Cross River Rail Project

[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

I realise that this means Beenleigh line trains proceeding into the city via South Bank, but that's possible? Is it conceivable the current designers are just trying to accommodate the peak AM flows that were included in the business case, and are neglecting the outbound peak (might also explain the illogical northern arrangements)?

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

[timh]

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

I had the same thought viewing those diagrams. Is there a reason this couldn't occur? Wouldn't that allow GC trains to go express through Yeerongpilly-Dutton Park?

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

[MTPCo]

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.

No, firstly because of the arrangement at Moorooka with the lack of platform face on the loop line (which feeds the dual gauge line), and secondly because there's no crossover to allow that move to happen. To do what you suggest would see the two sets of services merging onto the one track at Moorooka and then diverging again, which would not only be a capacity constraint but also require the trains to slow in this area.

I realise that this means Beenleigh line trains proceeding into the city via South Bank, but that's possible? Is it conceivable the current designers are just trying to accommodate the peak AM flows that were included in the business case, and are neglecting the outbound peak (might also explain the illogical northern arrangements)?

As discussed previously, all trains come through the tunnel from the northern Mains onto a single outbound track, which is then completely full and allows no services from South Brisbane to head south in the AM peak or north in the PM peak. The only way what you're saying could be accommodated is if there is a break in sectorisation during the day, e.g. inbound AM peak trains from Beenleigh go to South Brisbane while the AM contra-peak trains to Beenleigh come out of Cross River Rail.

[ozbob]

Sent to all outlets:

Call to halt Cross River Rail - independent review needed!

30th November 2020

The latest Request for Project Change for Cross River Rail (1), the ninth overall in the history of the project, is primarily focussed on changes to the portals in the Dutton Park vicinity. Released without any fanfare on the project's social media channels, despite the timeline for community feedback lasting only four weeks, this change supposedly focuses on "change (to) the construction methodology ... from a partly mined, partly cut and cover construction, to cut and cover construction only" for the southern portal area.

Although this change will result in longer closures for the rail network - which the report notes will take 40 days - it has a significant impact on the way the network will operate. Despite the report saying the changes will "optimise rail operational outcomes", the complete opposite is true it seems. The change to the portal locations and the way they connect to the surface tracks means that now all Gold Coast trains will run at all-stations speed between Park Road and Yeerongpilly, significantly slowing services compared to today. This also appears to leave the new Dual Gauge platform faces completely unused (2).

Enough is enough. The secrecy around the service plans, the lack of clarity over the construction and configuration of the project, and the lack of outside analysis and a referral to the Queensland Auditor-General are symptomatic of a project and organisation in crisis. Cross River Rail should be immediately halted while a rapid independent expert analysis is undertaken to properly define the project and its requirements. The money wasted up to this point is a sunk cost - going forward we need a robust, independently reviewed and specified project to ensure we do not end up wasting any more.

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

References.

1. Request for project change application 9 – Southern Portal Area 2020
http://statedevelopment.qld.gov.au/coordinator-general/assessments-and-approvals/coordinated-projects/completed-projects/cross-river-rail-project/project-changes.html

2. CRR discussion RAIL Back On Track forum
https://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=2034.msg241824#msg241824

====

Facebook ...

Call to halt Cross River Rail - independent review needed! 30th November 2020 The latest Request for Project Change...

Posted by RAIL - Back On Track on Sunday, 29 November 2020

Note Dutton Park station moved further south.

====

https://twitter.com/railbotforum/status/1333154035575132161

[paulg]

No, firstly because of the arrangement at Moorooka with the lack of platform face on the loop line (which feeds the dual gauge line), and secondly because there's no crossover to allow that move to happen. To do what you suggest would see the two sets of services merging onto the one track at Moorooka and then diverging again, which would not only be a capacity constraint but also require the trains to slow in this area.

The GA 5 drawing shows a crossover from the track at the new third platform at Moorooka to the loop line just north of Moorooka Station?


Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

[MTPCo]

The GA 5 drawing shows a crossover from the track at the new third platform at Moorooka to the loop line just north of Moorooka Station?

Yes, which I've included in the assessment, but it doesn't change the outcome. To achieve what you're saying, the Beenleigh trains could go through that new third platform face and then use the crossover to get the loop line which then connects into the dual gauge, or they could indeed just say on that track and go through the next connection which is the straight track onto the dual gauge. At some point the Gold Coast trains would need to cross onto the middle road, meaning that at some point these trains all need to go through one piece of track.

My point was that you can't do the "all-stations on dual gauge" paradigm without that crossing move without having a platform face on the loop line, or otherwise creating a separate set of crossing conflicts for trains entering Clapham while also further penalising the outbound trains.

[paulg]

Sorry, not seeing why inbound GC trains wouldn't just be on the middle road the whole way?

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

[MTPCo]

Sorry, not seeing why inbound GC trains wouldn't just be on the middle road the whole way?

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

Because it would both result in crossing conflicts for trains entering Clapham (of which there may be 16tph or more), as well as further slowing the outbound trains which will have been running at all stations speed from the tunnel and will need to continue to do so until south of Clapham.

Getting rid of those conflicts is seemingly the reason why they designed Clapham and Moorooka station the way they did. It may be worthwhile you reading the relevant sections in the Minerva Plan as this is explained in detail there with diagrams.

[Gazza]

Is the request for change page down on the website for anyone else?

https://statedevelopment.qld.gov.au/assessments-and-approvals/cross-river-rail-project-changes.html

[ozbob]

Is the request for change page down on the website for anyone else?

https://statedevelopment.qld.gov.au/assessments-and-approvals/cross-river-rail-project-changes.html

Down here ..

[timh]

Is the request for change page down on the website for anyone else?

https://statedevelopment.qld.gov.au/assessments-and-approvals/cross-river-rail-project-changes.html

Worked for me about an hour ago but yeah just tried now, "Page Not Found". I saved the General Arrangement drawings, can upload here later if you like.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

[Gazza]

So would it work if they just built the 4th platform face at Moorooka?

[timh]

So would it work if they just built the 4th platform face at Moorooka?

I assume it's something to do with stabling, but igorning that, as far as I can see a fourth platform at Moorooka would allow it if GC trains use the middle track and Beenleigh use the dual guage.

On an entirely different note, with this RFPC, Dutton Park station hasn't moved. I'm assuming that means the ridiculous grade/curves between Dutton Park/Boggo Road underground station has been fixed without having to move the station?

I'm still of the opinion that the station should move just because it's stupidly close, regardless of problems with grades/curves

EDIT: Like this?

I actually think this makes more sense with the knowledge that they're building 3 platforms between Yeerongpilly-Dutton Park. Because this means Beenleigh line trains would actually use it. I added the red dotted line to indicate a service pattern whereby inbound Beenleigh trains did still use CRR.

[Gazza]

The problem i have is that if you did choose to break into the cut and cover wall at a future date to extend the tunnel to yeerongpilly, the northbound track is on the inside of the curve so would have a slow turnout.

[ozbob]

Is the request for change page down on the website for anyone else?

https://statedevelopment.qld.gov.au/assessments-and-approvals/cross-river-rail-project-changes.html

Down here ..

Seems to me the information has been pulled.  Maybe someone jumped the gun?  Maybe an announcement in Parly first or something.

I deduce this because if you look at the source code of the rendered page

"  Page generated: 30 November 2020 09:02:24 "

So the information was removed at 9.02am.

I think we drew attention to something that they didn't want available just yet. 

I distrust the CRRDA and associated entities.  They don't have proper scrutiny. 

It is very important that the project is reviewed by eyes outside of the CRR bubble ...

[ozbob]

LOL

Information is back up:

>> https://statedevelopment.qld.gov.au/coordinator-general/assessments-and-approvals/coordinated-projects/completed-projects/cross-river-rail-project/project-changes

I have saved the docs in case they go MIA again ...

[ozbob]

https://twitter.com/ozbob13/status/1333164367903301632

[Gazza]

So what is a "properly made submission"? the link is dead.

( https://www.dsdmip.qld.gov.au/assessments-and-approvals/have-your-say )

From https://haveyoursay.dsd.qld.gov.au/coordinatorgeneral/crr-project-change-9/

What does a properly made submission need to include?

[ozbob]

This seems fine here ...

> https://haveyoursay.dsd.qld.gov.au/coordinatorgeneral/crr-project-change-9/consultation/intro/

[MTPCo]

So would it work if they just built the 4th platform face at Moorooka?

I assume it's something to do with stabling, but igorning that, as far as I can see a fourth platform at Moorooka would allow it if GC trains use the middle track and Beenleigh use the dual guage.

On an entirely different note, with this RFPC, Dutton Park station hasn't moved. I'm assuming that means the ridiculous grade/curves between Dutton Park/Boggo Road underground station has been fixed without having to move the station?

I'm still of the opinion that the station should move just because it's stupidly close, regardless of problems with grades/curves

EDIT: Like this?

I actually think this makes more sense with the knowledge that they're building 3 platforms between Yeerongpilly-Dutton Park. Because this means Beenleigh line trains would actually use it. I added the red dotted line to indicate a service pattern whereby inbound Beenleigh trains did still use CRR.

Hi timh, what you've drawn is accurate in terms of how that arrangement would work, but there are a few important things to note:

• Having the Beenleigh trains going via South Brisbane would break sectorisation given that the contra-peak Beenleigh trains must use CRR. This would mean that at various times of day Beenleigh trains would alternate between the CRR alignment and the South Brisbane alignment, which does not seem plausible.
• That configuration needs the fourth platform face at Moorooka, which they haven't shown. They have those diagrams in the drawings, so again we're seemingly trying to give them the benefit of the doubt when the onus should be squarely on them to depict the plans accurately.
• When you have the two sets of trains merging into the middle road at Yeerongpilly, regardless of which way they come from, they will all have to slow to all-stations speed. This means the Gold Coast trains will run, and can only run, at all-stations speed from Yeerongpilly to Park Road, with a time penalty of probably 4-5 minutes resulting.

Again, there's nothing to say that things couldn't be changed on that diagram to result in some form of workable operation, it's the fact that we're having to come up with solutions to deal with the infinitely-resourced project team who somehow can't get these basic issues right, during a project that's already partway through construction. It absolutely beggars belief that we are in this position.

[MTPCo]

Just as an observation - I only found out about this RfPC9 because I was starting to write a piece about the NWTC, and wanted to make sure I had the correct dates for RfPC8, only to open up the page and find number 9 now published. If I hadn't been going to that page in the first place, I wouldn't have known.

I've also gone through the CRR social media feeds - Twitter, FB, and LinkedIn - and while there's a lot of fluff posting, there's no reference to RfPC9 or (from my non-exhaustive trawling) any of the RfPC iterations.

Given these are meant to be opportunities to provide feedback, with a very limited window to do so (9 ends on 24th December, for example), it's remarkable that they are not announced more broadly. And if the social media channels associated with the project are not announcing community engagement and consultation activities, then what is their function? It seems like they are simply there for spin, and not any meaningful public engagement function. I just found this interesting given the discussions about RTIs.

[ozbob]

A year or so ago I was interviewed by KPMG about the CRR project from a stakeholder perspective.

I raised the point that the communication by CRRDA was very poor, essential information was not available, and they didn't seem to receive feedback well.  Since then the web page has become a little more fancy but the information is just glamorous spin, missing the real critical information such as how the rail network will actually operate and so forth.  I even suggested CRRDA should set up an advanced stakeholder user group so information like rail operations could be presented and discussed to stop concerns with that group developing. They are so far up their backsides, that was ignored.  So the public attacks that are now underway are their due reward.

*"Cross River Rail will allow more trains to run more often to enable a turn-up-and-go transport system for the whole of South East Queensland. ... "

*https://crossriverrail.qld.gov.au

This quote from their website is frankly bulldust.  We know that. But it reflects the mindset that is CRRDA.

I am now of the view that CRRDA needs a holistic review.  The anti-RTI firewall,  which was the mistaken result of setting CRR more like a commercial entity than a true public authority, has given them a false sense of security and the internal view that they are not accountable in the normal way that say Queensland Rail, TMR, TransLink are. This is very unhealthy.

The CRRDA Board is not independent and is comprised of senior public servants that would not know the difference between UP and DOWN directions on the rail network in most cases. The board is a farcical situation, they cannot query or go against the Govt policy.  What sort of Board is that??

The fractured way the project changes are accumulating with no clear information on how they perceive the network will operate is cause for GREAT CONCERN.  This project is heading the same way as past rail blunders in Queensland.  Our media statement yesterday calling for an external review will make a great evidence piece at the subsequent Commission of Inquiry into Cross River Rail fail that will no doubt occur down the track, so to speak.

So your observation MPTCo that  " ... they (CRRDA) are simply there for spin, and not any meaningful public engagement function. ... "
is correct in my opinion.

Got all of this lurkers?  Good, about time you did something about it.

Reap What You Sow ...

[Gazza]

I made a fairly simple submission.

I had images of both RFPC 8 and 9 side by side and highlighted that the connection with the  dual gauge track was removed but the RFPC did not mention this and the impacts were not discussed. At the very least it should push for an answer.

Followed up with a general point that the southern track layout will reduce speed or reduce tunnel capacity, so it offsets the promise to reduce travel times to the gold coast, or permanently limits the infrastructure

I also made the point that the closure and long possession period and the switch to cut n cover means its easier to make provision for a set of turnouts for a yeerongpilly tunnel.
Especially if you did them immediately after the Boggo Rd box, the turnouts could be fairly tight due to the low speed entering the station anyway, so its not a huge extra volume.

[Gazza]

Having the Beenleigh trains going via South Brisbane would break sectorisation given that the contra-peak Beenleigh trains must use CRR. This would mean that at various times of day Beenleigh trains would alternate between the CRR alignment and the South Brisbane alignment, which does not seem plausible.

@MTPCo why can't Beenleigh trains run via South Brisbane in both directions all day?

[paulg]

@MTPCo why can't Beenleigh trains run via South Brisbane in both directions all day?

He's previously pointed out that the track arrangements at the northern end seem to indicate that all trains coming in to the city from the north on the Mains will go into CRR, and then there would be no capacity for Beenleigh trains to join at Dutton Park southbound on the single track.


Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

[timh]

@Paulg have you got higher res versions of those diagrams? The line pairings/running for the northern end still confuses me and those diagrams look to clear things up a bit, but they're very low res

[paulg]

MTPCo posted the original in this forum back in June, attached here againhttp://cloud.tapatalk.com/s/5fc5adbd1615d/Tapatalk-Download454594062Change%207%20Mayne%20schematic%20and%20operations2.pptx

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

[ozbob]

MTPCo posted the original in this forum back in June, attached here againhttp://cloud.tapatalk.com/s/5fc5adbd1615d/Tapatalk-Download454594062Change%207%20Mayne%20schematic%20and%20operations2.pptx

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

I think this is it Paul.  There is a problem with your link on some browsers as not https.

> https://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2034.0;attach=1706

[Gazza]

So my next question, even though it would suck, what would prevent CRR running with a split in the mains and a conflicting move? Seems like a case of pick your poison at the present time, given the constraints at both ends.

Eg if they retain GC express running, the tunnel wont be at capacity therefore the conflicting move becomes more feasible?

[MTPCo]

So my next question, even though it would suck, what would prevent CRR running with a split in the mains and a conflicting move? Seems like a case of pick your poison at the present time, given the constraints at both ends.

Eg if they retain GC express running, the tunnel wont be at capacity therefore the conflicting move becomes more feasible?

Hi Gazza, a split in the Mains would be preferred - it was the 2017 business case plan, and it's the recommendation of the Minerva Plan as well. However, they have removed the necessary infrastructure to make that happen - the grade separation and the platform upgrades north of Albion - and it comes down to the understanding of 'intent'.

When they released RfPC4, there was literally no path available to facilitate that movement. The tracks were the bare minimum to achieve the all-via-CRR paradigm. This bare bones operation signifies their intent, because anything added later is just flexibility (my reading of the latest changes is that it allows the network to be operated as it is currently, probably in the case of maintenance or other closures on the Exhibition line). However, for the sake of argument, let's say they are now going to split the services in this manner.

The first thing to note is there is an almighty flat junction conflict in Mayne. This results in trains running 'the wrong way' for a few hundred metres, through points (so it will be slow, and thus increase the occupation time). Conceivably you could end up with 12 crossing 4, while those 12 are simultaneously trying to diverge from another 12, and those 4 are trying to merge with another 4. It is an absolute mess of moves and no train planner in their right mind would ever countenance such a thing.

It would also mean that, assuming an even split, 12tph would use CRR (notionally Caboolture et al), 12tph would use the Mains (Kippa-Ring), and the Subs would have their current grouping and notional capacity of 22tph (24 less 2 for Doomben constraints). There is the possibility of running Airport/SHC/Doomben trains via the city Mains, however this adds another grouping of crossing conflicts with the Kippa-Ring services, so it is assumed that this couldn't be the case (given the effects would stack with the other flat junction described above). What this means is that there is absolutely no increase in capacity from the north at all. Although the current assumed operation provides growth to Ferny Grove and Shorncliffe (where it isn't needed), this scenario in this configuration wouldn't allow any growth on any line beyond what ETCS is providing anyway.

Moving forward with this scenario, 12tph would come out of the tunnel at the southern portal in the AM peak, meaning that there would be capacity for the Beenleigh trains to operate around the corner from the surface at Park Road (and of course to feed into the Subs in the AM peak as well). However, in the current arrangement there would need to be that aforementioned converge and diverge of trains through the new platform at Moorooka, which adds complexity and reduces the capacity through CRR (as whatever the level of service from Beenleigh, the capacity of CRR is reduced by a commensurate amount, unless an extremely complex range of crossings was instituted).

In summary, it could be done, but with the current infrastructure would result in:

• No additional capacity from the north on any line, and a limited usage of CRR
• Severe crossing conflicts and an unreliable railway
• Limitations on services approaching CRR from the south with a complex set of merge and diverge moves

The only other way I can think of is that they could arbitrarily reduced the number of trains running through CRR from the north, to 20tph. In the AM, this would allow 4tph to run contra-peak from South Brisbane, and allow the Beenleigh services to run via the Subs all day. It still wouldn't resolve the Moorooka platform problem, and would reduce the capacity (and therefore benefit) of CRR, but it wouldn't result in the mess of conflicts at the northern end.

[kram0]

Wow, can they $hit the bed anymore on the so called pet project......

So many corners cut, and they are carrying on like this is the best thing since sliced bread. Tossers!!

[Gazza]

The only other way I can think of is that they could arbitrarily reduced the number of trains running through CRR from the north, to 20tph. In the AM, this would allow 4tph to run contra-peak from South Brisbane, and allow the Beenleigh services to run via the Subs all day. It still wouldn't resolve the Moorooka platform problem, and would reduce the capacity (and therefore benefit) of CRR, but it wouldn't result in the mess of conflicts at the northern end.

I was thinking along those lines, since CRR would only run with 22 / 12 tph in the previously published 2036 case anyway.

So essentially open with 20tph and then ramp up to 24tph when a Yeerongpilly tunnel gets built.

[Arnz]

The 2036 map would've been superseded by now. 

Sending Caloundra trains via Central and Caboolture and Nambour trains via Albert Street is just going to take up unnecessary capacity when almost all trains can start from Caloundra to Albert Street, whilst terminating Nambour and Gympie North shuttle trains at Beerwah.

Increased Kippa Ring trains could serve via Central via changing at Petrie if demand requires.

[kram0]

A Yeerongpilly tunnel will never be built or they would make provision for it now.

[BrizCommuter]

The only other way I can think of is that they could arbitrarily reduced the number of trains running through CRR from the north, to 20tph. In the AM, this would allow 4tph to run contra-peak from South Brisbane, and allow the Beenleigh services to run via the Subs all day. It still wouldn't resolve the Moorooka platform problem, and would reduce the capacity (and therefore benefit) of CRR, but it wouldn't result in the mess of conflicts at the northern end.

I was thinking along those lines, since CRR would only run with 22 / 12 tph in the previously published 2036 case anyway.

So essentially open with 20tph and then ramp up to 24tph when a Yeerongpilly tunnel gets built.

20tph is the existing capacity. Doing that would deliver zero extra capacity from the north.

[MTPCo]

I was thinking along those lines, since CRR would only run with 22 / 12 tph in the previously published 2036 case anyway.

So essentially open with 20tph and then ramp up to 24tph when a Yeerongpilly tunnel gets built.

That's true, although it would seem that the plan in that case was to buy sufficient time to allow the NWTC to be built, because once that happens you remove the Cab/Cal/Nam services from Northgate, and instead send them via the NWTC, and that allows it and CRR to run up to 24tph as needed. You can also eventually run 24tph from Kippa-Ring (up from the 18tph that map shows in 2036), including some peak expresses using the middle road between Strathpine and Northgate if needed.

The irony being that if they are trying to reduce the level of service through the tunnel simply to make use of the dual gauge platform faces, this is a case of infrastructure determining the operations (rather than the other way around). And if the Yeerongpilly tunnel was to be built (which seems unlikely unless they allow for it now, because the disruption of trying to hack into the tunnels or reconfigure the surface tracks to put down another set of portals would be too great), those dual gauge platform faces would become redundant anyway. They were only ever needed because the tunnel was shortened.

20tph is the existing capacity. Doing that would deliver zero extra capacity from the north.

Even worse, it would be delivering a total of negative 4tph compared to a scenario where there was no CRR but ETCS2 went ahead.

It bears repeating, that if they are trying to adjust the operations to make use of the dual gauge platforms, then CRR is an overall capacity reducing project for the northern growth lines.

[Gazza]

Just on the issue of a Yeerongpilly extension.

Looking at the current plans, it might be possible if they did it with a removable wall lining on the cut and cover section?

Hacking into a TMB or mined tunnel is difficult, but cut and cover is easier.....Id love it if they at least poured the roof as part of the line closure, to alllow bottom up excavation.

[MTPCo]

Just on the issue of a Yeerongpilly extension.

Looking at the current plans, it might be possible if they did it with a removable wall lining on the cut and cover section?

Hacking into a TMB or mined tunnel is difficult, but cut and cover is easier.....Id love it if they at least poured the roof as part of the line closure, to alllow bottom up excavation.

Definitely, this is absolutely the right time to make that change, and it is much easier as you say. This is a golden opportunity, without cost of "political capital" (due to the changes being needed anyway), to incorporate that future-proofing aspect and add value without impedance.

Which means, of course, that it won't happen.

[ozbob]

Just on the issue of a Yeerongpilly extension.

Looking at the current plans, it might be possible if they did it with a removable wall lining on the cut and cover section?

Hacking into a TMB or mined tunnel is difficult, but cut and cover is easier.....Id love it if they at least poured the roof as part of the line closure, to alllow bottom up excavation.

Definitely, this is absolutely the right time to make that change, and it is much easier as you say. This is a golden opportunity, without cost of "political capital" (due to the changes being needed anyway), to incorporate that future-proofing aspect and add value without impedance.

Which means, of course, that it won't happen.

Spot on.

This letter was sent on the 14th November 2020.

No response received as yet ...

====


Correspondence sent 14th November 2020 via email.

To:

The Honourable Mark Bailey MP Minister for Transport and Main Roads

CRRDA Board:
Mr Damien Walker Chair
Mr Dave Stewart
Ms Rachel Hunter
Mr Neil Scales OBE
Dr Sarah Pearson
Mr Matthew Longland
Ms Amanda Yeates

CRRDA

Suggestion to include tunnel stubs south of Park Road

14th November 2020

Dear Minister and CRRDA Board Chair and Members,

The changes to the Cross River Rail tunnel southern portal, including the relocation of Dutton Park station, is a welcomed change. The tortuous track grades and curvature required to make Dutton Park work in the present location would have presented serious problems for rollingstock, including wheel wear and the potential for slippage in wet conditions.

However, the change also presents an opportunity to incorporate a design component that has been called for by various observers including RAIL Back On Track, which is the inclusion of tunnel stubs south of Park Road. The previous design would have almost certainly precluded this feature, whereas the new alignment and methodology will make this relatively easy and inexpensive to include. These tunnel stubs effectively future-proof the corridor for an eventual southern extension as was envisioned in the original CRR design, and will - according to expert analysis - be required in the near future to cater for the growth in freight and passenger volumes.

The opportunity to do this now comes at essentially no cost - either monetary or political capital - and will be strongly supported by rail advocates.

Please do not miss this opportunity to incorporate this critical design change.

Thank you for your consideration.

Best wishes,
Robert

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

[Gazza]

Just mincing through how the hell they would run this thing, but south of the portal, would you run all lines express from Yeerongpilly, and then have an all stations short working covering Yeerongpilly via Soutbank:

This would limit Dutton Park to Yeerongpilly to perhaps 4tph based on the 6 min running time?