• Welcome to RAIL - Back On Track Forum.
 

Manly-Cannon Hill third track

Started by somebody, September 27, 2009, 13:27:15 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

stephenk

Quote from: O_128 on October 09, 2009, 21:36:28 PM
Quote from: stephenk on October 09, 2009, 21:33:47 PM
Quote from: O_128 on October 08, 2009, 18:41:49 PM
back on topic. Manly to cannon hill triplication with possible stabiling at murrarrie? can it be done?
Not currently necessary, and Murarrie would not be the best place for stabling. Third platform at Manly, stabling at Thorneside, and partial duplications between Manly and Cleveland are what the Cleveland Line needs.

the main reason i said murrarrie is that there is a lot of room there and it is also a  industrial. With the manly cleveland duplication we may aswell do the whole thing and not a half asses partial attempt.
...with the endless pot of Queensland Government money?  ;)

ICRCS identified Thorneside as the best location for extra stabling.
Evening peak service to Enoggera* 2007 - 7tph
Evening peak service to Enoggera* 2010 - 4tph
* departures from Central between 16:30 and 17:30.

O_128

Quote from: stephenk on October 09, 2009, 21:49:55 PM
Quote from: O_128 on October 09, 2009, 21:36:28 PM
Quote from: stephenk on October 09, 2009, 21:33:47 PM
Quote from: O_128 on October 08, 2009, 18:41:49 PM
back on topic. Manly to cannon hill triplication with possible stabiling at murrarrie? can it be done?
Not currently necessary, and Murarrie would not be the best place for stabling. Third platform at Manly, stabling at Thorneside, and partial duplications between Manly and Cleveland are what the Cleveland Line needs.

the main reason i said murrarrie is that there is a lot of room there and it is also a  industrial. With the manly cleveland duplication we may aswell do the whole thing and not a half asses partial attempt.
...with the endless pot of Queensland Government money?  ;)

ICRCS identified Thorneside as the best location for extra stabling.

i agree with that but know there will be protests here over nosie etc. as with the Queensland gov money hopefully we will see fuel prices go back up and the government will realise the neeed to allocate more money for PT
"Where else but Queensland?"

somebody

Quote from: stephenk on October 09, 2009, 21:33:47 PM
Not currently necessary, and Murarrie would not be the best place for stabling. Third platform at Manly, stabling at Thorneside, and partial duplications between Manly and Cleveland are what the Cleveland Line needs.
Is the Thorneside stabling instead of the one at Manly?  If you had two, wouldn't you need to provide security for both stabling centres?

Those partial duplications you mention, are you thinking of something similar to what used to apply on the Cronulla branch in Sydney?  For the Cleveland line, that would mean duplicating from Ormiston to Birkdale and Manly to Lota.  Or something like that.

The present arrangements are pretty anachronistic IMO, with waits for crosses in the suburbs!?!?

O_128

Quote from: somebody on October 10, 2009, 09:58:54 AM
Quote from: stephenk on October 09, 2009, 21:33:47 PM
Not currently necessary, and Murarrie would not be the best place for stabling. Third platform at Manly, stabling at Thorneside, and partial duplications between Manly and Cleveland are what the Cleveland Line needs.
Is the Thorneside stabling instead of the one at Manly?  If you had two, wouldn't you need to provide security for both stabling centres?

Those partial duplications you mention, are you thinking of something similar to what used to apply on the Cronulla branch in Sydney?  For the Cleveland line, that would mean duplicating from Ormiston to Birkdale and Manly to Lota.  Or something like that.

The present arrangements are pretty anachronistic IMO, with waits for crosses in the suburbs!?!?

The stabling at manly would be removed to allowe 1 or 2 new platforms aswell as more parking
"Where else but Queensland?"

stephenk

Quote from: O_128 on October 10, 2009, 11:14:19 AM
Quote from: somebody on October 10, 2009, 09:58:54 AM
Quote from: stephenk on October 09, 2009, 21:33:47 PM
Not currently necessary, and Murarrie would not be the best place for stabling. Third platform at Manly, stabling at Thorneside, and partial duplications between Manly and Cleveland are what the Cleveland Line needs.
Is the Thorneside stabling instead of the one at Manly?  If you had two, wouldn't you need to provide security for both stabling centres?

Those partial duplications you mention, are you thinking of something similar to what used to apply on the Cronulla branch in Sydney?  For the Cleveland line, that would mean duplicating from Ormiston to Birkdale and Manly to Lota.  Or something like that.

The present arrangements are pretty anachronistic IMO, with waits for crosses in the suburbs!?!?

The stabling at manly would be removed to allowe 1 or 2 new platforms aswell as more parking

There are only plans for 1 new platform. 2 is overkill!
Evening peak service to Enoggera* 2007 - 7tph
Evening peak service to Enoggera* 2010 - 4tph
* departures from Central between 16:30 and 17:30.

Arnz

Quote from: O_128 on October 08, 2009, 18:41:49 PM
back on topic. Manly to cannon hill triplication with possible stabiling at murrarrie? can it be done?

Don't think Murarrie needs stabling tbh.
Rgds,
Arnz

Unless stated otherwise, Opinions stated in my posts are those of my own view only.

somebody

Holy thread revival, batman!

I must say, I'm not completely satisfied "making it too hard for freight" is an adequate excuse for not using the third track for express passenger services.  Freight services have cross overs which allow access to the Cleveland line track pair, but it's not allowed to work the other way?  It's like an unreasonable wife, who thinks "What I make is mine, what you make is ours".  It's just like the excuse for not improving off peak frequency, which was lambasted in the November Railway Digest.

Jon Bryant

 :D :D :D :D :D Could not agree more.  Also I think there could be better freight linkages using the Gateway alignment that do away with Freight having to travel through the heart of our City.

mufreight

The third track from Dutton Park was built using commonwealth funds for the standard gauge line to fishermans Island (Port of Brisbane) to take container traffic between Acacia Ridge and the port off the roads,
Queensland then hopped in and paid to have it dual gauged to enable NG freight operations, predominately coal, grain and containers to also be operated without conflict with passenger traffic, the suggestions that this line should now also be used for passenger traffic has some merit but not at the exclusion of freight traffic, even the imposition of a curfew on freight operations on this line will have a major impact on the cost of moving freight which we will all pay as well as forcing some of that freight that is time critical back on to already overcrowded roads.

Jon Bryant

Definitely not at the exclusion of freight.  However Brisbane's public transport needs are going to require train frequencies that make it impossible to get freight through the inner city.  Thus the freight line needs to be separated and away from where people live (as we want as many TOD's built as possible) so it can operate 24 x 7.  I just think the Gateway easement presents a good opportunity.  Expensive but better than squeezing freight off the Clevland line and onto trucks. 

🡱 🡳