelopment@ministerial.qld.gov.au
Queensland Rail CEO

CRR rail service plan

28th June 2020

Greetings,

Could you please advise where we can locate the current operational train service plan for Cross River Rail?

Members of RAIL Back On Track are concerned with the lack of details available on how the SEQ rail network will operate when CRR is commissioned.  Recent forum discussion is at https://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=2034.msg237086#msg237086

A recent blog post by BrizCommuter: Cross River Rail - Mayne Capacity Constraints
https://brizcommuter.blogspot.com/2020/06/cross-river-rail-mayne-capacity.html

raises a number of concerns:

Why was the grade separated junction at Mayne for Mains/CRR tracks removed from the plans?

Why are the proposed rail operations for Cross River Rail being kept a secret? Surely this is one of the most crucial parts of a project that is designed to increase rail capacity?

Why is there no mention of the track layout changes at Mayne in the Request for Project Change 7? Is the Coordinator-General even aware of these changes?

What are the long term plans for connecting Cross River Rail to the Trouts Road Line / North West Transportation Corridor, and is this route safeguarded for rail transport?

As a member commented recently " Most of the (CRR) social media is of glossy pictures of stations, and focussing on station design at the expense of good operational planning is a very literal case of mistaking the destination for the journey. "

What are the current proposals for am peak, pm peak, counter peak and daytime off-peak rail service patterns?

Thank you.

Robert Dow
Administration
admin@backontrack.org
RAIL Back On Track https://backontrack.org

[ozbob]

I've blogged about the rather mediocre interchange at Park Road/Boggo Road.
https://brizcommuter.blogspot.com/2020/06/cross-river-rail-boggo-road-change-for.html

Thanks Briz. 

Sent to all outlets &

https://www.facebook.com/RAILBackOnTrack/posts/3552862434727918?comment_id=3560792307268264

&

https://twitter.com/railbotforum/status/1277983452894081026