Cross River Rail Project

[mufreight]

It would seem from reading some of the posts in this thread that there are a number of apparently ill founded suggestions that have not been thought through.
The two most frequent points are that the fact that there are sections of the metropolotan rail network that carry considerable volumes of freight and the costs of implementing a curfew so that passenger services can operate unimpeeded place that proposed suggestion in the unviable basket.
the second is that there is limited funding and if hundreds of millions are spent at this time on band aid solutions that may resolve a problem by moving it to another point in the network at the expense of other areas of the network then that will delay the priority work of providing additional infrastructure that by providing additional train paths accross the river and through the CBD will enable better levels of service that will resolve many of the problems further out in the system.
There are a number of ideas that contain some gems in themselves but do not provide accross the board resolutions to the network and service problems.
When there is an upgrade with a road millions are spent straightening out curves, yet when a rail upgrade is carried out we are still left with 50 and 60 Kph curves.

[somebody]

When there is an upgrade with a road millions are spent straightening out curves, yet when a rail upgrade is carried out we are still left with 50 and 60 Kph curves.

That's a real problem, and it's not just QR who does it this way.

[somebody]

I don't know of a ETA for Clapham stabling, the ICRCS states that it is required by 2015. It could be implemented reasonably quickly.

If it's just a matter of wiring unwired sidings, then it certainly could be implemented quickly.  Are these sidings unused now?  The only reason I can think of why they would be there is to support Acacia Ridge and/or Moolabin freight yards.  Same story with the unwired sidings near Corinda.

Clapham has a further disadvantage in being further away from Roma St than Mayne, but it would probably eventually be a price worth paying.

I still think that unless work is to start on Clapham stabling in the near future, a timetable review with crosses to the mains north of Bowen Hills is the best trade off.

[mufreight]

Clapham is currently used as a holding yard for freight rollingstock and to move this facility further away would require the construction of another facility (where?) and increasing the distance from the yards which it services adds to the increasing operating costs for freight which we all pay.
The entrance and exits are not conducive for use as a stabling point with bridges at both ends of a long yard which inhibit access so much more infrastructure work other than stringing up overhead would be required.

[somebody]

Clapham is currently used as a holding yard for freight rollingstock and to move this facility further away would require the construction of another facility (where?) and increasing the distance from the yards which it services adds to the increasing operating costs for freight which we all pay.
The entrance and exits are not conducive for use as a stabling point with bridges at both ends of a long yard which inhibit access so much more infrastructure work other than stringing up overhead would be required.

There you go.

What did the ICRS have to say about this point?

I don't see Thorneside stabling being useful between the AM & PM peaks as wouldn't that be an even further distance than going to Mayne via the Merivale Bridge and then the Tennyson loop?

I presume the same applies for the presently unwired sidings at Corinda?

[ozbob]

The sidings at Corinda are gone.  The new freight line, and siding and new third sub road in their place together with the Trackstar construction depot.

[somebody]

The sidings at Corinda are gone.  The new freight line, and siding and new third sub road in their place together with the Trackstar construction depot.

Is that right.  There was easily room for even 5 tracks with the majority of the sidings remaining.

[david]

The way that they have reconfigured Corinda would leave little hope of ever having even a mini stabling area there, unless they tore up the (new) freight tracks.

Thinking futuristically, IF they ever build the rail line from Springfield to Ipswich, a new massive depot could be built in the Ripley area - there's plenty of space out there...

[ozbob]

Corinda is now radically different.  Check out this thread for some photographs --> http://backontrack.org/mbs/index.php?topic=944.0

By the way the new freight line from Corinda to Darra has now reached past Cliveden Avenue road bridge about 300 metres before Oxley station.  Had a good look tonight on the 4.51pm.

[stephenk]

Clapham is currently used as a holding yard for freight rollingstock and to move this facility further away would require the construction of another facility (where?) and increasing the distance from the yards which it services adds to the increasing operating costs for freight which we all pay.
The entrance and exits are not conducive for use as a stabling point with bridges at both ends of a long yard which inhibit access so much more infrastructure work other than stringing up overhead would be required.

There you go.

What did the ICRS have to say about this point?

I'm sure Systemwide considered these issues, they do know what they are talking about! Freight was part of the study.
A 4th track is also planned through this area (ICRCS page 141), which would result in track reconfiguration.
Also, has anyone ever seen Clapham Yard full of freight?

I don't see Thorneside stabling being useful between the AM & PM peaks as wouldn't that be an even further distance than going to Mayne via the Merivale Bridge and then the Tennyson loop?

Going to Mayne via Tennyson involves 7 conflicting moves. You might as well take the train out of service at Roma Street. Again, stabling at Thorneside wouldn't be suggested in the ICRCS if it wasn't required!

Just out of interest, how many people on this forum have actually properly read the Inner City Rail Capacity Study?

[O_128]

Clapham is currently used as a holding yard for freight rollingstock and to move this facility further away would require the construction of another facility (where?) and increasing the distance from the yards which it services adds to the increasing operating costs for freight which we all pay.
The entrance and exits are not conducive for use as a stabling point with bridges at both ends of a long yard which inhibit access so much more infrastructure work other than stringing up overhead would be required.

There you go.

What did the ICRS have to say about this point?

I'm sure Systemwide considered these issues, they do know what they are talking about! Freight was part of the study.
A 4th track is also planned through this area (ICRCS page 141), which would result in track reconfiguration.
Also, has anyone ever seen Clapham Yard full of freight?

I don't see Thorneside stabling being useful between the AM & PM peaks as wouldn't that be an even further distance than going to Mayne via the Merivale Bridge and then the Tennyson loop?

Going to Mayne via Tennyson involves 7 conflicting moves. You might as well take the train out of service at Roma Street. Again, stabling at Thorneside wouldn't be suggested in the ICRCS if it wasn't required!

Just out of interest, how many people on this forum have actually properly read the Inner City Rail Capacity Study?

I have read the ICRCS though i doubt the Goverment has and Racheal Nohlan probably hasnt even heard of it. I have never seen clapham full usually there is one line of old wagons though if it is turned into passenger stabling it will be in need of a security overhaul. Thornside is also a good spot for stabling as it will also allow stabling for the beenleigh line if needed.

[Jon Bryant]

Stephenk et al

As I said earlier in this discussion.

Currently the process of planning transort is the assume that demand for public transport will grow rapidly but only to 15 or max 18% of trips and then supply enough road space for the other 85% or so to travel at peak hour.   Our approach to transport planning should be the reverse starting with identifying the maximum % of trips physically able to be made by public and active transport (approx 60-70%) and then build a public/active transport system to suport that and road space/parking to cater for the rest.  If the business case stacks up to build a road then PT should always beat it as it is a more efficient mode of moving people.  

Until we make this fundamental change in approach the PT system will always be under pressure and our road ways forever encouraging poeple to drive first.

and

Just to harp on my point.  If you go to the Appendix A - Passenger Demand.pdf the first point in the Methodology is
Quote
1. Service numbers were calculated using patronage compound annual growth rate (CAGR) by line from 2006 to 2016, and 2016 to 2026.

This is a flawed Methodology.  It assumes that growth is demand based when it is in fact supply based.  Supply the correct service (location, price, sfaety and frequency) whilst not over supplying road space/car parks and the demand will change mode.  The only demand growth should come from population growth.

Chris Hale put it beautifully in his article in yesterday's Courier Mail
Quote
"Sustainable places" will mean nominating a challenging target for the amount of travel we need occurring by walking, cycling and public transport in particular locations ? then designing and delivering the infrastructure and services required to support that aim

I also find the other Methodology point strange
Quote
3. Effort was made not to add services to corridors that are already at maximum capacity until absolutely necessary, as this would bring the requirement for new investment forward.
Can not have that now can we?

The planning for our transport systems is broken and will never deliver sustainable outcome because we are not defining sustainable targets. Chris Hale for Lord Mayor!!!

The assumption and growth numbers in this study (No I have not read every page as I have a problem with the initial assumptions but I am glad others have) are so low that I just wonder weather a holistic enough a perspective is being taken.  If we are to have 60%-70% of all trips across SEQ by PT/AT then our PT network needs to be deisgned from this perspective and then plans developed.  This includes making system changes (such as line straightening) to make the system as efficient as possible, staions designed to handles the volumes, stabling for all the trains designed/identified and separate/new freight lines, dry ports etc.  Until this end-goal planning starts then these projects are always going to be in catch up mode.

[somebody]

I'm sure Systemwide considered these issues, they do know what they are talking about! Freight was part of the study.
A 4th track is also planned through this area (ICRCS page 141), which would result in track reconfiguration.
Also, has anyone ever seen Clapham Yard full of freight?

Going to Mayne via Tennyson involves 7 conflicting moves. You might as well take the train out of service at Roma Street.

7 counting every single slightly used track, yes.  I agree that you might as well take the train out of service at Roma St.  Which takes us back to what I originally said.

Again, stabling at Thorneside wouldn't be suggested in the ICRCS if it wasn't required!

Isn't this for (a) early morning starters, (b) AM peak trains, (c) returning PM peak trains and (d) last service returns.  The Manly facility can at least handle (a) and (d), but not (b) and (c), so these currently need to run empty out of Mayne.  Isn't that what the Thorneside stabling is supposed to address?  

That's what I had assumed.

EDIT: I noticed that you didn't suggest using the existing facility at Manly between the AM and PM peaks.  Sure, it can only hold two trains, isn't Thorneside even further away as well as needing to negotiate some single track to get there?

Just out of interest, how many people on this forum have actually properly read the Inner City Rail Capacity Study?

Not I, otherwise I wouldn't have to ask these questions!  I've skimmed through the pre-feasibility report, but I am assuming there's a more full version somewhere around which I didn't find.

[stephenk]

I'm trying to find the link to the full version of the "Inner City Rail Capacity Study-Rail Operations Review" for those who haven't had the chance to read it, but cannot find it. Can anyone help?

[ozbob]

Documents -->  here!

[somebody]

Thanks, but a single pdf would be nice though, rather than 28.  It seems that there's a stage 3 document, perhaps I have the stage 1 doc.

I positively hate the 2026 options.  Great to service West End, but doesn't that cause a reduction in service to Milton & Auchenflower?  Are they then going to BUZ the 470?  The Newstead station adds only a small amount of value.

Regarding the 2016 option, the Spring Hill station adds a small amount of value, but Exhibition 2?  If it had a station which interchanged at Central, you could avoid Bowen Hills entirely and run to RB&WH then Eagle Jct.  And what about service to Dutton Park?  Are only Gold Coast trains taking the new tunnel?

[Arnz]

I think another service to a midway point (Manly, Kuraby - for example) would probably overlay the Gold Coast services for the 15 min off-peak frequency (assuming GC/Airport does take the tunnel route).

[stephenk]

I think another service to a midway point (Manly, Kuraby - for example) would probably overlay the Gold Coast services for the 15 min off-peak frequency (assuming GC/Airport does take the tunnel route).

The plan for 2015 (post tunnel) off-peak according to the ICRCS - Rail Operations Review is 4tph Cleveland, 4tph Beenleigh, 2tph Robina, 2tph Elanora.


Going back to increasing stabling away from Mayne, which would help resolve some current capacity issues (given that it not uncommon for trains to have to queue to get into Mayne after the am peak, as well as conflicting moves at Roma Street). The prices in ICRCS - Pre Feasibility show that adding stabling away from Mayne would be relatively cheap compared to other infrastructure projects.

Examples:
Thorneside additional stabling 10-20m
Clapham stabling 20-30m
Ipswich or Rosewood or Redbank additional stabling 20-50m
Caboolture additional stabling 10-20m
Petrie additional stabling 10-20m
Nambour additional stabling 10-20m
Banyo additional stabling 10-20m

Compared to some soon required track infrastructure projects:
Cleveland Line - 2 partial duplications 100-200m
Kuraby - Kingston triplication 200-300m
Richlands - Springfield 300-400m

Extra stabling away from Mayne would be just a drop in the ocean compared to the costs from other infrastructure projects. Whilst track infrastructure projects are urgently required, I think that the cost effectiveness of building more stabling away from Mayne may be quite attractive?

Discuss 

[O_128]

I think another service to a midway point (Manly, Kuraby - for example) would probably overlay the Gold Coast services for the 15 min off-peak frequency (assuming GC/Airport does take the tunnel route).

The plan for 2015 (post tunnel) off-peak according to the ICRCS - Rail Operations Review is 4tph Cleveland, 4tph Beenleigh, 2tph Robina, 2tph Elanora.


Going back to increasing stabling away from Mayne, which would help resolve some current capacity issues (given that it not uncommon for trains to have to queue to get into Mayne after the am peak, as well as conflicting moves at Roma Street). The prices in ICRCS - Pre Feasibility show that adding stabling away from Mayne would be relatively cheap compared to other infrastructure projects.

Examples:
Thorneside additional stabling 10-20m
Clapham stabling 20-30m
Ipswich or Rosewood or Redbank additional stabling 20-50m
Caboolture additional stabling 10-20m
Petrie additional stabling 10-20m
Nambour additional stabling 10-20m
Banyo additional stabling 10-20m

Compared to some soon required track infrastructure projects:
Cleveland Line - 2 partial duplications 100-200m
Kuraby - Kingston triplication 200-300m
Richlands - Springfield 300-400m

Extra stabling away from Mayne would be just a drop in the ocean compared to the costs from other infrastructure projects. Whilst track infrastructure projects are urgently required, I think that the cost effectiveness of building more stabling away from Mayne may be quite attractive?

Discuss 

most likely the thornside stabling will be combined with the duplication

[somebody]

Extra stabling away from Mayne would be just a drop in the ocean compared to the costs from other infrastructure projects. Whilst track infrastructure projects are urgently required, I think that the cost effectiveness of building more stabling away from Mayne may be quite attractive?

Discuss 

Doesn't this deserve it's own thread?  Extra stabling would have no effect whatsoever on whether the other projects are required, so a comparison of costs is not relevant.

The main advantage of the additional stabling is in saving crew wages from running around empty sets so much, so the relevant comparison is how much empty running could be removed by it.  The current traffic jams after the AM peak getting in to Mayne would be aleviated by improving off peak frequencies, but I'm not sure by how much.

[stephenk]

 Extra stabling would have no effect whatsoever on whether the other projects are required, so a comparison of costs is not relevant.

It does have an effect if the use of extra stabling lessens the need for another more expensive infrastructure project.  As there is currently a limited pot of money, infrastructure projects may have to be looked at individually on their cost/benefit ratio.

So if a peak ex Ferny Grove train can run to an extra stabling siding at Thorneside, it could potentially reduce 3 conflicting moves at Roma Street (with obvious capacity, reliability, and timetabling benefits).

If an ex Cleveland train can run to an extra stabling siding at Banyo instead of Mayne, it may solve problems with queues into Mayne (which have recently resulted in trains having to be sent to Mitchelton or Northgate and back through the city just to get into Mayne to avoid blocking back!).

Neither of these require any extra infrastructure other than the stabling siding.

[somebody]

It does have an effect if the use of extra stabling lessens the need for another more expensive infrastructure project. 

I don't see how that is possible.

(which have recently resulted in trains having to be sent to Mitchelton or Northgate and back through the city just to get into Mayne to avoid blocking back!).

I've heard.  Another aspect of running such a crappy off peak service not saving much money.

[stephenk]

It does have an effect if the use of extra stabling lessens the need for another more expensive infrastructure project.  

I don't see how that is possible.

Read the ICRCS - Rail Operations Review again. You will notice that provision and location of stabling is quite critical to good rail operations. In most cases the alternative infrastructure project is not listed as the provision of extra stabling is a no-brainer.

If you have the scenario of a network at breaking point, limited funding, and you want to reduce conflicting moves at Roma Street to free up some track capacity - are going to a) send trains to stabling in Thorneside for $10m, b) send trains onto Beenleigh Line possibly requiring a grade separated junction at Park Rd for $300m, c) build a new rail tunnel under Brisbane for $5000m?

[somebody]

If you have the scenario of a network at breaking point, limited funding, and you want to reduce conflicting moves at Roma Street to free up some track capacity - are going to a) send trains to stabling in Thorneside for $10m, b) send trains onto Beenleigh Line possibly requiring a grade separated junction at Park Rd for $300m, c) build a new rail tunnel under Brisbane for $5000m?

Sorry, but wouldn't running to Thorneside put every bit as much pressure on Park Rd junction as compared to the Beenleigh line when the trains have to return in the PM peak?  The pressure is applied at a different time, that's the only difference, unless you run to Thorneside at the end of the AM peak, then return to Mayne in the middle of the day, then come out for the PM peak service.  That requires a lot of empty running.  There's already stabling at Beenleigh, Robina & a bit at Manly, nothing is stopping them from using these facilities between the AM & PM peaks other than the economics of that amount of empty running.

[O_128]

If you have the scenario of a network at breaking point, limited funding, and you want to reduce conflicting moves at Roma Street to free up some track capacity - are going to a) send trains to stabling in Thorneside for $10m, b) send trains onto Beenleigh Line possibly requiring a grade separated junction at Park Rd for $300m, c) build a new rail tunnel under Brisbane for $5000m?

Sorry, but wouldn't running to Thorneside put every bit as much pressure on Park Rd junction as compared to the Beenleigh line when the trains have to return in the PM peak?  The pressure is applied at a different time, that's the only difference, unless you run to Thorneside at the end of the AM peak, then return to Mayne in the middle of the day, then come out for the PM peak service.  That requires a lot of empty running.  There's already stabling at Beenleigh, Robina & a bit at Manly, nothing is stopping them from using these facilities between the AM & PM peaks other than the economics of that amount of empty running.

there are plans to fix up the junction

[stephenk]

If you have the scenario of a network at breaking point, limited funding, and you want to reduce conflicting moves at Roma Street to free up some track capacity - are going to a) send trains to stabling in Thorneside for $10m, b) send trains onto Beenleigh Line possibly requiring a grade separated junction at Park Rd for $300m, c) build a new rail tunnel under Brisbane for $5000m?

Sorry, but wouldn't running to Thorneside put every bit as much pressure on Park Rd junction as compared to the Beenleigh line when the trains have to return in the PM peak?  The pressure is applied at a different time, that's the only difference, unless you run to Thorneside at the end of the AM peak, then return to Mayne in the middle of the day, then come out for the PM peak service.  That requires a lot of empty running.  There's already stabling at Beenleigh, Robina & a bit at Manly, nothing is stopping them from using these facilities between the AM & PM peaks other than the economics of that amount of empty running.

there are plans to fix up the junction

The ICRCS proposes a grade-seperated junction at Park Rd by 2010, but mentions that 4 extra sidings on the Cleveland Line would defer this. Another option is timetabling parallel junction movements, but this is difficult when there are lots of other bottlenecks that affect timetabling such as single track sections. Whether SEQUIP have thought about it is another matter - I don't think it will happen.

[mufreight]

If would seem apparent that SEQUIP is sadly lacking in staff with any practical knowledge of the operation of rail systems and the variables that come from day to day commuter operations.
Perhaps the system would work better if SEQUIP were to outline what was desireable but then allow the rail operators to design and set the timing for the provision of rail infrastructure needed for the provision of the required level of commuter services.
Another argument for the government to give QR Passenger full control of and responsibility for the commuter network.

[paulg]

Anyone with an interest in the Cross River Rail project might like to attend this seminar:
http://www.ats.org.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=435&Itemid=13

Cheers, Paul

[O_128]

If you have the scenario of a network at breaking point, limited funding, and you want to reduce conflicting moves at Roma Street to free up some track capacity - are going to a) send trains to stabling in Thorneside for $10m, b) send trains onto Beenleigh Line possibly requiring a grade separated junction at Park Rd for $300m, c) build a new rail tunnel under Brisbane for $5000m?

Sorry, but wouldn't running to Thorneside put every bit as much pressure on Park Rd junction as compared to the Beenleigh line when the trains have to return in the PM peak?  The pressure is applied at a different time, that's the only difference, unless you run to Thorneside at the end of the AM peak, then return to Mayne in the middle of the day, then come out for the PM peak service.  That requires a lot of empty running.  There's already stabling at Beenleigh, Robina & a bit at Manly, nothing is stopping them from using these facilities between the AM & PM peaks other than the economics of that amount of empty running.

there are plans to fix up the junction

The ICRCS proposes a grade-seperated junction at Park Rd by 2010, but mentions that 4 extra sidings on the Cleveland Line would defer this. Another option is timetabling parallel junction movements, but this is difficult when there are lots of other bottlenecks that affect timetabling such as single track sections. Whether SEQUIP have thought about it is another matter - I don't think it will happen.

oh good so i should be seeing some construction soon lol. Why isnt the department responsible for this study just made into the actaul planning department it must be frustrating to make these reports and nothing comes of them

[paulg]

I received the following response from the Cross River Rail team on the proposal outlined in my Oct 6 post.
I was heartened that at least they say they are considering the need for rail/bus interchanging in the CBD.
If they don't get this right, they will lose a lot of flexibility in the system.
Eg if they use either of the alignments suggested in the ICRCS, it won't be possible to get from any of the SE Busway or Northern Busway stations to the Airport without 2 changes of services.

Dear Mr Guard

Thank you for your email of 6 October 2009 with suggestions following your review of the lnner City
Rail Capacity Study Technical Pre-Feasibility Report (October 2008) for an alternative rail route and
maximising connectivity between existing rail and bus stations. As you would have read in the report,
the Inner City Rail Capacity Study identified the need for new inner city rail infrastructure by 2016 to
meet growing rail demand in south east Queensland and identified three possible rail corridor options.
The Department of Transport and Main Roads has recently established the Cross River Rail project
team to continue detailed planning of this important transformation of the rail network. Cross River
Rail will introduce a new rail line in the inner city (including a new river crossing) and new inner city
rail stations, meaning more frequent trains and better services for all of south east Queensland's rail
users. The project is envisaged to be built by 2016, subject to funding and other approvals.
In this current detailed feasibility phase, due for completion in mid-2011, the project team will
investigate ways to improve the affordability of already identified and new options.
In line with your suggestion, utilisation of the Exhibition Loop was considered as part of the Inner
City Rail Capacity Study given the potential to reduce the length of tunnelling and reduce costs. The
Exhibition Loop is also recognised as the key regional freight network link from the north to the Port
of Brisbane and Acacia Ridge intermodal terminal to the south. The study identified additional track
would be required just to service future freight demand in this section.
There are a range of technical and infrastructure constraints with the Exhibition Loop including
operational gradient limitations for trains and the location of major underground infrastructure
including the S1 Sewer. These constraints and ways to mitigate them will be assessed in more detail
during the detailed feasibility as part of investigating opportunities for more affordable options.
I acknowledge your comment regarding the need for maximum rail and bus interchange flexibility.
Maximising integration with the existing public transport network is a fundamental part of this
project as demonstrated with the new connections proposed to rail and bus networks at Park Road
and Woolloongabba. Service interchanging at other locations such as the CBD will be assessed as
part of the detailed feasibility.
Thank you for your interest in Cross River Rail. The project team will keep you informed of
opportunities to be involved during the planning. however if you require further information at
anytime please call 1800462730* or email the team at info@crossriverrail.qld.gov.au.

Luke Franzmann
Project Director

[ozbob]

Your original post http://backontrack.org/mbs/index.php?topic=2034.msg14484#msg14484  did raise some important considerations.

Thanks for sharing your responses Paul.

Clearly, this project is a critical determinant for public transport in South East Queensland.   

[stephenk]

I received the following response from the Cross River Rail team on the proposal outlined in my Oct 6 post.
I was heartened that at least they say they are considering the need for rail/bus interchanging in the CBD.
If they don't get this right, they will lose a lot of flexibility in the system.
Eg if they use either of the alignments suggested in the ICRCS, it won't be possible to get from any of the SE Busway or Northern Busway stations to the Airport without 2 changes of services.

Dear Mr Guard

Thank you for your email of 6 October 2009 with suggestions following your review of the lnner City
Rail Capacity Study Technical Pre-Feasibility Report (October 2008) for an alternative rail route and
maximising connectivity between existing rail and bus stations. As you would have read in the report,
the Inner City Rail Capacity Study identified the need for new inner city rail infrastructure by 2016 to
meet growing rail demand in south east Queensland and identified three possible rail corridor options.
The Department of Transport and Main Roads has recently established the Cross River Rail project
team to continue detailed planning of this important transformation of the rail network. Cross River
Rail will introduce a new rail line in the inner city (including a new river crossing) and new inner city
rail stations, meaning more frequent trains and better services for all of south east Queensland's rail
users. The project is envisaged to be built by 2016, subject to funding and other approvals.
In this current detailed feasibility phase, due for completion in mid-2011, the project team will
investigate ways to improve the affordability of already identified and new options.
In line with your suggestion, utilisation of the Exhibition Loop was considered as part of the Inner
City Rail Capacity Study given the potential to reduce the length of tunnelling and reduce costs. The
Exhibition Loop is also recognised as the key regional freight network link from the north to the Port
of Brisbane and Acacia Ridge intermodal terminal to the south. The study identified additional track
would be required just to service future freight demand in this section.
There are a range of technical and infrastructure constraints with the Exhibition Loop including
operational gradient limitations for trains and the location of major underground infrastructure
including the S1 Sewer. These constraints and ways to mitigate them will be assessed in more detail
during the detailed feasibility as part of investigating opportunities for more affordable options.
I acknowledge your comment regarding the need for maximum rail and bus interchange flexibility.
Maximising integration with the existing public transport network is a fundamental part of this
project as demonstrated with the new connections proposed to rail and bus networks at Park Road
and Woolloongabba. Service interchanging at other locations such as the CBD will be assessed as
part of the detailed feasibility.
Thank you for your interest in Cross River Rail. The project team will keep you informed of
opportunities to be involved during the planning. however if you require further information at
anytime please call 1800462730* or email the team at info@crossriverrail.qld.gov.au.

Luke Franzmann
Project Director

The "ICRCS - Pre Feasibility Report" explains in detail why alignments using part of the existing Ekka Loop, or adding extra tracks to the current alignment are not favourable. However, I cannot see any information on why an interchange at Central isn't on any of the proposals.

[O_128]

I received the following response from the Cross River Rail team on the proposal outlined in my Oct 6 post.
I was heartened that at least they say they are considering the need for rail/bus interchanging in the CBD.
If they don't get this right, they will lose a lot of flexibility in the system.
Eg if they use either of the alignments suggested in the ICRCS, it won't be possible to get from any of the SE Busway or Northern Busway stations to the Airport without 2 changes of services.

Dear Mr Guard

Thank you for your email of 6 October 2009 with suggestions following your review of the lnner City
Rail Capacity Study Technical Pre-Feasibility Report (October 2008) for an alternative rail route and
maximising connectivity between existing rail and bus stations. As you would have read in the report,
the Inner City Rail Capacity Study identified the need for new inner city rail infrastructure by 2016 to
meet growing rail demand in south east Queensland and identified three possible rail corridor options.
The Department of Transport and Main Roads has recently established the Cross River Rail project
team to continue detailed planning of this important transformation of the rail network. Cross River
Rail will introduce a new rail line in the inner city (including a new river crossing) and new inner city
rail stations, meaning more frequent trains and better services for all of south east Queensland's rail
users. The project is envisaged to be built by 2016, subject to funding and other approvals.
In this current detailed feasibility phase, due for completion in mid-2011, the project team will
investigate ways to improve the affordability of already identified and new options.
In line with your suggestion, utilisation of the Exhibition Loop was considered as part of the Inner
City Rail Capacity Study given the potential to reduce the length of tunnelling and reduce costs. The
Exhibition Loop is also recognised as the key regional freight network link from the north to the Port
of Brisbane and Acacia Ridge intermodal terminal to the south. The study identified additional track
would be required just to service future freight demand in this section.
There are a range of technical and infrastructure constraints with the Exhibition Loop including
operational gradient limitations for trains and the location of major underground infrastructure
including the S1 Sewer. These constraints and ways to mitigate them will be assessed in more detail
during the detailed feasibility as part of investigating opportunities for more affordable options.
I acknowledge your comment regarding the need for maximum rail and bus interchange flexibility.
Maximising integration with the existing public transport network is a fundamental part of this
project as demonstrated with the new connections proposed to rail and bus networks at Park Road
and Woolloongabba. Service interchanging at other locations such as the CBD will be assessed as
part of the detailed feasibility.
Thank you for your interest in Cross River Rail. The project team will keep you informed of
opportunities to be involved during the planning. however if you require further information at
anytime please call 1800462730* or email the team at info@crossriverrail.qld.gov.au.

Luke Franzmann
Project Director

The "ICRCS - Pre Feasibility Report" explains in detail why alignments using part of the existing Ekka Loop, or adding extra tracks to the current alignment are not favourable. However, I cannot see any information on why an interchange at Central isn't on any of the proposals.

an interchange with central or roma street is definently needed especially for tourists

[mufreight]

An Interchange at Central for rail to rail is logical, the route via the Gabba would give a rail / bus interchange there and a further bus rail interchange at Boen Bridge Road would also provide a station for commuters for RBH and the Exhibition.

[somebody]

An Interchange at Central for rail to rail is logical, the route via the Gabba would give a rail / bus interchange there and a further bus rail interchange at Boen Bridge Road would also provide a station for commuters for RBH and the Exhibition.

I would expect Woolloongabba to be an unimportant bus station by 2016.  The Eastern Busway should take most of the services, and Ipswich Rd services one would expect that by then they'd think to use the O'Keefe St portal from the Boggo Rd busway.  Presumably they will extend some Cultural Centre terminators there.

I hadn't thought about Exhibition offerring bus/rail interchange though.  If that could work that's a nice idea.

Loss of interchange at South Bank, Roma St and Central are major negatives to this whole plan.

[#Metro]

So is this going to be an
- underground tunnel
- a tunnel and submerged tube
- a bridge?

Is a Woolloongabba-Kangaroo Pt- New Bridge- Fortitude Valley-CBD option possible?

Just thinking, it it were above ground you could probably get a busway/cycleway and walkway on a bridge.
Might even cost the same or less than a tunnel.

Just an idea.

[somebody]

So is this going to be an
- underground tunnel
- a tunnel and submerged tube
- a bridge?

Is a Woolloongabba-Kangaroo Pt- New Bridge- Fortitude Valley-CBD option possible?

Just thinking, it it were above ground you could probably get a busway/cycleway and walkway on a bridge.
Might even cost the same or less than a tunnel.

Just an idea.

An underground tunnel.  They are concerned about flood damaging a submerged tube.

Going via Kangaroo Pt and FV would be just as indirect as the current route.

[paulg]

I attended the Australasian Tunnelling Society presentation last night, Luke Franzmann talked about where they are at with this project.

It seems they have not yet narrowed the scope of the investigation (ie many options still on the table, including some not considered in the ICRCS).

They are supposed to have a reference design, EIS and business case prepared by the end of next year, with construction commencing in 2011. Sounds ambitious to me!

They are aiming to identify a preferred alignment by the end of this year, and start work on the reference design in the new year. There was mention of trying to find lower cost solutions and staging opportunities (eg delaying the construction of some of the new stations). Some concepts for redevelopment and reconfiguration of the Wooloongabba bus-rail interchange were presented.

I did ask about the tunnelling methodology, and was told that they hadn't ruled out a shallower tunnel (they are looking to identify a preferred alignment first).

I do hope that once they have identified the alignment there is some scope for including an interchange with either Central or Roma Street. Otherwise I think this project could be a backwards step in terms of overall network efficiency.

Cheers, Paul

[somebody]

paulg,
Did they say anything about where the tunnel would need to emerge on the north side or are they still thinking Eagle Junction or nearby?

Good to hear that they haven't ruled out other alignements, but it seems to be an unpleasant problem.  Perhaps two stations: Central AND Edward St might have to be the compromise.

[paulg]

They did say that they were talking to QR about relaxing the max grade requirement and the implications for rolling stock (I think they said currently working with max 2% grade?). This would allow a shorter tunnel and earlier daylighting (perhaps onto the Exhibition loop).

Cheers