Cross River Rail Project

[ozbob]

https://twitter.com/railbotforum/status/1330298081921953793

[ozbob]

https://statements.qld.gov.au/statements/91042

Cross River Rail's tunnel twins almost ready to go

Published 22 November 2020

Minister for Transport and Main Roads
The Honourable Mark Bailey



Queensland businesses are helping prepare Cross River Rail's Tunnel Boring Machines (TBMs) to start tunnelling under Woolloongabba early next year.

More than 100 local companies are involved in preparing the 1350-tonne, 165-metre long TBMs that will excavate the bulk of Cross River Rail's 5.9km twin tunnels.

Transport and Main Roads Minster Mark Bailey said the first TBM was undergoing last-minute checks at Herrenknecht's northside facility before being moved to Woolloongabba.

"The Palaszczuk Government has a $51.8 billion infrastructure program that locks in jobs to support Queensland's economic recovery," Mr Bailey said.

"Whether it's building transformational projects like Cross River Rail, upgrading the Bruce Highway around Cairns and Townsville, improving the Inland Freight Route, or delivering more than $1 billion in COVID-recovery stimulus road upgrades, we have a pipeline of projects across the state creating thousands of new jobs when they're needed most.

"More than 100 local subcontractors and suppliers are benefiting from more than $10 million in work to help get these TBMs ready.

"A great example is family-owned QIC Protective Coatings in Birkdale, who repainted the TBMs.

"Cross River Rail is injecting more than $4 million a day into the local economy and has already supported more than 2,400 workers so far."

Mr Bailey said the Cross River Rail project was moving into an exciting new stage.

"The first TBM has been assembled and is going through its final checks this week, and the same process will be completed with the second machine next month.

"Crews remain on track to launch the TBMs from the Woolloongabba station site early next year," he said.

"The TBMs will tunnel under the Brisbane River to Albert Street station in mid-2021, before continuing on to the new Roma Street station and emerging at the project's northern portal at Normanby.

"At the same time as they're making their way through hard rock, the TBMs will install massive 4.2 tonne precast concrete segments to line the tunnels."

Tunnel Boring Machine fast facts:

Two TBMs are being refitted and refurbished at Herrenknecht's northside facility
More than 100 local companies have been supporting Herrenknecht to prepare the TBMs, including QIC Protective Coatings (Birkdale), LCR Group (Wacol), AC Hargreaves Pty Ltd (Seventeen Mile Rocks), C&L Tool Centre (Hendra), ShapeCUT (Carole Park), and Citi-steel (Darra)
More than 40 workers have helped refurbish the two TBMs' gantries, assembling their shields and testing all their systems to make sure they're ready to go
The TBMs' back-up gantries have been repurposed from the Sydney Metro project
Each TBM weighs 1350 tonnes and is 165 metres long
A crew of up to 15 people will work in a TBM at any one time
The cutterhead weighs 106 tonnes and measures 7.2 metres in diameter
It includes 39 cutting discs that exert up to 32 tonnes of pressure each
TBMs will work at a rate of 20 to 30 metres per day
At their deepest point, the tunnels will be 58m below the surface at Kangaroo Point, and 42m below the Brisbane River
Each TBM is fully equipped with crew facilities, offices and toilets
The TBMs must be disassembled to be transported
The TBMs will generate 290,000 cubic metres of spoil as they make way for the twin Cross River Rail tunnels.

ENDS

====

https://twitter.com/AnnastaciaMP/status/1330352410217177089

[verbatim9]

New temporary entry to Roma Street station. Demolishing continues

[verbatim9]

Normanby precinct progress.

[verbatim9]

Ekka precinct progress












====

Admin:

Thanks for the photographs verbatim9.  Great to see the progress.

[ozbob]

https://twitter.com/AnnastaciaMP/status/1330390805966508037

[ozbob]

https://twitter.com/railbotforum/status/1330521803685564416

[ozbob]

Minister Bailey Facebook

https://www.facebook.com/1408935539376139/posts/2767872273482452/

These 1350 ton 7.2m wide Tunnel Boring Machines has been refitted & refurbished in Brisbane with supplies from 100...

Posted by Mark Bailey MP - Labor for Miller on Saturday, 21 November 2020

[HappyTrainGuy]

Clayfield-Hendra has been trialing the new ohle for CRR for a while now. Central P1 is now the next to test the new ohle.

[Gazza]

Clayfield-Hendra has been trialing the new ohle for CRR for a while now. Central P1 is now the next to test the new ohle.

Ooooh I want to go have a look now. Bob here's your homework.

[ozbob]

Clayfield-Hendra has been trialing the new ohle for CRR for a while now. Central P1 is now the next to test the new ohle.

Ooooh I want to go have a look now. Bob here's your homework.

Waiting for your report Gazza.  I am grounded for now ...

[ozbob]

CRR

Guide to tunnelling

https://crossriverrail.qld.gov.au/construction/guide-to-tunnelling/

[BrizCommuter]

Cross River Rail - Anything But "Robust"
https://brizcommuter.blogspot.com/2020/11/cross-river-rail-anything-but-robust.html

(with added pretty diagrams that even politicians might understand)

[paulg]

Cross River Rail - Anything But "Robust"
https://brizcommuter.blogspot.com/2020/11/cross-river-rail-anything-but-robust.html

(with added pretty diagrams that even politicians might understand)

I've read a bit more of the reports for Project Change 4 and Project Change 7. It seems to me to be more likely that the intention is for services from the north on the Mains to split between the Mains and CRR via an at-grade junction north of Breakfast Creek. I agree that the line diagrams in both PC4 and PC7 don't actually work that way but I think PC7 might have been an attempt to fix the mistake in PC4 (where they seemed to have forgotten the Suburbans down road) and they still didn't get it quite right. The fact that in PC7 there are still tracks connecting the Suburbans to the north with the Suburbans through the city indicates to me that the intention is unlikely to be that all services on the Suburbans from the north switch to the Mains.
Of course it's all speculation in the absence of a proper operations plan, which is absolutely needed. And if there are indeed errors in the diagrams in both PC4 and PC7 then it really doesn't give us much confidence that they know what they're doing. But it seems that a very significant change to the original operations plan such as that hypothesised by Brizcommuter and others would have warranted a comment along those lines in the PC applications (a reference to sectorisation, I guess). All that is mentioned in the PC4 document is the replacement of the trenched alignment of the CRR track with an 'at-grade solution'.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

[MTPCo]

I've read a bit more of the reports for Project Change 4 and Project Change 7. It seems to me to be more likely that the intention is for services from the north on the Mains to split between the Mains and CRR via an at-grade junction north of Breakfast Creek. I agree that the line diagrams in both PC4 and PC7 don't actually work that way but I think PC7 might have been an attempt to fix the mistake in PC4 (where they seemed to have forgotten the Suburbans down road) and they still didn't get it quite right. The fact that in PC7 there are still tracks connecting the Suburbans to the north with the Suburbans through the city indicates to me that the intention is unlikely to be that all services on the Suburbans from the north switch to the Mains.
Of course it's all speculation in the absence of a proper operations plan, which is absolutely needed. And if there are indeed errors in the diagrams in both PC4 and PC7 then it really doesn't give us much confidence that they know what they're doing. But it seems that a very significant change to the original operations plan such as that hypothesised by Brizcommuter and others would have warranted a comment along those lines in the PC applications (a reference to sectorisation, I guess). All that is mentioned in the PC4 document is the replacement of the trenched alignment of the CRR track with an 'at-grade solution'.

Hi paulg, while I share your hope, I don't believe that to be the case. It's not sufficient to say "oh they probably meant to do this, so it will no doubt be that way in the future", we have to assess what they put up in front of us. In the absence of an operating plan, the infrastructure layouts from the RfPCs are the best we have to go on.

The way that these things would normally work is that the engineering design would start off with the 'bare minimum' to achieve the future operating plan. You can take this at RfPC4. Following the tracks (see especially sheets 26 and 27), there is no possible way for that split of services to occur. Rather than postulating that they "forgot" a track, it seems that they designed tracks for the operation they expected - northern Mains into CRR, northern Subs into city Mains, and Ferny Grove (alone) into city Subs.

What then tends to happen is additional functionality is included, where possible, to provide flexibility in design. This you can take as RfPCs 7 and 8. This sees the inclusion of some crossovers around Mayne that could allow the split to occur, but are more likely there to allow for ad hoc or emergency movements (e.g. if the Exhibition Loop is completely down but there is a need to run things from the city Mains to the northern Mains, the new crossovers allow this). It does not appear to be designed to fundamentally change the way the operations work in RfPC4, simply because the crossovers are so far apart. If the expectation was to run this as a flat junction, you would need to minimise the length of the crossing conflict, which would occur by either having the crossovers in close proximity or even having a single crossover going from the Down city Main to the Down north Main. These crossovers are several hundred metres apart, and do not appear (from the geometry) to be high speed, so the afternoon in particular would not be operable - up to 15tph crossing at least 4tph across a several hundred metre single line section would be terrible design, and inoperable.

I also wouldn't get hung up about the report saying they replaced it with an "at-grade solution". A "solution" in engineering parlance is very different to an operational solution, and in fact they are often diametrically opposite. In this case, it's more likely read as "we got rid of the grade separation for convenience or cost", rather than providing functionality somehow.

I haven't seen anything in the reports that addresses the operations specifically, so I do not believe this to be the case - if I have missed something, please list the document reference and the page numbers.

Based on the above, and what we can see, there's nothing to suggest that the 'split' operation is planned, and plenty to suggest that it is not planned. Of course, there is a very easy way that the conjecture could be resolved - if they just released the service plans.

[ozbob]

Sent to all outlets:

Cross River Rail - Anything But "Robust"

24th November 2020

Good Morning,

A failure to publish the updated rail service plans for Cross River Rail is now causing great concern in the community.

RAIL Back On Track has attempted to obtain the updated rail service plans by direct request to CRRDA, by direct request to the Ministers who had carriage of Cross River Rail in their Ministerial Portfolio, and more recently a direct request to the Minister for Transport and Main Roads who has taken over the responsibility for Cross River Rail.

Because we are being denied the basic information that is available for projects such as Cross River Rail in other jurisdictions we attempted to obtain the information via Right To Information (RTI) applications.  Cross River Rail Development Authority (CRRDA) has exemption from the RTI procedures (except for matters relating to Community Service Obligations) so RTI had to be made to external agencies that we expected to have the information, contained within a document known as the Concept of Operations.  Advice from the Office of the Information Commissioner confirmed that CRRDA documents held by an external agency don't have the RTI exemption.  CRRDA still has to be consulted as an interested third party of course.  We made RTI applications to Queensland Rail and TMR seeking access to the Concept of Operations document which we believed they would hold a copy, expressly to obtain the rail service plans. Yes, it was confirmed that both Queensland Rail and TMR do have a copy of the CRR Concept of Operations document.  These RTI applications were refused both by Queensland Rail and TMR, and an an internal review application to TMR on the RTI decision was also refused. The grounds for refusal were essentially on safety, security and commercial in confidence objections.  This is quite odd as in the redacted CRR 2017 Business case there are several outdated rail service plans published ( Cross River Rail from the 2017 CRR Business Case
https://cabinet.qld.gov.au/documents/2017/Aug/CRRBusCase/Attachments/BusinessCase.pdf ).

The type of information we believe should be available can be viewed at https://metrotunnel.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/40481/MM-Business-Case-Feb-2016-APPENDIX-04.PDF for the Metro Tunnel project presently underway in Melbourne.  This public  document outlines the proposed rail service plans and demonstrates how the project will be integrated with and improve the Melbourne railway network. The lack of such information for Cross River Rail is why we were forced to make the RTI applications.

This wall of resistance in detailing how the SEQ Citytrain network will actually work when CRR is commissioned is very disturbing.  It suggests that there are very serious problems with the current concept of Cross River Rail in terms of rail operations because it is being hidden.

So, it is no surprise that concerned community members are now detailing why Cross River Rail is anything but ' robust '.

Consider this recent article by BrizCommuter:

Cross River Rail - Anything But "Robust"

https://brizcommuter.blogspot.com/2020/11/cross-river-rail-anything-but-robust.html

Whilst Queensland's politicians have recently had a hard hat photo shoot in front of Cross River Rail's (CRR) Tunnel Boring Machines, CRR is headed to be yet another Queensland public transport disaster. The media releases are currently stuck on repeat saying "Queenslanders can have a high level of confidence that the project's design and planning is robust" Unfortunately, BrizCommuter and many other rail experts are concerned that the project's current design is far from robust, and is not fit for purpose.

Southern Constraints

CRR was primarily designed to increase capacity from the Gold Coast and Beenleigh Line corridor. Currently, the Gold Coast, Beenleigh, and Cleveland Lines operate 20tph (Trains Per Hour Per Direction) into Brisbane (via South Bank) in the am peak, though 24tph could be possible with European Train Control Signalling (ETCS) and associated infrastructure improvements. The original CRR designed has the tunnel surfacing at Yeerongpilly, which allowed for 4 tracks into Brisbane's CBD (plus a freight track). If this design has continued, it would have allowed for up to 48tph from the Gold Coast, Beenleigh, Cleveland, and future Salisbury-Beaudesert Lines into Brisbane, of which 36tph would have been able to operate between Salisbury and Dutton Park instead of the current 12-16tph.

Unfortunately, Cambell Newman's BaT Tunnel design curtailed the Southern Portal to Dutton Park, utilising the existing 3 track constraint between Dutton Park and Salisbury. When the BaT tunnel turned into CRR Mk2, this 3 track constraint stayed in the design. Only having 3 tracks means that express and empty services cannot overtake the all stations trains in the contra-peak direction. As the design changes at Mayne now mean that up to 24tph from Caboolture and Redcliffe will be heading South out of CRR in the am peak, then there is no capacity for via South Bank services in the contra-peak direction. Thus unless there is a peak direction "tidal flow" of services via South Bank (which would be operationally challenging and confusing to the public), the lack of 4th track limits the Salisbury to Dutton Park section to 24tph - that is 50% less capacity than the original design of CRR. This design flaw also means that only the Ferny Grove to Cleveland Line will be operating via South Bank, with a significant reduction in services along this busy section that serves businesses, apartments, hospitals, hotels, universities, and leisure destinations. It also means that contra-peak Gold Coast Line services may have to slowed down as they will be stuck behind stopping services.

Northern Constraints

Whilst Northside train services were not the primary driver behind the original CRR design, the subsequent construction of the Redcliffe Line and future proposals for serving Caloundra and Maroochydore mean that increased capacity is also required. The problem is that whilst Cross River Rail will add a 3rd track pair through Brisbane's CBD, north of Mayne (Bowen Hills) there are only 2 track pairs, plus the Ferny Grove Line. Due to recent track layout changes in CRR's design (Project Change 7), it now looks like all train services from Caboolture, Sunshine Coast, and Redcliffe will run via CRR. Combined with ETCS, this will allow an increase from 18-20tph to 24tph. CRR was not required to achieve this! This is only a 20% increase in maximum capacity, which may not even last a decade.

The services from Doomben, Airport, and Shorncliffe Lines will be shifted to the Main Tracks (the tracks that hee Caboolture/Redcliffe to Ipswich/Springfield Lines currently run on). Whilst this track will allow for 24tph from Bowen Hills to Ipswich/Springfield with ETCS, the turnback constraints of the Doomben, Airport, and Shorncliffe Lines will not allow any more than the existing 14tph peak services on these lines. Thus the extra 10tph of Ipswich/Springfield services will start/terminate from sidings at Mayne.

This leaves the Ferny Grove Line to be connected to the Cleveland Line. Without any level crossing replacements on both lines, and duplication of the Cleveland Line, there will be just 8tph running on the Suburban Tracks through Brisbane's CBD and South Bank. This track pair will be operated at just 33% of its maximum capacity, a massive reduction from the existing 22tph.

Cross River Rail is going to deliver zero extra train services to/from the North that couldn't be achieved by just installing ETCS. Cross River Rail should have been designed with tunnel stubs at Roma Street to allow for future extensions via a quad track line along the North West Transportation Corridor (NWTC/Trouts Road Line). This would have allowed for an additional 24tph from the Caboolture, Sunshine Coast, and Redcliffe Lines. This would have enabled Fast Regional Rail and also allowed for local services to many northern suburbs which are currently public transport black holes. So what now? "Fast Regional Rail" via the Ferny Grove Line?

It is quite obvious why Cross River Rail's Rail Operations Plan is being hidden from the public. It would expose serious shortcomings of Cross River Rail's design, which the politicians don't want you to know. Cross River Rail's design is anything but "robust"!

Hiding behind an anti-RTI firewall is shredding public confidence in Cross River Rail outcomes.

It is time that CRRDA under direction of the Minister publish the rail service plans detailing how the SEQ Citytrain network will operate when CRR is commissioned.

Why hide it?

Other jurisdictions don't, they are keen to show the positive benefit of major infrastructure.  What is wrong with the state of Queensland?

Best wishes,

Robert

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

[ozbob]

Facebook ...

Cross River Rail - Anything But "Robust" 24th November 2020 Good Morning, A failure to publish the updated rail...

Posted by RAIL - Back On Track on Monday, 23 November 2020

[ozbob]

https://twitter.com/railbotforum/status/1330888996021366786

[ozbob]

Cross River Rail - Anything But "Robust"
https://brizcommuter.blogspot.com/2020/11/cross-river-rail-anything-but-robust.html

(with added pretty diagrams that even politicians might understand)

Thanks Briz. 

[paulg]

The way that these things would normally work is that the engineering design would start off with the 'bare minimum' to achieve the future operating plan. You can take this at RfPC4. Following the tracks (see especially sheets 26 and 27), there is no possible way for that split of services to occur. Rather than postulating that they "forgot" a track, it seems that they designed tracks for the operation they expected - northern Mains into CRR, northern Subs into city Mains, and Ferny Grove (alone) into city Subs.

That's all fine, but bear in mind that the diagrams in the rfPCs aren't the design drawings, they're an attempt to communicate a design change in a simplified illustration. While you would definitely hope they get it right, it's possible they haven't communicated the whole of the design change accurately.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

[MTPCo]

That's all fine, but bear in mind that the diagrams in the rfPCs aren't the design drawings, they're an attempt to communicate a design change in a simplified illustration. While you would definitely hope they get it right, it's possible they haven't communicated the whole of the design change accurately.

With respect, that's not entirely accurate. The long sections and general arrangements are, for all intents and purposes, the design drawings. There isn't a second set that's drawn up separately for these processes. They may not be the final drawings, because they are yet to be signed off for construction, but these definitely reflect a snapshot in time of the design.

I would definitely agree with you if we were talking about track schematics (e.g. what BrizCommuter has drawn), but there is nothing simplified about these types of drawing: http://eisdocs.dsdip.qld.gov.au/Cross%20River%20Rail/project-change-8/Volume%202%20-%20Design%20Drawings/General%20arrangement%20drawings/general-arrangement-24.pdf
http://eisdocs.dsdip.qld.gov.au/Cross%20River%20Rail/project-change-8/Volume%202%20-%20Design%20Drawings/Long%20section%20drawings/long-section-drawings.pdf

[paulg]

That's all fine, but bear in mind that the diagrams in the rfPCs aren't the design drawings, they're an attempt to communicate a design change in a simplified illustration. While you would definitely hope they get it right, it's possible they haven't communicated the whole of the design change accurately.

With respect, that's not entirely accurate. The long sections and general arrangements are, for all intents and purposes, the design drawings. There isn't a second set that's drawn up separately for these processes. They may not be the final drawings, because they are yet to be signed off for construction, but these definitely reflect a snapshot in time of the design.

I would definitely agree with you if we were talking about track schematics (e.g. what BrizCommuter has drawn), but there is nothing simplified about these types of drawing: http://eisdocs.dsdip.qld.gov.au/Cross%20River%20Rail/project-change-8/Volume%202%20-%20Design%20Drawings/General%20arrangement%20drawings/general-arrangement-24.pdf
http://eisdocs.dsdip.qld.gov.au/Cross%20River%20Rail/project-change-8/Volume%202%20-%20Design%20Drawings/Long%20section%20drawings/long-section-drawings.pdf

Hmm well ok. It's certainly all we have to go on.

Am I right though that if there was a blue line connecting the two down roads as shown in this markup you would have come to different conclusions about the operations plan?




It would certainly be nice if they would just clear it up for us!
Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

[MTPCo]

Am I right though that if there was a blue line connecting the two down roads as shown in this markup you would have come to different conclusions about the operations plan?

It wouldn't change the conclusion, but it would decrease the level of certainty in reaching that conclusion. It would be terrible practice to design that level of crossing conflict when a valid alternative exists, which means that you would not expect someone to try to operate that unless the project had been completely hijacked by cost zealots. Additionally, when there was a designed and costed grade separation through Mayne which went all the way through the business case, you would not expect that to be removed unless the operations were going to be changed. It's a massive red flag that something significantly different is occurring.

It would certainly be nice if they would just clear it up for us!

Indeed, it would.

[BrizCommuter]

The fact that the track layout changes in project changes 4 and 7 were made with no accompanying information on how they affect rail operations rings alarm bells. Irrespective of what services will be run where, there the limitations of 3 track pairs becoming 2.3 at Mayne, and constraints of 3 tracks between Dutton Park and Salisbury. Failure to publish the rail operations plan is evidence that CRR's integration to the rest of the rail network is not robust.

[Gazza]

Question, would it be too complicated to have a design in the future where all Beenleigh and Cleveland trains go via South Bank, but all GC and Beaudesert trains go via CRR.

The idea would be that the fast long distance lines get the advantage of the faster route into the CBD, whilst the older all stops lines use the older routing.

[paulg]

Agreed it all looks like bad planning, or absence of planning. At least with the government being reelected they can't just blame the problems on the previous administration (though I guess they might try to blame Newman for selling off Yeerongpilly land).

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

[BrizCommuter]

Question, would it be too complicated to have a design in the future where all Beenleigh and Cleveland trains go via South Bank, but all GC and Beaudesert trains go via CRR.

The idea would be that the fast long distance lines get the advantage of the faster route into the CBD, whilst the older all stops lines use the older routing.

The problem is the limited contra-peak capacity between Salisbury and Dutton Park due to only having 3 tracks. If all ex- Cab/Red trains go through CRR then no via South Bank trains can run on this section.

[MTPCo]

Question, would it be too complicated to have a design in the future where all Beenleigh and Cleveland trains go via South Bank, but all GC and Beaudesert trains go via CRR.

The idea would be that the fast long distance lines get the advantage of the faster route into the CBD, whilst the older all stops lines use the older routing.

Hi Gazza, without doing an exhaustive exercise due to time constraints, I've quickly mocked up a few options in the attached. It wasn't clear in your original question if you meant possible with the current configuration, or possible in any possible variation, so I've notionally included both (3 and 4 track scenarios, effectively).

I've tried to cover off the most sensible options that I can, using good design principles (e.g. express tracks usually in the centre if allowed, no needless flat junction crossings etc). One of the key things that falls out of this is the stabling usage at Clapham. It's currently configured as a Down-Down-Up-Up in the drawings, which means that in a four track operation only the centre track pair could use it as interpeak stabling, which then has implications for the rest of the network depending on which services are allocated to these centre tracks. There is also a bonus option at the end which is probably what would happen, with tongue firmly planted in cheek but conscious of the fact that comedy has a tendency to become documentary these days.

As was pointed noted in the Minerva Plan and the precursor articles and analysis, any trains headed southbound in the AM peak (and v.v. in PM peak) must come out of the CRR tunnel in the current configuration, so this has limitations on the segregation and sectorisation if the Flagstone/Beaudesert line is created under this paradigm. I think this is an indicator that there is no serious intention to extend the network in this manner.

The attached is provided on the acknowledgement that it's rough, and non-exhaustive, but issued for the purpose of discussion and expediency. If there is in interest or requirement I can probably include the train flows for each at a later date.

[ozbob]

https://twitter.com/railbotforum/status/1331313124209614848

[ozbob]

Thanks MTPCo for putting together those notes Salisbury operations in response to Gazza's query.

[Gazza]

Question, would it be too complicated to have a design in the future where all Beenleigh and Cleveland trains go via South Bank, but all GC and Beaudesert trains go via CRR.

The idea would be that the fast long distance lines get the advantage of the faster route into the CBD, whilst the older all stops lines use the older routing.

Hi Gazza, without doing an exhaustive exercise due to time constraints, I've quickly mocked up a few options in the attached. It wasn't clear in your original question if you meant possible with the current configuration, or possible in any possible variation, so I've notionally included both (3 and 4 track scenarios, effectively).

I've tried to cover off the most sensible options that I can, using good design principles (e.g. express tracks usually in the centre if allowed, no needless flat junction crossings etc). One of the key things that falls out of this is the stabling usage at Clapham. It's currently configured as a Down-Down-Up-Up in the drawings, which means that in a four track operation only the centre track pair could use it as interpeak stabling, which then has implications for the rest of the network depending on which services are allocated to these centre tracks. There is also a bonus option at the end which is probably what would happen, with tongue firmly planted in cheek but conscious of the fact that comedy has a tendency to become documentary these days.

As was pointed noted in the Minerva Plan and the precursor articles and analysis, any trains headed southbound in the AM peak (and v.v. in PM peak) must come out of the CRR tunnel in the current configuration, so this has limitations on the segregation and sectorisation if the Flagstone/Beaudesert line is created under this paradigm. I think this is an indicator that there is no serious intention to extend the network in this manner.

The attached is provided on the acknowledgement that it's rough, and non-exhaustive, but issued for the purpose of discussion and expediency. If there is in interest or requirement I can probably include the train flows for each at a later date.

Thanks so much for that.
The 2nd diagram was exactly what I had in mind.

My overall philosophy is how Perth treats its old and new lines. It would be a real shame to go to the expense of building a modern line to Flagstone, to then turn it into a slow all stations service between Salisbury and the the CBD.

I dont think anyone travelling from 40km away wants to stop an additional 10 times on an old alignment. Its the exact same problem that plagues the current GC line and also the Redcliffe line.

If a 2nd stage of tunnel is eventually built from Dutton Park to Yeerongpilly, this presents a rare opportunity to do what Perth does, and provide a fast service from start to finish.
Under this scenario, Beenleigh all stops passengers are no worse off anyhow.
Thinking longer term, if the GC line was ever re routed / sped up, a tunnel from Runcorn would run across to Acacia Ridge and merge onto the Flagstone line.

[BrizCommuter]

Expecting there to be enough competence to extend the tunnel is unrealistic.

[ozbob]

Expecting there to be enough competence to extend the tunnel is unrealistic.

The grim reality ... 

[MTPCo]

There is a new RfPC, with associated documents and the opportunity to provide community feedback, as of the 28th of November: http://statedevelopment.qld.gov.au/coordinator-general/assessments-and-approvals/coordinated-projects/completed-projects/cross-river-rail-project/project-changes.html

I am going to assess this shortly, but the cursory reading is the change to full cut-and-cover, and a resultant change in the interface which sees the portals between the Up and Down Suburbans. This means that it will not be possible for trains on the Dual Gauge line to enter the tunnel (as was previously possible), which has some fairly serious implications on their operating strategy - I will post more on this once I've had the chance to read through, but if my gut feeling is correct this is pretty dire.

[ozbob]

^ thanks MTPCo for your close attention on these matters.

It seems to be going from bad to very bad ... 

[ozbob]

https://twitter.com/ozbob13/status/1333111195889385472

[MTPCo]

I've now had some time to assess the track layouts and the assumed operations, and these are included in the attached.

Short caveat - assumptions of the northern operations (non-split) retained, and the track layouts are simplified to include only the main line passenger tracks in general for ease of assessment (e.g. there is no depiction of the junction to Tennyson in this as it adds nothing to the conversation yet significantly clouds the diagrams).

Basically what this shows is that all services - including Gold Coast trains - will operate at all-stations speed during the peaks, in both directions, between Yeerongpilly and the portal. The trumpeted headline should read "Slower trains to the Gold Coast!".

It also shows that none of the dual gauge platforms north of Yeerongpilly are used at all during any normal operation, at any time of day. What an horrendous waste of money.

The sycophants and hangers-on will scream "it's still under development, and it can be fixed". While it can be altered (a crossover from the dual gauge to the Down Sub between Fairfield and Dutton Park, an another from the Up Sub to the Down Sub in the same area would largely resolve the issues, although the Dual Gauge platform at Dutton Park still wouldn't be used), but this misses the point that it shouldn't be hard to just get this right. How much money has been spent to get to a stupid "solution" like this? I've picked it apart in two hours AND come up with a rectification, yet this can't be done by the behemoth project team with all their tens of millions?

This is honestly breaking point for me with this project. The level of incompetence is simply mind-boggling. They are designing on-the-fly, during the construction phase, with no understanding of the operational implications, and no vision of how the network will operate in the long term. This is beyond a joke, it's beyond the normal level of stupidity with these sorts of projects. This project is plumbing new depths of nonsense, and it's time to stop. Now. It needs a full halt to the project and an independent review by people not associated with the project, but with proper rail operational, infrastructure, and customer outcomes understanding.

They have been flooding social media with images and videos of the TBMs, but instead of getting a new lynchpin for the rail network that sets it up for a generation of expansion, we're getting Dale Kerrigan - "Dad? I dug another hole. It's filling with water."

[paulg]

Thanks MTPCo.
There is no way they are spending hundreds of millions to upgrade Fairfield and Yeronga stations to add a platform to the third track if that platform won't be used operationally. The crossovers you mention that are necessary must be included in the Fairfield station upgrade drawings, surely.
If the new arrangements suddenly allowed them to save (or defer) hundreds of millions on station upgrades, they would take that option. They're always looking to cut costs.


Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

[MTPCo]

Thanks MTPCo.
There is no way they are spending hundreds of millions to upgrade Fairfield and Yeronga stations to add a platform to the third track if that platform won't be used operationally. The crossovers you mention that are necessary must be included in the Fairfield station upgrade drawings, surely.
If the new arrangements suddenly allowed them to save (or defer) hundreds of millions on station upgrades, they would take that option. They're always looking to cut costs.

Hi paulg, they are not included - feel free to peruse the sheets that they have uploaded, I have tried to make it easy to find the corresponding sheet in the powerpoint by region. At this stage giving them the benefit of doubt is a privilege they have now abused to the point of it being revoked. It isn't hard to work this out, or include the right information, and we have seen them change things at the drop of a hat. There is no plan, just a project to be "gotten up".

[paulg]

In the AM peak, inbound Beenleigh line all-stops trains could use the dual gauge track, while Gold Coast expresses use the middle track?
I agree the new arrangements make no sense at all for the outbound PM peak.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk