Cross River Rail Project

[BrizCommuter]

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.

That sounds more realistic. If trains can manage the inclines and curves on the Ferny Grove Line, they should be able to cope with CRR.

[HappyTrainGuy]

Those are easy grades. It's actually to do with onboard systems that will work with crr (without the need for major retrofitting of existing rollingstock) and the ngr certifications.

[ozbob]

I was told by CRR staff a number of years ago that the grades in the tunnel a significant issue in terms of rollingstock.  Maybe that was more BS.

The NGRs will have to be fitted with the gear to allow level 2 automation in the tunnel, I expect the QR fleet is not suitable or the cost will be worth it.  I assume that the QR fleet will be upgraded to allow operation under ETCS though?  Other wise there will have be dual signalling through the section of the surface network (Milton <> Northgate) and I assume Northgate <> Salisbury via CRR.

I feel a giant cluster-fuk is fast approaching!

[ozbob]

No further response MTPCo.

Might have to go RTI.

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.

[BrizCommuter]

I think the RTI is the way to go. The documents should exist, though presumably with different versions pending associated infrastructure staging.

[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?

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.

Because its cheaper!

Like they're not doing this for fun. It's clearly a technical challenge in a couple of places to physically get the line where it needs to go, eg dive quickly enough to get from Dutton park to under the existing platforms.
And likewise getting deep enough under the riverbed to be safe but up far enough again to avoid a very deep level station at Albert St.

So if you design around the capabilities of old trains it just blows everything out.

The tunnel will be around for 100 years, the old trains wont be, so whats the cost benefit in spending extra engineering the tunnel for occasional use by outdated train types?

[BrizCommuter]

As it's currently looking like the network will be split into 3 sectors post CRR, then only NGRs or NNGRs via CRR is really a non-issue. Just more need to be ordered urgently!

[BrizCommuter]

Google "Beenleigh to Kuraby upgrade RTI" - interesting document! (Can't get the URL on my phone).

[ozbob]

Google "Beenleigh to Kuraby upgrade RTI" - interesting document! (Can't get the URL on my phone).

This one?

> https://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/-/media/150801/r135034952014IRTCPlanningStudyReportRev2FinalIssueredPart8.pdf?la=en

[BrizCommuter]

Google "Beenleigh to Kuraby upgrade RTI" - interesting document! (Can't get the URL on my phone).

This one?

> https://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/-/media/150801/r135034952014IRTCPlanningStudyReportRev2FinalIssueredPart8.pdf?la=en

That's the one! Obviously written pre comm games influenced Helensvale - Coomera duplication but the Beenleigh to Kuraby section is still relevant to CRR, especially due to lack of subsequent information.

[timh]

If I'm reading correctly, the recommendation is to add a third track from Kuraby to Loganlea, with maybe some stabling around Bethania...

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

[BrizCommuter]

If I'm reading correctly, the recommendation is to add a third track from Kuraby to Loganlea, with maybe some stabling around Bethania...

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

Yep, and make some or all GC trains serve stations between LL and Been, and terminate the Beenleigh Line at Loganlea. So more slowing down of GC Line services!

[Gazza]

Can we do an RTI about planning for the Trouts Rd rail line?

* * * * *


Question for everyone...How much are current GC line speeds influenced by the need to work around Beenleigh trains?

In other words, are the trains completing the sector north of Beenleigh as fast as track conditions permit, or are they deliberately slowed down to ensure a more harmonious timetable?

If we had a triple all the way to Loganlea, would you be able to go faster overall?
I ask because if you could make up the time elsewhere, it might not be the end of the world if GC trains stopped at Edens Landing and Bethania (Holmview should close!)

[ozbob]

Can we do an RTI about planning for the Trouts Rd rail line?

NWTC > https://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/Community-and-environment/Planning-for-the-future/Preserved-transport-corridors/North-West-Transport-Corridor

Costs $50 application fee for a RTI but I think we should wait to see the outcome of the North Coast Connect business case. 
We might not have too.

[BrizCommuter]

If I'm reading correctly, the recommendation is to add a third track from Kuraby to Loganlea, with maybe some stabling around Bethania...

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

Yep, and make some or all GC trains serve stations between LL and Been, and terminate the Beenleigh Line at Loganlea. So more slowing down of GC Line services!

Some quick modelling shows that just a 3rd platform at Loganlea and ETCS-L2 would allow for 12tph GC exp and 6tph Loganlea all stations in the peak direction. Presumably alternate GC trains would stop at all stations between Beenleigh and Loganlea. In the off-peak/counter-peak this would allow for 4tph all stations Loganlea and 4tph Gold Coast exp, however the GC services would have to serve all stations between Loganlea and Beenleigh. Converting the counter/contra-peak direction 4tph to peak direction 6tph might be tricky to buffer though, and a holding/turnback siding (accessible from both ends) south of Loganlea would assist here. This scenario would also have implications on the Dutton Park - Salisbury section, as this service pattern would need the GC and Loganlea services to run express, requiring (as we thought) Dutton Park-Salisbury local services.

[BrizCommuter]

Dug up this document from Melbourne. Exactly what we need for CRR - shows proposed frequencies just after opening, future increases, and associated infrastructure required for those increase.
https://metrotunnel.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/40481/MM-Business-Case-Feb-2016-APPENDIX-04.PDF

[BrizCommuter]

...and Auckland
https://www.cityraillink.co.nz/crls-benefits

Yet for Brisbane's CRR - zip, nada, nothing!

[ozbob]

Dug up this document from Melbourne. Exactly what we need for CRR - shows proposed frequencies just after opening, future increases, and associated infrastructure required for those increase.
https://metrotunnel.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/40481/MM-Business-Case-Feb-2016-APPENDIX-04.PDF

Excellent.  Exactly what should be forthcoming from the CRRDA.   

[ozbob]

Email sent 12th July 2020

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

Re: CRR rail service plan

Good Morning,

An example of a rail service plan from other jurisdiction.

Melbourne - Proposed Service Plan (Metro Tunnel)
https://metrotunnel.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/40481/MM-Business-Case-Feb-2016-APPENDIX-04.PDF

This is the type of information we seek and should be available publicly for CRR.

Best wishes,
Robert

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

To:

info@crossriverrail.qld.gov.au

cc:

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

CRR rail service plan

28th June 2020

Greetings,

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

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

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

raises a number of concerns:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you.

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

[BrizCommuter]

Dug up this document from Melbourne. Exactly what we need for CRR - shows proposed frequencies just after opening, future increases, and associated infrastructure required for those increase.
https://metrotunnel.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/40481/MM-Business-Case-Feb-2016-APPENDIX-04.PDF

Excellent.  Exactly what should be forthcoming from the CRRDA.

We live in hope!

[ozbob]

^

[ozbob]

We can look at this way Briz. 

Queensland is a great example for the other Oz states/territories of how NOT to do public transport policy and implementation.   

[BrizCommuter]

The sad thing is that an operating plan for new tunnels in London, Sydney, Melbourne, and Auckland are all readily accessible. Brisbane - nothing. I'm convinced that is being purposefully hidden due to the limited network capacity increases, which are hindered by lack of associated infrastructure, and possibly increased journey times to/from Gold Coast in some possible operation scenarios.

[paulg]

If we are looking at the split paradigm (all trains Beenleigh/GC going via CRR) then apart from improving the connectivity of the new station at Boggo Road we should also be pushing for inclusion of an in-line Metro station at Woolloongabba. This is mentioned in the PDA development strategy for the Woolloongabba CRR station but there's no masterplan yet and no money for it anywhere in sight.

At the moment, the plans have poor interconnectivity between the Metro 1 line and the Cross River Rail line. The existing Woolloongabba busway station is not on the main busway alignment, so will not benefit from the increased capacity associated with the Metro upgrade.

As it stands, there will be no easy way for people coming in on the Metro 1 line (the existing SE Busway) to get to the Gabba or to transfer to the Cross River Rail to access the new station at Albert St. Equivalently, there will be no way for people attending a game at the Gabba or living in nearby apartments to get on to the Metro 1 line to travel to the South East suburbs.

An in-line station on the upgraded busway (the new 'Metro 1) would add significant value, and at the very least needs to be allowed for in the 'Master Plan' for the station precinct.

I think the best way to build it would be to modify the alignment of where the Metro crosses the Pacific Motorway, this would require two new bridges and some realignment of Leopard St and the motorway offramps. Alternatively, a new alignment could incorporate a tunnel down the alignment of Reid St. See attached images.

Intriguingly, there is a poster in the Cross River Rail visitor centre that shows a dotted line for the Metro plan along the Reid St alignment. This indicates to me that there may have been active discussions between the Council's Metro team and the CRR team about a potential interchange station. 

Since the Council have now announced that the Metro project will not include the underground Cultural Centre station at first (maybe never?), the initial spend amount will be lower and perhaps there can be additional funds made available for this idea, which will add a lot of value to the interchange capacity and the Gabba accessibility.

Not sure if RBoT has already made noises about this, but it does seem like an obvious need to me. At the very least, can we insist that planning must include a future in-line station for Metro 1 at the Woolloongabba precinct?





Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

[James]

^ I'm not sure if pursuing a station for Metro at Woolloongabba is particularly worthwhile, given we need to focus our attention on getting things done properly north & south of the CRR tunnel.

Transfer at Park Road will allow for connections to the Eastern & SE Busway (via Route 169/209), all trains stopping at Altandi provide a more direct (and sometimes cheaper) way of connecting the Beenleigh line stations to Sunnybank / Mt Gravatt. The benefits of an in-line Woolloogabba station are limited to connecting GC / outer Beenleigh line trains to the Logan & Ipswich Road services. Not sure if it is worth the huge capital cost - digging underneath Stanley Street and moving those off-ramps would be no mean feat while also keeping the busway / Metro operational.

Question for everyone...How much are current GC line speeds influenced by the need to work around Beenleigh trains?

In other words, are the trains completing the sector north of Beenleigh as fast as track conditions permit, or are they deliberately slowed down to ensure a more harmonious timetable?

If we had a triple all the way to Loganlea, would you be able to go faster overall?
I ask because if you could make up the time elsewhere, it might not be the end of the world if GC trains stopped at Edens Landing and Bethania (Holmview should close!)

I know the outbound trains are now intentionally slowed south of Loganlea (at least off-peak) to avoid catching up to the GC trains.

Beyond that, I'm not sure. The timetable doesn't appear to indicate so - the Airport train goes through Beenleigh 7 minutes before the Ferny Grove train and arrives at Park Road 5 minutes before the train in front. Although QR isn't very aggressive with their timetabling.

[ozbob]

The sad thing is that an operating plan for new tunnels in London, Sydney, Melbourne, and Auckland are all readily accessible. Brisbane - nothing. I'm convinced that is being purposefully hidden due to the limited network capacity increases, which are hindered by lack of associated infrastructure, and possibly increased journey times to/from Gold Coast in some possible operation scenarios.

Advertisement in today's Sunday Mail 12th July 2020 page 19



Waste of money this campaign.  ' .. more trains, more often '   <  well show us the service  plan!   

Delusion at public expense !

(Desto ' Nambour ') ....

[verbatim9]

They should of made the new Station at Longanlea a priority instead of all those infill stations. That would of provided new passing opportunities for express trains. I hope an incoming Government addresses that issue, as well finish the GC line by extendeding it to Coolangatta. Beenleigh also needs two island patforms and 4 tracks, with better seamless inegration with the bus network in the area.

[verbatim9]

The sad thing is that an operating plan for new tunnels in London, Sydney, Melbourne, and Auckland are all readily accessible. Brisbane - nothing. I'm convinced that is being purposefully hidden due to the limited network capacity increases, which are hindered by lack of associated infrastructure, and possibly increased journey times to/from Gold Coast in some possible operation scenarios.

Advertisement in today's Sunday Mail 12th July 2020 page 19



Waste of money this campaign.  ' .. more trains, more often '   <  well show us the service  plan!   

Delusion at public expense !

(Desto ' Nambour ') ....

I know they waste so much money on marketing for this project. Unfortunately BCC have wasted alot on marketing for the BNE metro project as well. Be interesting where all this goes after the State election?

[verbatim9]

If we are looking at the split paradigm (all trains Beenleigh/GC going via CRR) then apart from improving the connectivity of the new station at Boggo Road we should also be pushing for inclusion of an in-line Metro station at Woolloongabba. This is mentioned in the PDA development strategy for the Woolloongabba CRR station but there's no masterplan yet and no money for it anywhere in sight.

At the moment, the plans have poor interconnectivity between the Metro 1 line and the Cross River Rail line. The existing Woolloongabba busway station is not on the main busway alignment, so will not benefit from the increased capacity associated with the Metro upgrade.

As it stands, there will be no easy way for people coming in on the Metro 1 line (the existing SE Busway) to get to the Gabba or to transfer to the Cross River Rail to access the new station at Albert St. Equivalently, there will be no way for people attending a game at the Gabba or living in nearby apartments to get on to the Metro 1 line to travel to the South East suburbs.

An in-line station on the upgraded busway (the new 'Metro 1) would add significant value, and at the very least needs to be allowed for in the 'Master Plan' for the station precinct.

I think the best way to build it would be to modify the alignment of where the Metro crosses the Pacific Motorway, this would require two new bridges and some realignment of Leopard St and the motorway offramps. Alternatively, a new alignment could incorporate a tunnel down the alignment of Reid St. See attached images.

Intriguingly, there is a poster in the Cross River Rail visitor centre that shows a dotted line for the Metro plan along the Reid St alignment. This indicates to me that there may have been active discussions between the Council's Metro team and the CRR team about a potential interchange station.

Since the Council have now announced that the Metro project will not include the underground Cultural Centre station at first (maybe never?), the initial spend amount will be lower and perhaps there can be additional funds made available for this idea, which will add a lot of value to the interchange capacity and the Gabba accessibility.

Not sure if RBoT has already made noises about this, but it does seem like an obvious need to me. At the very least, can we insist that planning must include a future in-line station for Metro 1 at the Woolloongabba precinct?

Thatt's a good idea and makes alot of sense.

[Jonno]

If we are looking at the split paradigm (all trains Beenleigh/GC going via CRR) then apart from improving the connectivity of the new station at Boggo Road we should also be pushing for inclusion of an in-line Metro station at Woolloongabba. This is mentioned in the PDA development strategy for the Woolloongabba CRR station but there's no masterplan yet and no money for it anywhere in sight.

At the moment, the plans have poor interconnectivity between the Metro 1 line and the Cross River Rail line. The existing Woolloongabba busway station is not on the main busway alignment, so will not benefit from the increased capacity associated with the Metro upgrade.

As it stands, there will be no easy way for people coming in on the Metro 1 line (the existing SE Busway) to get to the Gabba or to transfer to the Cross River Rail to access the new station at Albert St. Equivalently, there will be no way for people attending a game at the Gabba or living in nearby apartments to get on to the Metro 1 line to travel to the South East suburbs.

An in-line station on the upgraded busway (the new 'Metro 1) would add significant value, and at the very least needs to be allowed for in the 'Master Plan' for the station precinct.

I think the best way to build it would be to modify the alignment of where the Metro crosses the Pacific Motorway, this would require two new bridges and some realignment of Leopard St and the motorway offramps. Alternatively, a new alignment could incorporate a tunnel down the alignment of Reid St. See attached images.

Intriguingly, there is a poster in the Cross River Rail visitor centre that shows a dotted line for the Metro plan along the Reid St alignment. This indicates to me that there may have been active discussions between the Council's Metro team and the CRR team about a potential interchange station.

Since the Council have now announced that the Metro project will not include the underground Cultural Centre station at first (maybe never?), the initial spend amount will be lower and perhaps there can be additional funds made available for this idea, which will add a lot of value to the interchange capacity and the Gabba accessibility.

Not sure if RBoT has already made noises about this, but it does seem like an obvious need to me. At the very least, can we insist that planning must include a future in-line station for Metro 1 at the Woolloongabba precinct?

Thatt's a good idea and makes alot of sense.

I think they just need to get Cultural Centre underground station right as it is the bottleneck!!

[SurfRail]

You'd assume any underground bus station at the Gabba is designed in a way that allows services to terminate and reverse, and still connects to the road network the way it does now.

[BrizCommuter]

They should of made the new Station at Longanlea a priority instead of all those infill stations. That would of provided new passing opportunities for express trains. I hope an incoming Government addresses that issue, as well finish the GC line by extendeding it to Coolangatta. Beenleigh also needs two island patforms and 4 tracks, with better seamless inegration with the bus network in the area.

I think Loganlea relocation and 3 tracks is the only associated infrastructure project that looks like it might be completed before CRR opens. Beenleigh to Kuraby upgrade (of which the actual upgrade is unknown) is sitting motionless with Infrastructure Australia.

There are lots of potential service patterns that the GC/Beenleigh Line could be operated with using the Loganlea upgrade depending on the service patterns. It is the cheapest way to allow the claimed 12tph GC/6tph Been am peak service. However, it would also be the approximate overtaking point for 4tph GC / 4tph Been counter/off-peak services. So unless 4 tracks are provided here instead of 3, there is the possibility that the Beenleigh Line may have to be curtailed to Loganlea, and/or some or all GC services will need to serve Beenleigh to Loganlea. I doubt GC/Beenleigh Line stopping patterns will be same after CRR opens, with a 3 or 4 tier peak service being a possibility.

I personally don't think Beenleigh needs any more platforms, as long as terminating service dwell times can be kept down. A more optimal track arrangement with additional turnback sidings between the running lines would improve operations. A turnback siding at Helensvale may even be a low cost solution to improve turnback capacity.

[red dragin]

CFMEU are running a radio campaign against the State Labour Party using CRR as their main talking point. All about how jobs are going to overseas and interstate people and companies when Queenslanders are out of work.

Ignore's the fact all of those companies where assigned pre-covid.

[nathandavid88]

^^ I still maintain that its the CFMEU being salty that the AWU are the union involved here, and not them.

[Gazza]

Exactly this.

I question how effective this campaign will be.

I support unions, since workers need lobbyists if businesses are going to have them.

But I think the perception around the CFMEU is that their members already do get a pretty sweet deal and they are more disruptive at the drop of a hat so people are going to tune out.

[BrizCommuter]

CFMEU are running a radio campaign against the State Labour Party using CRR as their main talking point. All about how jobs are going to overseas and interstate people and companies when Queenslanders are out of work.

Ignore's the fact all of those companies where assigned pre-covid.

The CFMEU are just shooting themselves in the foot. Would they prefer a LNP state government instead? Just a bunch of adult aged school bullies.

[JimmyP]

Yeah, I find the CFMEU really do give the entire Union movement a bad name. Unions need to work with employers and governments, not just chuck tantrums when they don't get their own way.

[achiruel]

They should of made the new Station at Longanlea a priority instead of all those infill stations. That would of provided new passing opportunities for express trains. I hope an incoming Government addresses that issue, as well finish the GC line by extendeding it to Coolangatta. Beenleigh also needs two island patforms and 4 tracks, with better seamless inegration with the bus network in the area.

There's absolutely no way you can fit 4 platforms at Beenleigh station without massive property resumptions and engineering works. You might fit a third one in, by knocking down the bus interchange. I'm not overly worried about the car parks, hopefully the state either owns most of them or they wouldn't cost much to resume anyway, but the Alamein St overpass would be a big cost, as would I suspect the buildings bounded by Alamein St, George St & Marcs Ln.

I wonder if you could have the GC outbound platform on the NE side of the station and build the main track around the NE side of the stabling, so that the middle platform became the terminating platform and had access to the stabling, and the outer two are the GC out & inbound platforms?

[timh]

They should of made the new Station at Longanlea a priority instead of all those infill stations. That would of provided new passing opportunities for express trains. I hope an incoming Government addresses that issue, as well finish the GC line by extendeding it to Coolangatta. Beenleigh also needs two island patforms and 4 tracks, with better seamless inegration with the bus network in the area.

There's absolutely no way you can fit 4 platforms at Beenleigh station without massive property resumptions and engineering works. You might fit a third one in, by knocking down the bus interchange. I'm not overly worried about the car parks, hopefully the state either owns most of them or they wouldn't cost much to resume anyway, but the Alamein St overpass would be a big cost, as would I suspect the buildings bounded by Alamein St, George St & Marcs Ln.

I wonder if you could have the GC outbound platform on the NE side of the station and build the main track around the NE side of the stabling, so that the middle platform became the terminating platform and had access to the stabling, and the outer two are the GC out & inbound platforms?

I would just rebuild the whole station further to the south with more platforms (just north of intercity CCT). You would lose some stabling but there's a nice big bit of land at Yatala just west of Halfway creek where you could potentially put a big ol' stabling yard?

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

[BrizCommuter]

Don't forget that the Beenleigh's days as a terminus station  might be numbered!