Cross River Rail Project

[ozbob]

Queensland Parliament Hansard

https://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/documents/hansard/2021/2021_04_21_DAILY.pdf

Ministerial Statements

Cross River Rail

Hon. MC BAILEY (Miller—ALP) (Minister for Transport and Main Roads) (9.57 am): 612,500—
that is how many hours 190 Queensland apprentices have worked on the Cross River Rail project. The
Palaszczuk government is backing the jobs and industries of the future. Right now, apprentices are
cutting their teeth on Queensland's largest infrastructure project. From working on our tunnel-boring
machines—cutting through that rock and getting those tunnels in—to fitting out trains, our public
transport investment is giving Queenslanders the skills for the next decade and beyond.

Cross River Rail will deliver more than 450 apprenticeships and trainee opportunities. The
Palaszczuk Labor government's investment in Cross River Rail injects about $4 million into the
economy every single day. Our investment in 800 Queensland suppliers and subcontractors is
supporting businesses to grow and hire workers. Queensland's economic recovery is not just focused
on jobs today but on the next generation of jobs for workers in industries.

Cross River Rail is one of the key projects driving our economic recovery and the infrastructure
boom in South-East Queensland and across the state. New train services will reduce road congestion
by making commuting on public transport even more attractive and competitive. We will build the first
new underground station in the CBD in 100 years, meaning a faster commute for workers right into the
heart of the city for the first time.

Cross River Rail will also be the fastest way to travel to the new Gabba Olympic stadium if we
are successful in our bid to host the 2032 Olympics. Cross River Rail fixes the bottleneck over the
Merivale Bridge in the inner city by creating a second inner-city rail crossing, enabling us to run more
trains more often. The Palaszczuk Labor government already operates more rail services than ever
before. Mr Speaker, 800 more weekly train services now run in South-East Queensland since we were
elected in 2015, and we have seen four service uplifts in the last two years. That is more South-East
Queensland train services than ever before. We have also maintained services during the pandemic
and we added 105 weekly train services last year. Right now patronage on public transport services in
South-East Queensland is running just below 70 per cent of pre-COVID levels.

Cities around the world are grappling with COVID-19 impacts to their transit systems. Leading
experts predict that CBD workers will continue to work from home one or two days a week after the
pandemic for some time yet. My department is partnering with the University of Sydney on an 18-month
research project that looks at behavioural changes associated with working from home. That research
will be included in a Transport and Main Roads transport analysis and planning models moving forward.

It is not clear yet what the long-term impacts on public transport caused by the global pandemic will be.
We will have a clearer picture of that closer to 2025 when Cross River Rail opens, and what great day
that will be! Using that information we will be able to make more informed decisions on services and
timetables, and commuters will be well-informed ahead of the opening.

One thing that is certain is Queensland's population growth. With over 88 per cent of all net
domestic migration over the next few years coming to Queensland and a strong Olympics bid in the
advanced stages, there is no question about how important delivering Cross River Rail is for the future
of South-East Queensland.

[ozbob]

Queensland Parliament Hansard

https://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/documents/hansard/2021/2021_04_21_DAILY.pdf

Questions Without Notice

Cross River Rail

Mr POWELL: My question is to the Minister for Transport. With the truth now exposed that the
additional train services promised to South-East Queensland commuters from Cross River Rail were
overstated—

Mr Pegg interjected.

Mr SPEAKER: I have been very clear to the House about questions being heard in silence.
Member for Stretton, you are warned under the standing orders. You may start your question again, if
you wish, member for Glass House.

Mr POWELL: With the truth now exposed that the additional train services promised to
South-East Queensland commuters from Cross River Rail were overstated, is the government's
promise to bust congestion falling off the rails?

Mr BAILEY: I thank the honourable member for the Dixer. Do members know how many extra
trains and additional benefits there were from those opposite when they were in power? Zero! They cut
the project. Not content with cutting the project once, they promised to cut it again in 2017. How did
that go for them? The need for this project has been clear for more than a decade. We were lined up
to do it. There was a change of government in 2012. It was cut by the Newman government. The Leader
of the Opposition was sitting around that cabinet table. He cut Cross River Rail like he cut everything
else.

Mr Minnikin interjected.

Mr SPEAKER: Pause the clock. Member for Chatsworth, you have had a red-hot go today. You
are warned under the standing orders.

Mr BAILEY: Despite the fact that the federal LNP did not put one dollar into Cross River Rail, the
Premier and this government got on with it and got it done. It is already more than 30 per cent built,
creating thousands of jobs. The benefits from this project are clear. There will be improved journey
times across the network. Benefits will come out in the detailed service plan. That is a normal part of
rail. What we see—

Mr Powell interjected.

Mr SPEAKER: I am sorry to interrupt, Minister. Pause the clock. Member for Glass House, you
are on a warning. You are interjecting. You know that is not allowed. You can leave the chamber for
one hour under standing order 253A.

Whereupon the honourable member for Glass House withdrew from the chamber at 10.59 am.

Mr BAILEY: There we have it: the person who asked the question was not even interested in the
answer. That shows how little they know about public transport. The cat was let out of the bag on
Saturday in a three-hour marathon interview with the member for Burleigh. Never a truer word was
spoken than when the journalist described it as a 'three-hour marathon'. The member revealed the
opposition's view that public transportation would be obsolete within five to 10 years. It is no wonder
that they cut transport projects: they do not support it, they do not understand it, they do not use it and
that is why they botch it up. That is why they order trains from overseas instead of those built by
Queensland workers. That is why they order trains that are not disability compliant. That is why we had
48 fewer train drivers by the end of the Newman government, of which the Leader of the Opposition
was a part. They botch it up every time they touch it.

It is this government that is building the transformational Cross River Rail project that will double
inner-city rail capacity. People will be able to catch a train directly into the city for the first time. For the
first time, right from the heart of the city you will be able to take an underground train line right past the
Gabba. The Olympic transformation of the Gabba stadium locks in beautifully with the Cross River Rail
project. People will be able to get straight into the city for the first time. We have a very circuitous rail
system. New stations are being built. A lot of people get off the train at South Bank or South Brisbane
and walk across the river because there is no central train station. We are building it; those opposite
cut it. We are getting on with it. They can wax lyrical all they like but we are getting on with building a
better public transport system.
(Time expired)

[ozbob]

https://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/documents/hansard/2021/2021_04_21_DAILY.pdf

Ministerial Statements

Cross River Rail

" .. We will have a clearer picture of that closer to 2025 when Cross River Rail opens, and what great day
that will be! Using that information we will be able to make more informed decisions on services and
timetables, and commuters will be well-informed ahead of the opening. ... "

They still don't get it.  No one expects timetables.  What we want to know is how the network is going to operate!

Actual frequencies are not my real concern at present.  We would like to know sectorisation, line pairs, routing etc. and and some indication of maximum line capacities. They have to know that to build the brownfield sections north and south of the tunnel. It would be part of the ConOps.

I hear your concerns with rollingstock availability.  I don't expect any real frequency increases at all.

MetroTunnel Melbourne

https://metrotunnel.vic.gov.au/about-the-project/benefits-for-your-train-line#savings

All lines routing etc. clearly displayed.

Example: Cranbourne / Pakenham lines  all lines are available. This is the standard that CRR needs to be at.

[ozbob]

Melbourne Metro Tunnel is due to open in 2025 as is Cross River Rail.

The difference between the information provided for the public is stark. 

The lack of coherent network information about CRR suggests it might well be a debacle.  Do they know how the network will operate?

Maybe they don't ....   

[Stillwater]

Focus would appear to be on making available tracts of land for private sector redevelopment to recoup CRR costs (including in Roma Street Gardens and allowing for an entertainment centre on top of Roma Street Station) and a case of all trains leading to the Gabba Stadium Olympic Games venue - which the state wants the Feds to pay for). In other words, greater emphasis on an urban renewal project rather than a transportation network enhancement.

[ozbob]

Focus would appear to be on making available tracts of land for private sector redevelopment to recoup CRR costs (including in Roma Street Gardens and allowing for an entertainment centre on top of Roma Street Station) and a case of all trains leading to the Gabba Stadium Olympic Games venue - which the state wants the Feds to pay for). In other words, greater emphasis on an urban renewal project rather than a transportation network enhancement.

You have hit the nail on the head Mr Stillwater.  Melbourne sees their new tunnel (Metro Tunnel Melbourne) as primarily a rail network improvement project.  It is very well presented in this regard, all the citizens can see how the rail network will operate, how their lines will be routed and the broad capacity improvements.  The value added gains are there but not the primary focus.

Contrast to Cross River Rail - it is being presented as more a value capture type project with scant information on the rail network improvement aspects, other than nice photographs of stations.  The  rail network is described in broad ' feel good ' statements " transform the way you will travel " without any real indication of how that will operate at the individual line level.  We know that service improvements will also be limited due to the precarious nature of the rollingstock fleet. Hence the dropping of the " more trains more often " message by the spin machine.  Even they know the con can't be continued so another line of public conditioning (brain washing?) to obscure the poor outcomes is underway.

It is very disappointing to see the way Cross River Rail has gone from a great project as conceived in 2009 and strongly supported by IA, to one that is now somewhat suspect and cannot garner IA or Federal Government support.

#crossriverailfail

[Stillwater]

It would be interesting to see how CRR would cope with passenger numbers and the efficiency of their movement if all these venues were operating at the same time -- The Gabba, Suncorp Stadium and the proposed new Roma Street Station entertainment venue.

[ozbob]

FYI

PTV  Growing Our Rail Network 2018-2025

>  https://www.ptv.vic.gov.au/footer/legal-and-policies/growing-our-rail-network-2018-2025/

The Department of Transport has prepared a Victorian rail network plan for when the Metro Tunnel opens in 2025.

This plan includes an updated network map outlining how the rail network across the state will function when current major projects – including the Metro Tunnel, high-capacity signalling, High Capacity Metro Trains and the level crossing removal program – are completed.

Find more information at the Department of Transport website.

[ozbob]

'The DTMR has prepared a SEQ Rail network plan for when the Cross River Rail Tunnel opens in 2025.'

Click ??

[Cazza]

Queensland Parliament Hansard

https://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/documents/hansard/2021/2021_04_21_DAILY.pdf

Questions Without Notice

...

Mr BAILEY: Despite the fact that the federal LNP did not put one dollar into Cross River Rail, the
Premier and this government got on with it and got it done. It is already more than 30 per cent built,
creating thousands of jobs. The benefits from this project are clear. There will be improved journey
times across the network. Benefits will come out in the detailed service plan. That is a normal part of
rail. What we see—

This. Does. Not. Make. Sense. How can something be clear if it hasn't been released?!?!

And no Minister for Social Media, it is not a normal part of rail. You need to know how the thing will operate before you start so you actually know what you need to be building! Melbourne Metro tunnel, rail plans made available. Crossrail in London, rail plans made available (albeit, in the form of frequencies on either branch, however, unlike CRRs initial frequency map from 2016 (or whenever it was), Crossrail actually has the physical capacity to run that level of service) and even the Grand Paris Express has their proposed network available, even if it's 200km+ worth of new services!

But hey, measure once, cut twice is the saying isn't it? :conf

[Stillwater]

The skills set of RailBOT members is pretty diverse.  Can we prepare a 'draft' SEQ Rail Network Plan post CRR and present that to the Minister, requesting that he write the foreword. It seems the Minister takes his information in glossy brochure format.

[ozbob]

The skills set of RailBOT members is pretty diverse.  Can we prepare a 'draft' SEQ Rail Network Plan post CRR and present that to the Minister, requesting that he write the foreword. It seems the Minister takes his information in glossy brochure format.

Yo, I was thinking along the same lines.  Do up some individual line diagrams like they have done for Metro Melbourne Tunnel

(Pakenham/Cranbourne lines example above). 

Another interesting factoid.  The checkmate tool on CRR doesn't work for the two airport stations ...

[ozbob]

If you follow the rail service plans that were in the 2017 business case it is clear that the Airport services are not in the tunnel. 

Unless this has changed I suppose they might be Park Road starters.  Change at Boggo Road coming up going to the Coast, or perhaps Eagle Junction.  Having the Airport services direct to the Gold Coast has been important for Airtrain business.  This may be another reason for the cloak of incompetence and non-transparency.

It is really appalling the lack of information on how the rail network will operate.  They must know to build the thing.

[verbatim9]

Reports from BAC in the past stated that they preferred services terminating and originating from the CBD. The reasons being to ensure reliability of services, as well as provide add ons like CBD check in.

[ozbob]

Reports from BAC in the past stated that they preferred services terminating and originating from the CBD. The reasons being to ensure reliability of services, as well as provide add ons like CBD check in.

I am not sure if Airtrain agree with BAC on that, but it is possible they might be Roma St starters.  But I am sure things are going to change.

[ozbob]

https://twitter.com/railbotforum/status/1385298032623640578

[aldonius]

The thing I'm trying to work through with CRR (and I guess this would be the case almost regardless of the northern tie-in works) is that before Trouts Rd goes in I can't see how we get to three distinct sectors and a sensible allocation of platforms at Central, without doing a lot of CBD-terminating. (The Minerva Plan has probably outlined this better.)

But if you do a lot of CBD termination then you can have three almost distinct sectors (except for Gympie North trains I guess): Springfield and Ipswich terminate at Bowen Hills. (That way when Caloundra and Flagstone happen, balance will be maintained.)
Meanwhile Doomben, Airport and either Ferny Grove or Shorncliffe terminate at Roma St &/ Park Rd with the other continuing to Cleveland.

Benefits: almost three sectors, Ferny Grove / Cleveland services aren't left on P1-4 at Central by themselves, P5/6 goes almost tidal and alleviates crowding a bit.

Disadvantages: a huge amount of train runs now effectively take 20 minutes longer for CBD transit and turnaround time.

(I know I've brought this up before on SSC but maybe not here.)

[Gazza]

Reports from BAC in the past stated that they preferred services terminating and originating from the CBD. The reasons being to ensure reliability of services, as well as provide add ons like CBD check in.

Services like CBD check in aren't relevant in 2021 IMO.
A lot of people just travel with carry on, and to be honest checking in in the CBD is just another step in the process where your bags can get damaged or lost. I wouldn't trust it, and would prefer cheaper tickets than funding gimmicks like that.

Re the pairing with the GC line. Don't mind seeing that go...... why?

-The GC Airport has far more flights and destinations then when Airtrain was first built.
-GC Airport will have it's own tram link around the same time CRR opens or shortly after, so a lot of pax will shift to flying in to OOL and using that....Is it really worth maintaining the  current through routing for like 10-20 people per train?
-I like the idea of having Ipswich trains go to the airport actually. Anyone on the northside has to change at EJ, southside has the option of OOL or can change too. The western suburbs have no airport (No, wellcamp is too far away to count) so therefore benefit could be derived by opening up better access to them!

[ozbob]

Queensland Parliament

https://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/documents/tableOffice/questionsAnswers/2021/290-2021.pdf

Question on Notice
No. 290
Asked on 23 March 2021

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

QUESTION:
With reference to the Cross River Rail project—
Will the Minister provide yearly actual or forecast payments to each Public Private Partnership
(PPP) by the Queensland Government from the period 2015-16 until the final payment to the PPP
entities together with a breakdown on the type of payment (e.g. capital contribution, availability
payment, maintenance cost, other)?

ANSWER:
I thank the Member for Chatsworth for the question.

The Cross River Rail Delivery Authority (Delivery Authority) was established on 14 April 2017
under the Cross River Rail Delivery Authority Act 2016. The Delivery Authority undertook a
rigorous procurement process for the project's three major works packages between 2017–2019
in accordance with the Queensland Government's Project Assessment Framework, the Financial
and Performance Management Standard 2019 and Financial Accountability Act 2009.
The Delivery Authority, on behalf of the State of Queensland, reached financial close on
30 June 2019 and contract close on 1 July 2019 with Pulse Consortium, the preferred proponent
to deliver the Tunnel, Stations and Development package of works, through a Public Private
Partnership (PPP) contract.

PPP service payments are commercial-in-confidence. The Queensland Government is required
to publish financial obligations arising from PPP commercial arrangements annually in the
Queensland Government's Report on State Finances. Cross River Rail PPP arrangements are
accounted for within its financial statements, with other State transport assets including
AirportLink, Gateway and Logan motorways, Brisbane Airport Rail Link and Port Drive Motorway
accounted for within the Department of Transport and Main Roads financial statements.
The Cross River Rail project was cut by the LNP when in office and they promised to cut it again
at the 2017 State election. The Member for Chatsworth and the LNP continue to attack the project
every step of the way.

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. The
Palaszczuk Government will always back Queenslanders and jobs, especially as we rebound
from a global pandemic.

Thousands of construction workers on Cross River Rail would have been robbed of their jobs if
the LNP managed to stop Cross River Rail. We will always back commuters and jobs, which is
why we chose the most sensible Cross River Rail route that benefits the greatest number of
commuters consistent with our 2017 commitment.

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.

[ozbob]

... -I like the idea of having Ipswich trains go to the airport actually. Anyone on the northside has to change at EJ, southside has the option of OOL or can change too. The western suburbs have no airport (No, wellcamp is too far away to count) so therefore benefit could be derived by opening up better access to them!

Thanks Gazza.  I am tired of watching the Ippy train depart as the service from BNE arrives at Central.   

But this highlights the uncertainty of it all.

[BrizCommuter]

If you follow the rail service plans that were in the 2017 business case it is clear that the Airport services are not in the tunnel. 

Unless this has changed I suppose they might be Park Road starters.  Change at Boggo Road coming up going to the Coast, or perhaps Eagle Junction.  Having the Airport services direct to the Gold Coast has been important for Airtrain business.  This may be another reason for the cloak of incompetence and non-transparency.

It is really appalling the lack of information on how the rail network will operate.  They must know to build the thing.

Going by the track layout at Mayne, Airport trains may run to Ipswich or Springfield.

[verbatim9]

If you follow the rail service plans that were in the 2017 business case it is clear that the Airport services are not in the tunnel. 

Unless this has changed I suppose they might be Park Road starters.  Change at Boggo Road coming up going to the Coast, or perhaps Eagle Junction.  Having the Airport services direct to the Gold Coast has been important for Airtrain business.  This may be another reason for the cloak of incompetence and non-transparency.

It is really appalling the lack of information on how the rail network will operate.  They must know to build the thing.

Going by the track layout at Mayne, Airport trains may run to Ipswich or Springfield.

and Toowoomba

[ozbob]

If you follow the rail service plans that were in the 2017 business case it is clear that the Airport services are not in the tunnel. 

Unless this has changed I suppose they might be Park Road starters.  Change at Boggo Road coming up going to the Coast, or perhaps Eagle Junction.  Having the Airport services direct to the Gold Coast has been important for Airtrain business.  This may be another reason for the cloak of incompetence and non-transparency.

It is really appalling the lack of information on how the rail network will operate.  They must know to build the thing.

Going by the track layout at Mayne, Airport trains may run to Ipswich or Springfield.

Any chance of a ' mud map' showing the line routings/pairings that could be reasonably expected from the limited information available please?

In the absence of anything official be good to have something to work on.

[Andrew]

Having the Airport services direct to the Gold Coast has been important for Airtrain business.

It was in the original contract with QR to operate it. My dad worked for Transfield Construction at the time which was part of the consortium that built the airport line. I remember he showed it to me and there were specific maximum gaps between trains and they had to provide service to the city and the gold coast line. Mind you that could have changed over the years...

[Andrew]

Any chance of a ' mud map' showing the line routings/pairings that could be reasonably expected from the limited information available please?

In the absence of anything official be good to have something to work on.

My guess is that the change would revolve around the Beenleigh, Gold Coast, Caboolture and Ipswich lines. I suspect KR-Springfield will essentially remain the same. Ipswich will probably come from Bowen Hills or possibly even the Airport or Doomben lines. If the peak hour maps they put out are anything to go by, you'll have Ferny Grove to Salisbury via Southbank with Beenleigh (running express Salisbury - Boggo Rd) and Gold Coast trains going via CRR. I would hazard a guess that the Beenleigh trains would go through to Caboolture/Nambour as Varsity Lakes - Nambour is a huge run with lots that could go wrong - especially north of Beerburrum. Plus I'd imagine that if they want to up the frequency of the Gold Coast trains (ha! need trains and drivers first lol), it would be easier to implement if paired this way.

[ozbob]

We have some evidence that there will be some timetable changes before CRR is commissioned.

I expect a rollout of incremental changes to start to align with what will be the end stage routing/pairing and sectorisation.

To completely go over to a new timetable in one step is probably too risky.  So expect changes in the not to distant future.

[timh]

Any chance of a ' mud map' showing the line routings/pairings that could be reasonably expected from the limited information available please?

In the absence of anything official be good to have something to work on.

My guess is that the change would revolve around the Beenleigh, Gold Coast, Caboolture and Ipswich lines. I suspect KR-Springfield will essentially remain the same. Ipswich will probably come from Bowen Hills or possibly even the Airport or Doomben lines. If the peak hour maps they put out are anything to go by, you'll have Ferny Grove to Salisbury via Southbank with Beenleigh (running express Salisbury - Boggo Rd) and Gold Coast trains going via CRR. I would hazard a guess that the Beenleigh trains would go through to Caboolture/Nambour as Varsity Lakes - Nambour is a huge run with lots that could go wrong - especially north of Beerburrum. Plus I'd imagine that if they want to up the frequency of the Gold Coast trains (ha! need trains and drivers first lol), it would be easier to implement if paired this way.

Based on the current sub-optimal track layouts in the revised versions of the project, those line pairings are impossible without lots of conflicting moves or wrong-road running.

The line pairings at this point are most likely:

Beenleigh-Kippa Ring
Gold Coast-Sunshine Coast
Cleveland-Ferny Grove
Springfield-Shorncliffe
Ipswich-Doomben/Airport

All of which pose various problems.

I can do up mud map with Metro Map Maker later today maybe.

Sent from my SM-G780F using Tapatalk

[ozbob]

Rippa, thanks Tim   

I think we need to shame the authorities into publishing the proper information.  Doing our own up will be a start 

Summary of present SEQ rail network pairs/routing

https://www.queenslandrail.com.au/Customers/Stations%20and%20Maps/Pages/Network-and-line-maps.aspx

Sector 1

Rosewood <> Gympie North

Springfield Central <> Kippa-Ring

Sector 2

Varsity Lakes <> BNE Airport

Beenleigh <> Ferny Grove

Cleveland <> Shorncliffe

Roma St <> Doomben

Post CRR

I would expect three sectors.

[ozbob]

The skills set of RailBOT members is pretty diverse.  Can we prepare a 'draft' SEQ Rail Network Plan post CRR and present that to the Minister, requesting that he write the foreword. It seems the Minister takes his information in glossy brochure format.

Joint foreword.  Premier and the Minister ...   

[#Metro]

What are the ideal line pairings, assuming no constraints?

[ozbob]

What are the ideal line pairings, assuming no constraints?

I would keep the present, and just route Gold Coast and Beenleigh line trains through CRR.

[timh]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-ctlyZOfag&ab_channel=RMTransit

Great video from Reece about CRR. I've been following his channel for a while and have been looking forward to this one. Some very interesting opinions in there too!

[timh]

Rippa, thanks Tim   

I think we need to shame the authorities into publishing the proper information.  Doing our own up will be a start 

Summary of present SEQ rail network pairs/routing

https://www.queenslandrail.com.au/Customers/Stations%20and%20Maps/Pages/Network-and-line-maps.aspx

Sector 1

Rosewood <> Gympie North

Springfield Central <> Kippa-Ring

Sector 2

Varsity Lakes <> BNE Airport

Beenleigh <> Ferny Grove

Cleveland <> Shorncliffe

Roma St <> Doomben

Post CRR

I would expect three sectors.

As requested here's a very rudimentary line diagram showing the pairings I outlined above as per RPFC9.



It's not very professional obviously, I just used metromapmaker.com (which is a handy tool).

These line pairings are what is the most likely outcome under RPFC9 because

• Beenleigh line trains will most likely use the tunnel rather than travelling via South Brisbane to ensure tunnel capacity is used properly, and because the CRR tracks at the northern end must through-run to the NCL. Therefore GC line would pair with Cab/SC line, and Beenleigh line would pair with Kippa Ring.
• If Beenleigh line uses the tunnel, it cannot pair with any of the lines that use the city subs due to the track layout at Mayne.
• Track layout at Mayne also forces the Western lines to pair with the Shorncliffe / Airport / Doomben lines. Frequencies do not match up very well pairing Ipswich - Doomben/Aiport but it's not much better pairing Springfield to those lines either.
• Cleveland line is the only line to travel via South Brisbane (except for those short running Northgate-Park Road terminators I guess?) and once again due to Mayne track layout it therefore must pair with Ferny Grove

====

Admin: I have started a new thread for discussion about  the 2025 SEQ rail network map that Tim has done up.

>>>  https://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=14240.0

[verbatim9]

Yeah his research and comparison with other networks around the world are good.

Note,he also comments on the NGR seating configuration stating that the seating configuration are not suitable for a high capacity network.

[ozbob]

Thanks Tim for the map.  It is very useful and represents what we can glean from the limited information that is available.

I will prepare a nice FB post/media later in the week after people can view it.

In the end it doesn't have to be the absolutely  correct final solution, but might help to get the true final solution out of Government, which I don't think would differ by much.

I have started a new thread for discussion about  the 2025 SEQ rail network map that Tim has done up.

>>>  https://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=14240.0

[Cazza]

Note,he also comments on the NGR seating configuration stating that the seating configuration are not suitable for a high capacity network.

At the end of the day, the SEQ QR network is, and for the long foreseeable future, will pretty much always be a regional rail network, connecting sprawling suburbs and regions with the Brisbane CBD. It's the job of other modes of transport (e.g. Brisbane Metro and any form of future inner city (hopefully subway) lines) to do the heavy lifting in terms of high capacity and high turnover of commuters.

He may not be aware that 1(?) carriage out of 6 for the NGRs is actually bench style seating, so there is additional capacity there (and I'm sure there is some sort ability for other carriages to be converted to this way if we do ever see the need). However, I'm glad that the NGRs aren't fully bench seating. There's no way I'd be travelling to the GC (or even Cleveland-ways) on a metro style carriage set up. I have a feeling this could be one of the big downfalls of Sydney Metro North-West (and any associated longer distance Metro works that are in the plans i.e. Western Sydney Airport Metro).

[verbatim9]

Note,he also comments on the NGR seating configuration stating that the seating configuration are not suitable for a high capacity network.

At the end of the day, the SEQ QR network is, and for the long foreseeable future, will pretty much always be a regional rail network, connecting sprawling suburbs and regions with the Brisbane CBD. It's the job of other modes of transport (e.g. Brisbane Metro and any form of future inner city (hopefully subway) lines) to do the heavy lifting in terms of high capacity and high turnover of commuters.

He may not be aware that 1(?) carriage out of 6 for the NGRs is actually bench style seating, so there is additional capacity there (and I'm sure there is some sort ability for other carriages to be converted to this way if we do ever see the need). However, I'm glad that the NGRs aren't fully bench seating. There's no way I'd be travelling to the GC (or even Cleveland-ways) on a metro style carriage set up. I have a feeling this could be one of the big downfalls of Sydney Metro North-West (and any associated longer distance Metro works that are in the plans i.e. Western Sydney Airport Metro).

Yes I know the intention with the conversions at Maryborough is to have another carriage of metro style seating in the NGR sets. But overall his comments are valid.

[Gazza]

Feel free to disagree, but I don't think we need to represent Airtrains interests in terms of the GC line pairings.
They already get away with charging high fares and low service levels on what should have been public infrastructure, they don't need to be coddled.

IMO, a > $5bil tunnel project should focus on capacity and what is best for the network as a whole.
The airport line isn't heavily used, and it is a bit of a waste of tunnel capacity to have trains entering the portal having only stopped at 5 stations, so it's not something we want people to get defensive about, because the last thing we want is a track layout chosen that locks in that paradigm due to people from the GC complaining.
Much better to reserve the time savings and capacity from more heavily used, longer journey time lines.

It would be a bit silly to have consecutive sardine cans from Caboolture / SC / Redcliffe, interspersed with an airtrain carrying air.
Much better to give those paths over to relieving the northern lines instead.

[HappyTrainGuy]

Remember the airport line contract is Roma Street to Airport with a contract for Southbank-City re ticketing. As it is now it's already causing shorncliffe delays due to the flat junction which can't be fixed due to route timings.

[MTPCo]

For f^&k sake Bailey, just admit you are well beyond your depth with this project and employ the like of David Bannister to fix your half baked project, before us the tax payer, pay a hefty price in the long run. 

Recall that when the Minerva Plan was released in October 2020, the accompanying release made this offer:

Furthermore, to aid the Queensland Government amend the Cross River Rail design to meet the strategic needs our Director, David Bannister, will provide up to 10 days of services pro bono - at any point up until the end of March 2021 - as a way of giving back to the community during this time.

It was never acted upon.