Cross River Rail Project

[ozbob]

^

Interesting reading ...

SNC-Lavalin's Atkins business has been providing operations and maintenance support to the Cross River Rail Delivery Authority (the Delivery Authority) as the Operations Technical Advisor since early 2016.

> https://www.snclavalin.com/en/projects/cross-river-rail-operations-technical-advisor

[kram0]

Very interesting indeed.

Wouldn't it be good if we could dig a bit deeper on these statements? Interesting considering Bailey comments in the past. It seems they have a timetable plan already in place for day one of CRR operations.

1: Strategic rail operational planning, developing service levels, routing and stopping patterns, informing both infrastructure requirements and the future DTMR rail strategy.
2: Detailed timetable development to validate the operating strategy, validate the ability of infrastructure plans to meet operational, passenger and economic outcomes and drive related activities in transport economics and planning. 

[Gazza]

The way I'm reading it, they'll only part use CRR on day 1, and potentially build other supporting infrastructure at some point in the future.

* * * * * * *

My CRR PDA submission. I encourage everyone on RBoT to call out the lack of provision for future rail infrastructure beyond CRR

Provision of a large indoor Venue
Supported. A large events venue, close to transport and located in the CBD is a good use for the site. The current entertainment Center at Boondall is not well located at the end of a train line, is distant from hotels and clubs etc, and is "off-centre" from the broader Brisbane population, so a new one here would be good for Brisbane.
Development of buildings at the North West Corner of the site.
Not supported. Whilst it is acknowledged that this area is partially inaccessible to the public, and currently used for parking, and the parkland works depot, this land is more logically used as an extension of the parkland.  This site has established trees which would be a great asset in an expanded park. Other parts of the PDA will be receiving intensive development, so it follows that more parkland needs to be provided to support the additional population.


Figure 1 – Several mature trees including iconic Jacarandas would form a great basis for a parkland extension. It would be shame to build over this.

Preservation of Roma St station building
Supported. A view corridor should be established in front of the building, and structures such as entry canopies, glass boxes etc should be rejected, to avoid diminishing the scale of the station building.


Figure 2 – Current proposals block the view to the Roma St station building too much.
Permitted usage.
Permitted usages are supported.
Commercial development on the site should allow for a full line supermarket in/adjacent the station complex (For example as seen at Town Hall station in Sydney, major stations in German cities etc)
Being able to purchase  anything from daily needs to ingredients for dinner before you jump on the train is of great convenience and avoids separate car trips being made elsewhere in the city. It would also serve the projected resident population in walking distance (The supermarket should be a proper one, not some little IGA where everything is expensive)
Future Transport Needs
Most of the information in the draft plan pertains to future pedestrian/cyclist/traffic needs, and the near term changes on site as a result of the CRR tunnels.
The scope of the PDA does not sufficiently acknowledge the role of Roma St in the future SEQ transport network, which remains its foremost function.
There needs to be more obvious space provision for:
-additional platforms,
-new underground lines
-future high speed rail in the 30+ year horizon etc (The Infrastructure Australia High Speed rail proposed Roma St as the preferred station site,)
Whilst many of these projects are not yet on the table yet, it is a near certainty that some new line in the future will need to inevitably feed into Roma St.
So we do not want to crowd out future transport with ill placed buildings, foundations in the way and so on.
The Brisbane transit Center had to be demolished 33 years after construction to accommodate CRR, and whilst it was a bit of an eyesore, it would be wasteful if quality new buildings built as part of the PDA ended up being demolished just as quickly.
It is suggested that the front of the site be preserved for future transport uses as above, or that any buildings here have the condition that the basement and foundation design allows for new tunnels or platforms underneath.

Figure 3 – Site P5A and its approach need to have volumetric allowance to allow for future expansion of rail capacity and new lines.

Figure 4 – The Queensland Government / EDQ need to co-ordinate with other levels of government to give future provision for high speed rail in the future so that the option is not locked out and Roma St can be the true hub for all modes of transport into the future.
Source: https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/rail/publications/high-speed-rail-study-reports/files/HSR_Phase_2_Chapter_5.pdf

Limiting Parking on Site
The site should not have parking minimums. Anecdotally, the old parking station under the coach terminal was underutilised, and it does not make sense to attract vehicles to a location with such good public transport connections.
Height limits
Provide for unlimited height limits. If there is anywhere where tall buildings make sense, this is it.

[SurfRail]

The busway has got to be moved.  The rest I am ambivalent about, if they can't even get that bit right.

[ozbob]

Interesting reading ...

SNC-Lavalin's Atkins business has been providing operations and maintenance support to the Cross River Rail Delivery Authority (the Delivery Authority) as the Operations Technical Advisor since early 2016.

> https://www.snclavalin.com/en/projects/cross-river-rail-operations-technical-advisor

I think we can conclude that certain Ministerial Staffers were more than disingenuous with their feeble responses to our queries re operational planning for Cross River Rail.  It is clearly well advanced and documented.

Won't get fooled again lurkers ...

[#Metro]

Wow, that's sensational stuff!

There's clearer info from a private contractor than with public sources.

[ozbob]

Wow, that's sensational stuff!

There's clearer info from a private contractor than with public sources.

Yo.  This information confirms we have been told a lot of nonsense along the way. 

We have argued they must have an idea of how it is all going to operate.

It seems they are holding back from proper public disclosure  because they will not be delivering what they have suggested they will.

Hence the changes on ' Checkmate ' etc. ... 

[ozbob]

https://twitter.com/ozbob13/status/1370081746968973312

[#Metro]

Watch out, Mark Bailey might block your twitter! 

The link is now no longer connecting - was it mislinked or has it been discreetly pulled down now? 

If you type "cross river rail" into the SNC projects website, the profile can't be found, instead the message is given:

"No results found. Please click 'close' button or 'Reset all filters' link to reset the filter".

I think this is suitable topic now for Questions with/without notice in Parliament? Why was the profile removed?

[ozbob]

Yo.  It has been removed.  Not surprised because it tells a different story to the spin and bs we have been fed.

Pathetic  ...

[timh]

I tried Wayback Machine, no luck there sadly.

Sent from my SM-G780F using Tapatalk

[ozbob]

I tried Wayback Machine, no luck there sadly.

Sent from my SM-G780F using Tapatalk

Ha, the url was archived 3 times by the Wayback Machine Internet Archive 18 Dec 2020, 5 March 2021 and 11 March 2021.  They are not accessible possibly due to the format of the pages or other technical problem at present.

https://web.archive.org/web/20210101000000*/https://www.snclavalin.com/en/projects/cross-river-rail-operations-technical-advisor

>>> Wayback Machine https://railbotforum.org/yourls/l

[ozbob]

If you go to SNC Lavalin at https://www.snclavalin.com/en/projects#asia-pacific/transportation/all/all  there is a complete listing of transport projects SNC is/has been involved with.  Cross River Rail is no longer listed.

The url that previously included a description of SNC's role as ( " SNC-Lavalin's Atkins business has been providing operations and maintenance support to the Cross River Rail Delivery Authority (the Delivery Authority) as the Operations Technical Advisor since early 2016 " ) with CRR at https://www.snclavalin.com/en/projects/cross-river-rail-operations-technical-advisor now redirects to their project page ( https://www.snclavalin.com/en/projects#asia-pacific/all/all/all ).

Information remains on SNC's involvement with New Generation Rollingstock, Brisbane Metro and Gold Coast Light rail, and many other transport projects in NSW and Victoria for example.

Very odd that the information on Cross River Rail has been removed.  I have asked SNC why the information is no longer available.

[ozbob]

^ SNC-L have now removed all Australian project information from their web site.

Maybe that is to make the removal of the CRR Project information not so obvious.  Weird ...

[BrizCommuter]

 Anyone having to advise on CRR rail operations must surely be banging their heads against a wall.

[#Metro]

Why not just remove the entire website, lol?

[ozbob]

Anyone having to advise on CRR rail operations must surely be banging their heads against a wall.

The relationship between the consultant/advisor, and the department/CRRDA, and in particular who advised on what and who was directed to do what, and when, is the thing I'm most looking forward to reading when the (inevitable) commission of inquiry gets underway.

[ozbob]

Why not just remove the entire website, lol?

As far as down under is concerned they have ...

(Good Morning lurkers )

It's bizarre ... very ....

[ozbob]

https://twitter.com/9NewsQueensland/status/1372103770440572929

[Gazza]

Most of the land around Roma St station should be set aside for future rail uses. Commercial development can go anywhere, Roma St by definition is the only place you can have a Southern Cross style hub.

[ozbob]

Rail Express --> Southside works proceed in Cross River Rail Project

Efforts are ramping up to upgrade southside stations as part of the Brisbane Cross River Rail Project.

As part of the Cross River Rail Project, the six stations between Fairfield and Salisbury are to get "significant accessibility upgrades", including new overpasses and lifts, platform improvements, new station buildings and upgrades to facilities such as Kiss 'n' Ride, PWD parking and bicycle storage.

The first of these upgrades will start at Yeronga station, which will be closed from mid-April 2021 for about six months. ...

[ozbob]

Minister for Cross River Rail: Save Roma St Parklands - Sign the Petition! https://t.co/8w3TRcitiv via @ChangeAUS #qldpol

— ozbob13 (@ozbob13) March 20, 2021

[BrizCommuter]

Just had a good look at CRR change 9 plans, and don't have the time to write a blog post. The new changed track layout at Dutton Park is very concerning as there is even less flexibility than before. The Up/Down CRR and Subs now merge immediately to the north of Dutton Park. However, neither of these via-CRR tracks have any access to/from the Dual Gauge until Yeerongpilly. This realistically means ALL via CRR services will run along the Up/Down subs between Yeerongpilly and Dutton Park. Thus the only services able to use the new Dual Gauge platforms would be (presumably peak direction) via South Bank services. Of course, this conflicts with the expected rail operations due to the track layout at Mayne - if all am peak Southbound services from Caboolture/Redcliffe run via CRR, there is no capacity for counter-peak via South Bank services. Additionally, the concern about via CRR express services being stuck behind all stations services is now even more valid.

So the questions is - will we be seeing single direction only via South Bank peak services (e.g. inbound am peak, outbound pm peak)? Or will the brand new platforms on the Dual Gauge be white elephants (at which point maybe 2 platforms and 4 tracks would have been more sensible instead of 3 tracks and 3 platforms).

Questions need to be asked, as CRR's rail operations are now even more concerning!

[#Metro]

Can we have the Klaxon sound and an image of a boom gate dropping?

[ozbob]

Same conclusions here Briz ...

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."

[ozbob]

Can we have the Klaxon sound and an image of a boom gate dropping?

[verbatim9]

Minister for Cross River Rail: Save Roma St Parklands - Sign the Petition! https://t.co/8w3TRcitiv via @ChangeAUS #qldpol

— ozbob13 (@ozbob13) March 20, 2021

I don't think they should starting imposing and building into Green spaces around that area. It's best if they build over the tracks inbetween Petrie Tce and Roma Street, similar to what has been done in Melbourne with Federation Sq. The outcome would be far more beneficial.

[BrizCommuter]

Cross River Rail - the incompetence gets worse.
The new Dual Gauge track platforms may be white elephants?     
https://brizcommuter.blogspot.com/2021/03/cross-river-rail-incompetence-gets-worse.html

[STB]

2) Unless there is a bizarre peak direction only via South Bank service using the Dual Gauge Track, the brand new platforms at Dutton Park, Fairfield, and Yeeronga on the Dual Gauge track will NOT BE USED.

Are you sure that's the case?  Looks like the all stop city services (presumably) will use the DG in peak hour, with CRR services using the middle track, outbound services using the suburban track (via P1 Dutton Park to Coopers Plains and beyond).

To play devils advocate, a 4th track isn't terribly neccessary and probably can be built when the population density reaches a level that supports it,  I guess you could build it now and save some money long term, but as there isn't really a ton of demand going outbound in the AM peak (and inbound in the PM peak), with most of the demand going inbound (AM) and outbound (PM), my guess is that they aren't planning 15min Beenleigh and GC trains in both directions all day everyday (and frankly would probably carry mostly air at that level of service - especially in the short to medium term at least post COVID where public transport levels are still lower than pre-COVID and the population is still nervous about being in close quarters).

Heck, even the service levels weren't as such that Merivale Bridge was such that a new crossing was immediately needed once that opened, there was space to provide about 30-50 years before a new crossing was needed ala CRR.

[Cazza]

2) Unless there is a bizarre peak direction only via South Bank service using the Dual Gauge Track, the brand new platforms at Dutton Park, Fairfield, and Yeeronga on the Dual Gauge track will NOT BE USED.

probably can be built when the population density reaches a level that supports it

How is 1 million odd people from the Gold Coast all the way up to the City not enough population to support it? The Brisbane - Gild Coast corridor is the busiest intercity corridor in the country, yet we can't get a train more than every 30 mins outside of peak times. The current infrastructure constraints is one of those factors that needs addressing ASAP.

[#Metro]

What is Deutsche Bahn's phone number? They need to come back!!
We need another report! #QldFail

[Andrew]

We need DB to build it and NS (Nederlandse Spoorwegen) to run it!

Schrödinger's Bus: Early, on-time and late, simultaneously, until you see it...

[paulg]

2) Unless there is a bizarre peak direction only via South Bank service using the Dual Gauge Track, the brand new platforms at Dutton Park, Fairfield, and Yeeronga on the Dual Gauge track will NOT BE USED.

Are you sure that's the case?  Looks like the all stop city services (presumably) will use the DG in peak hour, with CRR services using the middle track, outbound services using the suburban track (via P1 Dutton Park to Coopers Plains and beyond).

Yes that's what I was assuming would happen too. If it operated that way all day though, would that mean a reduction in outbound capacity in the afternoon peak if all-stops and expresses are still using the one track? What would be the maximum capacity of the single outbound track once ETCS is installed, if mixing expresses and all-stops? Could probably start with that number and then work out what frequncies are actually planned at opening?

In trying to guess what operations they are planning we should still start with the information presented in the Business Case. Here's an attempt at drawing the post-CRR track layouts as I understand them (probably not right!) and indicating the supposed 2026 frequencies in the morning peak taken from the Business Case:


Even after Project Change 9, it does appear that the track layout as proposed would allow some services coming in from Caboolture on the Mains (e.g. extra expresses) to stay on the Mains through the city (i.e. not go into CRR), as far as I can see?

Assuming the track layout is mostly right, I guess the questions are 1) how much lower are the actual frequencies going to be at opening, given rollingstock and driver number limitations (and demand itself) and 2) what would the corresponding outbound (counter-peak) frequencies be on each of the tracks?

Ignoring for a moment that the actual frequencies will likely be lower, where would you expect 22tph inbound on the suburbans to go?

As for the evening peak it is even more of an unknown since there are no diagrams in the Business Case but it does seem like having all-stops and expresses on the one track outbound from Dutton Park would limit capacity improvements to the south?

I'm sure I've missed things here but keen to hear what I've gotten wrong.

[STB]

2) Unless there is a bizarre peak direction only via South Bank service using the Dual Gauge Track, the brand new platforms at Dutton Park, Fairfield, and Yeeronga on the Dual Gauge track will NOT BE USED.

Are you sure that's the case?  Looks like the all stop city services (presumably) will use the DG in peak hour, with CRR services using the middle track, outbound services using the suburban track (via P1 Dutton Park to Coopers Plains and beyond).

Yes that's what I was assuming would happen too. If it operated that way all day though, would that mean a reduction in outbound capacity in the afternoon peak if all-stops and expresses are still using the one track? What would be the maximum capacity of the single outbound track once ETCS is installed, if mixing expresses and all-stops? Could probably start with that number and then work out what frequncies are actually planned at opening?

In trying to guess what operations they are planning we should still start with the information presented in the Business Case. Here's an attempt at drawing the post-CRR track layouts as I understand them (probably not right!) and indicating the supposed 2026 frequencies in the morning peak taken from the Business Case:


Even after Project Change 9, it does appear that the track layout as proposed would allow some services coming in from Caboolture on the Mains (e.g. extra expresses) to stay on the Mains through the city (i.e. not go into CRR), as far as I can see?

Assuming the track layout is mostly right, I guess the questions are 1) how much lower are the actual frequencies going to be at opening, given rollingstock and driver number limitations (and demand itself) and 2) what would the corresponding outbound (counter-peak) frequencies be on each of the tracks?

Ignoring for a moment that the actual frequencies will likely be lower, where would you expect 22tph inbound on the suburbans to go?

As for the evening peak it is even more of an unknown since there are no diagrams in the Business Case but it does seem like having all-stops and expresses on the one track outbound from Dutton Park would limit capacity improvements to the south?

I'm sure I've missed things here but keen to hear what I've gotten wrong.

You might need to take into account the track layout further south at Yeerongpilly where trains could potentially cross over to the MR or the DG and get out of the way of the all stoppers on the suburbans.

The only bit of track I can think of at off the top of my head is a crossover just after Dutton Park to access the MR for outbound trains, ie: the expresses cross through P1 Dutton Park then crossover to the MR to overtake the all stopper on the suburban track (ie: P1) - could potentially do that at Yeerongpilly, although there'd need to be a slightly larger gap between trains in CRR to prevent hitting reds.

So in a nutshell, effectively, services on the DG and the suburban track are all stop tracks, while the MR becomes the express track, at least in peak hour, looking at that current map.

There's a potential too for Salisbury (and potentially Greenbank) services being a bit like the Springfield line where it runs all day all stations only, while Beenleigh and GC lines run part express.

[ozbob]

Interesting discussion. 

The fundamental issue is the lack of publicly available updated rail service plans, and somewhat ambiguous track layout details by CRRDA.

We know from the now removed information from the SNC-L website viz.

*" ... SNC-Lavalin's Atkins business has performed a key role in identifying and resolving key issues. An example of a strategic issue surrounded stakeholder expectations of a full-service operation, mismatched with project plans for an incremental transition. This strategic issue was identified by SNCL as significant risk to successful operation, demanding excessive concurrent technological, operational, procedural, operating business and customer change. ... " 

* https://www.snclavalin.com/en/projects/cross-river-rail-operations-technical-advisor accessed 11th March 2021

that the 2026 rail service plan is not going to be implemented. 

I really think it is well past the time that CRRDA published updated rail service plans for AM, PM peaks (including counter-peaks) as well as off peak. In fact these should be published with each RFPC. How can a critical evaluation be made with out this detail?

Taking notes lurkers? 

Good, time for some transparency or this issue will continue to fester and develop into a systemic infection.

[paulg]

. 

I really think it is well past the time that CRRDA published updated rail service plans for AM, PM peaks (including counter-peaks) as well as off peak. In fact these should be published with each RFPC. How can a critical evaluation be made with out this detail?

Indeed! It's ridiculous that this wasn't even in the Business Case, let alone revised after subsequent design updates.



Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

[BrizCommuter]

2) Unless there is a bizarre peak direction only via South Bank service using the Dual Gauge Track, the brand new platforms at Dutton Park, Fairfield, and Yeeronga on the Dual Gauge track will NOT BE USED.

Are you sure that's the case?  Looks like the all stop city services (presumably) will use the DG in peak hour, with CRR services using the middle track, outbound services using the suburban track (via P1 Dutton Park to Coopers Plains and beyond).

Yes that's what I was assuming would happen too. If it operated that way all day though, would that mean a reduction in outbound capacity in the afternoon peak if all-stops and expresses are still using the one track? What would be the maximum capacity of the single outbound track once ETCS is installed, if mixing expresses and all-stops? Could probably start with that number and then work out what frequncies are actually planned at opening?

In trying to guess what operations they are planning we should still start with the information presented in the Business Case. Here's an attempt at drawing the post-CRR track layouts as I understand them (probably not right!) and indicating the supposed 2026 frequencies in the morning peak taken from the Business Case:


Even after Project Change 9, it does appear that the track layout as proposed would allow some services coming in from Caboolture on the Mains (e.g. extra expresses) to stay on the Mains through the city (i.e. not go into CRR), as far as I can see?

Assuming the track layout is mostly right, I guess the questions are 1) how much lower are the actual frequencies going to be at opening, given rollingstock and driver number limitations (and demand itself) and 2) what would the corresponding outbound (counter-peak) frequencies be on each of the tracks?

Ignoring for a moment that the actual frequencies will likely be lower, where would you expect 22tph inbound on the suburbans to go?

As for the evening peak it is even more of an unknown since there are no diagrams in the Business Case but it does seem like having all-stops and expresses on the one track outbound from Dutton Park would limit capacity improvements to the south?

I'm sure I've missed things here but keen to hear what I've gotten wrong.

It has already been discussed at length that the changed track layouts at Mayne (which was previously grade separated) mean that all services from Caboolture/Redcliffe are likely to run via CRR (up to 24tph), or otherwise have very unreliable conflicting movements at Mayne. The split paradigm shown the diagrams is now either an outdated concept, or would be extremely unreliable to operate. This means that southbound/contra-peak track between Dutton Park and in the am peak will be at maximum capacity with no capacity for contra-peak via South Bank services. So do you then run peak direction only services along the DG via South Bank? Or as the DG tracks cannot now access CRR, will the new DG platforms be white elephants? It's an operational mess, and the lack of transparency around CRR rail operations is a disgrace.

[#Metro]

Reading the SNC-Lavalin website, apparently it's resolved!

[BrizCommuter]

2) Unless there is a bizarre peak direction only via South Bank service using the Dual Gauge Track, the brand new platforms at Dutton Park, Fairfield, and Yeeronga on the Dual Gauge track will NOT BE USED.

Are you sure that's the case?  Looks like the all stop city services (presumably) will use the DG in peak hour, with CRR services using the middle track, outbound services using the suburban track (via P1 Dutton Park to Coopers Plains and beyond).

To play devils advocate, a 4th track isn't terribly neccessary and probably can be built when the population density reaches a level that supports it,  I guess you could build it now and save some money long term, but as there isn't really a ton of demand going outbound in the AM peak (and inbound in the PM peak), with most of the demand going inbound (AM) and outbound (PM), my guess is that they aren't planning 15min Beenleigh and GC trains in both directions all day everyday (and frankly would probably carry mostly air at that level of service - especially in the short to medium term at least post COVID where public transport levels are still lower than pre-COVID and the population is still nervous about being in close quarters).

Heck, even the service levels weren't as such that Merivale Bridge was such that a new crossing was immediately needed once that opened, there was space to provide about 30-50 years before a new crossing was needed ala CRR.

The 4th track is required unless you want express services to get stuck behind all stations services. There is nowhere until Yeerongpilly/Moorooka to turnback (or remove from service) the am peak via-CRR services from Caboolture/Redcliffe. So the contra-peak track is likely to be at capacity in the am peak, assuming the non-split paradigm at Mayne.

[paulg]

2) Unless there is a bizarre peak direction only via South Bank service using the Dual Gauge Track, the brand new platforms at Dutton Park, Fairfield, and Yeeronga on the Dual Gauge track will NOT BE USED.

Are you sure that's the case?  Looks like the all stop city services (presumably) will use the DG in peak hour, with CRR services using the middle track, outbound services using the suburban track (via P1 Dutton Park to Coopers Plains and beyond).

Yes that's what I was assuming would happen too. If it operated that way all day though, would that mean a reduction in outbound capacity in the afternoon peak if all-stops and expresses are still using the one track? What would be the maximum capacity of the single outbound track once ETCS is installed, if mixing expresses and all-stops? Could probably start with that number and then work out what frequncies are actually planned at opening?

In trying to guess what operations they are planning we should still start with the information presented in the Business Case. Here's an attempt at drawing the post-CRR track layouts as I understand them (probably not right!) and indicating the supposed 2026 frequencies in the morning peak taken from the Business Case:


Even after Project Change 9, it does appear that the track layout as proposed would allow some services coming in from Caboolture on the Mains (e.g. extra expresses) to stay on the Mains through the city (i.e. not go into CRR), as far as I can see?

Assuming the track layout is mostly right, I guess the questions are 1) how much lower are the actual frequencies going to be at opening, given rollingstock and driver number limitations (and demand itself) and 2) what would the corresponding outbound (counter-peak) frequencies be on each of the tracks?

Ignoring for a moment that the actual frequencies will likely be lower, where would you expect 22tph inbound on the suburbans to go?

As for the evening peak it is even more of an unknown since there are no diagrams in the Business Case but it does seem like having all-stops and expresses on the one track outbound from Dutton Park would limit capacity improvements to the south?

I'm sure I've missed things here but keen to hear what I've gotten wrong.

It has already been discussed at length that the changed track layouts at Mayne (which was previously grade separated) mean that all services from Caboolture/Redcliffe are likely to run via CRR (up to 24tph), or otherwise have very unreliable conflicting movements at Mayne.

It's true that with the new track layout there would be conflicting movements for trains heading north from Central on the Mains if they were to stay on the Mains towards Caboolture (it appears with the new layouts they would need to change to the Suburbans). But inbound on the Mains there are no conflicting movements for trains to stay on the Mains through the city, just an at-grade crossing. So not all trains inbound from the north on the Mains would necessarily need to go into CRR in the morning peak, as far as I can see.


Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk