Cross River Rail Project

[BrizCommuter]

I doubt we will see an operating plan until the last minute as it's obvious that timetables will be highly flawed due to the bottlenecks. It will also be dependant on multiple infrastructure projects that are barely on the government's radar.

I now think that we will see the all via CRR paradigm, which will leave the suburban tracks with considerable spare capacity. The current plan for NWTC/Trouts Rd appears to be to connect it to the Ferny Grove Line at Alderley (making use of the spare capacity on the subs). Yep, let's build a straight high(er) speed line into Brisbane and then route it for the last few km via the indirect and slow Ferny Grove Line. Stupider than stupid!

[timh]

The current plan for NWTC/Trouts Rd appears to be to connect it to the Ferny Grove Line at Alderley (making use of the spare capacity on the subs). Yep, let's build a straight high(er) speed line into Brisbane and then route it for the last few km via the indirect and slow Ferny Grove Line. Stupider than stupid!

Do you have a source for that info or is that just speculation? As of what I can find there is little to no information on the NWTC publicly available at all.

[kram0]

I doubt the NWTC will even be built in the next decade.

[BrizCommuter]

The current plan for NWTC/Trouts Rd appears to be to connect it to the Ferny Grove Line at Alderley (making use of the spare capacity on the subs). Yep, let's build a straight high(er) speed line into Brisbane and then route it for the last few km via the indirect and slow Ferny Grove Line. Stupider than stupid!

Do you have a source for that info or is that just speculation? As of what I can find there is little to no information on the NWTC publicly available at all.

The Check Mate section of Cross River Rail's website.

[ozbob]

Brisbanetimes --> Not enough trains for South Bank in underground plan, rail group fears

A rail lobby group fears not enough trains will run through South Bank and South Brisbane stations as many services are sent underground for the Cross River Rail project.

The group, Rail Back on Track, believes up to 10,000 rail passengers a day on the Gold Coast or Beenleigh lines will have to switch trains at Boggo Road Station if they want to get to South Bank or South Brisbane.

At present, trains run through South Bank and South Brisbane stations, cross the Merivale Bridge to Roma Street and run north to Central Station or west along the Ipswich line.

Once Cross River Rail is finished, southside train services divide.

Most will go underground at Park Road, to new underground stations at Woolloongabba, Albert Street and Roma Street.

Queensland Rail statistics show almost one-fifth of total rail passengers from Brisbane's southside (17.7 per cent) in March 2019 travelled to South Bank or South Brisbane.

They also show almost as many southside rail commuters on the Gold Coast line (241,647 individuals) get off the train at South Brisbane and South Bank (38,355) as those alight at Central Station (38,780).

Rail Back on Track spokesman Robert Dow believes only Cleveland line trains will run through South Bank and South Brisbane after Cross River Rail is finished in 2024.

"It might be eight or 10 trains an hour (peak), which seems to me to be a bit light," Mr Dow said.

"Beenleigh and Gold Coast line trains will presumably be going through the tunnel, which will leave only the Cleveland line trains."

Queensland Rail statistics show 89,741 unique passengers get off at South Bank and South Brisbane in March 2019.

The Cross River Rail Delivery Authority would not say how many trains it planned to run through South Bank and South Brisbane, only that it would "work with the Department of Transport and Main Roads."

It said many rail passengers got off at South Brisbane and walked over the bridge because it was more convenient.

"The Gold Coast and Beenleigh line is one of SEQ's fastest-growing rail corridors and it is expected that the vast majority of patronage on this line will make good use of direct access to a new Albert Street station, located in the very heart of Brisbane's CBD," a spokeswoman said.

"Currently, these passengers get off at South Bank or South Brisbane then walk for 15 minutes or more, simply because there is no station in the CBD centre."

The spokeswoman agreed passengers on the Gold Coast and Beenleigh lines wanting to go to South Bank or South Brisbane would have "options" to transfer at Boggo Road (travelling north) and from Roma Street (travelling south).

Mr Dow said because the underground rail station was directly below Park Road station, passengers would have to walk 200 metres "without cover" to change trains.

"This won't be fun in Brisbane's hot, humid and often stormy summer weather," he said.

The Cross River Rail Delivery Authority spokeswoman said the design for the connection between the Boggo Road and Park Road stations was "ongoing".

"It will take passenger comfort into consideration," she said.

Mr Dow said the Cross River Rail Delivery Authority was being secretive about the information it released to the public.

"It seems extraordinary that that sort of information is not available."

South Bank and South Brisbane host one of Brisbane's most popular attractions – South Bank Parklands – as well as South Bank TAFE and the Queensland Performing Arts Complex.

It will also be home to Brisbane's new 1500-seat performing arts theatre by 2024, with construction set to start soon.

[ozbob]

https://twitter.com/railbotforum/status/1280356693524672513

[timh]

The current plan for NWTC/Trouts Rd appears to be to connect it to the Ferny Grove Line at Alderley (making use of the spare capacity on the subs). Yep, let's build a straight high(er) speed line into Brisbane and then route it for the last few km via the indirect and slow Ferny Grove Line. Stupider than stupid!

Do you have a source for that info or is that just speculation? As of what I can find there is little to no information on the NWTC publicly available at all.

The Check Mate section of Cross River Rail's website.

I'm assuming you mean this:

https://imgur.com/a/IacnJSD

All that says is that there's a link between Alderley and Strathpine. Contrary to what you've previously posted, all the material I have seen and rumours I have heard indicate that the NWTC would link at Alderley station, not Enoggera as you posted.

What CRRDA has posted there doesn't necessarily mean that the rail line will rejoin the Ferny grove line at Alderley. Other ideas I have heard floated indicate it would be more of an underground platform at Alderley like Boggo Road/Park Road. Considering they add the line "together with future infrastructure", to me that doesn't mean at all that they are dead set on running NWTC trains via Ferny Grove, so I don't think it's fair to jump to that conclusion.

I also don't think it's fair to jump to the conclusion that plugging in an NWTC connection using a Ferny Grove style flyover from the Ekka loop to tunnel portals in Victoria Park is impossible either. The existing Ekka loop has sections (like the bit just north of Girls Grammar) where there are up to 9 tracks side by side. I know that with CRR the plan is to downscale that to less tracks and reconfigure everything, but you can't tell me there isn't room to accommodate at 2-track flyover somewhere along there. They're not downsizing the corridor itself, I would like to believe there would be plenty of room to build something

[nathandavid88]

With regards to trains servicing South Brisbane and South Bank would it be feasible to run Airport Line services (which I'm assuming would be reduced to running between Roma Street and the Airport) as a Park Road terminating service to provide additional services to the inner south?

Short of that, my recommendation to anyone needing to transfer to get to South Bank would be to transfer to a bus at Woolloongabba. That would seem to be the quickest transfer option.

[Gazza]

http://eisdocs.dsdip.qld.gov.au/Cross%20River%20Rail/project-change-7/Volume%202/General%20arrangement%20drawings/general-arrangement-20.pdf

It looks like the track centerlines are very far apart. Is the idea that turnouts will go in the middle of the trough?


Maybe NWTC stage 1 will indeed connect to the Ferny Grove line?
Ideally this would be combined with sinking Alderley station to simultaneously accommodate a junction and remove the LX.
I am imagining a set up where you have UUDD at Alderley to allow cross platform interchange.

Stage 2 would be a quad to newmarket, replacing the problematic bridges, then the NWTC line dives after Newmarket, tunnels under Ballymore, then cut and cover through Victoria Park to connect with CRR.

[Gazza]

https://twitter.com/railbotforum/status/1280356693524672513

I think right now, one of the cheapest and easiest things to do is to have a staircase from the underground station exit to the outbound Busway platform.

But we should urgently campaign for a new covered concourse to Elliot St.

[red dragin]

It looks like the track centerlines are very far apart. Is the idea that turnouts will go in the middle of the trough?

It looks like the trough is being built wider, to allow tracks to run in the middle. The centrelines stay well apart for a while, to continue the trough and head underground again. Probably a good compromise over tunnel stubs.

Once the trough is dug and trackbed works starts, we should get an idea.

[BrizCommuter]

The current plan for NWTC/Trouts Rd appears to be to connect it to the Ferny Grove Line at Alderley (making use of the spare capacity on the subs). Yep, let's build a straight high(er) speed line into Brisbane and then route it for the last few km via the indirect and slow Ferny Grove Line. Stupider than stupid!

Do you have a source for that info or is that just speculation? As of what I can find there is little to no information on the NWTC publicly available at all.

The Check Mate section of Cross River Rail's website.

I'm assuming you mean this:

https://imgur.com/a/IacnJSD

All that says is that there's a link between Alderley and Strathpine. Contrary to what you've previously posted, all the material I have seen and rumours I have heard indicate that the NWTC would link at Alderley station, not Enoggera as you posted.

What CRRDA has posted there doesn't necessarily mean that the rail line will rejoin the Ferny grove line at Alderley. Other ideas I have heard floated indicate it would be more of an underground platform at Alderley like Boggo Road/Park Road. Considering they add the line "together with future infrastructure", to me that doesn't mean at all that they are dead set on running NWTC trains via Ferny Grove, so I don't think it's fair to jump to that conclusion.

I also don't think it's fair to jump to the conclusion that plugging in an NWTC connection using a Ferny Grove style flyover from the Ekka loop to tunnel portals in Victoria Park is impossible either. The existing Ekka loop has sections (like the bit just north of Girls Grammar) where there are up to 9 tracks side by side. I know that with CRR the plan is to downscale that to less tracks and reconfigure everything, but you can't tell me there isn't room to accommodate at 2-track flyover somewhere along there. They're not downsizing the corridor itself, I would like to believe there would be plenty of room to build something

Enoggera would be the most logical interchange location if NWTC ran underground from Roma Street, which would preferably run via Ashgrove (with massive transport benefits to Western Suburbs).  If branching off the Ferny Grove Line which has been shown in quite a few documents, then Alderley is the most logical interchange location. It may be part of a staged process, but that's probably a stage secret. Alderley is a tricky location for a junction though with multiple nearby roads and storm water drains, and at the top of a fairly steep rail incline from Newmarket. Doable, but not cheap.

[timh]

Enoggera would be the most logical interchange location if NWTC ran underground from Roma Street, which would preferably run via Ashgrove (with massive transport benefits to Western Suburbs).

The thing is, the tunnel stubs are NOT being built at Roma street, so you gotta start thinking about it differently.

If branching off the Ferny Grove Line which has been shown in quite a few documents

Again, what documents?

I think Gazza has hit the nail on the head with his idea


Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

[BrizCommuter]

With regards to trains servicing South Brisbane and South Bank would it be feasible to run Airport Line services (which I'm assuming would be reduced to running between Roma Street and the Airport) as a Park Road terminating service to provide additional services to the inner south?

Short of that, my recommendation to anyone needing to transfer to get to South Bank would be to transfer to a bus at Woolloongabba. That would seem to be the quickest transfer option.

Assuming Mains switch to Subs at Mayne, then routing Airport services from Subs to Subs would add a conflicting move. 4tph outbound crossing 14tph inbound in the am peak for example. However this sort of information as to whether Park Rd may be reconfigured for more optimal turnbacks, or whether the Cleveland Line will be duplicated to allow more services via SB is what we are pushing to get out of authorities.

[BrizCommuter]

Enoggera would be the most logical interchange location if NWTC ran underground from Roma Street, which would preferably run via Ashgrove (with massive transport benefits to Western Suburbs).

The thing is, the tunnel stubs are NOT being built at Roma street, so you gotta start thinking about it differently.

If branching off the Ferny Grove Line which has been shown in quite a few documents

Again, what documents?

I think Gazza has hit the nail on the head with his idea


Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

1) The tunnel hasn't been built yet at Roma Street so it's still possible.
2) Plenty of the state government planning documents over the last half a decade. Look yourself ;-)
Note: I don't really like your tone in your last post. You seem to be making statements about things I've never stated (such as a flyover at the Victoria Park being impossible).

[ozbob]

Assuming Mains switch to Subs at Mayne, then routing Airport services from Subs to Subs would add a conflicting move. 4tph outbound crossing 14tph inbound in the am peak for example. However this sort of information as to whether Park Rd may be reconfigured for more optimal turnbacks, or whether the Cleveland Line will be duplicated to allow more services via SB is what we are pushing to get out of authorities.

Right on.  Rail operational plan, why is it a state secret?   One would hope they have an idea of how the network will operate.  These details need to be made public.  It is impossible to assess the merit of their plans at present because of the secrecy.   Past form is not encouraging.

[timh]

Enoggera would be the most logical interchange location if NWTC ran underground from Roma Street, which would preferably run via Ashgrove (with massive transport benefits to Western Suburbs).

The thing is, the tunnel stubs are NOT being built at Roma street, so you gotta start thinking about it differently.

If branching off the Ferny Grove Line which has been shown in quite a few documents

Again, what documents?

I think Gazza has hit the nail on the head with his idea


Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

1) The tunnel hasn't been built yet at Roma Street so it's still possible.
2) Plenty of the state government planning documents over the last half a decade. Look yourself ;-)
Note: I don't really like your tone in your last post. You seem to be making statements about things I've never stated (such as a flyover at the Victoria Park being impossible).

My point is simply that I feel that arguing for tunnel stubs at Roma street, at this late stage is fighting the wrong battle. The station cavern is already being dug, unfortunately I think it's too late at this stage for them to change that aspect of the design.

If we collectively as a lobbying group are trying to push for some sort of NWTC provision then I think we should be aiming for a realistic target, which unfortunately i don't think the tunnel stubs are. Wide spacing in the Ekka loop to leave room for new tracks/flyovers etc. Is I think the best we will hope for. I'd rather push for a suboptimal solution and get it than push for a very difficult ideal solution and get nothing at all

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

[Gazza]

Unpopular Opinion:

A tunnel from Enoggera to Roma St is probably not worth it.

The chief benefits would be;
-The ability to have a station a Ashgrove and potentially Kelvin Grove.
-1km shorter alignment compared to going via Victoria Park

Do either of these warrant 7km of tunnelling?
Im going to say no, because it would be several billion to add one extra station to the network (Kelvin Grove will have Metro so the heavy rail stop would have marginal benefit)
The station at Ashgrove I think has very limited potential for redevelopment given the character of the suburb, and the actual commercial center is on a ridge so it's going to be mega deep level.
You're that close to the city it's unlikely to be advantageous for bus interchange given the deep level nature of the station.

[aldonius]

NWTC is tricky.

- The fastest outcome for expresses is to go Petrie - Strathpine - Alderley - CRR via an additional tunnel, but that will surely leave Exhibition stranded (or break sectorisation hard).
- There are at least three new sensible station spots along NWTC: Everton Park @ Stafford Rd, McDowall @ Rode Rd, and Bridgeman Downs @ Albany Ck Rd. Plus Strathpine and Alderley, that's too many and too close together for express services.
- Going via Windsor from Strathpine might save up to three km to Central, but anything coming from north of Strathpine wouldn't be able to use it without breaking sectorisation hard.
- Local services could go via Windsor and take advantage of subs capacity through Central, but it would be quite a bit more indirect to the CBD compared to a new tunnel (6 km to Central vs 5km to Albert St, both from Newmarket, via Victoria Park). But then again if they go via the new tunnel they have to go via CRR, and that capacity could be better used by trains from further out.

[Gazza]

NWTC should be done as a quad from day 1 between Bridgeman Downs and Alderley (4km worth)

[timh]

NWTC should be done as a quad from day 1 between Bridgeman Downs and Alderley (4km worth)

100%. If not quad tracked all the way then at least have all the stations have a two way bypass track down the middle
I probably got that term wrong but it's this thing:

https://simmods.gamejunkie.pro/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Ground-Bypass-Station-2-1.jpg

[aldonius]

So, stranding Exhibition it is then?

[BrizCommuter]

NWTC is tricky.

- The fastest outcome for expresses is to go Petrie - Strathpine - Alderley - CRR via an additional tunnel, but that will surely leave Exhibition stranded (or break sectorisation hard).
- There are at least three new sensible station spots along NWTC: Everton Park @ Stafford Rd, McDowall @ Rode Rd, and Bridgeman Downs @ Albany Ck Rd. Plus Strathpine and Alderley, that's too many and too close together for express services.
- Going via Windsor from Strathpine might save up to three km to Central, but anything coming from north of Strathpine wouldn't be able to use it without breaking sectorisation hard.
- Local services could go via Windsor and take advantage of subs capacity through Central, but it would be quite a bit more indirect to the CBD compared to a new tunnel (6 km to Central vs 5km to Albert St, both from Newmarket, via Victoria Park). But then again if they go via the new tunnel they have to go via CRR, and that capacity could be better used by trains from further out.

A few thoughts on NWTC options:

1) The sadly almost dead Roma St "direct" route would be expensive, but have the fastest journey times, and allow up to 24tph (8tph all stations/16tph expresses). Stations at either QUT KG or Ashgrove, and Enoggera may be beneficial. It would need to be 4 tracked North of Everton Park.

2) Diverging from CRR's portal would allow the above service pattern, but with a slower and longer route to Alderley. It would need to be 4 tracked North of Everton Park.

3) Branching off the Ferny Grove Line at Alderley would limit capacity to approx. 12tph (allowing for future frequency increases on the FG Line). Journey times would be longer due to the indirect routing of the FG Line and non-express running on the FG Line. At 12tph running via NWTC there would be little point in building more than 2 tracks unless this was part of a staged approach, and this all trains would serve all stations. This would not be a good option for fast rail from the Sunshine Coast, and would be more suitable to take trains from MBRL.  Alderley is also a tricky location to build a junction, with many road constraints (of which South Pine Road would need grade seperation), a storm water drain/creek under the FG Line to the W of South Pine Road, and various other roads within a few hundred m of the station. I have a few ideas, but that's another post.

[timh]

So, stranding Exhibition it is then?

I don't know if this would work, but couldn't you still run Nambour terminators via Exhibition/Northgate and Caloundra/Maroochydore terminators via NWTC?

Because realistically I think any NWTC proposal would be a part of a Sunshine Coast fast rail proposal, and when we're talking about faster rail for the Sunshine Coast, that really (unfortunately) means the coast, not the hinterland.

[Old Northern Road]

Caboolture/ Maroochydore via Trouts with Caboolture stopping at the Trouts Rd stations
Kippa-Ring via Northgate and Exhibition

CRR would probably be at capacity with that

[ozbob]

Still no response from CRRDA.  Probably been told to not to by TMR et al is my suspicion.   
Any rail project that has TMR involvement is going to be a problem in my opinion.

I will wait for a response until 31st July 2020, at which point I will then go down the RTI path. 

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

[ozbob]

^ not going to be a good look lurkers. 

LIFT. YOUR. GAME.

[BrizCommuter]

The rail operations plan may be very embarrassing, especially if associated infrastructure is not constructed - the worst case scenario is zero extra services! I think CRR/TMR will continue to try to hide operational plans. I would expect there must be multiple plans/scenarios depending on which associated infrastructure is constructed before CRR's opening.

[ozbob]

Well well ... just received this email.  This is a surprise 

=====

9.09am 8th July 2020

Hi Robert,

Thank you for your email.

We are seeking further information from the project team and a response will be provided shortly.

Kind regards

Stakeholder Engagement Team

=====

Response to the email of 28th June 2020 ' CRR rail service plan '

[timh]

I had a go at trying to work out possible pairings/frequencies based on our previous discussions for what the network might look like post CRR/NWTC. I still find the whole subs/mains through the city thing really confusing (I don't fully understand which tracks are which) but I think I've taken everyone's points in mind (especially thanks Brizcommuter).

I've based frequencies on this as a starting point:



Here's my network map showing pairings: https://metromapmaker.com/?map=XQeTG8nB

Basically it's:

Rosewood (4tph)/Ipswich (6tph) to Kippa Ring (10tph) via Central
Springfield/Ipswich (10tph) to Shorncliffe (6tph) via Central (w/ 4tph terminating at Northgate)
Salisbury/Beaudesert (6tph) to Doomben (2tph) and Airport (4tph) via Central
Varsity Lakes/OOL (12tph) to Caboolture/SCA (12tph) via CRR/NWTC
Beenleigh (6tph) to Nambour (6tph) via CRR/Exhibition
Cleveland (10tph) to Ferny Grove (8tph) via Central (w/ 2tph terminating at Bowen Hills)

This assumes full duplication to Nambour, Cleveland and Shorncliffe to allow those frequencies, and I think most likely would require quad track Dutton Park-Salisbury (but I'm not sure).

Someone let me know if this won't work due to trains crossing/conflicting movements/other train operations things that I am struggling to understand!

I think the next step after this network I've made is built would be a new GC alignment via M1.

[BrizCommuter]

I had a go at trying to work out possible pairings/frequencies based on our previous discussions for what the network might look like post CRR/NWTC. I still find the whole subs/mains through the city thing really confusing (I don't fully understand which tracks are which) but I think I've taken everyone's points in mind (especially thanks Brizcommuter).

I've based frequencies on this as a starting point:



Here's my network map showing pairings: https://metromapmaker.com/?map=XQeTG8nB

Basically it's:

Rosewood (4tph)/Ipswich (6tph) to Kippa Ring (10tph) via Central
Springfield/Ipswich (10tph) to Shorncliffe (6tph) via Central (w/ 4tph terminating at Northgate)
Salisbury/Beaudesert (6tph) to Doomben (2tph) and Airport (4tph) via Central
Varsity Lakes/OOL (12tph) to Caboolture/SCA (12tph) via CRR/NWTC
Beenleigh (6tph) to Nambour (6tph) via CRR/Exhibition
Cleveland (10tph) to Ferny Grove (8tph) via Central (w/ 2tph terminating at Bowen Hills)

This assumes full duplication to Nambour, Cleveland and Shorncliffe to allow those frequencies, and I think most likely would require quad track Dutton Park-Salisbury (but I'm not sure).

Someone let me know if this won't work due to trains crossing/conflicting movements/other train operations things that I am struggling to understand!

I think the next step after this network I've made is built would be a new GC alignment via M1.

That diagram was for project change 1 in 2017 which had a CRR/Mains grade seperation at Mayne. This allows for the split paradigm.

In 2019 (around change 4) proposed frequencies were changed to 12tph for K-R, Cab, Ips, and Spri, 11tph inner-Clev, and 7tph Salisb. There was no map provided. The operations in the 2017 plan would not be possible due to restrictive track layouts at Mayne.

In 2020, all proposed frequencies went missing from CRR's website. Project change 7 has a new track layout at Mayne that is flexible for routing, but with conflicting moves. It is thus speculated that all Cab, K-R, GC, Been, and Salis trains will be routed via CRR, Mains switch to Subs at Mayne so Ips, Spring to Airp, Shorn, Doom. This leaves Clev to FG on the Subs (with capacity for NWTC from Alderley). But who knows, as it is all a state secret.

[timh]

That diagram was for project change 1 in 2017 which had a CRR/Mains grade seperation at Mayne. This allows for the split paradigm.

In 2019 (around change 4) proposed frequencies were changed to 12tph for K-R, Cab, Ips, and Spri, 11tph inner-Clev, and 7tph Salisb. There was no map provided. The operations in the 2017 plan would not be possible due to restrictive track layouts at Mayne.

In 2020, all proposed frequencies went missing from CRR's website. Project change 7 has a new track layout at Mayne that is flexible for routing, but with conflicting moves. It is thus speculated that all Cab, K-R, GC, Been, and Salis trains will be routed via CRR, Mains switch to Subs at Mayne, leaving Clev to FG on the Subs (with capacity for NWTC from Alderley). But who knows, as it is all a state secret.

That's fair. That being said though, are the frequencies/pairings I've suggested even possible with the current layout at Mayne/Southern Portal?

[BrizCommuter]

That diagram was for project change 1 in 2017 which had a CRR/Mains grade seperation at Mayne. This allows for the split paradigm.

In 2019 (around change 4) proposed frequencies were changed to 12tph for K-R, Cab, Ips, and Spri, 11tph inner-Clev, and 7tph Salisb. There was no map provided. The operations in the 2017 plan would not be possible due to restrictive track layouts at Mayne.

In 2020, all proposed frequencies went missing from CRR's website. Project change 7 has a new track layout at Mayne that is flexible for routing, but with conflicting moves. It is thus speculated that all Cab, K-R, GC, Been, and Salis trains will be routed via CRR, Mains switch to Subs at Mayne, leaving Clev to FG on the Subs (with capacity for NWTC from Alderley). But who knows, as it is all a state secret.

That's fair. That being said though, are the frequencies/pairings I've suggested even possible with the current layout at Mayne/Southern Portal?

That would be messy due to multiple conflicting moves and uneven frequencies. If two lines share a track, the frequencies generally need to match. So you can mix 12tph with 6tph for example, but not 12tph with 10tph. An example is that the Subs currently run 8tph FG, 4tph Shorn, 4tph Northg, 4tph Airport, 2 tph Doom, with 2tph spare. If you tried to run an even 5 , 6, or 7tph in that mix you would have a mess.

[timh]

That diagram was for project change 1 in 2017 which had a CRR/Mains grade seperation at Mayne. This allows for the split paradigm.

In 2019 (around change 4) proposed frequencies were changed to 12tph for K-R, Cab, Ips, and Spri, 11tph inner-Clev, and 7tph Salisb. There was no map provided. The operations in the 2017 plan would not be possible due to restrictive track layouts at Mayne.

In 2020, all proposed frequencies went missing from CRR's website. Project change 7 has a new track layout at Mayne that is flexible for routing, but with conflicting moves. It is thus speculated that all Cab, K-R, GC, Been, and Salis trains will be routed via CRR, Mains switch to Subs at Mayne, leaving Clev to FG on the Subs (with capacity for NWTC from Alderley). But who knows, as it is all a state secret.

That's fair. That being said though, are the frequencies/pairings I've suggested even possible with the current layout at Mayne/Southern Portal?

That would be messy due to multiple conflicting moves and uneven frequencies. If two lines share a track, the frequencies generally need to match. So you can mix 12tph with 6tph for example, but not 12tph with 10tph. An example is that the Subs currently run 8tph FG, 4tph Shorn, 4tph Northg, 4tph Airport, 2 tph Doom, with 2tph spare. If you tried to run an even 5 , 6, or 7tph in that mix you would have a mess.

Frequencies I can tweak.  Could you help me understand what constitutes a "conflicting move" though? I'm sorry for my noobishness I have no background in trains/engineering/planning.
My understanding is the suburban tracks are the track pair on the Eastern side of the quad and the mains are the pair on the western side. The subs are used by Shorncliffe, Airport, Doomben and Ferny Grove. I thought I did a pretty good job sorting out so they all stay on those paths, and I thought a "conflicting move" would be where the trains from one line cross over the trains of another. I must not be understanding correctly.

[BrizCommuter]

That diagram was for project change 1 in 2017 which had a CRR/Mains grade seperation at Mayne. This allows for the split paradigm.

In 2019 (around change 4) proposed frequencies were changed to 12tph for K-R, Cab, Ips, and Spri, 11tph inner-Clev, and 7tph Salisb. There was no map provided. The operations in the 2017 plan would not be possible due to restrictive track layouts at Mayne.

In 2020, all proposed frequencies went missing from CRR's website. Project change 7 has a new track layout at Mayne that is flexible for routing, but with conflicting moves. It is thus speculated that all Cab, K-R, GC, Been, and Salis trains will be routed via CRR, Mains switch to Subs at Mayne, leaving Clev to FG on the Subs (with capacity for NWTC from Alderley). But who knows, as it is all a state secret.

That's fair. That being said though, are the frequencies/pairings I've suggested even possible with the current layout at Mayne/Southern Portal?

That would be messy due to multiple conflicting moves and uneven frequencies. If two lines share a track, the frequencies generally need to match. So you can mix 12tph with 6tph for example, but not 12tph with 10tph. An example is that the Subs currently run 8tph FG, 4tph Shorn, 4tph Northg, 4tph Airport, 2 tph Doom, with 2tph spare. If you tried to run an even 5 , 6, or 7tph in that mix you would have a mess.

Frequencies I can tweak.  Could you help me understand what constitutes a "conflicting move" though? I'm sorry for my noobishness I have no background in trains/engineering/planning.
My understanding is the suburban tracks are the track pair on the Eastern side of the quad and the mains are the pair on the western side. The subs are used by Shorncliffe, Airport, Doomben and Ferny Grove. I thought I did a pretty good job sorting out so they all stay on those paths, and I thought a "conflicting move" would be where the trains from one line cross over the trains of another. I must not be understanding correctly.

A conflicting move is what happens at a non grade seperated junction. Essentially trains have to cross paths. The higher the frequency the lower the reliability. An example is Park Road.

[timh]

That diagram was for project change 1 in 2017 which had a CRR/Mains grade seperation at Mayne. This allows for the split paradigm.

In 2019 (around change 4) proposed frequencies were changed to 12tph for K-R, Cab, Ips, and Spri, 11tph inner-Clev, and 7tph Salisb. There was no map provided. The operations in the 2017 plan would not be possible due to restrictive track layouts at Mayne.

In 2020, all proposed frequencies went missing from CRR's website. Project change 7 has a new track layout at Mayne that is flexible for routing, but with conflicting moves. It is thus speculated that all Cab, K-R, GC, Been, and Salis trains will be routed via CRR, Mains switch to Subs at Mayne, leaving Clev to FG on the Subs (with capacity for NWTC from Alderley). But who knows, as it is all a state secret.

That's fair. That being said though, are the frequencies/pairings I've suggested even possible with the current layout at Mayne/Southern Portal?

That would be messy due to multiple conflicting moves and uneven frequencies. If two lines share a track, the frequencies generally need to match. So you can mix 12tph with 6tph for example, but not 12tph with 10tph. An example is that the Subs currently run 8tph FG, 4tph Shorn, 4tph Northg, 4tph Airport, 2 tph Doom, with 2tph spare. If you tried to run an even 5 , 6, or 7tph in that mix you would have a mess.

Frequencies I can tweak.  Could you help me understand what constitutes a "conflicting move" though? I'm sorry for my noobishness I have no background in trains/engineering/planning.
My understanding is the suburban tracks are the track pair on the Eastern side of the quad and the mains are the pair on the western side. The subs are used by Shorncliffe, Airport, Doomben and Ferny Grove. I thought I did a pretty good job sorting out so they all stay on those paths, and I thought a "conflicting move" would be where the trains from one line cross over the trains of another. I must not be understanding correctly.

A conflicting move is what happens at a non grade seperated junction. Essentially trains have to cross paths. The higher the frequency the lower the reliability. An example is Park Road.

I'm still not seeing where in my proposal a conflicting move would be then. In my network idea I've got ex-Cleveland and ex-Beaudesert trains coming in. The Beaudesert ones can use the Southern platforms at Park road and the Cleveland trains can use the northern platforms. They wouldn't cross over eachother at all there, not until the tracks merge past Park road into 3 tracks, but I mean they all have to merge down to 2 tracks anyway to cross the Merivale bridge so I don't see where the conflict is in that scenario :/

[BrizCommuter]

That diagram was for project change 1 in 2017 which had a CRR/Mains grade seperation at Mayne. This allows for the split paradigm.

In 2019 (around change 4) proposed frequencies were changed to 12tph for K-R, Cab, Ips, and Spri, 11tph inner-Clev, and 7tph Salisb. There was no map provided. The operations in the 2017 plan would not be possible due to restrictive track layouts at Mayne.

In 2020, all proposed frequencies went missing from CRR's website. Project change 7 has a new track layout at Mayne that is flexible for routing, but with conflicting moves. It is thus speculated that all Cab, K-R, GC, Been, and Salis trains will be routed via CRR, Mains switch to Subs at Mayne, leaving Clev to FG on the Subs (with capacity for NWTC from Alderley). But who knows, as it is all a state secret.

That's fair. That being said though, are the frequencies/pairings I've suggested even possible with the current layout at Mayne/Southern Portal?

That would be messy due to multiple conflicting moves and uneven frequencies. If two lines share a track, the frequencies generally need to match. So you can mix 12tph with 6tph for example, but not 12tph with 10tph. An example is that the Subs currently run 8tph FG, 4tph Shorn, 4tph Northg, 4tph Airport, 2 tph Doom, with 2tph spare. If you tried to run an even 5 , 6, or 7tph in that mix you would have a mess.

Frequencies I can tweak.  Could you help me understand what constitutes a "conflicting move" though? I'm sorry for my noobishness I have no background in trains/engineering/planning.
My understanding is the suburban tracks are the track pair on the Eastern side of the quad and the mains are the pair on the western side. The subs are used by Shorncliffe, Airport, Doomben and Ferny Grove. I thought I did a pretty good job sorting out so they all stay on those paths, and I thought a "conflicting move" would be where the trains from one line cross over the trains of another. I must not be understanding correctly.

A conflicting move is what happens at a non grade seperated junction. Essentially trains have to cross paths. The higher the frequency the lower the reliability. An example is Park Road.

I'm still not seeing where in my proposal a conflicting move would be then. In my network idea I've got ex-Cleveland and ex-Beaudesert trains coming in. The Beaudesert ones can use the Southern platforms at Park road and the Cleveland trains can use the northern platforms. They wouldn't cross over eachother at all there, not until the tracks merge past Park road into 3 tracks, but I mean they all have to merge down to 2 tracks anyway to cross the Merivale bridge so I don't see where the conflict is in that scenario :/

The outbound Beaudesert HAS to cross the path of an inbound from Cleveland. That's the conflict!

There are also multiple conflicting moves in your plan at Mayne.

[paulg]

That diagram was for project change 1 in 2017 which had a CRR/Mains grade seperation at Mayne. This allows for the split paradigm.

In 2019 (around change 4) proposed frequencies were changed to 12tph for K-R, Cab, Ips, and Spri, 11tph inner-Clev, and 7tph Salisb. There was no map provided. The operations in the 2017 plan would not be possible due to restrictive track layouts at Mayne.

In 2020, all proposed frequencies went missing from CRR's website. Project change 7 has a new track layout at Mayne that is flexible for routing, but with conflicting moves. It is thus speculated that all Cab, K-R, GC, Been, and Salis trains will be routed via CRR, Mains switch to Subs at Mayne, leaving Clev to FG on the Subs (with capacity for NWTC from Alderley). But who knows, as it is all a state secret.

That's fair. That being said though, are the frequencies/pairings I've suggested even possible with the current layout at Mayne/Southern Portal?

That would be messy due to multiple conflicting moves and uneven frequencies. If two lines share a track, the frequencies generally need to match. So you can mix 12tph with 6tph for example, but not 12tph with 10tph. An example is that the Subs currently run 8tph FG, 4tph Shorn, 4tph Northg, 4tph Airport, 2 tph Doom, with 2tph spare. If you tried to run an even 5 , 6, or 7tph in that mix you would have a mess.

Frequencies I can tweak.  Could you help me understand what constitutes a "conflicting move" though? I'm sorry for my noobishness I have no background in trains/engineering/planning.
My understanding is the suburban tracks are the track pair on the Eastern side of the quad and the mains are the pair on the western side. The subs are used by Shorncliffe, Airport, Doomben and Ferny Grove. I thought I did a pretty good job sorting out so they all stay on those paths, and I thought a "conflicting move" would be where the trains from one line cross over the trains of another. I must not be understanding correctly.

A conflicting move is what happens at a non grade seperated junction. Essentially trains have to cross paths. The higher the frequency the lower the reliability. An example is Park Road.

I'm still not seeing where in my proposal a conflicting move would be then. In my network idea I've got ex-Cleveland and ex-Beaudesert trains coming in. The Beaudesert ones can use the Southern platforms at Park road and the Cleveland trains can use the northern platforms. They wouldn't cross over eachother at all there, not until the tracks merge past Park road into 3 tracks, but I mean they all have to merge down to 2 tracks anyway to cross the Merivale bridge so I don't see where the conflict is in that scenario :/

The outbound Beaudesert HAS to cross the path of an inbound from Cleveland. That's the conflict!

There are also multiple conflicting moves in your plan at Mayne.

New to this discussion, and I'll admit I found sifting through the debate over the last few pages quite a lot to process!

I'd expect that the removal of the grade separation at Mayne was a cost-cutting measure because they aren't planning to actually deliver the frequencies shown in the business case at year 2026. It looks to me like the drawing in Project Change 7 probably has an error (as Project Change 4 almost certainly did) and I'd expect the actual design to allow trains coming in from the north on the Mains to go via either CRR or Central, via an at-grade junction. If they aren't delivering the planned peak frequency in the business case at the opening of CRR, presumably this at-grade junction could be made to work? It seems to me more likely that they're sticking with the overall pairings and network design in the business case, than a wholesale reorganisation.

Cheers, Paul

[BrizCommuter]

That diagram was for project change 1 in 2017 which had a CRR/Mains grade seperation at Mayne. This allows for the split paradigm.

In 2019 (around change 4) proposed frequencies were changed to 12tph for K-R, Cab, Ips, and Spri, 11tph inner-Clev, and 7tph Salisb. There was no map provided. The operations in the 2017 plan would not be possible due to restrictive track layouts at Mayne.

In 2020, all proposed frequencies went missing from CRR's website. Project change 7 has a new track layout at Mayne that is flexible for routing, but with conflicting moves. It is thus speculated that all Cab, K-R, GC, Been, and Salis trains will be routed via CRR, Mains switch to Subs at Mayne, leaving Clev to FG on the Subs (with capacity for NWTC from Alderley). But who knows, as it is all a state secret.

That's fair. That being said though, are the frequencies/pairings I've suggested even possible with the current layout at Mayne/Southern Portal?

That would be messy due to multiple conflicting moves and uneven frequencies. If two lines share a track, the frequencies generally need to match. So you can mix 12tph with 6tph for example, but not 12tph with 10tph. An example is that the Subs currently run 8tph FG, 4tph Shorn, 4tph Northg, 4tph Airport, 2 tph Doom, with 2tph spare. If you tried to run an even 5 , 6, or 7tph in that mix you would have a mess.

Frequencies I can tweak.  Could you help me understand what constitutes a "conflicting move" though? I'm sorry for my noobishness I have no background in trains/engineering/planning.
My understanding is the suburban tracks are the track pair on the Eastern side of the quad and the mains are the pair on the western side. The subs are used by Shorncliffe, Airport, Doomben and Ferny Grove. I thought I did a pretty good job sorting out so they all stay on those paths, and I thought a "conflicting move" would be where the trains from one line cross over the trains of another. I must not be understanding correctly.

A conflicting move is what happens at a non grade seperated junction. Essentially trains have to cross paths. The higher the frequency the lower the reliability. An example is Park Road.

I'm still not seeing where in my proposal a conflicting move would be then. In my network idea I've got ex-Cleveland and ex-Beaudesert trains coming in. The Beaudesert ones can use the Southern platforms at Park road and the Cleveland trains can use the northern platforms. They wouldn't cross over eachother at all there, not until the tracks merge past Park road into 3 tracks, but I mean they all have to merge down to 2 tracks anyway to cross the Merivale bridge so I don't see where the conflict is in that scenario :/

The outbound Beaudesert HAS to cross the path of an inbound from Cleveland. That's the conflict!

There are also multiple conflicting moves in your plan at Mayne.

New to this discussion, and I'll admit I found sifting through the debate over the last few pages quite a lot to process!

I'd expect that the removal of the grade separation at Mayne was a cost-cutting measure because they aren't planning to actually deliver the frequencies shown in the business case at year 2026. It looks to me like the drawing in Project Change 7 probably has an error (as Project Change 4 almost certainly did) and I'd expect the actual design to allow trains coming in from the north on the Mains to go via either CRR or Central, via an at-grade junction. If they aren't delivering the planned peak frequency in the business case at the opening of CRR, presumably this at-grade junction could be made to work? It seems to me more likely that they're sticking with the overall pairings and network design in the business case, than a wholesale reorganisation.

Cheers, Paul

It is now looking like all Mains from the North via CRR due to no grade seperated junction. If the split paradigm is operated it will be unreliable.

[MTPCo]

Well well ... just received this email.  This is a surprise 

=====

9.09am 8th July 2020

Hi Robert,

Thank you for your email.

We are seeking further information from the project team and a response will be provided shortly.

Kind regards

Stakeholder Engagement Team

=====

Response to the email of 28th June 2020 ' CRR rail service plan '

Great work ozbob! I'm sure the proximity of this response to your intention to submit an RFI is purely coincidental...

It's worth noting that any major rail project needs to be grounded by a "Concept of Operations" (usually called a ConOps) which determines how the railway will run in different periods. Given that construction has started, this ConOps must (or should) have been in existence for the past year or more.

This document would contain, among other things, the expected operations in each time period - e.g. AM and PM peaks including all the stabling movements, off-peak to identify and confirm freight capacity and paths for the long distance trains. Now, while an argument might come back to say that final train numbers are yet to be confirmed - the decision to run 10 or 12 Kippa-Ring trains in 2026 might depend on updated patronage and rollingstock availability, for example - but this shouldn't change the way they are planning to operate the network at a broad level - it doesn't matter so much if 10 or 12 Kippa-Ring trains run, but knowing that Kippa-Ring trains run via CRR is the key information. The notional sectorisation, or allocation of services to corridors, is the key, and knowing exact train numbers is not so important. If such a response were to come back - "we're working through service levels" - it would be inappropriate.

Given the above, if a response doesn't come back soon - and it really should be within 24 hours - then one of two things is happening:

• There is a specified operating plan via a ConOps document, but the information is being deliberately withheld; or
• There is no specified operating plan via a ConOps, meaning that construction has started without an understanding of how services will operate

I'd think neither are appropriate outcomes.