Cross River Rail Project

[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 ..

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

[ozbob]

Good interview Ozbob!

Thanks, but it was your background work that made it possible.   

[ozbob]

https://twitter.com/9NewsQueensland/status/1278609750754803712

[BrizCommuter]

https://twitter.com/9NewsQueensland/status/1278609750754803712

A milestone in mediocrity! These station designs will make it very difficult to add a 4th track.

[Gazza]

Did we have an outcome yet on Moorooka and the 3rd platform that was miles from the rest of the station?

[BrizCommuter]

Did we have an outcome yet on Moorooka and the 3rd platform that was miles from the rest of the station?

It allows trains to enter/exit Clapham Yards for stabling with less conflicting movements. In theory.

[timh]

Did we have an outcome yet on Moorooka and the 3rd platform that was miles from the rest of the station?

It allows trains to enter/exit Clapham Yards for stabling with less conflicting movements. In theory.

It was still terrible design for commuters.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

[ozbob]

Did we have an outcome yet on Moorooka and the 3rd platform that was miles from the rest of the station?

This is the latest concept image for Moorooka.  It seems that commonsense has prevailed ..

https://crossriverrail.qld.gov.au/stations-routes/salisbury-to-fairfield-line/

[Gazza]

So if they are still going back and forth with project changes, is there hope they can fix the track layouts.

Is there a catchy term we can come up with to push the issue in the media? "Fix the Mayne Bottleneck"?

I don't think there is any hope of underground tunnel stubs at Roma St. That is job in the hundreds of millions apparently due to requiring an additional mined cavern, but stuff like the trough should happen.

[ozbob]

https://twitter.com/CrossRiverRail/status/1278840927101104141

[Andrew]

So if they are still going back and forth with project changes, is there hope they can fix the track layouts.

Is there a catchy term we can come up with to push the issue in the media? "Fix the Mayne Bottleneck"?

Choose the pathway to success?

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

[nathandavid88]

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.

Reading the Yeronga Station Fact sheet and comparing the diagram with the current layout, that large white section shown beside the eastern side of Fairfield Road doesn't correspond to anything currently built at the station, so I'm thinking it maybe should have been coloured orange and would include an access point to the overpass.

Also, interpreting how the overpass over Fairfield Road is broken off into a separate paragraph due to requiring a project change, I would read that the "New overpass and vertical transport system including three lifts and stairs" mentioned as referring to within the footprint of the station, and any lift on the far side of the road being a fourth.

[BrizCommuter]

Did we have an outcome yet on Moorooka and the 3rd platform that was miles from the rest of the station?

This is the latest concept image for Moorooka.  It seems that commonsense has prevailed ..

https://crossriverrail.qld.gov.au/stations-routes/salisbury-to-fairfield-line/

Doesn't seem to match the change version 7 track layouts. I just don't think anyone has told the artists of the change yet. For rail operations the distant platforms makes sense. It also allows for a western entrance to Moorooka station.

[ozbob]

^ good point.  Shows the platform way out west.

http://eisdocs.dsdip.qld.gov.au/Cross River Rail/project-change-7/Volume 2/General construction site plans/general-construction-site-plans-moorooka-station.pdf

[ozbob]

Lot of inconsistencies.  I feel another NGR like fail coming on .. 

[Golliwog]

That layout is odd.

Surely if you were only building 1 platform on the dual track you would put it on the accessible side of the tracks - i.e. if people are leaving the station that way, they don't need to use an overpass.

But equally, why not just build it as an island platform and have 4 platforms now?

[ozbob]

https://twitter.com/ozbob13/status/1278882511196569601

[BrizCommuter]

That layout is odd.

Surely if you were only building 1 platform on the dual track you would put it on the accessible side of the tracks - i.e. if people are leaving the station that way, they don't need to use an overpass.

But equally, why not just build it as an island platform and have 4 platforms now?

The outside (west) track is a freight loop. The passenger track is inside as it allows for a more optimal track layout for passenger trains to access Clapham Yards. The change 7 plans do make sense. I would expect platform use to be fairly consistent throughout the day as it will only be served by all stations services, so I don't think the long walkway is a major issue. Let's hope the long walkway has instagramable architecture - though I'm sure it'll end up the usual stock standard design.

[timh]

Did we have an outcome yet on Moorooka and the 3rd platform that was miles from the rest of the station?

This is the latest concept image for Moorooka.  It seems that commonsense has prevailed ..

https://crossriverrail.qld.gov.au/stations-routes/salisbury-to-fairfield-line/

Doesn't seem to match the change version 7 track layouts. I just don't think anyone has told the artists of the change yet. For rail operations the distant platforms makes sense. It also allows for a western entrance to Moorooka station.

There is no need for a Western entrance to the station. West of Moorooka station is a few industrial lots and a golf course. The housing lots the next block over I would argue wouldn't really be walking to the station anyway due to having to go around the creek, so it makes little difference to them to drive to the Eastern side.

That layout is odd.

Surely if you were only building 1 platform on the dual track you would put it on the accessible side of the tracks - i.e. if people are leaving the station that way, they don't need to use an overpass.

But equally, why not just build it as an island platform and have 4 platforms now?

The outside (west) track is a freight loop. The passenger track is inside as it allows for a more optimal track layout for passenger trains to access Clapham Yards. The change 7 plans do make sense. I would expect platform use to be fairly consistent throughout the day as it will only be served by all stations services, so I don't think the long walkway is a major issue. Let's hope the long walkway has instagramable architecture - though I'm sure it'll end up the usual stock standard design.

So are you saying the weird Western platform would be rarely used? I would hope so....

[ozbob]

Couriermail Quest --> Fairfield Station first of six to be revamped as Cross River Rail progresses

MAJOR upgrades to Brisbane train stations as part of the Cross River Rail project have started.

Fairfield Station is the first of six that will be revamped to improve accessibility as the major train project moves forward.

A new platform, overpass, lifts and stairs and more accessible parking are part of the planned upgrade at the Fairfield station.

Transport Minister Mark Bailey said the design was updated earlier this year to help preserve the station's heritage shelter.

"The very first Fairfield Station opened more than 130 years ago and since then has undergone a number of upgrades, including being relocated and rebuilt following the 1893 Brisbane flood," Mr Bailey said.

"This marks the beginning of a new future for the station with upgrades which will both increase the station's capacity and improve accessibility for commuters.

"There will be plenty of new features, including new lifts, bicycle storage, safe pedestrian access, additional shelters and landscaping."

Train stations at Yeronga, Yeerongpilly, Moorooka, Rocklea and Salisbury are due to receive upgrades.

The project has come under fire in recent weeks after a transport advocacy group voiced concerns about peak hour delays along four train level crossings.

The Cross River Rail Authority recently ditched plans to close a divert bikeway on a busy road after multiple complaints from two Brisbane schools.

[BrizCommuter]

Did we have an outcome yet on Moorooka and the 3rd platform that was miles from the rest of the station?

This is the latest concept image for Moorooka.  It seems that commonsense has prevailed ..

https://crossriverrail.qld.gov.au/stations-routes/salisbury-to-fairfield-line/

Doesn't seem to match the change version 7 track layouts. I just don't think anyone has told the artists of the change yet. For rail operations the distant platforms makes sense. It also allows for a western entrance to Moorooka station.

There is no need for a Western entrance to the station. West of Moorooka station is a few industrial lots and a golf course. The housing lots the next block over I would argue wouldn't really be walking to the station anyway due to having to go around the creek, so it makes little difference to them to drive to the Eastern side.

That layout is odd.

Surely if you were only building 1 platform on the dual track you would put it on the accessible side of the tracks - i.e. if people are leaving the station that way, they don't need to use an overpass.

But equally, why not just build it as an island platform and have 4 platforms now?

The outside (west) track is a freight loop. The passenger track is inside as it allows for a more optimal track layout for passenger trains to access Clapham Yards. The change 7 plans do make sense. I would expect platform use to be fairly consistent throughout the day as it will only be served by all stations services, so I don't think the long walkway is a major issue. Let's hope the long walkway has instagramable architecture - though I'm sure it'll end up the usual stock standard design.

So are you saying the weird Western platform would be rarely used? I would hope so....

It's a very long way around for the people who do work on that side. I would expect redevelopment over the next decade, plus there would need to be an emergency exit there anyway, so why not make it an entrance? How often the platform gets used depends on the proposed up/down operations and which tracks are used for local services.

[James]

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.

I have a feeling the lack of consideration for access to the station from Fairfield Road could be to do with DDA access.

The eastern verge of Fairfield Road already looks to be only ~2-2.5m wide. By the time you bring in a lift and stairs, along with upgrading the path beside the road to be DDA compliant, it's possible that there wouldn't be enough room for a lift and stairs, or it may be very difficult to construct while keeping the eastern side of Fairfield Road open - whereas the western side has a good chunk of government-owned land and private carpark which provide room for construction work.

It my be simpler to have people walk 140m each way to the signals at Yeronga Street. Let's just hope this is an oversight - RailBus stops can easily be missed!

Lot of inconsistencies.  I feel another NGR like fail coming on .. 

Good job on all your work so far Bob. I have a feeling there are some crossed wires here between the concept designers (Arup, per the drawings posted of each concept) and the construction alliance (Unity). Hopefully the construction alliance is working towards a better outcome!

[Gazza]

I have a problem with the dead end Western platform precisely because it will be rarely used.

It'll become an unsafe area without casual surveillance.

[ozbob]

I have a problem with the dead end Western platform precisely because it will be rarely used.

It'll become an unsafe area without casual surveillance.

Starting to think along the same lines.  Seems all rather pointless in the end.

[ozbob]

https://twitter.com/ozbob13/status/1279086845758857217

[MTPCo]

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.

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.

+1

There's a lot to unpack and cover here, but to try to do it quickly:

• In the assumed operating scenario (non-split) there's no room for the Salisbury services to operate, at least not during the contra-peaks
• I get a slightly different outcome by using the published times from Altandi to Beenleigh (the only ones I can see where an express train stops), and using the approximation of each stop adds approximately one minute to an express train (c.f. Altandi-Beenleigh at 23 vs 30 minutes across 9 stops difference for 47 seconds per stop), means that given a maximum 10 minute spacing for a 15-minute frequency (assuming 2.5 minute minimum headways) means an express train catches the previous all-stations after 10 stops which from Salisbury is Kingston and Trinder Park if starting from Mooroooka (noting that, at least in contra-peak, everything must run at all-stations speed between Park Road and Moorooka)
• If the parameters to allow that outcome were in place - split paradigm, supporting infrastructure at Salisbury for turnbacks - that would still be (as Briz points out) an incredibly tightly wound timetable. This would require the merging of 4 and 8, with the 4 having to cross 4 (from Cleveland) at Park Road, with that crossing governed by the single line sections. Any variability would result in cascading delays

So if they are still going back and forth with project changes, is there hope they can fix the track layouts.

Is there a catchy term we can come up with to push the issue in the media? "Fix the Mayne Bottleneck"?

Good idea. "Getting it right is the Mayne objective", "Doing it right: that's the Mayne thing", or perhaps "The trains in Mayne are less delay'n when they're on another plane". Or maybe "Without the trough structure in Mayne, I've got a sinking feeling". I'll stop now.

Doesn't seem to match the change version 7 track layouts. I just don't think anyone has told the artists of the change yet. For rail operations the distant platforms makes sense. It also allows for a western entrance to Moorooka station.

+1 (and continued below).

Surely if you were only building 1 platform on the dual track you would put it on the accessible side of the tracks - i.e. if people are leaving the station that way, they don't need to use an overpass.

But equally, why not just build it as an island platform and have 4 platforms now?

Both excellent points, with the latter in particular being relevant if there was ever any intention of operating four passenger tracks between Park Road and Salisbury to segregate out the Flagstone/Beaudesert line.

Based on the layout of Clapham and surrounds in the general arrangements, and the general objective (which is 100% appropriate) to remove crossing conflicts for access and egress from stabling yards, I believe that the train flows are as depicted in the attached .pptx. Effectively, the 'western platform' would be used by all-stations trains in the AM and PM peaks. In the AM peak, this leaves the existing platform 2 (what would be the middle platform in the future) vacant, but this is to avoid the crossing conflicts that would occur. If we are assuming the "non-split" paradigm, then 24tph coming from the tunnel leaves 16tph to go to stabling at Clapham - assuming 4tph run as revenue contra-peak to each of Gold Coast and Beenleigh. If we assume up to 12tph all-stations trains in the AM peak (i.e. a 50/50 split of the 24tph capacity), this would be 12 crossing 16, which would be completely untenable as each group is either merging with or diverging from a completely saturated track. So, from an operational perspective, they have it pretty much exactly right.

Note that I have assumed (and it appears, so have CRR) that the all-stations trains would be on the middle track in the AM peak. However, given the provision of third platforms everywhere, and on the assumption that there are no Kuraby short-starters, the express trains could very well run on the middle track, meaning the platform face could be on the outside as well as using the outside platforms all the way to Kuraby (where applicable), further minimising the need for passenger to use the overpasses. This would be a much better outcome overall.

In terms of the passenger outcome, it is probably less than ideal but also not that big of a problem IMO. Given that the arrangement only needs to occur either in the PM peak (when two tracks are needed for outbound trains) or the AM peak (when empty trains are accessing Clapham), the western platform is probably only going to be used for 2-3 hours a day. In the off-peak, including in the evenings/nighttime, the existing platforms would be used, meaning the issues of safety are certainly lessened.

The only alternatives I can see to getting rid of the need for the western platform (if it is still considered an issue) is to realign the 3rd and 4th passenger tracks back to the eastern side, and then raise them via a flyover to reinstate conflict-free access to the yard. This would be a bit tricky, and much more expensive, but certainly not impossible by any stretch. Or, Moorooka station as a whole could be moved to where the tracks are closer, but either end of the yard would be problematic - either too close to Yeerongpilly, or the fun and games of creek/underpass road/overpass motorway/adjacent road at the other end.

Good job on all your work so far Bob. I have a feeling there are some crossed wires here between the concept designers (Arup, per the drawings posted of each concept) and the construction alliance (Unity). Hopefully the construction alliance is working towards a better outcome!

+1 to thanking ozbob!

In terms of the designs, I note Arup doesn't appear after anything from Change 1 (i.e. 2016/17), so it looks like there may have been a change of design team (and noting that it's AECOM on the BaT and 2011 drawings). This chopping and changing of design team could help to explain some of the deficiencies - there would be a lack of continuity in understanding in the form of "that's why we've done this".

[MTPCo]

I don't think there is any hope of underground tunnel stubs at Roma St. That is job in the hundreds of millions apparently due to requiring an additional mined cavern, but stuff like the trough should happen.

This is really interesting, and more interesting than I first realised. I'm a big advocate of the tunnel stubs - even if they cost money, they allow you to expand with minimal disruption (or even expand at all) in the future. I could begrudgingly deal with provision on the surface at Exhibition, but that doesn't appear to be included and it certainly doesn't seem doable in the future without major disruption again.

I went back to the 2011 EIS to see what they did. Interestingly enough, their connection appears to not be at Roma Street or on the surface, but in the portal structure itself - see here: http://eisdocs.dsdip.qld.gov.au/Completed%20Projects/Cross%20River%20Rail/EIS/EIS%2030%20Aug%202011/02%20Volume%202/1%20General%20Arrangement/General%20Arrangement%2019.pdf

The southern end of the platforms in both the 2011 and Change 7 designs are almost identical - near the roundabout - albeit the platform alignments are a bit different, with the earlier cutting across the tracks and the later staying under platform 3. There is also a difference in where they tie in to Exhibition - 2011 ties in just before Bowen Bridge Road, while Change 7 is on surface before the land bridge (which just so happens to be where the stubs structure is in 2011). However, there doesn't seem to be any fundamental reason why the 2011 version couldn't be adopted into the current design with minor tweaks, as they effectively end up with the same trackwork through Exhibition station.

I have always preferred the idea of tunnel stubs directly at Roma Street because it would allow a natural arc from the CRR alignment to traverse through Ashgrove and up to Enoggera to connect to the Trouts Road Corridor on what would be a relatively fast alignment. Ashgrove is purely a personal preference - I can see the merit of a well-designed interchange station at Waterworks Road between Stewart Road and Ashgrove Avenue to allow buses to hub there and have a much faster transit time to the city (against the P384 this would be 10-15 minutes faster, for example) - while Enoggera is on the TRC alignment (in a straight line) and offers a nice mid-point intersection of the Ferny Grove line. Trying to go to Ashgrove with the 2011 stubs provision and location adds around 2km of distance, which would be something like 2-3 minutes given the curves required. Going straight to Enoggera would result in a difference of around 1.2km, but would forego an Ashgrove station without the opportunity to have something equivalent that isn't already well served by bus or train - maybe Kelvin Grove near Enoggera Road.

Ultimately it probably comes down to a) whether there's merit in connecting Ashgrove directly, which is something that I feel would be worthwhile, but without having hard evidence or conducting a study it is purely guesswork, and b) if there's any desire to connect to the TRC (which IMO is fundamentally critical to expanding services to the Sunshine Coast including any future CAMCOS-type activity).

[timh]

I went back to the 2011 EIS to see what they did. Interestingly enough, their connection appears to not be at Roma Street or on the surface, but in the portal structure itself - see here: http://eisdocs.dsdip.qld.gov.au/Completed%20Projects/Cross%20River%20Rail/EIS/EIS%2030%20Aug%202011/02%20Volume%202/1%20General%20Arrangement/General%20Arrangement%2019.pdf

Those tunnel stubs don't look that difficult to build! Surely that wouldn't require a whole extra mined cavern like Gazza was saying?

If they are easy enough to dig we should be pushing for those just as much as we push for an improved Maybe junction



Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

[Fares_Fair]

I wrote to the Minister, Kate Jones in September 2019.
Her office directed me to the Cross River Rail Delivery Authority (CRRDA).

I too have written to the CRRDA (twice) seeking answers, similar to the questions above.
I also requested the operational plans upon which the current design is based.
First time in November 2019 and again last month.

My questions have not been answered and they are brushed aside with the 'State Government have yet to make a decision' on the matters raised.
Ludicrous, of course, given that they are building the thing and advertising its benefits.

My great concern lies in the fact of the grossly limited services available for the North Coast Line into the future.
This plan does not allow for any more than 4 trains per hour.
It's simply scandalous.

[ozbob]

Couriermail Quest --> Blast works for the Cross River Rail to start this week

THE first explosive blasts for Cross River Rails's two new inner city stations will begin in coming days.

The Cross River Rail Delivery Authority will announce today that test blasting will begin near the Albert Street CBD underground station and the new Woolloongabba station before the end of the week.

The test blasting will be carried out ahead of larger scale controlled explosive use in order to understand the ground where the excavation will be carried out.

Tests will be carried out in early July and the controlled blasting excavation runs throughout July and August.

"Today we have advised local residents and businesses that trials of controlled blasting will be carried next week at the Albert Street site and the week after at our Woolloongabba site," a CRRDA spokesperson said.

"Both of these sites contain very hard rock such as Brisbane Tuff and Neranleigh Fernvale, and these trial blasts will be monitored to give us an understanding of the ground conditions.

"It will also help us predict the noise and vibration levels we can expect from a program of blasting to be done from July through August, if the test blasting is successful.

"Controlled blasting breaks up areas of hard rock not able to be broken using construction machinery and reduces the amount of time we have to spend excavating."

The blasting uses only small explosive charges and will not cause loud noises or vibration.

"Once the small explosive charges are loaded, the holes are filled with up to two metres of gravel which acts like a cork to contain pressure, this is covered by 'blast mats' made of shock-absorbing rubber, held down with one tonne of sand bags," the spokesperson said.

"These multiple layers prevent debris and dust, as well as reduce the impact of noise and vibration.

"Those in proximity to the site may hear and feel the controlled blast, with the sound similar to rumbling thunder and only slight vibrations felt."

CRRDA will notify nearby residents at least 48 hours in advance of any blasting and a siren will sound immediately before blasting.]THE first explosive blasts for Cross River Rails's two new inner city stations will begin in coming days.

The Cross River Rail Delivery Authority will announce today that test blasting will begin near the Albert Street CBD underground station and the new Woolloongabba station before the end of the week.

The test blasting will be carried out ahead of larger scale controlled explosive use in order to understand the ground where the excavation will be carried out.

Tests will be carried out in early July and the controlled blasting excavation runs throughout July and August.

"Today we have advised local residents and businesses that trials of controlled blasting will be carried next week at the Albert Street site and the week after at our Woolloongabba site," a CRRDA spokesperson said.

"Both of these sites contain very hard rock such as Brisbane Tuff and Neranleigh Fernvale, and these trial blasts will be monitored to give us an understanding of the ground conditions.

"It will also help us predict the noise and vibration levels we can expect from a program of blasting to be done from July through August, if the test blasting is successful.

"Controlled blasting breaks up areas of hard rock not able to be broken using construction machinery and reduces the amount of time we have to spend excavating."

The blasting uses only small explosive charges and will not cause loud noises or vibration.

"Once the small explosive charges are loaded, the holes are filled with up to two metres of gravel which acts like a cork to contain pressure, this is covered by 'blast mats' made of shock-absorbing rubber, held down with one tonne of sand bags," the spokesperson said.

"These multiple layers prevent debris and dust, as well as reduce the impact of noise and vibration.

"Those in proximity to the site may hear and feel the controlled blast, with the sound similar to rumbling thunder and only slight vibrations felt."

CRRDA will notify nearby residents at least 48 hours in advance of any blasting and a siren will sound immediately before blasting.

[BrizCommuter]

A bit of an out there idea here. As it is probably getting too late for sensible design decisions such as 4 tracks from Dutton Park to Salisbury. A long term suggestion is that any elevated higher speed regional rail via the M1 corridor should plug into the via South Bank line at Park Road. This would allow up to 12tph from GC and 12tph from Cleveland running via South Bank. CRR would then have up to 24tph for Beenleigh and Beaudesert/Flagstone lines, with minimal infrastructure enhancements required other than grade seperated junction at Salisbury. The via M1 line would plug into the existing GC line around Yatala, where an interchange station could be built with terminating Beenleigh Line trains. Discuss? 

[Gazza]

If there was a regional higher speed line, why run it via Southbank?
You'd enter the city via CRR and then through route to the Sunshine Coast so you can use the same (9 car?) rolling stock and to ensure the fastest corridor all the way through.

You'd then have 12TPH GC, 12 TPH Flagstone via CRR

Then 12TPH Beenleigh and 12 TPH from Cleveland via southbank.

[BrizCommuter]

If there was a regional higher speed line, why run it via Southbank?
You'd enter the city via CRR and then through route to the Sunshine Coast so you can use the same (9 car?) rolling stock and to ensure the fastest corridor all the way through.

You'd then have 12TPH GC, 12 TPH Flagstone via CRR

Then 12TPH Beenleigh and 12 TPH from Cleveland via southbank.

It's the track connections with CRR that are problematic. Same issue with Trouts Rd. Plugging in new tunnels to CRR would force a closure for possibly around 6 months. The lack of forward thinking will make plugging in Trouts Rd and a via M1 line very disruptive to existing services.

[BrizCommuter]

I've also had a look at the counter peak 3rd track between Dutton Park and Salisbury. With 4tph all stations counter peak it would effectively restrict capacity to 16tph (1 all stations, followed by 2 expresses, and 1 empty to Clapham Yards). The only way to allow more services to run counter peak would be to eliminate express running on this section.

The 3rd track would also be a problem with the split paradigm with Southbound am peak trains every 5 minutes (12tph) through CRR as the 3rd track would require a 4,2.5,8.5 min pattern from Boggo Rd in every 15 minute cycle to allow 4tph counter peak to Salisbury, Beenleigh, and GC.

The lack of 4th track on this section will be an operational disaster.

[BrizCommuter]

I'll do a blog post on this soon, but from what I can see for counter-peak Dutton Park - Salisbury due to the 3 track limitation:
Up to 16tph will require extended dwell times at Boggo/Park Road or some non-express running for correct sequencing.
17-20tph will require extended dwell times at Boggo/Park Road for correct sequencing or some non-express running, and a 4th platform at Salisbury.
21-24tph will require a 4th track or expresses will have to stop all stations.
This is all assuming 4tph GC exp, 4tph Beenleigh exp, and 4tph Salisbury/Flagstone all stations counter-peak on this section.

Additionally the 4tph GC service would by my calculations need to overtake the 4tph Beenleigh service somewhere around Loganlea. It should be noted that to allow a 12tph GC/6tph Been peak direction service that a 3rd track would be required Holmview to Kuraby, and thus there would need to a partial 4th tracking of the outer Beenleigh Line. Reconfiguration at Beenleigh to allow at least 4 sidings in between the running tracks would also be operationally useful.

[Jonno]

I went back to the 2011 EIS to see what they did. Interestingly enough, their connection appears to not be at Roma Street or on the surface, but in the portal structure itself - see here: http://eisdocs.dsdip.qld.gov.au/Completed%20Projects/Cross%20River%20Rail/EIS/EIS%2030%20Aug%202011/02%20Volume%202/1%20General%20Arrangement/General%20Arrangement%2019.pdf

Those tunnel stubs don't look that difficult to build! Surely that wouldn't require a whole extra mined cavern like Gazza was saying?

If they are easy enough to dig we should be pushing for those just as much as we push for an improved Maybe junction



Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

Seems very strange position given the direct route would be more back towards Normandy 5 ways! Still they should be provisioned!!

[BrizCommuter]

BrizCommuter looks (again) at the Southside Cross River Rail bottlenecks.
https://brizcommuter.blogspot.com/2020/07/cross-river-rail-southside-bottleneck.html

[ozbob]

BrizCommuter looks (again) at the Southside Cross River Rail bottlenecks.
https://brizcommuter.blogspot.com/2020/07/cross-river-rail-southside-bottleneck.html

Thanks Briz, sent to all outlets &

Facebook > https://www.facebook.com/RAILBackOnTrack/posts/3552862434727918?comment_id=3577897052224456

&

https://twitter.com/railbotforum/status/1280166009257656328

[BrizCommuter]

Thanks. Sadly it's probably too late for common sense to avail and add a 4th track between Dutton Park and Salisbury.

[ozbob]

Thanks. Sadly it's probably too late for common sense to avail and add a 4th track between Dutton Park and Salisbury.

^ yes that is the reality.

A once great concept rooted by incompetent and dumb polyticks and a failed bureaucracy.

I don't have much confidence left in the outcomes for CRR.  Yes, you will be able to catch a train to Albert St station and the 'Gabba, but as far as rest of the network ho hum.

Queensland is a failed jurisdiction.  This was the state that couldn't ensure that had enough resources to deliver a train timetable.  The network collapsed.  This is a jurisdiction that couldn't ensure new trains were properly compliant.  Hundreds of millions of dollars to fix.

Where is the rail operation plan for the rail network post CRR?