Cross River Rail Project

[ozbob]

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

Australian project information still not there including Cross River Rail ... the rest of the site has been up all the time.

[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.

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.

Not necessarily, the MR can help trains bypass all stoppers on the suburban and DG tracks, unless you're expecting high frequency in both directions at all times of the day.  In the contra peak, at this stage I'm expecting (at least in the first timetable for CRR) it'll be high frequency in the peak direction and low frequency in the contra peak direction (as it is currently).  The closest I can compare the Beenleigh and Gold Coast lines post CRR is the Caboolture/Kippa Ring/Sunshine Coast lines in how they operate currently (notwithstanding the single track on the Sunshine Coast which limits the capacity beyond Elimbah - which does need to be dealt with, at the very least to increase reliability and improve freight lines - the commuter parts are a bonus).

It'd be nice to have a 4th track (and there'll probably be provision for it to be built in the future), but at this early stage, I think they're just trying to get CRR built in the first place which is expensive and resource heavy enough to build and then deal with the add ons after it's built.  Are you really expecting 1,000,000 people to be travelling in both directions at all times of the day as Metro kinda implied?

Again, even the Merivale Bridge didn't have high frequency trains in both directions at all times of the day until some 25 years after it was built - it had plenty of latent capacity until it was needed (and now it's overloaded due to the delay in building a new rail crossing).

[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.

Not necessarily, the MR can help trains bypass all stoppers on the suburban and DG tracks, unless you're expecting high frequency in both directions at all times of the day.  In the contra peak, at this stage I'm expecting (at least in the first timetable for CRR) it'll be high frequency in the peak direction and low frequency in the contra peak direction (as it is currently).  The closest I can compare the Beenleigh and Gold Coast lines post CRR is the Caboolture/Kippa Ring/Sunshine Coast lines in how they operate currently (notwithstanding the single track on the Sunshine Coast which limits the capacity beyond Elimbah - which does need to be dealt with, at the very least to increase reliability and improve freight lines - the commuter parts are a bonus).

It'd be nice to have a 4th track (and there'll probably be provision for it to be built in the future), but at this early stage, I think they're just trying to get CRR built in the first place which is expensive and resource heavy enough to build and then deal with the add ons after it's built.  Are you really expecting 1,000,000 people to be travelling in both directions at all times of the day as Metro kinda implied?

Again, even the Merivale Bridge didn't have high frequency trains in both directions at all times of the day until some 25 years after it was built - it had plenty of latent capacity until it was needed (and now it's overloaded due to the delay in building a new rail crossing).

There are no switches shown between the sub up/down, and between the subs and DG, between the portal and Yeerongpilly. So all via CRR services whether all stations or express are running on the subs given the current track layout. Don't forget the peak service from Caboolture/Redcliffe via CRR = the contra-peak service as far as Yeerongpilly (though some of these may be emptied out of passengers). Thus the contra-peak working timetable may have more services than the peak direction services from Gold Coast/Beenleigh/Loganlea.

[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.

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

That's generally how grade junctions work - 50% of movements are conflicting. With 300m of wrong road running required for a conflicting move, running the split operating paradigm would be highly unreliable. London's sub surface lines with multiple at grade junctions are a prime example of how not to build a railway.

[kram0]

My mate who's working on the project said once project change 9 is signed off, to expect even more project changes for the southern portal, including crossovers between Dutton Park and Fairfield.

Also expect Dutton Park to be moved a little further south.

[paulg]

My mate who's working on the project said once project change 9 is signed off, to expect even more project changes for the southern portal, including crossovers between Dutton Park and Fairfield.

Also expect Dutton Park to be moved a little further south.

That would help it to start making sense.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

[timh]

My mate who's working on the project said once project change 9 is signed off, to expect even more project changes for the southern portal, including crossovers between Dutton Park and Fairfield.

Also expect Dutton Park to be moved a little further south.

That's good to know, and gives further evidence to some of the bits and rumours we've heard about upcoming RPFC's. FYI a 4th platform at Moorooka on the passing loop would largely solve a lot of the problems....

Sent from my SM-G780F using Tapatalk

[MTPCo]

An analysis of the RfPC9 infrastructure is attached, which is consistent with my previous assessment in November, albeit with some additional alternative options analysis. In short, the analysis that BrizCommuter recently published is accurate, and the likely scenario is that they are publishing RfPCs without going through a proper checking process, as it appears that crossovers are missing (which aligns with kram0's comment). Given that the project is under construction now, making mistakes like this does not seem appropriate given the expenditure.

In general, there seems to be a lot of re-treading of past conversation, and some of the recent comments do not align with the facts that have been presented in the form of the infrastructure layouts. Some good reading to get up to speed would include:

• Many of BrizCommuter's posts on CRR operations, including this one: http://brizcommuter.blogspot.com/2020/11/cross-river-rail-anything-but-robust.html
• Previous posts of mine on this forum, where I have tried to answer explicit questions in detail: https://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?action=profile;area=showposts;u=2101
• Pages 1-14 of the Minerva Plan, which sets out detailed assumptions of how CRR is expected to operate based on the infrastructure layouts previously posted: https://backontrack.org/docs/crr/db/MinervaPlan1.0.pdf

[paulg]

• Pages 1-14 of the Minerva Plan, which sets out detailed assumptions of how CRR is expected to operate based on the infrastructure layouts previously posted: https://backontrack.org/docs/crr/db/MinervaPlan1.0.pdf

Yes but because the operation plan in your Figure 3 (p8) seems so non-optimal I was trying to see what other possibilities there could be. It still appears to me that not all services in the Mains from the North in the morning peak need to go into CRR, even with the PC9 track layout they could stay on the Mains and go in to Central (no worng-way running required in that direction), which would free up space for Salisbury or Beenleigh all-stoppers to use some of the spare capacity on the Suburbans (go via South Bank)?
Agreed it's a mess and more information is needed.


Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

[MTPCo]

Not without crossing the outbound trains destined for the northern subs. These could amount to a minimum of 10tph. And that's assuming the path to do that move exists (I am away from my computer currently so cannot check).

[ozbob]

Thanks for the information and clarification MTPCo.

It is confusing with the lack of updated rail service plans and correct track layouts that should to be part of the RFPCs, so that a proper evaluation can be made.

If details are not forthcoming by the end of March, we will be pursuing this lack of clarity by CRRDA administratively.

[ozbob]

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

Thanks Briz.

https://twitter.com/ozbob13/status/1373657010835648512

[ozbob]

Sent to all outlets:

22nd March 2021

The Roma St Priority Development Area - Roma Street for Bus and Rail first!

Presently, the State Government is consulting with the community about future development around Roma St station. The site has been designated a Priority Development Area (PDA) (1).

On the whole, RAIL Back On Track supports development around stations. It makes sense to cluster things like housing, workplaces, retail and public facilities such as stadiums/entertainment close to stations. Living close to a station reduces the need for large Park n' Ride sites, and concentrating other uses close to stations increases their accessibility for the whole region.

However, any development around stations and rail corridors needs to leave enough space for future expansion. Over the past few years, the SEQ  rail network has needed things like duplications, quadruplications, new platforms and so on to cater to increasing passenger numbers. As Australia's 3rd largest city, these needs will always be there.

Not thinking ahead brings additional costs to the community. The construction of Cross River Rail at Roma St required the demolition of the 30 year old Brisbane Transit Centre, and whilst that building was a bit of an eyesore, it does demonstrate how shortsightedness can make future transport expansion more disruptive than it needs to be.

RAIL Back On Track wants to ensure that any future development at the Roma St PDA has a clear strategy for allowing new lines in the future. It is inevitable in the future as demand grows that Brisbane will have another cross river rail style project, or new metro lines, or even high speed rail needing to feed into Roma St.

Indeed, the Government has been increasingly promoting Roma St as Brisbane's new "Grand Central" station, so clearly the vision is for a transport hub bringing together all modes of transport, much like Southern Cross Station in Melbourne

It would be a huge mistake for SEQ as a whole if these projects were made unviable because all the spare land around Roma St was crowded out, or if new developments built as part of the PDA had to be unsustainably demolished. Cross River Rail is presently being built with little regard to future possible tunnel connections, for example, for an extension further out past Yeerongpilly. Let's not repeat this failure.

Whatever is developed at Roma St must be designed carefully to ensure that it can grow as a bus and rail hub decades into the future.

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


Reference:

1. Roma Street CRR PDA https://crossriverrail.qld.gov.au/planning-environment/priority-development-areas/roma-street-cross-river-rail-pda/

[ozbob]

https://twitter.com/railbotforum/status/1373700832017850370

[ozbob]

Facebook ...

The Roma St Priority Development Area - Roma Street for Bus and Rail first! 22nd March 2021 Presently, the State...

Posted by RAIL - Back On Track on Sunday, 21 March 2021

[ozbob]

ABC News --> State plan to fast-track Roma Street precinct development slammed by Brisbane City Council

A Queensland government plan to fast-track development around Brisbane's Roma Street Station as part of Cross River Rail has been met with criticism from Brisbane City Council.

Key points:
A Priority Development Area has been declared for Roma Street in Brisbane as part of Cross River Rail

The PDA will fast-track development to create room for 4,000 more residents by 2036

Council and residents are concerned it is not properly planned

The state's plan could see up to 4,000 more people living around Roma Street Parklands by 2036, as well as adding an education facility, retail, shops, hotels and short-term accommodation, and a possible stadium.

But the council's planning spokeswoman Krista Adams said the proposal would create "lost land, lost car parking and multiple new towers". ...

[BrizCommuter]

My mate who's working on the project said once project change 9 is signed off, to expect even more project changes for the southern portal, including crossovers between Dutton Park and Fairfield.

Also expect Dutton Park to be moved a little further south.

That would make sense, but the crossovers should be in change 9 documentation.

[ozbob]

https://twitter.com/MarkBaileyMP/status/1373750669883023360

[Cazza]

https://crossriverrail.qld.gov.au/construction/guide-to-tunnelling/tbm-tracker/ < https://www.watching-grass-grow.com/ 

[tazzer9]

I'm more concerned with the lack of immediate track amplifications between moorooka and beenleigh.  Should be looking for a minimun of 5 tracks between rocklea and salisbury junction, 4 tracks between salisbury junction and kuraby, and 3 tracks between kuraby and loganlea at the minimum. 

We need to change the mindset of absolute peak hour commuter only capacity and move towards all day public transport use. 

[timh]

I'm more concerned with the lack of immediate track amplifications between moorooka and beenleigh.  Should be looking for a minimun of 5 tracks between rocklea and salisbury junction, 4 tracks between salisbury junction and kuraby, and 3 tracks between kuraby and loganlea at the minimum. 

We need to change the mindset of absolute peak hour commuter only capacity and move towards all day public transport use.

As much as I agree with your sentiment about moving towards an all-day public transport mentality, there are more important factors to achieve that than track amplification. Most notably (especially with the Beenleigh line) is land use around stations. The vast majority of the stations on the Beenleigh line serve low density residential areas only. More transit oriented development, or at least a little more density or commercial development bear stations would go a long way to drive off peak patronage.

The stations on the line need to be destinations for more than just someone going home from work in the city. No one wants to go to Sunnybank station at 11am for work or shopping.



Sent from my SM-G780F using Tapatalk

[Cazza]

Route 109's PDF timetable has been released (here: https://translink.com.au/sites/default/files/acquiadam-assets/timetables/TfB_tt_109_20210419.pdf).

But why on Earth are the only 2 timing points Moorooka and Boggo Rd? Apart from commuters travelling between those 2 stations, who does that even help? There are literally just 6 stops on the route, all being rail stations. Why haven't they put them all in (like the rail timetables have too)? For someone waiting at Yeronga (the first station to be closed), they just have to rock up at their rail replacement stop and guess when the next N/B bus is due, based on it's departure from Moorooka. I'd say the average traveller wouldn't be able to do that just by looking at the timetable and map provided.

Sure, people are advised to use their journey planner for their new journeys but a fair amount of people will be using the PDF timetable (like they are so proudly advertising now). So what's the point in having a timetable if it means absolutely nothing to the people who need it most? I'm putting in a submission to TransLink now, and I would recommend others do the same to point out this lack of user friendliness. It definitely shocked me as soon as I opened it.

[BrizCommuter]

Looks like most Ferny Grove trains are being turned back at South Bank (with some peak exceptions to Park Rd or Roma St) on Tue 6th and Wed 7th, which is certainly better than TransLink's map which shows them turning back at Roma Street. South Bank departures are 6 minutes earlier than usual, with presumably an extended dwell at South Brisbane.

[ozbob]

Brisbanetimes --> Roma Street Parkland free car park to be sold to developers

The Queensland government will sell the land where Roma Street Parklands' free car park is now to developers to offset costs of Brisbane's underground $5.4 billion Cross River Rail project.

It means 150 free car spaces at the popular parklands would go, most probably to be replaced by paid parking similar to South Bank Parklands.
Brisbane City Council – who manages the Roma Street Parklands – is furious and is now lodging a complaint and submission with the Queensland government.

However, the Cross River Rail Delivery Authority (CRRDA) – who is building the project for the Queensland government – says Brisbane City Council is using state-owned land virtually free for "a peppercorn rent". ....

[ozbob]

Route 109's PDF timetable has been released (here: https://translink.com.au/sites/default/files/acquiadam-assets/timetables/TfB_tt_109_20210419.pdf).

But why on Earth are the only 2 timing points Moorooka and Boggo Rd? Apart from commuters travelling between those 2 stations, who does that even help? There are literally just 6 stops on the route, all being rail stations. Why haven't they put them all in (like the rail timetables have too)? For someone waiting at Yeronga (the first station to be closed), they just have to rock up at their rail replacement stop and guess when the next N/B bus is due, based on it's departure from Moorooka. I'd say the average traveller wouldn't be able to do that just by looking at the timetable and map provided.

Sure, people are advised to use their journey planner for their new journeys but a fair amount of people will be using the PDF timetable (like they are so proudly advertising now). So what's the point in having a timetable if it means absolutely nothing to the people who need it most? I'm putting in a submission to TransLink now, and I would recommend others do the same to point out this lack of user friendliness. It definitely shocked me as soon as I opened it.

https://twitter.com/vaughan_k/status/1374702536163274754

[ozbob]

Queensland Parliament Questions On Notice

https://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/documents/tableOffice/questionsAnswers/2021/71-2021.pdf

Question on Notice
No. 71
Asked on 24 February 2021

MR S MINNIKIN ASKED MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND MAIN ROADS (HON M BAILEY)

QUESTION:

Will the Minister list all claims received from the Pulse Consortium, Unity or Hitachi Rail for delays
or scope changes relating to the Cross River Rail project together with the claimed costs and any
time delay for each claim?

ANSWER:

I thank the Member for Chatsworth for the question, although I do not accept its premise.

The Queensland Transport and Roads Investment Program 2020–21 to 2023–24 represents a
record investment in road and transport infrastructure for the fifth year in a row, with $26.9 billion
in works committed over the next four years, supporting an average of approximately 23,600
direct jobs over the life of the program. Additionally, the Palaszczuk Government has invested
$5.4 billion for the Cross River Rail project, which is estimated to support an average of 7700 jobs
during the life of the project.

Economies worldwide are enduring the harshest economic downturn in generations, and
Queensland's economy is not immune. Every job counts more than ever right now. Cross River
Rail will help stimulate the economy as part of Unite and Recover: Queensland's Economic
Recovery Plan. With over 800 local subcontractors and suppliers already benefitting from the
project to date, Cross River Rail will create a pipeline of economic development opportunities
around its station precincts, supporting more jobs, for years to come.

It is a fact that Cross River Rail would not be happening if the Opposition had been elected and
that means thousands of construction workers on Cross River Rail would not have jobs.
Contractual matters are commercial-in-confidence.

The Cross River Rail project remains on time, and on budget. On 2 February 2021, the
Auditor-General released Report 10: 2020–21 Transport 2020 and reported "no significant issues
have been identified in our financial statement audit."

[ozbob]

Sent to all outlets:

Time to Publicly Release the Cross River Rail Service Plans!

5th April 2021

RAIL Back On Track (https://backontrack.org) calls on Transport Minister Mark Bailey to table Cross River Rail's rail service plans to Parliament and release this information to the Queensland public.

The Queensland public is entrusting the Queensland Government $5 billion to deliver Cross River Rail. We strongly support the project.
However, when Queensland Rail Citytrain services began on the then new Kippa-Ring rail line in 2016, mass service cancellations across the entire
Queensland Rail Citytrain network was the result. We want to be confident a similar situation doesn't occur with Cross River Rail, so we really need to know how train services will operate across the Queensland Rail Citytrain network on day one of its opening. We have noted that the ' more trains more often ' message has now changed to ' transform the way we will travel '. We have highlighted the wider network constraints that will limit any significant train service frequency increases in the past. This change in messaging is no doubt due to the realisation that what was initially projected for train service levels is not deliverable as we have pointed out many times.  Time to come clean.

Concerningly, RAIL Back On Track has encountered significant difficulty obtaining basic information about the Cross River Rail's updated rail service plans (1). Minister Bailey, what are the intended service levels, sectorisation, routing and stopping patterns of Queensland Rail Citytrain services after Cross River Rail opens?

SNC Lavalin serves the Cross River Rail Delivery Authority as an 'Operations Technical advisor' and had - prior to removal - information about the development of the CRR train service plan published on its website, SNC Lavalin had noted with respect to Cross River Rail:
"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."
- SNC Lavalin website CRR profile (now removed)(2).

Minister Bailey, why does the Queensland Government intend to open Cross River Rail with minimal services rather than a
"full-service operation" from day one? Is this lack of "full-service operation" related to the exclusion of particular supporting works
or changes to CRR design in previous iterations of the project? Is it perhaps related to a shortage of trains or drivers to operate services?

RAIL Back On Track calls on Minister Mark Bailey to release information about the ' train service levels, sectorisation, routing and stopping patterns ' for Queensland Rail Citytrain once CRR opens and direct that such information be published on the front page of the Cross River Rail website without any further delay. A Concept of Operations (ConOps) for Cross River Rail has been developed so now lets see the rail service plans. Continuing delays and further obfuscation to the publishing of updated rail service plans will lead to a further lack of confidence in the project outcomes.

References:

1. In regards to commercial in confidence concerns: QR is not commercialised, and does not bid to operate services; the contracts for the various elements of construction of tunnels and track and delivery of the systems have been signed. How exactly is the future operation of the network now considered commercial in confidence or prejudicial to safety? Rail service plans (now outdated) were included in the 2017 business case ( https://buildingqueensland.qld.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Building-Queensland-Business-Case-LR.pdf pages 140 & 141).

2. RAIL Back On Track discussion forum - Re: Cross River Rail Project
https://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=2034.msg244736#msg244736

3. The Minerva Plan - a rail strategy for Southeast Queensland
https://backontrack.org/docs/crr/db/MinervaPlan1.0.pdf

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

[ozbob]

https://twitter.com/railbotforum/status/1378779958357585921

[ozbob]

Facebook ...

Time to Publicly Release the Cross River Rail Service Plans! 5th April 2021 RAIL Back On Track...

Posted by RAIL - Back On Track on Sunday, 4 April 2021

[ozbob]

Good Morning Lurkers 

Having a nice Easter?  Time to lift your game hey?

[ozbob]

https://twitter.com/railbotforum/status/1379140436955078656

[ozbob]

^

Couriermail --> State walks back on Cross River Rail commuter savings $

Commuters may not see the claimed benefits of Brisbane's multi-billion dollar Cross River Rail when it opens in 2025 with authorities walking back on a previous pledge to cut travel times and refusing to reveal timetable details.

Six new or upgraded CBD stations will be built as part of the $5.4bn project, which in 2017 the State Government said would slash travel time into Brisbane by up to 15 minutes.

However, the Cross River Rail Delivery Authority – the group responsible for delivering the state's largest infrastructure project – now says it is cannot say how much time commuters will save.

It comes amid growing speculation fewer trains will operate less frequently on the network than first mooted four years ago. .

Cross River Rail has shifted its marketing with the previous slogan, "more trains more often", dumped in favour of "transforming travel".

However, a Cross River Rail Delivery Authority spokesman said the messaging had changed to better reflect the wider benefits of the project.

"These broader benefits include shorter journeys for commuters door to door," he said ...

... "The government and Cross River Rail need to come clean and spell out what's going to happen on the rail network, how it's going to be organised and the frequencies of trains," Mr Dow said.

"It's a cover for the fact they're not going to be able to deliver the services they hoped to and we don't think there will be much in the way of travel improvements out of peak hour."

Mr Dow said Queensland citizens who were footing the bill for the project "deserve transparency". ...

... Mr Dow also said the government needed to accelerate the removal of level crossings across the southeast – otherwise those on the Gold Coast line would be lowered for "40 minutes in the hour" if trains ran every five minutes during peak hour as planned.

He said Queensland had failed to remove a single rail crossing since 2014, despite Victoria removing 46 in the same period.

[ozbob]

^

" .. Cross River Rail has shifted its marketing with the previous slogan, "more trains more often", dumped in favour of "transforming travel".

However, a Cross River Rail Delivery Authority spokesman said the messaging had changed to better reflect the wider benefits of the project. ..

Ha ha  ...   

[ozbob]

https://twitter.com/railbotforum/status/1379445883796791299

https://twitter.com/ozbob13/status/1379449828342558725

[ozbob]

https://twitter.com/ozbob13/status/1379494267287003139

[ozbob]

Tired of the BS lurkers ...

[BrizCommuter]

Finally the press are opening their eyes to the mediocrity of CRR's design.

[kram0]

Bailey will dig his heels in because he is a complete F%&k tard......

Oh, and the irony the the proceeding article in the paper reads 'Premier demands transparency on the covid 19 vaccine.....

[Arnz]

What's the bet that Bailey will (do a Emerson) and try to deflect to the LNP for CRR's shortcomings, even though CRR was primarily a Labor project (after scrapping the LNP's equally flawed BaT project).

[Gazza]

^Basically.

We're stuffed because the main avenue for accountability could be pressure from the opposition, but if the LNP try and criticise any shortcomings, Bailey will just say "Well the LNP wouldn't have even built it, but we're getting on with it"

So basically, so long as you promise to build something the opposition didn't, you're free to make as many mistakes as you like