Cross River Rail Project

[mufreight]

It looks to me like the old platforms will remain in place, awaiting reinstatement of services via Tennyson, which will be much more feasible after CRR due to the spare capacity on Merivale bridge and elimination of junction conflicts with much of the Gold Coast / Beenleigh traffic.  There will remain an at grade crossing of the dual gauge freight line, but it would be feasible to grade separate even that by raising the dual gauge line up onto a viaduct to fly over the lines toward Tennyson from Yeerongpilly.

Sorry to rain on your parade ColinW, in theory the concept of a flyover for the DG line is great but simply can not be done.
Thr ruling grade coming up from Clapham would reduce the trailing loads for freight to Fishermans Island to an impractical load.
There is not sufficent room to construct such a flyover without first moving Fairfield Road and the recently constructed rail welding plant would also need to be relocated.
To the Eastern side of Yeerongpilly the junctions for the NG access to the DG would also need to be relocated, an almost impossible task given the confined width of the corridor at that point.
The option exists to underground that stretch of the DG line rather than construct a flyover which would resolve the problems of grade and the relocation of the rail welding plant but amplifies the problems of NG access to the DG line

[colinw]

Ok, possibly not feasible then.  That puts that one to bed.

Dutton Park:
http://www.nearmap.com/?ll=-27.497489,153.030925&z=17&t=h&nmd=20100912

Yeerongpilly:
http://www.nearmap.com/?ll=-27.528938,153.013533&z=17&t=h&nmd=20100912

Looks to me like a comparable distance available to climb up to a viaduct, but space within the rail corridor is limited and it would interfere badly with the plans for stabling and a flyover to Clapham.

[mufreight]

The grade on the DG line from Clapham up to Yeerongpilly is pretty severe and having worked trains out of Clapham to South Brisbane when it was a SG only line with steam it was treated as a momentum grade for a loaded train, unless there was a clear road through Yeerongpilly it was not even attempted, to put a flyover would increase the grade to something like 1 in 30, while sparks running on the DG could cope with that the potential problems with even diesel hauled freighters dont bear thinking about.

[colinw]

Yeah, Clapham is a fair bit lower than Moorooka  The QR Metropolitan System Information Pack shows a max gradient of 1 in 93 between Rocklea & the junction of the line to Tennyson, but that is via the "high level" at Moorooka and doesn't take into account the lower elevation of Clapham.

Page 86 of this PDF file:
http://www.queenslandrail.com.au/NetworkServices/Documents/Metropolitan%20System%20Information%20Pack%20-%20Issue%202%20-%20Sept%202007.pdf

I can't find anything covering the DG line through Clapham.

Interestingly it shows that the DG flyover at Park Road does the job with a max gradient of 1 in 50 on the Buranda side, and 1 in 73 approaching from Dutton Park direction.

[mufreight]

The predominate loadings are travelling in the Dutton Park to Buranda direction also the 1in50 from the Buranda direction is effectively a shorter grade with the approach to the grade being almost level in comparison to the grade from Fairfield to Dutton Park.

[paulg]

I've been looking through the Reference Design Overview (http://www.crossriverrail.qld.gov.au/images/stories/reference_design/pdf_cross_river_rail_reference_design_overview.pdf) and I'm still no closer to understanding why they want to build four new platforms at Yeerongpilly instead of just two. The existing platforms are actually completely unused in the proposed design (see pages 38-39 and page 74). Why on earth do they need to cause so much disruption to the community (and potentially create opposition to the project) when they appear to have two spare platforms there sitting unused? Any ideas?

I have found some partial answers to this question in the Southern Portal Location Options Report (http://www.crossriverrail.qld.gov.au/images/stories/Pdf_cross_river_rail_southern_portal_location_options.pdf):
In the list of design factors on page 55:
"Allow for future upgrade of Yeerongpilly Suburban platforms to receive longer train sets (this cannot be achieved at the existing platform location due to constrained railway corridor, and necessitates a relocated Suburban platform)."
"Removing clash between freight and passenger services through platforms (currently freight trains run through Yeerongpilly platforms, which is both a safety risk and operational restriction)."
And on page 57:
"The proposed platforms are located clear of the existing rail corridor to enable 'off-line' construction with minimal disruption to rail operations, including freight services."

I still think that they would be better off reducing the amount of land resumption and making do with the existing platforms for the suburban lines. There is no need to accommodate longer trainsets on those lines since none of the other stations City-Beenleigh will be able to take them without total rebuild. Maybe some thought needs to be put into the freight train paths, not sure how these work at the moment.

Cheers, Paul

[somebody]

I still think that they would be better off reducing the amount of land resumption and making do with the existing platforms for the suburban lines. There is no need to accommodate longer trainsets on those lines since none of the other stations City-Beenleigh will be able to take them without total rebuild. Maybe some thought needs to be put into the freight train paths, not sure how these work at the moment.

I fully agree with this.  What a stupid plan they have formulated!  Rebuild the stations to be capable of being rebuilt again in the future to support something they will likely never require, but don't build for the implausible requirement now because we won't need it for the foreseeable future.

[colinw]

But Minister, it would be brave to change that decision.

[SteelPan]

Already I tremble at what the unique QLD approach to this piece of infrastructure will, in truth, deliver! 

[ozbob]

Joint Statement:

Premier and Minister for the Arts
The Honourable Anna Bligh

Minister for Infrastructure and Planning
The Honourable Stirling Hinchliffe
23/12/2010

Cross River Rail heads funding bid

The Cross River Rail project has topped the State Government's 2011 funding submission to Infrastructure Australia (IA).

In announcing Queensland's list of projects for potential Federal Government funding in 2011, Premier Anna Bligh said Cross River Rail met IA's key goal of funding projects that could build national productivity and transform cities.

Ms Bligh said the project was one of a number that would benefit the entire state and Australia as a whole. These key projects also include the private sector Mount Isa to Townsville High Voltage Electricity Transmission Line (CopperString).

"By 2026, South East Queensland will be home to one in seven Australians, and we need to ensure that key pieces of infrastructure are planned for now," she said.

"Cross River Rail is Queensland's highest priority for consideration for Australian Government funding. It's a project of national significance and will make Queenslandamore internationally competitive place.

"Infrastructure Australia has already recognised this by contributing $20 million towards the detailed feasibility study.

"Our submission also supports major private and national initiatives throughout the state which will create a new industrial and transport hub for large-scale industries, as an integral part of our Northern Economic Triangle (NET) initiative.

"The Mount Isa to Townsville High Voltage Electricity Transmission Line (CopperString) project, a private sector proposal, will support the NET initiative and presents an opportunity to improve the efficiency and productivity of Queensland's principal mineral mining region.''

Meeting IA's reform agenda for freight is new project, the Warrego Highway Upgrade Program. This project joins the previously submitted Toowoomba Second Range Road Crossing and the Gateway Motorway Upgrade North projects for which the State Government will continue to seek financial support.

The two Toowoomba projects will play a vital role in supporting future economic development associated with the Surat Basin and other coal and energy sectors.

Minister for Infrastructure and Planning Stirling Hinchliffe said with an estimated 1000 additional trucks per day expected to use the Warrego Highway as a result of coal and LNG developments in the Surat Basin, a second range crossing would reduce stress on the already busy road.

He said it would also provide a faster and safer route by reducing gradients and diverting traffic from urban areas.

The full project list is as follows:

Queensland Government submission - priority projects

Cross River Rail
Eastern Busway

Private sector and national submissions of significance to Queensland

Abbot Point Multi-Purpose Cargo Facility
Mount Isa to Townsville High Voltage Electricity Transmission Line (CopperString Project)

National Managed Motorways

Infrastructure to Support Indigenous Communities

Queensland Government submission - projects for inclusion in the Pipeline

Toowoomba Second Range Crossing
Freight Connections to State Development Areas
Warrego Highway Upgrade Program (Helidon - Morven) - Stage 1
Gateway Motorway Upgrade North (Nudgee Road - Bruce Highway)

Other Queensland projects in the Pipeline

Bruce Highway Corridor Upgrades
Pacific Motorway Upgrades
Port of Brisbane Motorway
Gold Coast Heavy Rail Capacity Upgrades and Extension to Elanora
Mount Isa to Townsville Rail Corridor (Plus Eastern Access Co rridor)
Darra to Springfield Rail and Road Project
Moreton Bay Rail

==============================================================

[Golliwog]

As if this wasn't going to come. Major positive though that Brisbane times is merely reporting it as the RACQ's opinion

===============================
Available at: Brisbane Times

Underground rail funding at top of state's wish list
Tony Moore
December 23, 2010 - 1:38PM

Brisbane's $8 billion underground rail project has been put at the top of a wish list for federal funding by the state government.

But the second position of another public transport project, the Eastern Busway, has raised the ire of Queensland's peak motoring body.

The RACQ said while it agreed that the underground rail was a deserved number one, several road projects should be ahead of the busway in the state government's Infrastructure Australia 'wish list'.

RACQ external relations general manager Paul Turner said the Queensland government should place the Warrego Highway, the Toowoomba Bypass and the Gateway North Upgrade ahead of the Eastern Busway on their list of priorities.

''They should be two, three and four,'' he said this morning.

Mr Turner said it was a bigger debate than simply road projects over public transport projects.

''Both the Warrego and the Toowoomba Range Crossing are now gateways to what will be a significant economic region for Queensland in decades ahead,'' he said.

''That is the Bowen Basin and Toowoomba is also a gateway to road traffic from the south.''

Mr Turner said these road projects added economic value to nearby mining projects, while the Eastern Busway from Stones Corner to Capalaba, a commuter link, should have a lower priority.

''If you are going to prioritise, you go with the 'must-haves' first, and the 'nice to haves' second," he said.

''And we believe those three roads are must haves.''

Premier Anna Bligh today released Queensland's requests for federal funding to Infrastructure Australia, the body that complies a national priority list of infrastructure projects around the country.

Successful requests for funding will be announced mid-next year, around the time of the release of the federal budget.

The Cross River Rail Project is desperately needed to keep pace with southeast Queensland's growing population, Ms Bligh said.

"Cross River Rail is Queensland's highest priority for consideration for Australian government funding," she said.

"It's a project of national significance and will make Queensland a more internationally competitive place.''

The Cross River Rail project will involve the construction of four underground stations around inner Brisbane, including at Albert Street in the CBD; near the Roma Street station; at Woolloongabba; and at the Boggo Road Urban Village in Dutton Park.

In 2009, the federal government provided $20 million to scope out the potential of the project, but it now needs significant federal and private sector funding to make it viable, Ms Bligh said.

Final plans for the project were released last month.

Mr Turner said the RACQ strongly supported the Cross River Rail as Queensland's number one funding request.

''We understand that is a major funding commitment and it is obviously a significant funding submision from the state government and we understand its position as number one," he said.

Queensland's submission for the project put a request for funds for the next stages of the Eastern Busway at number two on the wish list.

Backing for north Queensland projects was also sought, Ms Bligh said.

Queensland's wish list for federal funding:

1. Cross River Rail
2. Eastern Busway
3. Abbot Point Multi-Purpose Cargo Facility
4. Mount Isa to Townsville High Voltage Electricity Transmission Line
5. Toowoomba Second Range Crossing
6. Warrego Highway Upgrade Program (Helidon - Morven) - Stage 1
7. Gateway Motorway Upgrade North (Nudgee Road - Bruce Highway)
8. Bruce Highway Corridor Upgrades
9. Pacific Motorway Upgrades
10. Port of Brisbane Motorway
11. Gold Coast Heavy Rail Capacity Upgrades and Extension to Elanora
12. Mount Isa to Townsville Rail Corridor (plus Eastern Access Corridor)
13. Darra to Springfield Rail and Road Project
14. Moreton Bay Rail

[#Metro]

Acually Mr RACQ, the Sunshine Coast should Line be on there at no#2.

[Gazza]

I would like to see CAMCOS done as the next extension to the rail network since it opens up a whole region.

But at the present time, once CRR and MBRL are underway I think the next priority for the rail network should be rooting out all the current bottlenecks that prevent proper frequency....Duplication to Cleveland, Duplication to Shorncliffe, Duplicate Coomera-Helensvale, Triplicate onwards from Kuraby to wherever it necessary...I'm not to familiar with the North, so do whatever needs to be done up there too.
All this should be done ahead of any extensions to the network (Eg Cooloongatta, Beaudesert Corridor, Trouts Rd Corridor etc) and indeed ahead of busway extensions too.

[#Metro]

Maybe it could be packaged as a "Brisbane general network capacity expansion" for IA.
Though I really think something like that is a state responsibility.

It could be all those works plus and upgrade to signaling to increase capacity. Though it would have to be justified pretty rigorously.
The absence of Sunshine Coast anywhere on the IA list... 

[#Metro]

All this should be done ahead of any extensions to the network (Eg Cooloongatta, Beaudesert Corridor, Trouts Rd Corridor etc) and indeed ahead of busway extensions too.

T2 lanes during peak hour might be a stop-gap measure here to buy time while funds are scraped.

[WTN]

Acually Mr RACQ, the Sunshine Coast should Line be on there at no#2.

Totally agree!!! A very noticable absence. Plus the Gateway Motorway, Bruce Highway and Pacific Motorway should be crossed off the list. Roll on the mass rail upgrades instead.

[#Metro]

Totally agree!!! A very noticable absence. Plus the Gateway Motorway, Bruce Highway and Pacific Motorway should be crossed off the list. Roll on the mass rail upgrades instead.

What, ANOTHER Gateway motorway & Pacific motorway upgrade. These have required continual non-stop upgrading since they were constructed!

[O_128]

Totally agree!!! A very noticable absence. Plus the Gateway Motorway, Bruce Highway and Pacific Motorway should be crossed off the list. Roll on the mass rail upgrades instead.

What, ANOTHER Gateway motorway & Pacific motorway upgrade. These have required continual non-stop upgrading since they were constructed!

WTF i have lived in Brisbane for 10 years and construction has not stopped on these highways

[WTN]

All three motorways have seen upgrades recently (within the last 10 years or less). If only our railway lines are upgraded like that.

[somebody]

All three motorways have seen upgrades recently (within the last 10 years or less). If only our railway lines are upgraded like that.

What for?  We already have a quad track rail line with a half hourly weekend service.

[#Metro]

To get rid of single track. Although I would rather have more frequent services, although that doesn't seem to be an option either.
Could you imagine the uproar if the government had sections of motorway that were single lane?
Could you even begin to imagine it???

And yet this seems to be perfectly fine on the rail network, along with horrible 30 minute service frequency.

Yes, it is expensive. But no expense is spared on the motorway upgrades which routinely seem to run into triple digit millions or billions.

[Gazza]

Could you imagine the uproar if the government had sections of motorway that were single lane?

http://maps.google.com.au/?ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Queensland+4073&ll=-27.654835,152.92733&spn=0.028281,0.066047&t=h&z=15&layer=c&cbll=-27.654835,152.92733&panoid=SmlkgoAw-fc3rZbmIzjB_Q&cbp=12,228.43,,0,4.12

http://maps.google.com.au/?ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Queensland+4073&ll=-26.528379,153.07179&spn=0.00359,0.008256&t=h&z=18&layer=c&cbll=-26.528379,153.07179&panoid=5gR6YYycEyQrnA4TdhMOiA&cbp=12,198.74,,0,-1.61

[WTN]

Yes, frequency is a problem, but slow single track sections don't help!

[#Metro]

Wow, you have got to be kidding!
Where is my RACQ membership form... 

[somebody]

To get rid of single track. Although I would rather have more frequent services, although that doesn't seem to be an option either.

That's what they would tell us, that it isn't possible.

[mufreight]

To get rid of single track. Although I would rather have more frequent services, although that doesn't seem to be an option either.

That's what they would tell us, that it isn't possible.

Duplicating the single track sections makes higher frequency possible.   

[somebody]

Duplicating the single track sections makes higher frequency possible.   

As compared to what is possible without the duplications?  Of course.

You aren't saying that higher frequency isn't possible without the duplications though are you?  May be difficult beyond Beerburrum & Manly.

[mufreight]

North of Beerburrum at the curent levels of traffic it is almost impossible to provide any consistent increase in frequency without duplication or at a minimum selected lengths of track as passing lanes, while with freight services the timetabling is somewhat elastic and time lost waiting for a crossing or passing movement with another service this is not acceptable with the operation of passenger services where a delay has further carry on effects on the rest of the passenger network.

[somebody]

North of Beerburrum at the curent levels of traffic it is almost impossible to provide any consistent increase in frequency without duplication or at a minimum selected lengths of track as passing lanes, while with freight services the timetabling is somewhat elastic and time lost waiting for a crossing or passing movement with another service this is not acceptable with the operation of passenger services where a delay has further carry on effects on the rest of the passenger network.

Pretty sure I already agreed that it would be difficult there.

Yes, frequency is a problem, but slow single track sections don't help!

A single track section isn't necessarily slow.  Coomera-Helensvale is an example of a fast single track section.

[Gazza]

I've had numerous times when I've been commuting reverse peak, and have been delayed 15 minutes or more at Helenvale/Coomera waiting for the peak direction train to cross  Any sort of delay on the line causes this to happen.

[somebody]

I've had numerous times when I've been commuting reverse peak, and have been delayed 15 minutes or more at Helenvale/Coomera waiting for the peak direction train to cross   Any sort of delay on the line causes this to happen.

Is the Salisbury-Kuraby triple any help here?  Although I'm not sure why you'd be delayed so long in any event.

[mufreight]

North of Beerburrum at the curent levels of traffic it is almost impossible to provide any consistent increase in frequency without duplication or at a minimum selected lengths of track as passing lanes, while with freight services the timetabling is somewhat elastic and time lost waiting for a crossing or passing movement with another service this is not acceptable with the operation of passenger services where a delay has further carry on effects on the rest of the passenger network.

Pretty sure I already agreed that it would be difficult there.

Yes, frequency is a problem, but slow single track sections don't help!

A single track section isn't necessarily slow.  Coomera-Helensvale is an example of a fast single track section.

No argument there just amplified the explanation   

[Stillwater]

According to Translink's website, April 1 marks the start of the second quarter of 2011, during which it promises that 'the public will be able to comment on the CRR environmental impact statement'. 

However, the site is somewhat contradictory in that it also says ' the project is in the detailed feasibility stage'.  And it goes on to say: 'The next important steps for the project (after detailed feasibility) are to finalise the business case and environmental impact statement.'

Presumably both are well advanced and the EIS is at an advanced stage to be released before June 30.

Again, in a contradiction, Translink says: ' After the detailed feasibility phase is complete, governments will decide how and when to proceed with the project.'  So, will that be before the EIS goes out to public comment?  Or will the process be put on hold until closer to a state election, once again muddying sensible development of infrastructure projects with the bluster of politics?

As Pauline Hansen would say – Translink, please explain.

[somebody]

For those traveling from the Gabba to the city, yet CRR would be of more benefit, but what of those traveling from elsewhere to the Gabba? Force them to get to either Boggo Rd busway station or Roma St to interchange back?

Yes.

The proposed tunnel will allow for interchange at both Park Rd and Roma St.  So long as sanity prevails and all trains through Moorooka use CRR, there should be an adequate frequency, subject to upgrades on the Beenleigh line.  The Fairfield service needs to be provided by trains going via Tennyson and a new station around Sherwood East (IMO on the last point).

Perhaps it's a bit unpleasant going via Roma St from the Caboolture line, but better than at present.  And the Cleveland line people and Fairfield/DP/Yeronga people will have an upgrade from the present situation.

[Golliwog]

I'm talking about people on buses though. I figure rail is rail and easy enough to change from one train to another.

[somebody]

I'm talking about people on buses though. I figure rail is rail and easy enough to change from one train to another.

Actually, I see what you are saying.  You won't be able to interchange at South Bank anymore if you are heading south of Yeerongpilly.

I don't get this "inline station" proposal at all.  No station would be better as this is in the most critical section of the busway, and a station would reduce capacity.

[Golliwog]

I do get that it would not me the most capacity that it could be. I'm not denying that it would cause some delay. Every station does to a degree. But my point is, what causes more delay, an inline station, or the current offline station with traffic lights? And I don't mean to just services not stopping at the Gabba, but to those that do as well. I would argue that a set of traffic lights would cause more delay than an inline station. And you can't just can the station outright. Its there and serves a purpose.

[#Metro]

But it still doesn't make sense to me.

Traffic light is separate issue from where the station is located.
If you have an inline station, you still need a traffic light because buses somehow still have to access the inline station.
In fact, if there was no Wooloongabba station, you still need a traffic light because it is an intersection, station or no station.
Or are they planning to cut off all the Ipswich Road/Cavendish/Bulimba routes and make them all run out of Buranda station?

Only if grade-separation were to happen would this work without a traffic light. And Wooloongabba busway could stay where it is.

[Golliwog]

Ok fair point. I may have forgotten about that.

If they're providing grade seperated access for buses heading north up the busway onto the Captain Cook Bridge (and vice versa) buses from Ipswich Rd/Stanley St/etc could come in on those, although there would need to be extra ones (ramps) provided to link to those roads.

[#Metro]

If they're providing grade seperated access for buses heading north up the busway onto the Captain Cook Bridge (and vice versa) buses from Ipswich Rd/Stanley St/etc could come in on those, although there would need to be extra ones (ramps) provided to link to those roads.

I would like to know how they are going to grade-separate this intersection. I think this could be quite challenging!