Should Mayne move?

[#Metro]

There has been a lot of articles in the papers recently about how we are not going to cope with more people as there isn't the space.

I know its bold, but I thought "what about Mayne Rail Yards" can that be moved? Its land that is close to the city and served by 2 rail lines. We could have a Sydney style loop happening as well.
Roma St, South Brisbane and Woolloongabba IIRC had their yards moved.

So 2 questions:
1. Should Mayne move (why or why not)
2. Where should it move to
3. What to do with the site/what needs to be done to the site (i.e install extra station? Busway connection?)

[Derwan]

I assume that it would be extremely expensive to move the Mayne Railyards.

I wonder though about the area just north of the Ferny Grove overpass.  It is currently used for storage of a few things like sleepers - but there are plenty of other areas that could be used (e.g. Banyo).  Could this area be developed - or will it be used for future stabling?

I once had an idea of moving Bowen Hills Station to this area, with platforms on the Ferny Grove overpass as well as the 4 (or more) tracks below.  This would allow for the use of the Exhibition loop (for trains from the north) that included a stop at Bowen Hills.  It could be part of a TOD.  I'm not sure it would be feasible though.

Failing the move of Mayne - would it be feasible to build above it?

[O_128]

I doubt it would be feasible to build over it as noone would want to work there. Decentralisation is the answer. Thornside,banyo,Marooka and somewhere on the caboolture and iswich lines should be investigated. Maybe move all the main non storage operations to redbank?

[somebody]

Maybe move all the main non storage operations to redbank?

This suggestion is sensible.

CityRail never used to have near city yards, so a few years ago they went to the expense of building them!  The central yards are very useful for train storage in between the AM and PM peaks, otherwise you'd need empty moves to reach the yard.  Demolishing all of Mayne would not be smart.

Growth could go to other locations, like Thorneside.  From a train operations view, there would ideally be yards at Kuraby, Petrie, Springfield (once that line is built), Nambour (if not there now) in addition to the present ones (Petrie is too small at present).  But except for Springfield I don't believe there's room for railway yards in those places.

Also, Brisbane has a few very short lines in the Airport, Ferny Grove, Shorncliffe and Doomben (soon to be joined by Richlands).  These can be served by one central depot rather than several small depots.

[#Metro]

What about somewhere around the Airport? Lots of land there.

[somebody]

What about somewhere around the Airport? Lots of land there.

A possibility, but it's less convenient than the present location.

[ghostryder]

Parts of the area that Mayne sits on were reclaimed swamp land, which in many of the big wets since it was reclaimed has gone under water several times. does it still go underwater ? that issue alone maybe a considerable factor for not putting housing on it.

cheers

scott

[#Metro]

I've gone off and had a look to see if Mayne is subject to flooding.
Here is the BCC flood flag map. Blue areas are sections that may flood during a heavy rain event.
http://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/bccwr/_assets/main/lib927/flooding_bowen_hills_flood_flag_map.pdf

The user guide and backgrounders are here
http://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/BCC:BASE::pc=PC_5909

Mayne does not appear to be subject to flooding.

[brad C]

I beg to differ.
In the June 1967 and January 1974 floods, large parts of the then goods yard, carriage sheds and diesal areas were inundated.
Damage occurred to several Evans and SX sets and numerous diesals and DHs.
Following the intense flooding on the Friday night and early saturday, severe wash outs occurred on the main lines immediately south of breakfast creek.
The skeleton service from Shorncliffe to Darra, re-instated on the Sunday of that treacherous weekend saw trains travelling via the goods sidings and crossing back to the main lines (only 2 tracks in those days) at cross overs just south of the Albion platforms.
The creek still remains to this day, and much more development upstream.
I won't be rushing to buy a 'dream' home in this location.

[mufreight]

The existing Mayne complex could be raised by using the spoil from the underground cross river link when it is built, the course of Breakfast Creek could be altered to improve the drainage of the area in times of flood and while some of that area could then be used for residential development a large section should be retained for rail storage and maintenence facilities and the remaining area could then become a recreational green space, should Mayne move? from a practical operational viewpoint NO.

[#Metro]

Thanks for the historic info Brad & Mufreight.
The Wivenhoe Dam was completed in 1985. It has capacity to hold up to 1.45 million megalitres during a flood event- an option not available in 1974. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wivenhoe_Dam

Doesn't Mayne's position cause crossing conflicts/bottlenecks at either end?
Looks like the operational sides of things is limiting.

[somebody]

Doesn't Mayne's position cause crossing conflicts/bottlenecks at either end?
Looks like the operational sides of things is limiting.

With the flyover, the only problem is the starters for Ipswich.  It's at Roma St that there are conflicting moves, the worst of which is returning to Mayne via platform 7.

[#Metro]

With the flyover, the only problem is the starters for Ipswich.  It's at Roma St that there are conflicting moves, the worst of which is returning to Mayne via platform 7.

I think that Diamond at Roma St where the Ips and GC/Beenleigh lines and Mayne/Exhibition lines converge is going to become very busy. It also becomes a choke point if there is a track fault. It would be good if some tracks in the Ips line could dive into a portal like in Melbourne and stop underneath Roma St, Central etc.

[ozbob]

When I was in Melbourne I was again reminded how the Roma St / Ekka loop chokes could be handled.  As you leave Richmond one can note the effective use  flyovers to move trains across and over tracks for positioning for Flinders St station or the City loops.  There is room to do a bit of that here at Roma St, also limited use of elevation and underneath.

Coming into Central Sydney is impressive because of the various flyovers and what not.  

Also it would be smart to put some crossovers all lines between Milton and Auchenflower.  Trains running into Milton for events and so forth could simply cross and reverse back out.  All a bit tedious at the moment.  I understand that there were points that allowed trains to move from the up to down lines between Milton and Auchenflower, but they were removed  because they were not needed  ...  

[somebody]

Indeed CityRail is very impressive in peak for sheer scale and loadings, at least as compared to QR and probably anywhere else in Australia.  What Melbourne is impressive for is a large number of tracks in the CBD.

Those flyovers between Central and Redfern are actually little used to reduce crossing conflicts, much more to have the platforms at Central Up, Up, Down, Down, rather than Up, Down, Up, Down.  Although they did make attaching the Airport line relatively easy.

[stephenk]

There has been a lot of articles in the papers recently about how we are not going to cope with more people as there isn't the space.

I know its bold, but I thought "what about Mayne Rail Yards" can that be moved? Its land that is close to the city and served by 2 rail lines. We could have a Sydney style loop happening as well.
Roma St, South Brisbane and Woolloongabba IIRC had their yards moved.

So 2 questions:
1. Should Mayne move (why or why not)
2. Where should it move to
3. What to do with the site/what needs to be done to the site (i.e install extra station? Busway connection?)

As many branches have none or limited stabling, then Mayne needs to be retained. There are sometimes issues with trains queueing to get into the yard in the am peak, this could be fixed by more shoulder peak/off-peak services reducing the number of trains entering Mayne at the end of the peaks. Infrastructure improvements around Mayne may also reduce this problem, but would cost $.
New stabling does need to be introduced in the suburbs for many operational reasons. The ICRCS suggests increased stabling at Banyo, Thorneside, Clapham Yards, Nambour, and a variety of options on the Ipswich Line.

It may be possible to build high density housing above parts of Mayne. MTR have built housing above some of their depots, and made a lot of money out of it!

Tramtrain - a "Sydney style" loop using the Ekka Loop is not an option. There would be too many junction conflicts, and the cost to fix these would be $$$. Another one to file in "Trainspotter fantasies".

[somebody]

Tramtrain - a "Sydney style" loop using the Ekka Loop is not an option. There would be too many junction conflicts, and the cost to fix these would be $$$. Another one to file in "Trainspotter fantasies".

And more importantly, it's well out of the CBD.  Sydney and Melbourne have CBD loops which work well because their CBD is very much larger than ours.  You couldn't have picked too many worse locations in Brisbane for the CBD, surrounded on nearly 3 sides by the river and very small, but that's where it is so we have to live with it.

[#Metro]

Yes, but a lot of plans use feature Exhibition station.
It is hardly far out of the CBD either.

[somebody]

It is hardly far out of the CBD either.

No CBD destinations are a walking distance from Exhibition.

[longboi]

I wonder though about the area just north of the Ferny Grove overpass.  It is currently used for storage of a few things like sleepers - but there are plenty of other areas that could be used (e.g. Banyo).  Could this area be developed - or will it be used for future stabling?

I've always thought this would be an excellent place to put a stabling yard for services travelling to/from the North because at present units coming out of Mayne that are travelling North have to travel via the ekka loop and through the CBD.
This would do wonders in peak as all services that are not required to travel via the CBD (i.e. empty units) won't have to travel via the CBD.

[somebody]

I wonder though about the area just north of the Ferny Grove overpass.  It is currently used for storage of a few things like sleepers - but there are plenty of other areas that could be used (e.g. Banyo).  Could this area be developed - or will it be used for future stabling?

I've always thought this would be an excellent place to put a stabling yard for services travelling to/from the North because at present units coming out of Mayne that are travelling North have to travel via the ekka loop and through the CBD.
This would do wonders in peak as all services that are not required to travel via the CBD (i.e. empty units) won't have to travel via the CBD.

This is a problem for the Ferny Grove line but not the Caboolture line, as the latter uses the Caboolture stabling.  I would presume that Shorncliffe services use the extra track on the western side of the quad tracks.  Can anyone confirm/deny this?  Airport's first services are best handled with revenue services anyway, but I'm not sure about Doomben.  You could just as easily bustitute the first services until a train arrives from Cleveland.

I started a thread on this titled "Stabling" a while ago, if you are interested.

The ICRS has a link between Mayne and Windsor to solve this problem for the FG line.

[longboi]

I wonder though about the area just north of the Ferny Grove overpass.  It is currently used for storage of a few things like sleepers - but there are plenty of other areas that could be used (e.g. Banyo).  Could this area be developed - or will it be used for future stabling?

I've always thought this would be an excellent place to put a stabling yard for services travelling to/from the North because at present units coming out of Mayne that are travelling North have to travel via the ekka loop and through the CBD.
This would do wonders in peak as all services that are not required to travel via the CBD (i.e. empty units) won't have to travel via the CBD.

This is a problem for the Ferny Grove line but not the Caboolture line, as the latter uses the Caboolture stabling.  I would presume that Shorncliffe services use the extra track on the western side of the quad tracks.  Can anyone confirm/deny this?  Airport's first services are best handled with revenue services anyway, but I'm not sure about Doomben.  You could just as easily bustitute the first services until a train arrives from Cleveland.

I started a thread on this titled "Stabling" a while ago, if you are interested.

The ICRS has a link between Mayne and Windsor to solve this problem for the FG line.

Actually it is a problem for all northern lines. I know there is stabling at Caboolture but there are still empty runs between Caboolture-Mayne & Shorncliffe-Mayne.

As for your question about Shorncliffe services, which section are you talking about?

Doomben services don't really take up much room, even in peak so they aren't a problem.

[Derwan]

I would presume that Shorncliffe services use the extra track on the western side of the quad tracks.  Can anyone confirm/deny this? 

Can't confirm, but I have never seen this section used apart from weekend turnbacks for trains terminating at Bowen Hills.  (There is a "stop" warning sign for trains beyond the 6-car stop mark for turn-backs.)  Either way, it comes off of Down Main, so a train needs to already be on Down Main from Bowen Hills or from the Ekka loop anyway.

[somebody]

So, then do the Shorncliffe line empty moves need to go via Roma St, or is there some other track?

If the Caboolture facility is too small, then that makes the lack of a Nambour facility even worse, unless there is one I don't know about.

Is there the same problem at Ipswich & Beenleigh?

[Arnz]

Nambour has had stabling facilities ever since the line was electrified back in 1988.

Has parking for up to 4x 6-car packs IIRC.

Edit: Visited Nambour today, just found out it can fit up to 4x 6-car sets.   (3x 6-car sets in yard, 1x 6-car set at turn-back Platform)

[longboi]

So, then do the Shorncliffe line empty moves need to go via Roma St, or is there some other track?

If the Caboolture facility is too small, then that makes the lack of a Nambour facility even worse, unless there is one I don't know about.

Is there the same problem at Ipswich & Beenleigh?

Before and during morning peak there are empty runs to Shorncliffe coming from Mayne which currently mean they need to travel via Normanby/Roma St/ Central etc.

There has been talk of putting more stabling at Caboolture and stabling trains again at Shorncliffe.

Ipswich is fine but units coming in/out of the yard at Beenleigh can sometimes conflict with Gold Coast services during peak.

And trolleybus you're right, you can stable 4x 6-packs (1 in the dock, 1 on the platform, 2 on the third road)

[somebody]

Before and during morning peak there are empty runs to Shorncliffe coming from Mayne which currently mean they need to travel via Normanby/Roma St/ Central etc.

That's a bit of a pain.  Couldn't they fix this problem relatively easily? 

First Doomben services appear to be facilitated by revenue services.

Obviously, there's no problem with the first Airport line services being revenue services.

[longboi]

Before and during morning peak there are empty runs to Shorncliffe coming from Mayne which currently mean they need to travel via Normanby/Roma St/ Central etc.

That's a bit of a pain.  Couldn't they fix this problem relatively easily? 

First Doomben services appear to be facilitated by revenue services.

Obviously, there's no problem with the first Airport line services being revenue services.

Well yeah you can store 3x 6-packs at Shorncliffe. There is room to build more stabling area at Shorncliffe although I think the old workshops and sidings around Banyo would probably be a better location as there is a lot more room.

Yeah, the first Doomben services are usually Ex-Cleveland or Ex-Ipswich/Darra.

[#Metro]

It looks like up to 11 tracks could fit in some sections of the Exhibition line.
http://maps.google.com.au/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Bowen+Hills&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Bowen+Hills+Queensland&ll=-27.457707,153.020284&spn=0.000909,0.003012&t=h&z=19

[#Metro]

Stations at:

1. Normanby (Paddington)

2. Gregory Tce/Victoria Park/Spring Hill. (Install platform and lift, there is already a bridge. Whoever owns that tennis court might have to move it (or tunnel under it). And I can't believe there are houses on blocks that big next to a CBD...
http://maps.google.com.au/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Bowen+Hills&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Bowen+Hills+Queensland&ll=-27.455355,153.024203&spn=0.001818,0.006024&t=h&z=18

3. Exhibition (possibly re-align to run above ICB with station directly opposite Herston Hospital)

4. Mayne SuperTOD

An alteration to the Ferny Grove line may take place to allow trains to exit into the Exhibition line. Omit Bowen Hills (or occasional trip only)
http://maps.google.com.au/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Bowen+Hills&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Bowen+Hills+Queensland&ll=-27.437474,153.036123&spn=0.001819,0.006024&t=h&z=18

These trains could stop in the CBD via Roma St, but omitting Central. They would continue to North Quay and Parliament & then to Beenleigh as per usual.

[longboi]

Wasn't an alignment through Spring Hill already considered?

[p858snake]

No CBD destinations are a walking distance from Exhibition.

Isn't it planned for that ground [the ekka] to be redeveloped so opened all year with additional units or something?

[#Metro]

No CBD destinations are a walking distance from Exhibition.

Many see problems. I see opportunities and solutions.

The CBD might need a bit more room to expand. Fortitude Valley is undergoing expansion and urban renewal.
As is Newstead and Bowen Hills and the RNA Showgrounds.

The ICRC Study IIRC is wanting to use Exhibition, so there is some subtle acknowledgment of utility there.

[O_128]

No CBD destinations are a walking distance from Exhibition.

Many see problems. I see opportunities and solutions.

The CBD might need a bit more room to expand. Fortitude Valley is undergoing expansion and urban renewal.
As is Newstead and Bowen Hills and the RNA Showgrounds.

The ICRC Study IIRC is wanting to use Exhibition, so there is some subtle acknowledgment of utility there.

RNA will soon house 20000 people with thosands more jobs created there and in the surrounding area It will be the equivialnt of North Sydney. That is why both rail and bus are needed

[stephenk]

It looks like up to 11 tracks could fit in some sections of the Exhibition line.
http://maps.google.com.au/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Bowen+Hills&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Bowen+Hills+Queensland&ll=-27.457707,153.020284&spn=0.000909,0.003012&t=h&z=19

But not in other parts. Using parts of the Exhibition Line was looked at in the ICRCS, and the options were not chosen due to issues mentioned earlier. Please stop flogging a dead horse.

[#Metro]

There is a bottleneck at the approach to Exhibition Station.
But the RNA has considered future passenger services to the area.
They could add track in the sections where it is needed if they were willing to donate a small corridor of land (they gave a bit to Clem 7...)

This would also be in keeping with the vision the RNA has of the area- a massive TOD with constant use, entertainment and conference facilities unlike what they have now.

[stephenk]

There is a bottleneck at the approach to Exhibition Station.
But the RNA has considered future passenger services to the area.
They could add track in the sections where it is needed if they were willing to donate a small corridor of land (they gave a bit to Clem 7...)

This would also be in keeping with the vision the RNA has of the area- a massive TOD with constant use, entertainment and conference facilities unlike what they have now.

Tramtrain - the dead horse you are flogging is now decomposing.

Please read pages 67 and 68 of the ICRCS Pre Feasibility Report, which explains why using part of the existing Ekka Loop was not considered for worthy investigation as part of the ICRCS.

[#Metro]

The text in question.
http://www.transport.qld.gov.au/Home/Projects_and_initiatives/Projects/Inner_City_Rail_Capacity_Study/

After assessment, this adaption was found to be possible only if Spring Hill station,
Exhibition 2 station and Bowen Hills station were not to form part of the 2016
project. Also, as the length of tunnelling does not dominate the project cost, the
actual overall project saving would not be significant. This option was therefore not
considered worthy of further, more detailed investigation.

ICRCS, p 68 with supporting diagram Figure 5-5.

A technical pre-feasibility assessment has been undertaken for a 2016 tunnel
option that goes via a North-South route from the CBD and surfaces south-west of
Bowen Hills on the Exhibition Loop. The work considered built infrastructure
constraints, connectivity issue/s to the existing network, and particularly the
interface with the Albion – Northgate corridor.

The main purpose of this assessment was to attempt to shorten the length of tunnelling in 2016. However
this outcome was only possible if Spring Hill Station, Exhibition 2 Station and
Bowen Hills Station were not to form part of the 2016 project. It is also important to
re-iterate that the length of tunnelling does not dominate the project cost and
therefore the actual overall project saving would not be significant in any event.

ICRCS Report, p100
Queensland Government, Brisbane

[#Metro]

The purpose of this option was to see if the tunneling in one of the ICRCS options could be shortened by a few hundred metres to save money by using an existing section of the Exhibition line.

The conclusion was that Spring Hill, Exhibition 2 and Bowen Hills would not form part of the 2016 project if done this way.
The analysis then did not go any further. But I think the entire alignment should be questioned.

This paragraph is not equivalent to saying:
1. "Exhibition line can't be used" (it will be used by freight trains and empty passenger trains) or
2. "An option utilising the entire Exhibition line isn't viable" (it never bothered to evaluate such an option)
3. "Stations at Spring Hill and Exhibition are not viable- not worth running trains there" (Indeed stations there are viable, and the ICRCS features stations at these two locations)

All it said was that if you wanted stations at Spring Hill and Exhibition 2 by 2016, it would be better if they were tunneled in. Importantly it did not evaluate an alternative "no tunnel" option either.

[#Metro]

What I find funny about the ICRCS is that it builds a rail loop without actually running the trains in a loop.

Take a look at options A & B 2016:
Imagine if the green line (option A) actually heads to a subway underneath Roma St, rather than Central Station.
This line could exit a portal onto the Exhibition line with stations at Normanby, Spring Hill and Exhibition with tunneling restricted to the portals and a subway at Roma St. CBD passengers would already have got off at the new "CBD" station.
People who really needed to go to Central could do so by changing at Roma St.

Once the train reaches Bowen Hills on the Exhibition line, take a look at option B 2016 (Purple line) it shares a similar corridor with 2026 options D & E (Purple and Red). Imagine if the Bowen Hills end allowed a transfer of the Exhibition service to these lines. The train would run from Bowen Hills to Newstead and back to the new "CBD" station.
This loop would be the BURL.

At the new "CBD" station it would then have 5 options to travel to:
(1) Gold Coast/Beenleigh
(2) Ipswich Line (via a portal)
(3) Back to Mayne yards via Roma St & Exhibition
(4) Northern lines via Exhibition
(5) Ipswich via West End

The ICRCS didn't evaluate this option, even though what they are building is pretty much a loop without proper connections at 2 ends of the circle.