Cross River Rail Project

[nathandavid88]

^

The puff piece series continues in the CM. Has not touched on any real operational aspects.  Nor is it likely hey?   

Each piece has been juxtaposed with another CRR advertisement.  Must be the ' arrangement '.

They're advertorial pieces, pure and simple.

[BrizCommuter]

Has anyone heard anything further on the pedestrian bridge that is meant to link the PA precinct with Boggo/Park Road station? The bridge does still appear on the video from CRRDA.

Looks like it will be a cable stayed bridge. It replaced an underpass in the design. Don't think there is any more info at this stage.

[SurfRail]

Queries

1. How many trains do we think the counter-peak track from Dutton Park to Salisbury can handle in the AM and PM, and why?

2. Can congestion from Dutton Park to Salisbury in the counter-peak be ameliorated by running counter-peak services to and from further away than Clapham?

3. What is stopping there being an up-up-down-down 4 track arrangement between Yeerongpilly and Kuraby, feeding an up-peak flow-down arrangement from Yeerongpilly to Dutton Park?

4. If the set-up in 3 existed, and (for argument's sake) the line towards Acacia Ridge fed into either the inner or outer pairs with a proper flying junction - what kind of headway would that enable?

[aldonius]

Has anyone heard anything further on the pedestrian bridge that is meant to link the PA precinct with Boggo/Park Road station? The bridge does still appear on the video from CRRDA.

Looks like it will be a cable stayed bridge. It replaced an underpass in the design. Don't think there is any more info at this stage.

As long as it connects up with the path along the busway bridge structure over Ipswich Road, everyone will be very happy. Because that leaves only some upgrades at Annerley Rd and O'Keefe St between a first-class connection between UQ and the V1.

[MTPCo]

Queries

1. How many trains do we think the counter-peak track from Dutton Park to Salisbury can handle in the AM and PM, and why?

Hi SurfRail. The expectation is for 24tph maximum capacity on this track. Not only is this consistent with the objectives of the ETCS2 program on the Cross River Rail tracks, but if CRR is full from the north (as is expected, based on the analysis several pages back in this thread) then all those 24 services will only be able to run on the single outbound track. This would consist of all-stations and express trains, as well as the balance of trains with the empty services going to Clapham. Due to the maximum capacity being used, all services between the portal and Clapham would need to operate at all-stations speed until the empty services are removed. Note that this precludes any trains heading south from the surface tracks (e.g. from South Bank) if CRR is full from the north.

2. Can congestion from Dutton Park to Salisbury in the counter-peak be ameliorated by running counter-peak services to and from further away than Clapham?

No. The congestion occurs between the portal and Clapham yard. The issue is a combination of needing to remove the empty services from the track, and the heterogeneous stopping pattern. Extending where the contra-peak services go wouldn't change this outcome. Changing where Clapham is would either improve things (if the yard was closer to the city, which it can't be) or make things worse (if the yard was further away). A yard at Acacia Ridge, for example, would mean all-stations speed for all services between the portal and Acacia Ridge.

3. What is stopping there being an up-up-down-down 4 track arrangement between Yeerongpilly and Kuraby, feeding an up-peak flow-down arrangement from Yeerongpilly to Dutton Park?

Nothing, but it wouldn't change the outcomes noted in 1. and 2. above, aside from perhaps gaining a few (e.g. 10) seconds travel time improvement by splitting out the express trains slightly earlier from the all-stations and empties.

4. If the set-up in 3 existed, and (for argument's sake) the line towards Acacia Ridge fed into either the inner or outer pairs with a proper flying junction - what kind of headway would that enable?

There would be no change. For illustration, if the Flagstone line was developed with the infrastructure as described above, its contra-peak services would need to come from CRR due to the single outbound track limitation (you have 24tph headed south: 4 GC/ 4 Been/ 4 Flagstone / 12 empty to Clapham as an example). In this case, either the Flagstone peak trains go to CRR to maintain consistency throughout the day, which limits everything south of the portal to 24tph in peak and leaves only Cleveland on the Subs, or Flagstone goes via South Bank in the peak direction meaning a change of sectorisation and pathing throughout the day, which would then allow capacity south of the portal of, say, 36tph in peak (24 via CRR plus 12 via Subs assuming Cleveland takes 12).

In the example above it doesn't need to be Flagstone that has the break in sectorisation, but something from the south must due to the single outbound track constraint. These impacts are identical and mirrored in the PM peak as well.

Unfortunately CRR is creating more bottlenecks than it solves - indeed it becomes the bottleneck - and no amount of tinkering on the outskirts of the network will solve this.

[ozbob]

Couriermail --> Cross River Rail jobs up for grabs

More than 7700 people will work on the $5.4 billion Cross River Rail project over the five years of construction, with 400 local suppliers signed up and more than 160 apprentice and traineeship positions already filled of the 450 to be created.

The 10.2km rail line will run from Dutton Park to Bowen Hills, including 5.9km of twin tunnels under the Brisbane River and Brisbane CBD, creating a second river crossing for the rail network that means more trains more often across the network.

The Courier-Mail, in conjunction with the Cross River Rail Delivery Authority, is presenting a series looking at the project and what it will bring to the state.

Major construction works have started and are due to be completed in 2024.

Here are the jobs the Cross River Rail Delivery Authority and joint venture partners CBGU are trying to fill:

VACANCIES WITH CROSS RIVER JOINT VENTURE CBGU:

Trade jobs:

Carpentry Trades/Formworker

Crane Operator

Concreter/Concrete Finisher

Dogman

Operator

Rigger

Scaffolder

Steel Fixer

Trades Assistant/Labourer

Tunneller

Yardperson/Storesperson

CBGU are also looking for expressions of interest for jobs in:

Engineering

Finance

Project Management

Contracts & Procurement

Quality

Health & Safety

Supervisory

Human Resources

Administration

Plus apprenticeships and traineeships

JOBS WITH THE CROSS RIVER RAIL DELIVERY AUTHORITY:

Graduate Environment Officer

Database Administrator

Integrated Database & Dashboard (IDD) Lead

Contracts Manager

Program Commercial Manager

Commercial Manager

Senior Contracts and Systems Administrator

Program Project Manager

Planning Manager

Graduate Urban Planner

Senior Commercial Systems Administrator

Director Development Assessment

Governance and Reporting Officer

To find jobs on Cross River Rail, apply or submit an expression of interest, visit https://crossriverrail.qld.gov.au/contact-us/jobs-contracts/

[ozbob]

Couriermail --> Cross River Rail will be a major boost for essential health workers

Workers at Brisbane's fastest-growing health precinct will have a brand new train station when the $5.4 billion Cross River Rail project opens in 2024.

The new Exhibition station will be open all year round servicing the nearby RBH and Herston Quarter health precinct, and significantly improve access to events at the RNA Showgrounds and the King St entertainment precinct.

The Courier-Mail, in conjunction with the Cross River Rail Delivery Authority, is presenting a series looking at the project and what it will bring to the state.

Exhibition station precinct will accelerate the area's urban renewal creating a connected health, housing, and recreation hub, CRRDA tunnels, stations and development project director Jeremy Kruger said.

It will also help the 6000 health workers at Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital – Queensland's largest which provides more than 1 million medical appointments and treatments every year – as well as the hundreds of thousands of visitors to the Ekka and other events at the RNA every year.

The new and expanded station will link the inner city and Brisbane's northern suburbs and is expected to handle 9500 passengers every weekday by 2036. It will have three new connections linking the King Street Precinct to Bowen Park, including replacement of the existing RNA Cattle Underpass, a pedestrian and cyclist link connecting the station to Bowen Bridge Road.

There will also be new secure bicycle storage.

More than 7700 people will work on the $5.4 billion Cross River Rail project over the five years of construction, with 400 local suppliers signed up and more than 160 apprentice and traineeship positions already filled of the 450 to be created.

Among them is graduate engineer Amy Clem. At 26, Ms Clem already has an enviable resume, having worked on the construction of Brisbane Airport's $1.1 billion parallel runway, which opened to flights earlier this month.

Working for joint venture partner CPB, she is looking forward to working across the megaproject and picking up the skills and experience that entails.

"It's awesome to have five years-plus worth of work in Brisbane," Ms Clem said.

"I wanted to work on a rail project and prior to this there wasn't really anything in Brisbane so I was thinking I was going to have to move to Sydney or Melbourne where they had major projects.

"I think rail is really important for Australia to get things and people from A to B.

"I'm excited to work on such an awesome project."

Major construction works have started and are due to be completed in 2024.

The 10.2km rail line will run from Dutton Park to Bowen Hills, including 5.9km of twin tunnels under the Brisbane River and Brisbane CBD, creating a second river crossing for the rail network that means more trains more often across the network.

[BrizCommuter]

3. What is stopping there being an up-up-down-down 4 track arrangement between Yeerongpilly and Kuraby, feeding an up-peak flow-down arrangement from Yeerongpilly to Dutton Park?

Assuming layered 4tph off/contra-peak Salisbury all stations, Beenleigh/Loganlea, and GC services. Then the 3 track section from Salisbury to Kuraby is sufficient. The 4th overtaking track would need to be in the vicinity of Loganlea (unless Loganlea acts as a terminus at which point 3 tracks suffices). A 4th track between the portal and Salisbury would allow for faster contra-peak journey times for express services. A 3rd track between Holmview and Kuraby would allow for more peak direction services if Beenleigh continues to be a terminus.

[SurfRail]

Queries

1. How many trains do we think the counter-peak track from Dutton Park to Salisbury can handle in the AM and PM, and why?

Hi SurfRail. The expectation is for 24tph maximum capacity on this track. Not only is this consistent with the objectives of the ETCS2 program on the Cross River Rail tracks, but if CRR is full from the north (as is expected, based on the analysis several pages back in this thread) then all those 24 services will only be able to run on the single outbound track. This would consist of all-stations and express trains, as well as the balance of trains with the empty services going to Clapham. Due to the maximum capacity being used, all services between the portal and Clapham would need to operate at all-stations speed until the empty services are removed. Note that this precludes any trains heading south from the surface tracks (e.g. from South Bank) if CRR is full from the north.

2. Can congestion from Dutton Park to Salisbury in the counter-peak be ameliorated by running counter-peak services to and from further away than Clapham?

No. The congestion occurs between the portal and Clapham yard. The issue is a combination of needing to remove the empty services from the track, and the heterogeneous stopping pattern. Extending where the contra-peak services go wouldn't change this outcome. Changing where Clapham is would either improve things (if the yard was closer to the city, which it can't be) or make things worse (if the yard was further away). A yard at Acacia Ridge, for example, would mean all-stations speed for all services between the portal and Acacia Ridge.

3. What is stopping there being an up-up-down-down 4 track arrangement between Yeerongpilly and Kuraby, feeding an up-peak flow-down arrangement from Yeerongpilly to Dutton Park?

Nothing, but it wouldn't change the outcomes noted in 1. and 2. above, aside from perhaps gaining a few (e.g. 10) seconds travel time improvement by splitting out the express trains slightly earlier from the all-stations and empties.

4. If the set-up in 3 existed, and (for argument's sake) the line towards Acacia Ridge fed into either the inner or outer pairs with a proper flying junction - what kind of headway would that enable?

There would be no change. For illustration, if the Flagstone line was developed with the infrastructure as described above, its contra-peak services would need to come from CRR due to the single outbound track limitation (you have 24tph headed south: 4 GC/ 4 Been/ 4 Flagstone / 12 empty to Clapham as an example). In this case, either the Flagstone peak trains go to CRR to maintain consistency throughout the day, which limits everything south of the portal to 24tph in peak and leaves only Cleveland on the Subs, or Flagstone goes via South Bank in the peak direction meaning a change of sectorisation and pathing throughout the day, which would then allow capacity south of the portal of, say, 36tph in peak (24 via CRR plus 12 via Subs assuming Cleveland takes 12).

In the example above it doesn't need to be Flagstone that has the break in sectorisation, but something from the south must due to the single outbound track constraint. These impacts are identical and mirrored in the PM peak as well.

Unfortunately CRR is creating more bottlenecks than it solves - indeed it becomes the bottleneck - and no amount of tinkering on the outskirts of the network will solve this.

Well yes, but why do we need to limit ourselves to running 4 trains per pattern in the counter-peak?  Why do half of all trains coming from Boggo Road need to go out of service at Clapham after operating only a single inbound trip from the north when we could keep the shoulder peak running for longer (as we should be)?  QR's peak levels of service don't taper off, they fall off a cliff.

[BrizCommuter]

Queries

1. How many trains do we think the counter-peak track from Dutton Park to Salisbury can handle in the AM and PM, and why?

Hi SurfRail. The expectation is for 24tph maximum capacity on this track. Not only is this consistent with the objectives of the ETCS2 program on the Cross River Rail tracks, but if CRR is full from the north (as is expected, based on the analysis several pages back in this thread) then all those 24 services will only be able to run on the single outbound track. This would consist of all-stations and express trains, as well as the balance of trains with the empty services going to Clapham. Due to the maximum capacity being used, all services between the portal and Clapham would need to operate at all-stations speed until the empty services are removed. Note that this precludes any trains heading south from the surface tracks (e.g. from South Bank) if CRR is full from the north.

2. Can congestion from Dutton Park to Salisbury in the counter-peak be ameliorated by running counter-peak services to and from further away than Clapham?

No. The congestion occurs between the portal and Clapham yard. The issue is a combination of needing to remove the empty services from the track, and the heterogeneous stopping pattern. Extending where the contra-peak services go wouldn't change this outcome. Changing where Clapham is would either improve things (if the yard was closer to the city, which it can't be) or make things worse (if the yard was further away). A yard at Acacia Ridge, for example, would mean all-stations speed for all services between the portal and Acacia Ridge.

3. What is stopping there being an up-up-down-down 4 track arrangement between Yeerongpilly and Kuraby, feeding an up-peak flow-down arrangement from Yeerongpilly to Dutton Park?

Nothing, but it wouldn't change the outcomes noted in 1. and 2. above, aside from perhaps gaining a few (e.g. 10) seconds travel time improvement by splitting out the express trains slightly earlier from the all-stations and empties.

4. If the set-up in 3 existed, and (for argument's sake) the line towards Acacia Ridge fed into either the inner or outer pairs with a proper flying junction - what kind of headway would that enable?

There would be no change. For illustration, if the Flagstone line was developed with the infrastructure as described above, its contra-peak services would need to come from CRR due to the single outbound track limitation (you have 24tph headed south: 4 GC/ 4 Been/ 4 Flagstone / 12 empty to Clapham as an example). In this case, either the Flagstone peak trains go to CRR to maintain consistency throughout the day, which limits everything south of the portal to 24tph in peak and leaves only Cleveland on the Subs, or Flagstone goes via South Bank in the peak direction meaning a change of sectorisation and pathing throughout the day, which would then allow capacity south of the portal of, say, 36tph in peak (24 via CRR plus 12 via Subs assuming Cleveland takes 12).

In the example above it doesn't need to be Flagstone that has the break in sectorisation, but something from the south must due to the single outbound track constraint. These impacts are identical and mirrored in the PM peak as well.

Unfortunately CRR is creating more bottlenecks than it solves - indeed it becomes the bottleneck - and no amount of tinkering on the outskirts of the network will solve this.

Well yes, but why do we need to limit ourselves to running 4 trains per pattern in the counter-peak?  Why do half of all trains coming from Boggo Road need to go out of service at Clapham after operating only a single inbound trip from the north when we could keep the shoulder peak running for longer (as we should be)?  QR's peak levels of service don't taper off, they fall off a cliff.

To be honest I don't see much of a demand for off-peak more frequent than 4tph on the branches.

[ozbob]

Couriermail --> Cross River Rail to bring 'green spine' to CBD, spruce up suburbs

A green spine is set to transform Brisbane's CBD, while an orange army of workers will build six new suburban stations as part of the $5.4 billion Cross River Rail project.

Cross River Rail's Albert St underground station will be used to kick-start the project to link the Botanic Gardens and the CBD across to Spring Hill with a leafy pedestrian corridor.

Albert St station, with its 67,000 passengers every weekday, is likely to be the first taste of Brisbane that visitors see.

Surrounded by the areas with the highest density of jobs in Queensland and a short walk to the Brisbane River, Queens Wharf, QUT Gardens Point and the new Dexus riverside development, making the area around and connecting Albert St attractive will fuel development, jobs and the Brisbane lifestyle, according to the council's blueprint for the area.

The Courier-Mail, in conjunction with the Cross River Rail Delivery Authority, is presenting a series looking at the project and what it will bring to the state.

As well as being stimulus for a city heart transformation, Cross River Rail includes upgrades to eight above-ground stations including Salisbury, Rocklea, Moorooka, Yeerongpilly, Yeronga, Fairfield, Dutton Park, as well as the Exhibition which will become a year-round station.

The Gold Coast line will get three new stations at Pimpama, Helensvale North and Merrimac.

To minimise disruption, stations will largely be prefabricated off-site, and the upgrades will occur in stages

Psychology student Clara Hall, 19, lives locally and frequently uses the stations at Yeronga and Yeerongpilly to travel to university.

Ms Hall said she supported functional improvements and safety features.

The Yeronga station upgrade will include an additional third platform, a new station building, a new accessible overpass and lifts, accessible parking bays, new Kiss 'n' Ride spaces, platform improvements and bike enclosures.

Lucy Haimes, 20, recently started using Yeronga Station to travel to her university placement in Hamilton.

"It definitely could be nicer," Ms Haimes said.

"I will still use the station while it's like this, but some upgrades for things like safety would probably be good."

More than 7700 people will work on the $5.4 billion Cross River Rail project over the five years of construction, with 400 local suppliers signed up and more than 160 apprentice and traineeship positions already filled of the 450 to be created.

Major construction works have started and are due to be completed in 2024.

The 10.2km rail line will run from Dutton Park to Bowen Hills, including 5.9km of twin tunnels under the Brisbane River and Brisbane CBD, creating a second river crossing for the rail network that means more trains more often across the network.

[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.

Still no response.  So starting to work up a RTI for end of July submission. 

Document sought:

Cross River Rail - proposed rail service plan ( Concept of Operations )

This should include:

Network structure when Cross River Rail opens:

- Line pairings including inner city routing changes

Service levels for all lines AM peak, PM Peak, Counter peak,  Inter peak, Off peak: 

- service patterns of operation eg. express, limited express, all stations.

Stabling arrangements.

Freight and long distance passenger train scheduling and routing.

====

Memo to Lurkers   

It is dumb public policy to not promulgate the rail service plan.  You must have one which is guiding the project.

As was demonstrated with the New Generation Rollingstock debacle we will not refrain from using all the ' tools ' at our disposal in achieving proper transparency for the citizens of Queensland, who after all, are carrying the can for this project.

In military parlance it is very dumb to not have us inside the perimeter because we will continue to probe your perimeter, lob some metaphorical grenades now and then, and continue operations until mission is achieved.

Standby ...

[ozbob]

Uncertain as to which department handles RTIs for Cross River Rail.

So I have written to Department of State Development, Tourism and Innovation RTI Officer asking if they are correct department.

You would normally expect DTMR to handle transport but CRRDA has a different command structure.

[BrizCommuter]

Couriermail --> Cross River Rail to bring 'green spine' to CBD, spruce up suburbs

A green spine is set to transform Brisbane's CBD, while an orange army of workers will build six new suburban stations as part of the $5.4 billion Cross River Rail project.

Cross River Rail's Albert St underground station will be used to kick-start the project to link the Botanic Gardens and the CBD across to Spring Hill with a leafy pedestrian corridor.

Albert St station, with its 67,000 passengers every weekday, is likely to be the first taste of Brisbane that visitors see.

Surrounded by the areas with the highest density of jobs in Queensland and a short walk to the Brisbane River, Queens Wharf, QUT Gardens Point and the new Dexus riverside development, making the area around and connecting Albert St attractive will fuel development, jobs and the Brisbane lifestyle, according to the council's blueprint for the area.

The Courier-Mail, in conjunction with the Cross River Rail Delivery Authority, is presenting a series looking at the project and what it will bring to the state.

As well as being stimulus for a city heart transformation, Cross River Rail includes upgrades to eight above-ground stations including Salisbury, Rocklea, Moorooka, Yeerongpilly, Yeronga, Fairfield, Dutton Park, as well as the Exhibition which will become a year-round station.

The Gold Coast line will get three new stations at Pimpama, Helensvale North and Merrimac.

To minimise disruption, stations will largely be prefabricated off-site, and the upgrades will occur in stages

Psychology student Clara Hall, 19, lives locally and frequently uses the stations at Yeronga and Yeerongpilly to travel to university.

Ms Hall said she supported functional improvements and safety features.

The Yeronga station upgrade will include an additional third platform, a new station building, a new accessible overpass and lifts, accessible parking bays, new Kiss 'n' Ride spaces, platform improvements and bike enclosures.

Lucy Haimes, 20, recently started using Yeronga Station to travel to her university placement in Hamilton.

"It definitely could be nicer," Ms Haimes said.

"I will still use the station while it's like this, but some upgrades for things like safety would probably be good."

More than 7700 people will work on the $5.4 billion Cross River Rail project over the five years of construction, with 400 local suppliers signed up and more than 160 apprentice and traineeship positions already filled of the 450 to be created.

Major construction works have started and are due to be completed in 2024.

The 10.2km rail line will run from Dutton Park to Bowen Hills, including 5.9km of twin tunnels under the Brisbane River and Brisbane CBD, creating a second river crossing for the rail network that means more trains more often across the network.

Congratulations Courier Mail on your lazy journalism!

[ozbob]

^

There is another CRR advertisement with the article in the newspaper hard copy.  There is another CRR half page ad in the paper too.

[ozbob]

Sunday Mail today, no CRR puff pieces, no CRR ads ...   :conf

[BrizCommuter]

Do we have any estimates on how much is being spent on CRR advertising?

[paulg]

Do we have any estimates on how much is being spent on CRR advertising?

https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/politics/queensland/taxpayers-fork-out-2-1-million-for-cross-river-rail-ads-20200625-p5561m.html

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

[ozbob]

https://twitter.com/AnnastaciaMP/status/1287547982250876928

[ozbob]

^

http://statements.qld.gov.au/Statement/2020/7/27/more-jobs-as-local-manufacturer-starts-producing-cross-river-rail-tunnel-segments

Media Statements
Premier and Minister for Trade
The Honourable Annastacia Palaszczuk

Monday, July 27, 2020

More jobs as local manufacturer starts producing Cross River Rail tunnel segments

Work is underway to produce 25,000 concrete segments for the tunnels of south-east Queensland's new underground rail system.

Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk announced today work had begun at the Wagners Precast facility at Wacol, where 70 local workers will benefit.

"Construction is a vital part of our plan for Queensland's continued economic recovery from the global impact of COVID-19, and the Cross River Rail project has multiple aspects – building new stations, drilling tunnels and manufacturing materials," the Premier said.

"Hundreds of local businesses are benefitting from work related to the project. In this case here at Wacol we have a 100 per cent Queensland-owned company employing local workers to build the concrete walls that will line the 5.9 kilometres of twin tunnels.

"Because of Queenslanders' efforts fighting the coronavirus pandemic, we can also focus on rebuilding our economy.

"Investing in major infrastructure projects like Cross River Rail means more jobs, more training opportunities and more support for the economy right when we need it most."

"7,500 jobs for workers will be created throughout the life of the project along with 450 opportunities for trainees and apprentices – some of whom we met today.

"We've been clear and consistent – we want to see Queensland companies and Queensland workers benefitting from the biggest infrastructure project this state has ever seen.

"Wagners' work with Cross River Rail is a great example of what we can achieve by prioritising local companies and local employees."

State Development Minister Kate Jones said it was a significant moment to see work starting in order to deliver the 25,000 precast concrete segments required for the tunnels.

"Major infrastructure projects like Cross River Rail are exactly what our economy needs right now," Ms Jones said.

"Cross River Rail is pumping over $4 million a day into the economy, and over $370 million is already being spent with more than 400 businesses that make up the supply chain for the project.

"More than 90 per cent of these are Queensland based."

Ms Jones said the magnitude of the Wacol facility was staggering, with more than 70,000 cubic metres of land as well as a storage capacity of 28,000 cubic metres.

"They'll need every bit of this space to store these tunnel segments," Ms Jones said.

"If you lay the 25,000 segments they'll produce for Cross River Rail end-to-end you'd reach from Wacol to the heart of Brisbane City with a few segments to spare."

In addition to creating more jobs, the work at Wagners is also supporting apprentice and trainee opportunities with more than 570 training hours delivered at the facility in May alone.

"While visiting the facility today, we had the pleasure of meeting Ewan Daniels and Rhys Carr, electrical apprentices and Emma Saunders, trainee who are getting a great start on their career working on the biggest project in town."

Wagners CEO Cameron Coleman said the company was looking for an opportunity to contribute to this transformational project and is pleased that work is now underway on the massive task to produce the required 25,000 concrete segments.

"This means more job security for existing staff and new job opportunities for the extra staff we will take on now that work has started"

"Covid obviously has everyone worried, so the start of work couldn't come soon enough and its fantastic that the Government has been able to keep going with construction of Cross River Rail"

Wagners precast concrete fast facts:

Six concrete segments are used to create one tunnel ring
4157 tunnel rings are required to line each tunnel
25,000 segments will be produced at Wacol
Each segment is 27 centimetres thick and 1.7 metres long
One truck can carry only six segments at a time
Once in production, the facility will produce 140 segments per day
More than 105,000 cubic metres of concrete will be used to create the segments

ENDS   

[Gazza]

70,000 cubic metres of land

[verbatim9]

Traffic flows have been changed in Brisbane's CBD by the @CrossRiverRail project. From midnight last night, Albert Street was closed between Charlotte and Elizabeth Streets. The long term closure will allow work to begin on Albert Street station. 7NEWS.com.au | Latest news headlines, sport & weather #7NEWS https://t.co/gzW9jsG9HI

https://twitter.com/7NewsBrisbane/status/1287665186451542016

[Jonno]

Traffic flows have been changed in Brisbane's CBD by the @CrossRiverRail project. From midnight last night, Albert Street was closed between Charlotte and Elizabeth Streets. The long term closure will allow work to begin on Albert Street station. 7NEWS.com.au | Latest news headlines, sport & weather #7NEWS https://t.co/gzW9jsG9HI

[MEDIA=twitter]1287665186451542016[/MEDIA]

Leave it closed and remove the car parking exit from Myer Centre!

[MTPCo]

Well yes, but why do we need to limit ourselves to running 4 trains per pattern in the counter-peak?  Why do half of all trains coming from Boggo Road need to go out of service at Clapham after operating only a single inbound trip from the north when we could keep the shoulder peak running for longer (as we should be)?  QR's peak levels of service don't taper off, they fall off a cliff.

In this case changing the contra-peak service levels has no impact on the infrastructure deficiency, rather it only changes the required size of Clapham yard. If 24tph is coming out of the tunnel onto one track, whether there are 1tph or 24tph as contra-peak has no impact, as all services will operate at all-stations speed and nothing will be able to run from South Bank towards the south. Indeed, increasing the level of contra-peak with the current infrastructure provision would exacerbate the problem described here.

[ozbob]

Further follow up email sent:

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

28th July 2020

Good Morning,

One month since we made our request for the CRR service plan.

The information sought is:

Cross River Rail - proposed rail service plan ( Concept of Operations )

This should include:

Network structure when Cross River Rail opens:

- Line pairings including inner city routing changes

Service levels for all lines AM peak, PM Peak, Counter peak,  Inter peak, Off peak:

- service patterns of operation eg. express, limited express, all stations.

Stabling arrangements.

Freight and long distance passenger train scheduling and routing.

====

We don't like being ignored.  If a proper response is not received by the 31st July 2020 will take further administrative action to obtain the information.

'Puff pieces' in the Courier Mail (with appropriately placed tax payer funded advertisements) are not addressing the core issues and the lack of information as to how the SEQ rail network will operate.

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

12th July 2020

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

Attached: https://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=2034.msg237125#msg237125

[kram0]

Rocklea Station.

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

[Gazza]

Queries

1. How many trains do we think the counter-peak track from Dutton Park to Salisbury can handle in the AM and PM, and why?

Hi SurfRail. The expectation is for 24tph maximum capacity on this track. Not only is this consistent with the objectives of the ETCS2 program on the Cross River Rail tracks, but if CRR is full from the north (as is expected, based on the analysis several pages back in this thread) then all those 24 services will only be able to run on the single outbound track. This would consist of all-stations and express trains, as well as the balance of trains with the empty services going to Clapham. Due to the maximum capacity being used, all services between the portal and Clapham would need to operate at all-stations speed until the empty services are removed. Note that this precludes any trains heading south from the surface tracks (e.g. from South Bank) if CRR is full from the north.

2. Can congestion from Dutton Park to Salisbury in the counter-peak be ameliorated by running counter-peak services to and from further away than Clapham?

No. The congestion occurs between the portal and Clapham yard. The issue is a combination of needing to remove the empty services from the track, and the heterogeneous stopping pattern. Extending where the contra-peak services go wouldn't change this outcome. Changing where Clapham is would either improve things (if the yard was closer to the city, which it can't be) or make things worse (if the yard was further away). A yard at Acacia Ridge, for example, would mean all-stations speed for all services between the portal and Acacia Ridge.

3. What is stopping there being an up-up-down-down 4 track arrangement between Yeerongpilly and Kuraby, feeding an up-peak flow-down arrangement from Yeerongpilly to Dutton Park?

Nothing, but it wouldn't change the outcomes noted in 1. and 2. above, aside from perhaps gaining a few (e.g. 10) seconds travel time improvement by splitting out the express trains slightly earlier from the all-stations and empties.

4. If the set-up in 3 existed, and (for argument's sake) the line towards Acacia Ridge fed into either the inner or outer pairs with a proper flying junction - what kind of headway would that enable?

There would be no change. For illustration, if the Flagstone line was developed with the infrastructure as described above, its contra-peak services would need to come from CRR due to the single outbound track limitation (you have 24tph headed south: 4 GC/ 4 Been/ 4 Flagstone / 12 empty to Clapham as an example). In this case, either the Flagstone peak trains go to CRR to maintain consistency throughout the day, which limits everything south of the portal to 24tph in peak and leaves only Cleveland on the Subs, or Flagstone goes via South Bank in the peak direction meaning a change of sectorisation and pathing throughout the day, which would then allow capacity south of the portal of, say, 36tph in peak (24 via CRR plus 12 via Subs assuming Cleveland takes 12).

In the example above it doesn't need to be Flagstone that has the break in sectorisation, but something from the south must due to the single outbound track constraint. These impacts are identical and mirrored in the PM peak as well.

Unfortunately CRR is creating more bottlenecks than it solves - indeed it becomes the bottleneck - and no amount of tinkering on the outskirts of the network will solve this.

Well yes, but why do we need to limit ourselves to running 4 trains per pattern in the counter-peak?  Why do half of all trains coming from Boggo Road need to go out of service at Clapham after operating only a single inbound trip from the north when we could keep the shoulder peak running for longer (as we should be)?  QR's peak levels of service don't taper off, they fall off a cliff.

The fundamental issue is that you have three tracks approaching the city from the South.
In the height of peak, you have the express track and all stations track merging in at the tunnel mouth. No problems here this is no different to how Milton functions, because trains stop all stations through the core.

However, in the southbound direction, you have the tunnel spitting out 24 trains per hour onto a single track (because its peak and those trains from the northside have to go somewhere after calling at Albert St).

The only way to maintain 24tph on a single track is to have a single stopping pattern...

So either all trains run express, or all trains run all stations.

Once you reach Clapham (Or Salisbury) you can start pulling some of those trains, so then gaps in the timetable open from that point south and it becomes feasible to have express and all stops trains sharing a single track because their not on each others arse.

None of the above has been a problem till now because no track pair is run that intensively, and because the structure of the network allows dealing with trains fairly close to the core, eg Roma St, Bowen Hills and Park Rd terminators.

If three tracks is all we have on opening day, then I can only see the following solutions.

-Make counter peak trains run all stops to Clapham at 24tph.

-Make counter peak trains run express to Clapham at 24tph

-Run CRR at less than 24tph until such time as the infrastructure catches up south of the tunnel portal
...Say 16tph, so it's like a pattern of
2.5
2.5
5.0
All stops trains would take around 7 mins to transit from Dutton Park to Moorooka, so the 5 min gap would allow it to get ahead and be entering the stabling just as the express is catching up.

-Build a turnback at Dutton park to allow at least some gaps for express trains, that would be the cheapest infrastructure solution.

-Do some crazy timetabling where express trains share a single track between Dutton Park and Clapham

[Gazza]

Something like this on opening day?
The 4th track commences before Moorooka actually, so if you wanted to sqeeze a couple of extra TPH you could make it a 2.5, 2.5, 4 repeating pattern.

PS i have NFI what needs to happen south of Clapham to maintain the express but this is the general idea.

[paulg]

I think the most likely scenario is that
a) they have realised that due to rollingstock and probably driver number limitations they're not going to be running anything like 24tph into the CRR from the north on the morning peak, and therefore
b) they can save some money on the initial build by not doing the grade separation at Mayne at this time.
Whenever prodded about the benefits of CRR the response always talks about future-proofing the network and providing future capacity (removing a bottleneck). The fact that they're cutting costs at Mayne says to me that they're looking for any way they can save money on the initial build, and because of the high costs (probably already blowing out) it won't be surprising if there is very little actual capacity improvement provided at initial opening. The 16tph counter peak on the single outbound track south of Dutton Park, or maybe even 12tph, seems likely.

[ozbob]

^ on the money I think Paul. 

That is what is underpinning the reluctance to come out with the real concept of operations (rail service plan).
And why things like frequency disappeared from the ' Checkmate ' tool to be replaced with feel good spin pieces.

If it is cut too much though it is going to be expensive to retrofit.  It is essential that that they outline what is really going to happen.

Recent form with rail projects is not good! 

[Gazza]

So is the exclusion of a trench at Bowen Hills because it would be a stranded asset?

Eg if the long term goal is that trains come in via the NWTC either via ferny Grove or via a separate grade sepped junction at Victoria Park

[kram0]

So is the exclusion of a trench at Bowen Hills because it would be a stranded asset?

Eg if the long term goal is that trains come in via the NWTC either via ferny Grove or via a separate grade sepped junction at Victoria Park

The exclusion of the trench is down to nothing more than incompetence and short sightedness. It is needed for smooth clash free operations.

The government would not have a clue how they will build or operate NWTC, if and when it gets built as there will be many changes of government and ideas by the time it is operational. 

[verbatim9]

Rocklea Station.

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

A huge improvement

[ozbob]

Uncertain as to which department handles RTIs for Cross River Rail.

So I have written to Department of State Development, Tourism and Innovation RTI Officer asking if they are correct department.

You would normally expect DTMR to handle transport but CRRDA has a different command structure.

I received no response from the Department of State Development, Tourism and Innovation RTI Officer so I wrote to RTI Officer at TMR.

This was the response:

2:56 PM 28th July 2020

I've been advised that the document you are enquiring about is a document of the Cross River Rail Delivery Authority (CRRDA) and is in relation to their commercial activities. Schedule 2 of the Right to Information Act 2009, states that the commercial functions of CRRDA are not subject to the Right to Information Act (RTI Act).

As a result, you would not be able to request the document under the RTI Act.


No quite sure how a concept of operations (rail service plan) relates to commercial activities, but it shows what we are up against in this state.  Other states are transparent, not Queensland.  This is not healthy.

Well, I have saved 50 bucks I guess ... 

[MTPCo]

Uncertain as to which department handles RTIs for Cross River Rail.

So I have written to Department of State Development, Tourism and Innovation RTI Officer asking if they are correct department.

You would normally expect DTMR to handle transport but CRRDA has a different command structure.

I received no response from the Department of State Development, Tourism and Innovation RTI Officer so I wrote to RTI Officer at TMR.

This was the response:

2:56 PM 28th July 2020

I've been advised that the document you are enquiring about is a document of the Cross River Rail Delivery Authority (CRRDA) and is in relation to their commercial activities. Schedule 2 of the Right to Information Act 2009, states that the commercial functions of CRRDA are not subject to the Right to Information Act (RTI Act).

As a result, you would not be able to request the document under the RTI Act.


No quite sure how a concept of operations (rail service plan) relates to commercial activities, but it shows what we are up against in this state.  Other states are transparent, not Queensland.  This is not healthy.

Well, I have saved 50 bucks I guess ...

That is absolutely disgusting. Public funds on public infrastructure and no transparency? Utterly abhorrent.

[ozbob]

I replied to the email:

Good afternoon xxxx

Thanks for your quick response.

I am not sure how a rail service plan relates to commercial activities.  It is simply how the rail network will operate.

Is there any other avenue for finding out this information, information which I might add is publicly available in other states for similar projects?

Regards
Robert

[ozbob]

Right to Information Act 2009

Reprint current from 18 November 2019 to date (accessed 28 July 2020 at 16:18)

Schedule 2

https://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/view/html/inforce/current/act-2009-013#sch.2


Entities to which this Act does not apply


the Cross River Rail Delivery Authority established under the Cross River Rail Delivery Authority Act 2016, section 8, in relation to its functions, except so far as they relate to community service obligations under that Act

except so far as they relate to community service obligations under that Act

Are service levels and how a network operates community service obligations?   I might have to write to the OIC to seek advice.

[ozbob]

Cross River Rail Delivery Authority Act 2016

https://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/view/html/inforce/current/act-2016-066#sec.8

Division 4
Community service obligations

29
Community service obligations to be stated in operational plan

(1)The authority's operational plan for a financial year must state—
(a)the obligations (the community service obligations) that the Minister—
(i)is satisfied are not in the authority's commercial interests to perform; and
(ii)has directed the authority to perform in the financial year; and
(b)the costings of, funding for, or other arrangements to make adjustments relating to, the authority's community service obligations for the financial year, as agreed between the Minister and the authority.
(2)The authority's operational plan is conclusive, as between the government and the authority, of—
(a)the nature and extent of the authority's community service obligations; and
(b)the ways in which, and the extent to which, the authority is to be compensated by the government for performing its community service obligations.
(3)In this section—
operational plan, of the authority, means the authority's operational plan under the Financial Accountability Act 2009.

====

I am no legal eagle, but to me it seems the CSO are not rail operations per se.

[Gazza]

Could you send an email to Tony Moore at Brisbane times and see if he could do some digging?

[ozbob]

Could you send an email to Tony Moore at Brisbane times and see if he could do some digging?

Tony has been informed previously.  I am going to first write to OIC to ensure that the advice I have received is indeed correct.