Cross River Rail Project

[BrizCommuter]

BrizCommuter's final article on Cross River Rail for a little while (probably), looking at the rail operations secret.
https://brizcommuter.blogspot.com/2020/07/cross-river-rail-rail-operations-secret.html

[paulg]

BrizCommuter's final article on Cross River Rail for a little while (probably), looking at the rail operations secret.
https://brizcommuter.blogspot.com/2020/07/cross-river-rail-rail-operations-secret.html

Thanks, good post. Hopefully they will provide some more information on the operations planning if enough noise is made.

I think the longer term plan south of the Dutton Park portal will have to be another dive into a tunnel, probably from PA to Moorooka. Four tracks through Fairfield and Yeronga is not politically doable with the amount of resumption that would be required.

From Salisbury, there's potential for a better express corridor to the south, shown in the pic below (parts in tunnel). I think this is more viable than an M1 alignment, certainly cost wise.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

[ozbob]

Thanks Briz.

Copy sent to all outlets, including Minister K. Jones & Cross River Rail Stakeholder Engagement Team.

====

FYI

Cross River Rail - The Rail Operations Secret

https://brizcommuter.blogspot.com/2020/07/cross-river-rail-rail-operations-secret.html

Wednesday, July 8, 2020

Cross River Rail's tag line is "More Trains, More Often". Despite this, the proposed rail operations i.e. how often the trains will run, appears to be a state secret. There has been no significant mention of proposed rail operations for Cross River Rail (CRR) in publicly available literature since 2017, and this only covered am peak services. Proposed off-peak, and pm peak services have never had a mention. This diagram from 2017 is likely to now be obsolete due to the removal of the grade-separated junction at Mayne.




Only through trawling the "Check Mate" spin section of CRR's website in 2019, was there any mention of proposed peak services, and again no mention of off-peak services. The proposed service frequencies appeared to have changed slightly from the above diagram, and sadly for many lines there was no proposed increase compared to the current service provision.

The line pairings were also not documented:

. Ferny Grove Line - 8tph
. Caboolture Line - 12tph (4tph from Sunshine Coast)
. Kippa-Ring Line - 12tph
. Shorncliffe Line - 6tph (8tph from Northgate to CBD)
. Airport Line- 4tph
. Doomben Line - 2tph
. Ipswich Line - 12tph
. Cleveland Line - 11tph (4-5tph from Cleveland to Manly)
. Beenleigh Line - 6tph (4tph Beenleigh to Kuraby)
. Gold Coast Line - 12tph
. Salisbury/Salisbury-Beaudesert Line) - 7tph

Concerningly, the above data has now been completely removed from CRR's website, ringing even more alarm bells that CRR is turning into a $5.4b white elephant. A generic statement stating "more trains, more often during peak, across the whole of South East Queensland" does not fill BrizCommuter with any confidence. Either the rail operating plan is being purposefully hidden from public view, possibly to avoid embarrassment, or the CRR project has designed the infrastructure with minimal thought to rail operations.

Given CRR's Achilles heel of removing of the grade separated junction at Mayne, and restrictive 3 track section between Dutton Park and Salisbury, BrizCommuter is currently predicting the following am peak period rail operations for when CRR opens in 2024. The frequency in trains per hour varies from best to worst case scenarios depending on associated infrastructure projects being completed:

. Ferny Grove Line (via Suburbans through CBD) - 8-12tph
. Cleveland Line (via Suburbans through CBD) - 8-12tph
. Caboolture Line (via CRR through CBD) - 10-12tph (incl. 3-4tph Sunshine Coast Line)
. Kippa-Ring Line (via CRR through CBD) - 10-12tph
. Gold Coast Line (via CRR through CBD) - 6-12tph
. Beenleigh Line (via CRR through CBD) - 6tph (4-6tph Beenleigh to Kuraby)
. Salisbury-Beaudesert Line (via CRR through CBD) - 0-6tph
. Ipswich Line (via Mains through CBD) - 10-12tph
. Springfield Line (via Mains through CBD) - 10-12tph
. Shorncliffe Line (via Mains through CBD) - 8tph (4-8tph Shorncliffe to Northgate)
. Airport Line (via Mains through CBD) - 4tph
. Doomben Line (via Mains through CBD) - 2-4tph

This operating plan is interesting as it makes for maximum, or almost maximum use of CRR from opening. This will keep the spin doctors happy! It balances the frequency for the line pairings fairly well, minimizes conflicting train movements, and maintains sectorization. Additionally, most lines can potentially receive a frequency increasing pending associated infrastructure projects being completed. On the down side, anyone from the Gold Coast and Beenleigh Lines trying access South Bank and South Brisbane will have to change trains at the poorly designed Boggo Road/Park Road interchange.

Interestingly, the Suburban tracks through the CBD will only be running at 33-50% capacity, and services via South Bank will be less than at present. So what might this spare capacity be used for? A clue is in the statement that CRR will "support a future rail link between Alderley and Strathpine". This would be via the North West Transportation Corridor (NWTC) / Trouts Road Line. This would have the benefits of using the NWTC for a frequent (up to 12tph) suburban train service to serve many Northern Brisbane suburbs that are currently devoid of half-decent public transport including Everton Park, McDowall, Chermside West, Albany Creek, and Bridgeman Downs. However, due to the routing via the indirect inner-Ferny Grove Line instead of a more direct tunnel from Enoggera area to the CBD, it would poorly serve the NWTC's second purpose of being used for fast regional rail from the Sunshine Coast to Brisbane.

Making optimal use of the extra capacity provided by CRR requires the following infrastructure projects to be completed:

. ETCS - Level 2 Signalling - anywhere where trains need to spaced less than 3 mins apart.
. Beenleigh Line extra tracks (most likely required from Holmview to Kuraby).
. Optimised turnback/stabling layout at Beenleigh.
. Salisbury-Beaudesert Line.
. Grade-separated junction and temporary turnback facilities at Salisbury/Acacia Ridge.
. Cleveland Line duplication/3rd platform at Lota.
. Sandgate to Shorncliffe duplication.
. Doomben Line duplication (with possible extension options such as Northshore Hamilton).
. 4th electrified track and platform at Oxley.
. Removal of most Road/Rail Level Crossings.
. Additional train stabling.
. 40-45 more 6-car trains (and enough train crew).
. NWTC - Alderley to Strathpine.

Tunnel stubs for NWTC to plug into CRR at Roma Street, and 4 tracks (instead of 3) from Dutton Park to Salisbury would allow for a fully optimised rail network in SEQ, but it looks like it is now sadly too late to save these infrastructure projects.

It is time that the Cross River Rail Delivery Authority, Department of Transport and Main Roads, Queensland Government, and Queensland Rail come clean on how the train network will operate after CRR opens. The authorities also need to come clean on the timeframe and priority for each associated infrastructure project required to optimise use of CRR's extra capacity. Questions include:

. What are the proposed am peak service patterns at CRR opening?
. What are the proposed pm peak service patterns at CRR opening?
. Will the 4tph daytime off-peak network be increased, and on which lines?
. Which lines will be linked through Brisbane's CBD?
. When will the required associated infrastructure projects take place, and how will they enhance services?
. What are the current proposals (including route safeguarding for rail) for the NWTC?

These questions need to be answered, otherwise CRR will continue to look like it will be the next project to join the large catalogue of Queensland Rail Fails.

====

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

[ozbob]

https://twitter.com/railbotforum/status/1280888873023758337

[ozbob]

Facebook ...

[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 '

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.

Thanks MTPCo.  Interesting days ...   

[BrizCommuter]

I'm sure the operating plans are being deliberately held back due to 1) Too many dependences on associated infrastructure projects, which do not look like they will be completed (or even started) by CRR opening. 2) Political embarrassment of releasing operating plans showing minimal network improvements.

[kram0]

Bob, as many have said, great work keeping the heat on the idiot politicians that just love the game of wasting tax payers money.

While you are in the zone, it might be worth shooting correspondence to the LNP as there is a good chance they will win October's election.

While work is underway, if we can highlight the incompetence as an example of Mayne corner cutting, they MIGHT agree to look into it.

Neither party could lie straight in bed, but being an election year is our best attempt to keep the pressure on.

[ozbob]

^
  we are just warming up ...   

[BrizCommuter]

Bob, as many have said, great work keeping the heat on the idiot politicians that just love the game of wasting tax payers money.

While you are in the zone, it might be worth shooting correspondence to the LNP as there is a good chance they will win October's election.

While work is underway, if we can highlight the incompetence as an example of Mayne corner cutting, they MIGHT agree to look into it.

Neither party could lie straight in bed, but being an election year is our best attempt to keep the pressure on.

Unfortunately the 3 track Dutton Park to Salisbury screw up is a legacy of Newman's BaT. The LNP rarely come out with any sensible public transport policies - there will probably be some fast rail vote bait with zero planning. Sadly the best bet for competent public transport planning in SEQ would be if we were invaded by China. 

[BrizCommuter]

It is looking very likely that CRR may open before associated infrastructure work is completed on the outer Beenleigh Line, Cleveland Line, and with insufficient trains. Thus aside from a few additional tph due to ETCS (and even that might not be ready) we might see very little in the way of improvements when CRR opens. It is seriously looking like Cross River Rail Fail is going to be reality.

[timh]

It is looking very likely that CRR may open before associated infrastructure work is completed on the outer Beenleigh Line, Cleveland Line, and with insufficient trains. Thus aside from a few additional tph due to ETCS (and even that might not be ready) we might see very little in the way of improvements when CRR opens. It is seriously looking like Cross River Rail Fail is going to be reality.

Others have said this before as well I think, but I don't consider an imperfect Day 1 CRR to be a "fail". Sure it's not as good as the original 2007 plans or whatever, but that doesn't mean the whole thing is crap. Its still one very large piece of the puzzle that is fixing the network. And with upgrades built after CRR is finished, the wider network can be further improved. I don't see a problem with that.

If we don't get magically better services across the entire network on day 1, that doesn't bother me, I don't expect that out of CRR, especially when there's still glaring problems with the network that CRR was never going to address or fix anyway (Cleveland duplication, flat junctions at eagle/park road/Northgate, 3 tracks on Beenleigh line, etc)

I don't want RBOT to be seen in media as anti-CRR.

I think at this point the argument "current version is bad, bring back the original" is going to go nowhere, maybe with the exception of Maybe North which may be an easy fix. We're too late in the game to hope for things like a Tunnel to Yeerongpilly, etc.

I also think the argument "CRR is going to be crap without XYZ other upgrades" is bad, purely from the way the public will perceive it. The media listens to us and if we push that agenda, media will run with it and say stuff like "PUBLIC TRANSPORT LOBBY GROUP SAYS CRR IS BAD! REJOICE NIMBYS! CANCEL IT!!" That's an extreme example I know, but my point is that we don't want to influence public perception to think CRR is bad, which could potentially lead to changes of policy/changes of govt. Etc which could see further degradation of rail upgrade plans or a scaling back of the project, etc.

The line we should be pushing is "CRR is a great start, but we'd like to see plans for the XYZ supporting infrastructure, to be built soon after, to further support the expansion/reliability of the network". It has a bit more positive spin. Ultimately we should be seen as pro-CRR, but if we can add that other infrastructure is required to make it perfect, that still gets our point across.

I really just don't want to be seen as anti-CRR.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

[SurfRail]

The tunnel is fine and futureproof.  Only real issue is Boggo Road interchange and interface with the surface bus and rail platforms which there is still scope to work on.  I'm still far from convinced even the lack of tunnel stubs is that big a deal.

It's everything else at either end that worries me, especially the southside.

[ozbob]

Tim, we have supported CRR for years and years and years and continue to do so.

The concern is the lack of transparency in terms of the rail operation plan.   
This is a perfectly reasonable expectation to know what is planned.  After all, the citizens of Queensland (including us) are paying for it.

We are not going to sit back and say all is well when it is clearly not.

[BrizCommuter]

It is looking very likely that CRR may open before associated infrastructure work is completed on the outer Beenleigh Line, Cleveland Line, and with insufficient trains. Thus aside from a few additional tph due to ETCS (and even that might not be ready) we might see very little in the way of improvements when CRR opens. It is seriously looking like Cross River Rail Fail is going to be reality.

Others have said this before as well I think, but I don't consider an imperfect Day 1 CRR to be a "fail". Sure it's not as good as the original 2007 plans or whatever, but that doesn't mean the whole thing is crap. Its still one very large piece of the puzzle that is fixing the network. And with upgrades built after CRR is finished, the wider network can be further improved. I don't see a problem with that.

If we don't get magically better services across the entire network on day 1, that doesn't bother me, I don't expect that out of CRR, especially when there's still glaring problems with the network that CRR was never going to address or fix anyway (Cleveland duplication, flat junctions at eagle/park road/Northgate, 3 tracks on Beenleigh line, etc)

I don't want RBOT to be seen in media as anti-CRR.

I think at this point the argument "current version is bad, bring back the original" is going to go nowhere, maybe with the exception of Maybe North which may be an easy fix. We're too late in the game to hope for things like a Tunnel to Yeerongpilly, etc.

I also think the argument "CRR is going to be crap without XYZ other upgrades" is bad, purely from the way the public will perceive it. The media listens to us and if we push that agenda, media will run with it and say stuff like "PUBLIC TRANSPORT LOBBY GROUP SAYS CRR IS BAD! REJOICE NIMBYS! CANCEL IT!!" That's an extreme example I know, but my point is that we don't want to influence public perception to think CRR is bad, which could potentially lead to changes of policy/changes of govt. Etc which could see further degradation of rail upgrade plans or a scaling back of the project, etc.

The line we should be pushing is "CRR is a great start, but we'd like to see plans for the XYZ supporting infrastructure, to be built soon after, to further support the expansion/reliability of the network". It has a bit more positive spin. Ultimately we should be seen as pro-CRR, but if we can add that other infrastructure is required to make it perfect, that still gets our point across.

I really just don't want to be seen as anti-CRR.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

Unfortunately CRR without the associated infrastructure will be an expensive white elephant with minimal benefits. There has been a decade to stage the associated infrastructure (notably Beenleigh and Cleveland Line upgrades) to be ready in time for CRR's opening. It is now looking like this is not going to happen in time. If CRR opens with no significant increase in train services, and thus few benefits, then that is a big fat project failure!

[timh]

Tim, we have supported CRR for years and years and years and continue to do so.

The concern is the lack of transparency in terms of the rail operation plan.   
This is a perfectly reasonable expectation to know what is planned.  After all, the citizens of Queensland (including us) are paying for it.

We are not going to sit back and say all is well when it is clearly not.

I'm not saying we should say it's all fine, the lack of operational plan is certainly an issue. My point was more what Surfrail was saying, that the tunnel infrastructure is fine, for what it is (ie not the original plans, but good enough).

I just think that it needs to be clear that we believe if CRR is a "fail", it has little to do with the proposed infrastructure, but more with wider problems with the network that need to be addressed ASAP (either during or soon after construction of CRR), because as I said above, I don't want us to unintentionally influence public support away from the project.

Both you and Briz do a great job at communicating the thoughts of the group and I really appreciate that. I'm just worried about public sentiment towards an already divisive project this close to an election.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

[timh]

There has been a decade to stage the associated infrastructure (notably Beenleigh and Cleveland Line upgrades) to be ready in time for CRR's opening. It is now looking like this is not going to happen in time. If CRR opens with no significant increase in train services, and thus few benefits, then that is a big fat project failure!

This is where we disagree. I *personally* don't see CRR as the point of failure, when fixes to the outer Beenleigh line and Cleveland line are outside of the project scope. You could argue they should have been included within the project scope but the truth is they aren't.

Should the govt be promising services that are unrealistic without that other infrastructure? Absolutely not. That Im totally with you on. CRR has been pushed as a silver bullet fix for the network in some of the marketing (particularly pre-2019). But me personally have never perceived it that way and thus never expected it to be so, but maybe that's because I'm late into the game of public transport lobbying, I only joined this group last year. And the marketing in recent times (as well documented in your blog posts) has changed to downplay it's benefits.

In my eyes, it's the first step in a process to fix the network. Which comes back to my original point, I don't have a huge problem if Day 1 services are only marginally better. What's important is that the govt is honest and transparent with its operation plans and adjusts public expectations accordingly, and makes clear plans about when those other parts of the network will be fixed.



Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

[kram0]

Bob, as many have said, great work keeping the heat on the idiot politicians that just love the game of wasting tax payers money.

While you are in the zone, it might be worth shooting correspondence to the LNP as there is a good chance they will win October's election.

While work is underway, if we can highlight the incompetence as an example of Mayne corner cutting, they MIGHT agree to look into it.

Neither party could lie straight in bed, but being an election year is our best attempt to keep the pressure on.

Unfortunately the 3 track Dutton Park to Salisbury screw up is a legacy of Newman's BaT. The LNP rarely come out with any sensible public transport policies - there will probably be some fast rail vote bait with zero planning. Sadly the best bet for competent public transport planning in SEQ would be if we were invaded by China. 

Without turning this too political (as I don't trust any of them), while Newman proposed the BaT (which was stupid) he didn't actually do anything to the corridor so hard to blame him when nothing was done on the rail front.

This stuff up probably dates back many years/decades as pre-planning was never done to consider 4 tracks in this narrow section. Also, the current mob as they have been in for close to 6 years, could have done a number of things to plan for 4 tracks to link with CRR, but decided not too due to the cost of property acquisitions/polls.

When do you know a politician is lying?......... Their lips are moving.........

[BrizCommuter]

Bob, as many have said, great work keeping the heat on the idiot politicians that just love the game of wasting tax payers money.

While you are in the zone, it might be worth shooting correspondence to the LNP as there is a good chance they will win October's election.

While work is underway, if we can highlight the incompetence as an example of Mayne corner cutting, they MIGHT agree to look into it.

Neither party could lie straight in bed, but being an election year is our best attempt to keep the pressure on.

Unfortunately the 3 track Dutton Park to Salisbury screw up is a legacy of Newman's BaT. The LNP rarely come out with any sensible public transport policies - there will probably be some fast rail vote bait with zero planning. Sadly the best bet for competent public transport planning in SEQ would be if we were invaded by China. 

Without turning this too political (as I don't trust any of them), while Newman proposed the BaT (which was stupid) he didn't actually do anything to the corridor so hard to blame him when nothing was done on the rail front.

This stuff up probably dates back many years/decades as pre-planning was never done to consider 4 tracks in this narrow section. Also, the current mob as they have been in for close to 6 years, could have done a number of things to plan for 4 tracks to link with CRR, but decided not too due to the cost of property acquisitions/polls.

When do you know a politician is lying?......... Their lips are moving.........

The pre-BaT version of CRR had tunnels to Yeerongpilly, thus 5 tracks from Park Rd/Boggo Rd to Yeerongpilly, and 4 tracks south of Yeerongpilly (? how far though). BaT surfaced at Dutton Park with just 3 surface tracks, with cost cutting and avoiding property resumptions around Yeerongpilly being a factor (and probably appeasing some LNP property owning mates). CRR MK2 retained this 3 surface track arrangement due to cost cutting. So yes they are all to blame, but it was Newman's BaT that introduced this constraint into the design.

[red dragin]

Was it the Newman era that sold back the properties that had been already acquired?

[BrizCommuter]

Was it the Newman era that sold back the properties that had been already acquired?

I believe so, which then made it harder to re-acquire. Some multi level apartments were then built on those properties. 

[ozbob]

^

Minister for Transport and Main Roads
The Honourable Scott Emerson

Labor plan to destroy 100 homes and businesses

The Queensland Government is demanding Labor withdraw its support for the botched Cross River Rail project that would have resulted in 108 properties being demolished and communities being destroyed.

Transport and Main Roads Minister Scott Emerson said while the LNP government has a strong plan for a brighter future with no property resumptions, Labor has no plan other than to bring back a project that destroys local communities.

"The Labor Opposition Leader Annastacia Palaszczuk wants the government to deliver their failed unfunded Cross River Rail Project," Mr Emerson said.

"The fact is support for Cross River Rail means support for destroying more than 100 homes and businesses.

"Labor need to stand up today and rule out its support of a project that has a devastating impact to communities, like Yeerongpilly, particularly when there is a much better alternative.

"Unlike Labor's Cross River Rail project, the BaT Tunnel fixes capacity issues for both buses and trains, costs $3 billion less, and homes and businesses will not be resumed."

Mr Emerson said work has begun to revitalise areas such as Yeerongpilly that were left devastated by the former Labor government.

"When she was Transport Minister, Ms Palaszczuk spent $32 million of taxpayer money purchasing up to 65 properties, which Labor planned to raze, on a project it knew it could never afford," Mr Emerson said.

"The Opposition Leader already had to apologise to parliament after falsely claiming the Cross River Rail project was fully costed. Now she should rule out the community-destroying plan completely.

"We have already sold seven properties, purchased under Labor's bungled Cross River Rail project, with another four under contract.

"Unlike Labor, we are working hard to restore this community for residents and local businesses.

"While we have already started returning properties to market, we need to ensure we re-establish a community, rather than flood the market."

Out of the 108 sites that were going to be resumed, 82 were in the Yeerongpilly area, making it the most impacted suburb.

[ENDS] 30 June 2014

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

[BrizCommuter]

There has been a decade to stage the associated infrastructure (notably Beenleigh and Cleveland Line upgrades) to be ready in time for CRR's opening. It is now looking like this is not going to happen in time. If CRR opens with no significant increase in train services, and thus few benefits, then that is a big fat project failure!

This is where we disagree. I *personally* don't see CRR as the point of failure, when fixes to the outer Beenleigh line and Cleveland line are outside of the project scope. You could argue they should have been included within the project scope but the truth is they aren't.

Should the govt be promising services that are unrealistic without that other infrastructure? Absolutely not. That Im totally with you on. CRR has been pushed as a silver bullet fix for the network in some of the marketing (particularly pre-2019). But me personally have never perceived it that way and thus never expected it to be so, but maybe that's because I'm late into the game of public transport lobbying, I only joined this group last year. And the marketing in recent times (as well documented in your blog posts) has changed to downplay it's benefits.

In my eyes, it's the first step in a process to fix the network. Which comes back to my original point, I don't have a huge problem if Day 1 services are only marginally better. What's important is that the govt is honest and transparent with its operation plans and adjusts public expectations accordingly, and makes clear plans about when those other parts of the network will be fixed.



Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

Projects have costs and benefits, of which the benefits should outweigh the costs, otherwise there is no point in proceeding. One of these benefits would be an increase in train services (most likely slated for 2026 in the CRR business case). If this benefit is not achieved, then there will be poor benefits realisation and the project is deemed to have failed.

Likewise if a project has dependencies on other projects, then these need to be managed. If they are not, then again the poor project management results in a failed project. Thus is where CRR is heading.

BTW I am currently working in project management ;-)

[timh]

There has been a decade to stage the associated infrastructure (notably Beenleigh and Cleveland Line upgrades) to be ready in time for CRR's opening. It is now looking like this is not going to happen in time. If CRR opens with no significant increase in train services, and thus few benefits, then that is a big fat project failure!

This is where we disagree. I *personally* don't see CRR as the point of failure, when fixes to the outer Beenleigh line and Cleveland line are outside of the project scope. You could argue they should have been included within the project scope but the truth is they aren't.

Should the govt be promising services that are unrealistic without that other infrastructure? Absolutely not. That Im totally with you on. CRR has been pushed as a silver bullet fix for the network in some of the marketing (particularly pre-2019). But me personally have never perceived it that way and thus never expected it to be so, but maybe that's because I'm late into the game of public transport lobbying, I only joined this group last year. And the marketing in recent times (as well documented in your blog posts) has changed to downplay it's benefits.

In my eyes, it's the first step in a process to fix the network. Which comes back to my original point, I don't have a huge problem if Day 1 services are only marginally better. What's important is that the govt is honest and transparent with its operation plans and adjusts public expectations accordingly, and makes clear plans about when those other parts of the network will be fixed.



Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

Projects have costs and benefits, of which the benefits should outweigh the costs, otherwise there is no point in proceeding. One of these benefits would be an increase in train services (most likely slated for 2026 in the CRR business case). If this benefit is not achieved, then there will be poor benefits realisation and the project is deemed to have failed.

Likewise if a project has dependencies on other projects, then these need to be managed. If they are not, then again the poor project management results in a failed project. Thus is where CRR is heading.

BTW I am currently working in project management ;-)

I really do appreciate your input and I can tell you come from a background knowledgeable in this field. Like I said this is not what I do for a living, I'm just passionate about getting high quality public transport for Brisbane.

Ok so looking forward then, what would be say, your top 3 priorities for improving the current plans to make the infrastructure more viable?

I ask this though with the caveat being that I would rule out any extension to the tunnel structure, purely because I think it's unrealistic.

Would it be 4 surface tracks south of Dutton park? Fixed mayne junction with trench? Track amplification elsewhere on the network? What small, realistic improvements could we push for?

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

[BrizCommuter]

The most critical associated infrastructure required by CRR opening is more trains, ETCS (anywhere where headway are closer than 3 mins), Beenleigh Line upgrades (sufficient for 12tph GC exp, 6tph Been all stations peak and 4tpg GC , 4tph Been off-peak/counter-peak), and Cleveland Line upgrades (sufficient for 12tph peak, reliable 4tph off-peak).

Critical level crossing replacements, Sandgate-Shorncliffe duplication, and Oxley 4th platform/electricifation are also useful low hanging fruit.

[timh]

The most critical associated infrastructure required by CRR opening is more trains, ETCS (anywhere where headway are closer than 3 mins), Beenleigh Line upgrades (sufficient for 12tph GC exp, 6tph Been all stations peak and 4tpg GC , 4tph Been off-peak/counter-peak), and Cleveland Line upgrades (sufficient for 12tph peak, reliable 4tph off-peak).

Critical level crossing replacements, Sandgate-Shorncliffe duplication, and Oxley 4th platform/electricifation are also useful low hanging fruit.

Thanks! Clears things up for me a lot

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

[Jonno]

^

Minister for Transport and Main Roads
The Honourable Scott Emerson

Labor plan to destroy 100 homes and businesses

The Queensland Government is demanding Labor withdraw its support for the botched Cross River Rail project that would have resulted in 108 properties being demolished and communities being destroyed.

Transport and Main Roads Minister Scott Emerson said while the LNP government has a strong plan for a brighter future with no property resumptions, Labor has no plan other than to bring back a project that destroys local communities.

"The Labor Opposition Leader Annastacia Palaszczuk wants the government to deliver their failed unfunded Cross River Rail Project," Mr Emerson said.

"The fact is support for Cross River Rail means support for destroying more than 100 homes and businesses.

"Labor need to stand up today and rule out its support of a project that has a devastating impact to communities, like Yeerongpilly, particularly when there is a much better alternative.

"Unlike Labor's Cross River Rail project, the BaT Tunnel fixes capacity issues for both buses and trains, costs $3 billion less, and homes and businesses will not be resumed."

Mr Emerson said work has begun to revitalise areas such as Yeerongpilly that were left devastated by the former Labor government.

"When she was Transport Minister, Ms Palaszczuk spent $32 million of taxpayer money purchasing up to 65 properties, which Labor planned to raze, on a project it knew it could never afford," Mr Emerson said.

"The Opposition Leader already had to apologise to parliament after falsely claiming the Cross River Rail project was fully costed. Now she should rule out the community-destroying plan completely.

"We have already sold seven properties, purchased under Labor's bungled Cross River Rail project, with another four under contract.

"Unlike Labor, we are working hard to restore this community for residents and local businesses.

"While we have already started returning properties to market, we need to ensure we re-establish a community, rather than flood the market."

Out of the 108 sites that were going to be resumed, 82 were in the Yeerongpilly area, making it the most impacted suburb.

[ENDS] 30 June 2014

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

Meanwhile over at the M1!!!

[kram0]

It's still worth RBOT getting an official statement from the LNP on what if any changes they would make to CRR (ie Mayne upgrade) should they win the election in October.

[SABB]

Timh wrote

"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"


As Timh has suggested, it is easy to dig the tunnel stub. The issue is the lining of that stub. The tunnels have a segmental liner which has individual sections that are not identical. They are designed so that that can be assembled into a square cylinder or the sections can be slightly skewed to allow a slight deviation to correct the alignment or to start a curved segment of the tunnel. Imagine that you have a square ended cylinder and you make a diagonal cut through the cylinder. In their original alignment, the outer ends are parallel. If you rotate one segment, you can change the axis of that segment. That is how they change the tunnel alignment and grade. Tunnel stubs and the section of main tunnel containing the stub have to be mined and lined using other means. You cannot use normal tunnels liner segments to form this section of the tunnel.

[BrizCommuter]

It's still worth RBOT getting an official statement from the LNP on what if any changes they would make to CRR (ie Mayne upgrade) should they win the election in October.

Doubt they've even thought about it.

[timh]

Timh wrote

"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"


As Timh has suggested, it is easy to dig the tunnel stub. The issue is the lining of that stub. The tunnels have a segmental liner which has individual sections that are not identical. They are designed so that that can be assembled into a square cylinder or the sections can be slightly skewed to allow a slight deviation to correct the alignment or to start a curved segment of the tunnel. Imagine that you have a square ended cylinder and you make a diagonal cut through the cylinder. In their original alignment, the outer ends are parallel. If you rotate one segment, you can change the axis of that segment. That is how they change the tunnel alignment and grade. Tunnel stubs and the section of main tunnel containing the stub have to be mined and lined using other means. You cannot use normal tunnels liner segments to form this section of the tunnel.

For the record there I was referring to the stubs in the Ekka loop at the portal, not at Roma street. Thanks for providing some more info on the construction though. Good to know!

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

[SABB]

From a QR friend
One of the major issues for QR is the alignment and grade at the bottom of the tunnel as it turns and climbs towards the new Albert St Station. CRRDA has combined the minimum allowable curve radius with the maximum allowable grade. This is a combination that is not (possibly never) used by QR alignment designers even though it is a possible option in their alignment design manual. Consequently, only the new NGR trains have the power to use this section of the tunnel.  TMR needs to get a few more NGR trains to provide the promised services. I understand that the grade and alignment issue has been brought to the attention of CRRDA with no response.

[SurfRail]

^ Given that it opens in 4 years, I'm not sure that's really an issue.  There are enough NGRs that CRR services can be run with them exclusively, and any new orders will have at least the same performance characteristics.  Forcing them to sectorise the rollingstock will help in forcing them to sectorise operations and will stop them running inappropriate trains on these lines.

[SABB]

Surely someone should ask why the CRR is designed so that the none of the older fleet can use the brand new facility. Why won't CRRDA redesign the alignment and grade. The tunnel has not been built yet.
By the way, there are a few QR and TMR people don't share your optimism about getting the the new trains

[ozbob]

The steepest grade in CRR is 3% (1 in 33).  I seem to recall that this has always been known and that NGRs are the only trains that will be permitted due to the grades.   NGRs have a good starting TE which means they can recover on the grades as needed.

[BrizCommuter]

Surely someone should ask why the CRR is designed so that the none of the older fleet can use the brand new facility. Why won't CRRDA redesign the alignment and grade. The tunnel has not been built yet.
By the way, there are a few QR and TMR people don't share your optimism about getting the the new trains

BrizCommuter is not optimistic about there being sufficient new trains for CRR!

[Gazza]

Surely someone should ask why the CRR is designed so that the none of the older fleet can use the brand new facility. Why won't CRRDA redesign the alignment and grade. The tunnel has not been built yet.
By the way, there are a few QR and TMR people don't share your optimism about getting the the new trains

Because what's the point of designing for trains that will be scrapped a few years after the tunnel opens?

[SABB]

Surely someone should ask why the CRR is designed so that the none of the older fleet can use the brand new facility. Why won't CRRDA redesign the alignment and grade. The tunnel has not been built yet.
By the way, there are a few QR and TMR people don't share your optimism about getting the the new trains

Because what's the point of designing for trains that will be scrapped a few years after the tunnel opens?

Why would you design into a brand new facility a severe operational restriction that also prevents most of your existing fleet from using that facility in an emergency. 

[BrizCommuter]

Surely someone should ask why the CRR is designed so that the none of the older fleet can use the brand new facility. Why won't CRRDA redesign the alignment and grade. The tunnel has not been built yet.
By the way, there are a few QR and TMR people don't share your optimism about getting the the new trains

Because what's the point of designing for trains that will be scrapped a few years after the tunnel opens?

Why would you design into a brand new facility a severe operational restriction that also prevents most of your existing fleet from using that facility in an emergency.

The network will be more sectorized by then. The Ferny Grove Line will still probably have EMUs!

[JimmyP]

By what I have been told, the main reason for only NGRs (out of the current fleet at least) being used in CRR is due to the rollingstock fire rating required for the tunnel, which only the NGRs meet. The rest of the rollingstock shouldn't have an issue with the grades etc used in the tunnel.