Cross River Rail Project

[MTPCo]

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

Hi Andrew, I think I would tend to agree with you that the service plan was ok - particularly in the context of accepting a 'day one' timetable that isn't perfect but had room to move - but unfortunately it (the 2017 business case service plan) cannot be delivered as the infrastructure being provided does not allow that to occur. Briz has already explained this quite well, but perhaps I can add a bit more about the recent history.

The 2017 service plan required a specific suite of northern upgrades to be made workable, which were prescribed in the 2017 business case. If you look at the request for project change 1, you can see that the tracks through Mayne had a trough (underpass) structure which allowed the split and merge of city Mains and CRR without conflict (see http://eisdocs.dsdip.qld.gov.au/Cross%20River%20Rail/project-change-application/volume-3-cross-river-rail-design-drawings-sections/section-2-general-arrangement-12.pdf and http://eisdocs.dsdip.qld.gov.au/Cross%20River%20Rail/project-change-application/volume-3-cross-river-rail-design-drawings-sections/section-2-general-arrangement-13.pdf. There were also changes to Wooloowin and Northgate, with the 2017 business case stating "Unlocking capacity constraints north of the portal will require enabling works between Albion and Northgate, in addition to the northern connection. These works propose reconfiguring platforms at Northgate and Wooloowin stations so they can function as double-sided platforms. Supported by express running and upgraded signalling, this would shorten headways between trains and increase the corridor's capacity by enabling increased throughput" (see page 79 here: https://buildingqueensland.qld.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Building-Queensland-Business-Case-LR.pdf). Basically this is taken to mean that they would have created dual platforms in much the same way as the Subs at Central have (e.g. 1 and 2 are both southbound) to ameliorate the impact of dwell times on capacity. Trains running express have a much shorter headway than trains stopping at stations, and being able to interleave consecutive trains between two platforms reduces the impact of stops, which is why they were able to get such high frequencies. Normally this isn't especially helpful - e.g. there would be no point signalling to achieve 100s headways on the western Mains, given that they are then funnelled in to a 150s headway corridor through the city - but in the case of splitting between CRR and the city Mains a higher capacity could be achievable. You can detect the impact of this configuration by looking closely at the service plan - you will see that the trains on the Mains are not stopping at Eagle Junction, but rather Wooloowin. By splitting the train flows in this way, CRR was not full from the north, and that meant the (single) outbound track south of Park Road was also not full, which allowed for services to run to Salisbury from the surface Subs.

Then in June of last year, project change 4 occurred. In the updated diagrams, the trough structure was removed, and the track layouts drastically altered (see http://eisdocs.dsdip.qld.gov.au/Cross%20River%20Rail/project-change-4/Volume%202/General%20arrangement%20drawings/General%20arrangement%2023.pdf and http://eisdocs.dsdip.qld.gov.au/Cross%20River%20Rail/project-change-4/Volume%202/General%20arrangement%20drawings/General%20arrangement%2024.pdf). You can see by following the tracks (e.g. literally drawing a highlighter or sketching the schematic in powerpoint) that the split paradigm cannot be made to work - there is no way (save perhaps kilometers of wrong road running) to get from the Mains at Albion into the Mains at Bowen Hills. Indeed, there are only 5 tracks through the Mayne North area, so the idea of having three separate corridors through this area - CRR, Mains, and Subs - is untenable. Following the tracks, it is clear that all the northern Mains trains go into CRR, while all the northern Subs trains go into the city Mains, leaving only Ferny Grove on the city Subs. When combined with BrizCommuter's sleuthing on Checkmate to see that the total number of trains on the northern Mains was reduced to 24 at the same time as these changes were made, it is clear that the intention is as described. As described in earlier posts, once this occurs, CRR is full, which means the single outbound track southbound of Park Road is full, which means no trains coming around the corner from the surface Subs as there is simply no capacity left.

Finally, in June of this year, project change 7 was published. The trough structure did not reappear, although there is a considerable amount of track change between Mayne and Albion (see http://eisdocs.dsdip.qld.gov.au/Cross%20River%20Rail/project-change-7/Volume%202/General%20arrangement%20drawings/general-arrangement-23.pdf and http://eisdocs.dsdip.qld.gov.au/Cross%20River%20Rail/project-change-7/Volume%202/General%20arrangement%20drawings/general-arrangement-24.pdf, as well as an schematic I posted here a few days ago). While technically the split paradigm could be delivered using this track arrangement, it is unlikely due to the crossing being 300m of wrong-road running. If the intention was to operate this in this manner, the crossing would have been minimised (i.e. a straight diamond for example). It is also likely that the change 4 alignment - which was very clear in its operational objectives - was the 'first cut' infrastructure to get the bare minimum requirements in to run the planned operational paradigm, while change 7 has had things added to cater for incidents and closures and the like. There does not appear to be any likelihood of change to the operations implied by change 4 for change 7.

Finally, as discussed here a few days ago, there is no infrastructure in change 7 which would allow services to start/terminate at Salisbury (and indeed the only place that could be used as a turnback in the region is Yeerongpilly by using Clapham Yard). For this reason - and those listed above - it would be impossible for the 2017 service plan to operate as it is shown. While we can only guess what they are planning, it does seem that the 'option 1' discussed here a few days ago - which loosely has Cab/SC/K-R to Beenleigh/GC via CRR, Shorncliffe/Doomben/Airport to Spring/Ips via the Mains, and Ferny Grove to Cleveland via the Subs - is the likely outcome at this stage.

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).

I think this gets to the crux of the problem. The Caboolture/K-R/SC group was growing at about 10% p.a. between 2017-18 based on gocard data, compared with around 2% for Ferny Grove and Shorncliffe. Shorncliffe could have double the frequency once the Northgate trains are extended (s.t. rollingstock availability and track augmentation). Airport can't have and doesn't need additional services, and technically Doomben could immediately double to 4tph if the line was augmented (you can even see the preserved slots in the timetable currently). This is before any benefits from ETCS2 to the Subs (based on the press releases of a 20% gain in capacity this translates to 28.8tph from a 24tph base), which could be distributed to either Shorncliffe or Ferny Grove as appropriate. IMO it would be better to provide the increase in capacity to the lines with the highest forecast growth - those from north of Northgate - in the first instance.

[ozbob]

^ thanks for the detailed clarifications MTPCo.  Much appreciated. 

[kram0]

Some great info, thanks guys.

Do you think they will eventually build the right infrastructure (ie) the original version through Mayne yard so there will be conflict free operations? Would a change of government lead to them wanting to implement the most efficient version for the long term? (not likely I know, just putting it out there)

I have reached out to a friend who is a lead engineer on the project and his thoughts are positive around version 7 and that cost was likely the reason version 1 was not chosen. He also said there will be a higher speeds on version 7.

He thinks (but not 100% sure) that trains from the South will still go via South Bank. Let's wait on the official word from government when they eventually get back to Bob on this though.

[verbatim9]

He is probably implying that trains from Cleveland will go via Southbank?  Technically that is Brisbane's East. From everything I have read, South line operations from GC and Beenleigh have been mooted for the tunnel to continue through to Caboolture and Sunshine Coast.

[aldonius]

I used to be almost pro-send-them-all*-via-CRR but then I had a look at the patronage numbers.
If there's peak hour capacity, I would expect at least some ex-somewhere-on-the-Beenleigh-line trains to go via South Bank.

Make the rough assumptions that Albert St substitutes positively for everyone who currently goes via Central (it's better for most, worse for some, but it's also better for some who get off at South Bank and walk via the Goodwill bridge), and that Roma St via substitutes neutrally for Roma St via surface - it's a similar distance and the same number of stations.

In March 2019, of the combined daily AM peak-period patronage from stations Dutton Park through Varsity Lakes, touching off at Park Road through Bowen Hills or somewhere that required a transfer via the city, about 14% got off at Bowen Hills or Fortitude Valley, about 27% got off at South Brisbane or South Bank, about 36% got off at Central, and the remainder (23%) at Park Road, Roma St or transferred to another line.

That means everything*-via-CRR means 41% of patrons would have a degraded journey (due to needing to change trains), 23% neutral, and 36% improved (due to Albert St being in a better spot than Central).


* everything except Cleveland, which cannot go via CRR (without first going to Dutton Park and reversing).

[timh]

I used to be almost pro-send-them-all*-via-CRR but then I had a look at the patronage numbers.
If there's peak hour capacity, I would expect at least some ex-somewhere-on-the-Beenleigh-line trains to go via South Bank.

Make the rough assumptions that Albert St substitutes positively for everyone who currently goes via Central (it's better for most, worse for some, but it's also better for some who get off at South Bank and walk via the Goodwill bridge), and that Roma St via substitutes neutrally for Roma St via surface - it's a similar distance and the same number of stations.

In March 2019, of the combined daily AM peak-period patronage from stations Dutton Park through Varsity Lakes, touching off at Park Road through Bowen Hills or somewhere that required a transfer via the city, about 14% got off at Bowen Hills or Fortitude Valley, about 27% got off at South Brisbane or South Bank, about 36% got off at Central, and the remainder (23%) at Park Road, Roma St or transferred to another line.

That means everything*-via-CRR means 41% of patrons would have a degraded journey (due to needing to change trains), 23% neutral, and 36% improved (due to Albert St being in a better spot than Central).


* everything except Cleveland, which cannot go via CRR (without first going to Dutton Park and reversing).

I think from what we've determined in the thread so far, ex-Beenleigh and ex-Varsity lakes trains will go via CRR, ex-Salisbury (eventually Flagstone/Beaudesert) trains will go via South Bank.

[aldonius]

I think from what we've determined in the thread so far, ex-Beenleigh and ex-Varsity lakes trains will go via CRR, ex-Salisbury (eventually Flagstone/Beaudesert) trains will go via South Bank.

That's what's in the business plan and it's what I'm hoping for. I just don't know if the post-business-plan plans still support that given what's been revealed in the last two pages of this thread.

Edit to add: it's still 42% of AM peak passengers from south of Salisbury exiting at South Bank, South Brisbane, Fortitude Valley or Bowen Hills. But when you really think about it it's probably only about 40 people per train at Park Rd and 22 at Roma St.

[kram0]

He is probably implying that trains from Cleveland will go via Southbank?  Technically that is Brisbane's East. From everything I have read, South line operations from GC and Beenleigh have been mooted for the tunnel to continue through to Caboolture and Sunshine Coast.

Sorry I should have been more specific. He specified Beenleigh services via South Bank but only the government will know for sure and even then i'm not convinced.....

[ozbob]

https://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/documents/tableOffice/questionsAnswers/2020/576-2020.pdf

QUESTION ON NOTICE
ASKED
Tuesday, 16 June 2020

Answer Due: Thursday, 16 July 2020

576 MR S MINNIKIN ASKED MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND MAIN ROADS (HON M BAILEY)

With reference to the proposed increased train frequencies post Cross River Rail—
Will the Minister advise (a) the results of any transport studies which indicate the impact of the increased
frequency on waiting times at the level crossings on the Gold Coast/Beenleigh line and (b) the estimated
project costs and timelines associated with the removal of these level crossings?

[MTPCo]

Do you think they will eventually build the right infrastructure (ie) the original version through Mayne yard so there will be conflict free operations?

Hi kram0, I think the short answer is "no", because there's really only going to be one shot at getting it right. Through careful construction staging, it would be possible to deliver the grade separated version without any more impost than putting the change 7 version in. There are still going to have to be weekend (or longer) closures to conduct such a realignment, but with Mayne North currently effectively unused, this would be the time to do it. In the future, if constructed as planned, there will be six tracks/three corridors and a working stabling yard in that area, which means the impost of correcting it - having to shut all those tracks down for a lot longer - would practically preclude it occurring. Once it is in, it will be in forever.

I have reached out to a friend who is a lead engineer on the project and his thoughts are positive around version 7 and that cost was likely the reason version 1 was not chosen. He also said there will be a higher speeds on version 7.

With all due respect to your friend, the objectives of an engineer seldom align with a good operational outcome. At the risk of a minor rant, this is the endemic problem with many major rail projects - because they involve infrastructure, they are viewed as infrastructure projects, and all the objectives of the project are then aligned thusly. Of course, the tracks and tunnels themselves provide absolutely no benefit to anyone - it is the services that operate on them, but these things are never viewed as operational projects. Planning is a remarkably simple equation: demand and/or policy determine the services that you need to operate, and those operations determine the infrastructure that is needed. By viewing everything as an infrastructure project, the equation is reversed: here is some infrastructure, see what you can run on it, and hope that meets demand and/or policy.

I have no doubt that there would be some marginal cost of developing the trough structure (I had someone cost it for me, and their estimate was $10m) but it would be marginal in the scheme of the project and provide so much more benefit. As an example, that trough structure would have been the only part of the entire CRR project that provided any benefit to freight, by removing the conflict for southbound freight trains coming from the northern Mains to the Exhibition loop - the benefit of which (or conversely the disbenefit if it is not provided) will effectively last forever so long as rail freight runs to the north of the city. It also (with the other northern Mains enhancements discussed earlier) would have allowed 30tph from the Cab/SC/K-R group, compared to 24tph, which is a 25% increase in capacity - which has a huge dollar value if you consider how much it is costing per train path in the overall context of CRR (if you believe that it provides 48tph - both ways - at a cost of $6bn, that's a cost of $125m per train path, so an extra 6tph is worth $750m on a like-for-like basis). And this is probably where the failing lies, in that rather doing a benefit/cost analysis, a cost-only analysis was done, meaning that anything that could be removed and yet still have any service running by CRR was taken out.

[JimmyP]

What's the issue with freight? Surely they'll use the CRR alignment through to the southern side of Exhibition area then branch off towards Roma Street at Normanby?

[MTPCo]

What's the issue with freight? Surely they'll use the CRR alignment through to the southern side of Exhibition area then branch off towards Roma Street at Normanby?

Hi JimmyP, if the "split" version of the operating paradigm is implemented, then freight would be crossing all northbound trains from the city Mains. This doesn't happen in the 'non-split' paradigm (which has other severe problems as previously discussed), but would again be a problem if the Trouts Road Corridor were ever built.

[JimmyP]

Ahh gotcha, on the same page now! Cheers!

[kram0]

Thanks for your insights once again.

Yes it is a shame they are not proceeding with version 1 through Mayne, but after all this is government and we do expect them to cut corners and f&$k it up.

The day they do it once well, we will all be shocked.

[BrizCommuter]

I think from what we've determined in the thread so far, ex-Beenleigh and ex-Varsity lakes trains will go via CRR, ex-Salisbury (eventually Flagstone/Beaudesert) trains will go via South Bank.

That's what's in the business plan and it's what I'm hoping for. I just don't know if the post-business-plan plans still support that given what's been revealed in the last two pages of this thread.

Edit to add: it's still 42% of AM peak passengers from south of Salisbury exiting at South Bank, South Brisbane, Fortitude Valley or Bowen Hills. But when you really think about it it's probably only about 40 people per train at Park Rd and 22 at Roma St.

The track layouts at Mayne are now indicative that all 24tph from Caboolture/SC/Kippa-Ring will run through CRR. This means there is no spare track capacity on the counter-peak track from Dutton Park to Clapham Yards for counter-peak via South Bank services to Salisbury. Thus it is most likely that all GC/Been/Salisbury/Yeerongpilly services will run via CRR with none via South Bank, unless there  is a (somewhat confusing) peak direction only tidal flow.

The alternative is that the version 1 split paradigm (Caboolture/SC/Kippa-Ring split between CRR and Mains) will operate, (allowing the GCGC/Been/Salisbury/Yeerongpilly split) but with poor reliability due to the sub-optimal grade junction at Mayne.

The lack of operating plan is unacceptable, nor are the changes to the operating plan with no public visibility or consultation.

[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

7 News are following up on this. Booked for an interview later this morning.

[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

Thanks Briz. 

Sent to all outlets &

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

&

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

7 News are following up on this. Booked for an interview later this morning.

Great! I think the main points are:
This interchange is really 2 separate stations located a few hundred m apart.
The interchange is not protected from the elements.
The interchange is not within a gated fare area.
The frequency of connecting services via South Bank is unknown, and possibly dependent on Cleveland Line upgrades.

[ozbob]

 

[SurfRail]

I think it's time we asked for another meeting honestly.  Now the things actually not vaporware anyway...

[timh]

I think it's time we asked for another meeting honestly.  Now the things actually not vaporware anyway...

+1. From the discussions we've had in this thread it's clear we have a lot of questions that need answering.

[kram0]

The government should also be pressed heavily on the corners being cut within the Mayne section of the project. It is not too late to revise the design for the small cost compared to the total project cost. 

[BrizCommuter]

The government should also be pressed heavily on the corners being cut within the Mayne section of the project. It is not too late to revise the design for the small cost compared to the total project cost. 

Mayne is a major issue, but the Beenleigh Line corridor is still probably the biggest issue - 3 tracks instead of 4 restricting counter-peak and off-peak services, plus lack of "off-line" intermediate reversing points.

[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

7 News are following up on this. Booked for an interview later this morning.

Great! I think the main points are:
This interchange is really 2 separate stations located a few hundred m apart.
The interchange is not protected from the elements.
The interchange is not within a gated fare area.
The frequency of connecting services via South Bank is unknown, and possibly dependent on Cleveland Line upgrades.

Done the interview.  Hammered this in part ...

" The lack of operating plan is unacceptable, nor are the changes to the operating plan with no public visibility or consultation. "

See what survives the cut ..

[ozbob]

https://twitter.com/MarkBaileyMP/status/1278475017034973184

[Andrew]

Mayne is a major issue, but the Beenleigh Line corridor is still probably the biggest issue - 3 tracks instead of 4 restricting counter-peak and off-peak services, plus lack of "off-line" intermediate reversing points.

I don't see operations in the off peak affected but definitely peak will be an issue. I don't see how they are going to get their promised train every 5 mins on the Gold Coast Line without infrastructure upgrades. They cannot really operate much beyond what they are currently with the current track configuration between Beenleigh and Kuraby. Also the point about counter peak is valid because of potential extra empty movements.

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

[ozbob]

I am now attempting to ring Cross River Rail on their 1800 010 875 number to ask them if they have received the emails?  No response, not even an acknowledgement of receipt by email. 

Been on hold now for around 15 minutes listening to some modern music influenced by indigenous themes. 

Could be worse music  ...

It does seems communication with the ' Stakeholder Engagement Team ' is a very haphazard process.



====

Update: Finally got through.  Despite the previous advice that email address was whitelisted the emails were again in the junk folder.

You would think that they would at least check the junk folder  twice a day as their filtering seems overly sensitive.

Advice was they will escalate the query and hopefully we will receive a response in time.

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

[BrizCommuter]

Mayne is a major issue, but the Beenleigh Line corridor is still probably the biggest issue - 3 tracks instead of 4 restricting counter-peak and off-peak services, plus lack of "off-line" intermediate reversing points.

I don't see operations in the off peak affected but definitely peak will be an issue. I don't see how they are going to get their promised train every 5 mins on the Gold Coast Line without infrastructure upgrades. They cannot really operate much beyond what they are currently with the current track configuration between Beenleigh and Kuraby. Also the point about counter peak is valid because of potential extra empty movements.

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

Off-peak is a major issue, as express trains cannot overtake all stations trains. Thus to improve the off-peak frequency beyond every 30 minutes will require slowing down Gold Coast services. The counter-peak is also limited as empty, counter-peak expresses will get stuck behind all stations. There is also no-where to turn-back inner-Beenleigh Line services (for example at Kuraby) without blocking a track.

[red dragin]

Grabbed some pics on my way into town today.

Hi-res (4-5Mb) photos, hence the links.

We're on a rail to nowhere  (remnant of what was the northern Mayne yard connection to the main lines)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UxXqOl7Ir3ZJ3-VleZNIuBoLwXJG1h63/view?usp=sharing

What was Mayne North Yard, eventually to be stabling and CRR.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UzsUPLU68dR0PR8D3mBDx2MCRAmWfest/view?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UzuFN89OsHJenSFO97QuzC9nlqvqK1DT/view?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1V0z604ILoq2S4n32dkJZVfeb5s5fviS_/view?usp=sharing

[ozbob]

Grabbed some pics on my way into town today.

Hi-res (4-5Mb) photos, hence the links.

We're on a rail to nowhere  (remnant of what was the northern Mayne yard connection to the main lines)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UxXqOl7Ir3ZJ3-VleZNIuBoLwXJG1h63/view?usp=sharing

What was Mayne North Yard, eventually to be stabling and CRR.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UzsUPLU68dR0PR8D3mBDx2MCRAmWfest/view?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UzuFN89OsHJenSFO97QuzC9nlqvqK1DT/view?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1V0z604ILoq2S4n32dkJZVfeb5s5fviS_/view?usp=sharing

Thanks, but the images are not public.  Have to request access.

[red dragin]

Grabbed some pics on my way into town today.

Hi-res (4-5Mb) photos, hence the links.

We're on a rail to nowhere  (remnant of what was the northern Mayne yard connection to the main lines)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UxXqOl7Ir3ZJ3-VleZNIuBoLwXJG1h63/view?usp=sharing

What was Mayne North Yard, eventually to be stabling and CRR.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UzsUPLU68dR0PR8D3mBDx2MCRAmWfest/view?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UzuFN89OsHJenSFO97QuzC9nlqvqK1DT/view?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1V0z604ILoq2S4n32dkJZVfeb5s5fviS_/view?usp=sharing

Thanks, but the images are not public.  Have to request access.

Should be fixed now, my bad 

[ozbob]

   nice work.

[Andrew]

Off-peak is a major issue, as express trains cannot overtake all stations trains. Thus to improve the off-peak frequency beyond every 30 minutes will require slowing down Gold Coast services. The counter-peak is also limited as empty, counter-peak expresses will get stuck behind all stations. There is also no-where to turn-back inner-Beenleigh Line services (for example at Kuraby) without blocking a track.

No there won't. It takes 30 min express  from Salisbury to Beenleigh on the current stopping pattern. It takes 40 mins all stops. Adding 1 minute for the stop at Salisbury, it means if a Beenleigh train runs express Park Road to Salisbury 3 mins behind the Gold Coast train, it will arrive Beenleigh 3 mins ahead of the next Gold Coast train. This allows a 15 min frequency. The Ferny Grove - Salisbury via Southbank can arrive 3 mins before the Gold Coast train and you can have 12tph all on one track save for turning around at Salisbury.

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

[SurfRail]

Yeronga station consultation is open.

https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/cross-river-rail/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/01152602/02003_CRR_Yeronga-Station-Fact-Sheet_A4_V5_low-res.pdf

There does not appear to be any consideration for access to the station from the eastern side of Fairfield Road.  There might need to be a signalised crossing at the bridge to make this work.  If I'm being dropped there from a rail bus, or walking from the commuter car park to the north, I have no interest in trying to duck across traffic to access the only way into the station.

[Jonno]

Yeronga station consultation is open.

https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/cross-river-rail/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/01152602/02003_CRR_Yeronga-Station-Fact-Sheet_A4_V5_low-res.pdf

There does not appear to be any consideration for access to the station from the eastern side of Fairfield Road.  There might need to be a signalised crossing at the bridge to make this work.  If I'm being dropped there from a rail bus, or walking from the commuter car park to the north, I have no interest in trying to duck across traffic to access the only way into the station.

Very good point!! Even when car park become medium density housing/mixed use in the future there will be access required on the eastern side of the road!

[Andrew]

Is it possible that grey area on the footpath is some type of ramp? If not, then this is a glaring oversight.

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

[verbatim9]

Select train stations in Brisbane's South are getting a $160 million makeover for Cross River Rail. But there are concerns, construction, and cosmetics are being prioritised over the operation of the $5 billion project. http://7news.com.au
@G_Chumbley
#7NEWS

https://twitter.com/7NewsBrisbane/status/1278605735815872512

[verbatim9]

Good Interview

[Jonno]

Bet there are gong to be some tough questions begin answered by CRR tomorrow particularly the 200m walk!!

[BrizCommuter]

Good interview Ozbob!

[BrizCommuter]

Off-peak is a major issue, as express trains cannot overtake all stations trains. Thus to improve the off-peak frequency beyond every 30 minutes will require slowing down Gold Coast services. The counter-peak is also limited as empty, counter-peak expresses will get stuck behind all stations. There is also no-where to turn-back inner-Beenleigh Line services (for example at Kuraby) without blocking a track.

No there won't. It takes 30 min express  from Salisbury to Beenleigh on the current stopping pattern. It takes 40 mins all stops. Adding 1 minute for the stop at Salisbury, it means if a Beenleigh train runs express Park Road to Salisbury 3 mins behind the Gold Coast train, it will arrive Beenleigh 3 mins ahead of the next Gold Coast train. This allows a 15 min frequency. The Ferny Grove - Salisbury via Southbank can arrive 3 mins before the Gold Coast train and you can have 12tph all on one track save for turning around at Salisbury.

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

I see your point that with Salisbury terminators, a 15 min off-peak is just about theoretically possible. However by my calculations this would mean the GC/Beenleigh trains would be 2.5mins apart at Boggo Road and Beenleigh with no operating margin for delays. Beenleigh terminating trains would have to emptie very quickly at Beenleigh before heading to the siding, so as to not delay the GC train behind it. There are also implications with how these services interact with the other side of CRR (Cab/SC/K-R), though that's not to say it might not work. Personally I think the GC services may need to be slowed slightly to improve operating margin, unless the NGRs can improve the Beenleigh Line run-time beyond the current timetable. We could see a fast/semi-fast/all stations pattern (as per early CRR studies), or even a fast/2 different semi-fast patterns. Who knows what will happen in the counter peak where 24tph of mixed services will be running on the counter-peak track between CRR and Clapham Yards.

The issue with intermediate turnback locations still stands in the peak - I believe the Kuraby turnbacks cause the alternating 7.5/7/5/15min GC and Been frequencies. It may be possible to turnback via the interstate line south of Salisbury, but this would require a conflicting move. More infrastructure required!