2026 tunnel

[somebody]

My personal feeling is that there is no way it is happenning by 2026.  The gov't will pick the last option.

[#Metro]

Would be good to have a visual map.
Somebody, I admire your posts, but you had better don a flame-proof suit!  

[Golliwog]

I still think the 2026 tunnel will be built. But I had issues with the way the pre-feasability report was done. i.e: A route via UQ was not even considered, because it was outside the study area, same for a Cleveland line connection. I don't think having the Cleveland line as the only route using the tunnel is the best option, the North Coast line needs it far more, but I see no problems with sharing the corridor between the 2 lines, or expanding it to fit the Cleveland line in too.

Also, if I was reading the ICRCS right, 9 car trains is not actually part of QR planning for the future, just something that the ICRCS team thought should happen to increase train capacity and reduce overcrowding and thus reduce the need for these tunnels to be built earlier than 2016/2026.

[longboi]

With the second and third last options(Trouts Rd ones), where would it pass through the CBD if its going to pass through Newstead first? Would it double-back on itself?

[Golliwog]

Depends on how you build the Trouts Road line. I think theres 2 way to do it, one is to connect to the Ferny Grove line at Enogerra, or the other would be to just interchange at Enogerra, and then continue the line further south and connect to the Ipswich line. That 2nd option would give a larger area coverage, plus as the FG line is so short, I don't see any need to have the inner half have twice as many trains as the outer half. But it would definatly be cheaper to connect to the Ferny line, but that would just increase the number of trains coming from the north, which is already a problem isnt it?

[#Metro]

 
http://www.systemwide.com.au/pdfs/Systemwide%27s%20Brisbane%20Inner%20City%20Rail%20Capacity%20Study.pdf

There alternatives/options are set out on pages 103 (2016 options) and 104 (2026) options.
The alternative to a West End alignment would be one running along the current route and then diving under Auchenflower then heading to the CBD. (Options E & F). It is basically a tunnel under the existing Ipswich Line.

Somebody, I share your concerns about the 2026 tunnel. Something does not look right about it.
But the rail station in West End would be useful. I think metro or light rail would be better for the UQ-West End- CBD- New Farm- possibly Bulimba axis.

The 2026 tunnel from Toowong to West End has no connection to UQ, while a metro or LRT line could be "bent" to have stations in St Lucia all the way to UQ and serve West End. A crossing using a green bridge connection over the river and shallower tunnels are also advantages. The ICRCS project team could not deal with this UQ option and neither a Bulimba-CBD or Trouts Road option as they were outside the scope of the study area. (See ICRCS page 31)

Nikko said something which I think is pretty reasonable, and I generally agree with.

If we have to go with heavy rail, then we should look at the proposed inner city metro. Here we could have a high-quality spine route for the inner city which could possibly span Hamilton-Bulimba-Newstead-Valley-CBD-South Brisbane-West End-Toowong (I think Golliwog mentioned something about changing the route slightly via UQ and terminate at Indro which would be better than the Toowong terminus). This would present so much more of a benefit to an infinitely greater number of people. Granted the Cleveland line wouldn't get the 16 minute time saving but that can be done with realignment of the current line

Use metro (or LRT?) and bend the line to go to UQ which is the second most travelled to destination after the CBD. Maybe in this scenario, heavy rail capacity would be achieved another way: by tunneling under the Ipswich Line. However, the two projects- metro and heavy rail- are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

[somebody]

With the second and third last options(Trouts Rd ones), where would it pass through the CBD if its going to pass through Newstead first? Would it double-back on itself?

I'd suggest probably at Central (under the existing lines), Kelvin Grove, Alderley.  Possibly a slight detour to Roma St for the bus connections.

[stephenk]

As per the locked thread, I cannot see any financial or operational justification for the second tunnel connecting with the Cleveland Line. The 2nd tunnel as per the ICRCS balances line pairings and rail operations well, and still allows for future network expansion such as Kippa-Ring Line and Trouts Rd Line (via Ferny Grove Line). Without the 2nd tunnel as per the ICRCS, the latter will not be feasible, and the Ipswich/Springfield Line will hit capacity in the mid-2020s.

However, I do think that running via UQ needs to be reconsidered, but routing via UQ would also have many negative issues as well, particularly increased cost. A short AGT between UQ and Toowong may be a compromise.

By the way, I have heard there may be a few interesting plans in the beyond 3031 document coming soon.

[Golliwog]

I agree, I think the 2026 tunnel should definately connect to the northern line. However, I don't see a problem with at a later date, looking at connecting the Cleveland line to the 2026 tunnel via Bulimba. Also, IMO I don't think having the Trout Rd line connect onto the FG line is a good thing. Given how short the FG line is, I think it should remain seperate as theres not much benefit to having increased frequency on the inner part of the line, and instead the Trout Rd line should just have an interchange before continuing further south. I do realise however that that would be a very expensive option.

[somebody]

Interesting.  Seems a lot of support for the ICRCS here.

[Jon Bryant]

The second tunnel needs to be as currently planned with consideration of UQ link.  It just needs to be sooner than the 2026. After that needs more detailed studies (i.e. start these now).  I like the Trout Road to Cleveland link but no idea where it fit in priority. I would also like to see an analysis of a loop that links the major Centres around the CBD.  

[Golliwog]

Interesting.  Seems a lot of support for the ICRCS here.

Well it is a much needed upgrade and definatly increases the capacity of the northern and western lines. Although between now and when its built I think there needs to be some consideration given to its routing. IMO the alignment via West End is best, as it gives new areas access to rail. However IMO the West End station shouldnt be where its makred on the maps in the ICRCS. They show it near the river, but IMO a location like that limits the patronage area. Plus that area already has brilliant bus links with the 199 and city glider, not to mention the city cats. Also, it would increase the costs of the tunnel I'm sure, but running via UQ St Lucia should be looked at. Plus by including UQ, there would be guaranteed patronage figures they could access from the go card, ie: those who catch the 402/412 afer catching an Ipswich line train to Toowong, or those who come from the Caboolture line who change to a 109/412 in the city.

[stephenk]

http://www.systemwide.com.au/pdfs/Systemwide%27s%20Brisbane%20Inner%20City%20Rail%20Capacity%20Study.pdf

There alternatives/options are set out on pages 103 (2016 options) and 104 (2026) options.
The alternative to a West End alignment would be one running along the current route and then diving under Auchenflower then heading to the CBD. (Options E & F). It is basically a tunnel under the existing Ipswich Line.

Somebody, I share your concerns about the 2026 tunnel. Something does not look right about it.
But the rail station in West End would be useful. I think metro or light rail would be better for the UQ-West End- CBD- New Farm- possibly Bulimba axis.

The 2026 tunnel from Toowong to West End has no connection to UQ, while a metro or LRT line could be "bent" to have stations in St Lucia all the way to UQ and serve West End. A crossing using a green bridge connection over the river and shallower tunnels are also advantages. The ICRCS project team could not deal with this UQ option and neither a Bulimba-CBD or Trouts Road option as they were outside the scope of the study area. (See ICRCS page 31)

Nikko said something which I think is pretty reasonable, and I generally agree with.

If we have to go with heavy rail, then we should look at the proposed inner city metro. Here we could have a high-quality spine route for the inner city which could possibly span Hamilton-Bulimba-Newstead-Valley-CBD-South Brisbane-West End-Toowong (I think Golliwog mentioned something about changing the route slightly via UQ and terminate at Indro which would be better than the Toowong terminus). This would present so much more of a benefit to an infinitely greater number of people. Granted the Cleveland line wouldn't get the 16 minute time saving but that can be done with realignment of the current line

Use metro (or LRT?) and bend the line to go to UQ which is the second most travelled to destination after the CBD. Maybe in this scenario, heavy rail capacity would be achieved another way: by tunneling under the Ipswich Line. However, the two projects- metro and heavy rail- are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

Whilst I agree that the routing via UQ needs to be reconsidered...

So you would propose building a heavy rail line and a metro line along a similar route through the CBD? As I have mentioned before, there is no way that both of these would be justifiable. 

Have you considered that a rail line via Bulimba may not have been suggested in the ICRCS because it has too little benefits? You do realise that 70 routes were initially looked at.

As per scope of Trouts Rd line in ICRCS, please read the rest of this post.

Finally, have you considered that the people who wrote the ICRCS know a lot more than you do about railway operations, infrastructure, costings, justification and need?

I agree, I think the 2026 tunnel should definately connect to the northern line. However, I don't see a problem with at a later date, looking at connecting the Cleveland line to the 2026 tunnel via Bulimba. Also, IMO I don't think having the Trout Rd line connect onto the FG line is a good thing. Given how short the FG line is, I think it should remain seperate as theres not much benefit to having increased frequency on the inner part of the line, and instead the Trout Rd line should just have an interchange before continuing further south. I do realise however that that would be a very expensive option.

Post 2nd tunnel as per ICRCS, the Ferny Grove Line (well, the suburbans that it would then exclusive use of from the North) would have available capacity for the addition of services from a line using the Trouts Rd corridor. Thus this routing is a bit of a no brainer.

Tunnelling from Enoggera to the City on a new alignment would be difficult to justify this side of 3035.

Interesting.  Seems a lot of support for the ICRCS here.

That's probably due to it being an independent study, which is very well researched and written by people who clearly understand railway operations.

[Golliwog]

Stephenk, if you read tramtrains post, what he actually suggested was running the metro via UQ-West End-CBD-Newstead-where ever after that, and take one of the other 2 options for the ICRCS for the 2026 tunnel which was tunneling starting under milton. Yes in the CBD they may have a similar route, but given the size of Brisbanes CBD, its kind of hard not to.

Also, they did look at connecting the tunnel to Bulimba, however from the map they seemed to only look at it as somewhere to go through, not link up with the Cleveland line.

As for Trouts Rd, I get that there would be additional capacity for it on the suburbans, but theres only so many trains/hour you can run on the ferny grove line itself, before the Trout rd line would start restricting the number of trains running the full length of the FG line. Given that currently a large percentage of the users of the FG line come right from the end of the line, this would be an issue into the future. I know it definately would not make economic sense to build the Trouts Road line right through Ashgrove etc to begin with, but IMO running via the FG line would be difficult long term, unless you add extra tracks, which would make the Bowen hills intersection interesting to say the least.

Also, we get that you don't agree with a lot of Tramtrains ideas, but could you keep the negativity to constructive criticism?

[somebody]

Post 2nd tunnel as per ICRCS, the Ferny Grove Line (well, the suburbans that it would then exclusive use of from the North) would have available capacity for the addition of services from a line using the Trouts Rd corridor. Thus this routing is a bit of a no brainer.

Tunnelling from Enoggera to the City on a new alignment would be difficult to justify this side of 3035.

Yes, but with patronage growth by the time Trouts Rd could be built, I'd suggest there would be lucky to be room for 8tph in peak to follow the existing Ferny Grove line's alignment.  Thus there may well be a need for a tunnel.  I assume you meant 2035, not 3035 above.  If there was a new tunnel, it should also connect to Ferny Grove.

[#Metro]

Whilst I agree that the routing via UQ needs to be reconsidered...

So you would propose building a heavy rail line and a metro line along a similar route through the CBD? As I have mentioned before, there is no way that both of these would be justifiable.

Have you considered that a rail line via Bulimba may not have been suggested in the ICRCS because it has too little benefits? You do realise that 70 routes were initially looked at.

As per scope of Trouts Rd line in ICRCS, please read the rest of this post.

Finally, have you considered that the people who wrote the ICRCS know a lot more than you do about railway operations, infrastructure, costings, justification and need?

Come on StephenK, what do you propose? Step up to the plate and post your own composed and comprehensive proposals here so that we can comment, criticise, research, scrutinise and vote on it. I'm sure they would be rather expert and good, so let's see them.

[O_128]

Currently at UQ and just asked the BCC planning workshop why there are no plans for a UQ train station only to receive "ummmmmm" The 2026 tunnel is going to come so close to UQ it would be a massive lost opportunity not to run through UQ

[SteelPan]

I do agree, govts of ALL political colours are notorius for "pulling" projects which don't offer quick political points - also watch they STAY committed to BOTH phases of ICRCS  People gotta keep the pressure ON! 

[somebody]

I guess I should have had options for
(Ipswich Line)-Indro-UQ-West End South-CBD-Newstead-Bowen Hills
West-Indro-UQ-West End South-CBD-Newstead-Bowen Hills

[Jon Bryant]

Let's see if we can put a positive tone to this thread.  Stephenk, you clearly have indepth knowledge of the ICRCS and the overall capacity constraints on the system.  The ICRCS  was targeting the delivery of capacity to cater for a increase of public transport usage to around 15% of all trips by 2036 IIRC. it might be higher or lower.   Hypotheticaly if this % needed to be much higher (due to a range of reasons from fuel prices, to the failure if the Clem7, etc, to a recognition of the true cost of road usage, to just massive customer demand) at around the 40 or 50% of all trips, what are the projects that need to follow the two existing tunnels to meet this level of demand?

Whilst this figures may be hypothetical there are many who predict we need to reach such levels to be sustainable environmently, economically and socially.  Thus it is worth understanding the scale of the job at hand if this level of demand eventuates or is planned.  

[stephenk]

Come on StephenK, what do you propose? Step up to the plate and post your own composed and comprehensive proposals here so that we can comment, criticise, research, scrutinise and vote on it. I'm sure they would be rather expert and good, so let's see them.

Infrastructure:
-1st and 2nd rail cross river rail tunnel as per ICRCS/CRR with CBD interchange.
-Existing network infrastructure improvements as per ICRCS.
-AGT between UQ and Toowong if 2nd tunnel not routed via UQ.
-All the current lines in the current government pipeline - CAMCOS, Kippa Ring, Springfield to Ipswich, Coolangatta Airport (would require 1st and/or 2nd tunnels depending on project).
-Trouts Rd Line, possibly initially connecting with Ferny Grove at Alderley, or possibly running underground (deep bore) into or through the City (3rd tunnel) when funds eventually permit. See 3031 
-Narrow gauge commuter operations along standard gauge corridor as far as Greater Flagstone (would require 1st CRR tunnel)
-3-line inner City BRT as per BCC report, with green bridge from New Farm to Bulimba.
-Eastern and Northern Busway

Sevices:
-10 min or better inner-suburban peak rail service.
-15 min (eventually 10mins) inner-suburban off-peak rail service.
-Homogenous timetables
-Rail feeder bus services
-More Buz routes

Town planning:
-Restrictions on further urban sprawl
-TODs
-New housing developments built with public transport infrastructure (similar to Runcorn, UK, Busway)
-Decrease priority of road infrastructure projects


I'm sure that all of these would completely break the funding budget!
Note that only one of the infrastructure projects is not currently planned or suggested by either Queensland Government, BCC, or independent experts commissioned by QG or BCC.

[somebody]

I don't know what the fascination in some quarters is with connecting the Gold Coast line to the Gold Coast Airport.

I presume that the project not in the official books is the Trouts Rd one.

In your services list, there's also a need for 15 minute express services off peak on the Ipswich and Caboolture lines at a minimum.

[Jon Bryant]

Stephenk, where do you think this may get us in mode share assuming it could be completed in next 15 years?

[#Metro]

-Trouts Rd Line, possibly initially connecting with Ferny Grove at Alderley, or possibly running underground (deep bore) into or through the City (3rd tunnel) when funds eventually permit. See 3031  Wink

Good to see that not all ideas are ill though out, rah rah etc...

AGT between UQ and Toowong if 2nd tunnel not routed via UQ.

I'd rather a standard metro, up through West End. Although AGT for a metro route should be looked at.
I think the interiors are too narrow for my liking.

For those unfamiliar with AGT: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automated_guideway_transit

I don't know what the fascination in some quarters is with connecting the Gold Coast line to the Gold Coast Airport.

Its a good idea.

[Golliwog]

-Trouts Rd Line, possibly initially connecting with Ferny Grove at Alderley, or possibly running underground (deep bore) into or through the City (3rd tunnel) when funds eventually permit. See 3031 

For funding for this, can't we just tell Campbell he's not allowed to build his tunnel there and use the funds he was going to use for that? Or would linking to the North Coast line be providing too much of a benefit to those pesky non-Brisbane residents? 

Also, with the town planning, I'd also suggest changing the approvals process to restrict the number of new cul-de-sacs (limits through access for both buses and pedestrians). I know QT knows this is an issue, but I dont know if they've gotten anywhere with changing it.

I presume that the project not in the official books is the Trouts Rd one.

No, if you look in the Connecting SEQ2031 thread (http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=3624.0;topicseen) Trouts Rd line is on one of the slides about rail. As are a few other lines. I'd go with the Toowong-UQ AGT being the unofficial one.

[#Metro]

1st and 2nd rail cross river rail tunnel as per ICRCS/CRR with CBD interchange.

There are a number of options for the 2nd cross river rail tunnel.
Are you suggesting it go via West End or via Auchenflower/Milton?

[somebody]

I don't know what the fascination in some quarters is with connecting the Gold Coast line to the Gold Coast Airport.

Its a good idea.

Who would be using it to get to the airport?  The Gold Coast line has almost no walk up pax, so they may be using up the free parking.  To get to the airport would be better done with buses.

[#Metro]

I think connection to the GC Airport is a good idea, here's why I think so:

* Pax can catch the train by using the GCRT LRT system (I can't believe I'm writing this, we have LRT!) to get from Southport to the rail line and go to the Airport.

* Connection to the GC Airport will make the GC Airport a competitor with the BNE Airport, sort of like Avalon is to Melbourne. Then Brisbane people can take advantage of cheap flights.

I just hope people don't get confused between the two airports. It would be horrible to realise that you turned up to the wrong one.

[somebody]

* Pax can catch the train by using the GCRT LRT system (I can't believe I'm writing this, we have LRT!) to get from Southport to the rail line and go to the Airport.

That's not a bad point, but it requires the stage 2 extension.

Still, I think some people have gotten carried away with the idea.

[stephenk]

-Trouts Rd Line, possibly initially connecting with Ferny Grove at Alderley, or possibly running underground (deep bore) into or through the City (3rd tunnel) when funds eventually permit. See 3031  Wink

Good to see that not all ideas are ill though out, rah rah etc...

You may have noticed that I was in favour of heavy rail on the Trouts Rd corridor. The corridor has a massive catchment potential. However running a tunnel from Enoggera to the CBD instead of using the Ferny Grove Line is only justifiable once more than approx. 10tph are required on the Trouts Rd corridor.

AGT between UQ and Toowong if 2nd tunnel not routed via UQ.

I'd rather a standard metro, up through West End. Although AGT for a metro route should be looked at.
I think the interiors are too narrow for my liking.

Would you like lie flat beds and drink service as well as wide interiors?
The whole point of a narrow interior of some AGTs is to reduce constructions costs, particularly with tunnelling. The reasonably low capacity, short journey time, but high frequency of AGTs means that the trains can be made smaller.

If the 2nd CRR line missed UQ but served West End and Toowong, then a mythical AGT would be better serving Toowong as it would connect with 2 railway lines rather than 1 at West End.

As I've mentioned a zillion times before, there is no need for a metro paralleling most of the route of the 2nd CRR tunnel.

[/quote]

No, if you look in the Connecting SEQ2031 thread (http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=3624.0;topicseen) Trouts Rd line is on one of the slides about rail. As are a few other lines. I'd go with the Toowong-UQ AGT being the unofficial one.

Correct. The Trouts Rd Line is in the 3031 document.

1st and 2nd rail cross river rail tunnel as per ICRCS/CRR with CBD interchange.

There are a number of options for the 2nd cross river rail tunnel.
Are you suggesting it go via West End or via Auchenflower/Milton?

West End definitely, as a new area is served by rail.

I don't know what the fascination in some quarters is with connecting the Gold Coast line to the Gold Coast Airport.

Its a good idea.

Who would be using it to get to the airport?  The Gold Coast line has almost no walk up pax, so they may be using up the free parking.  To get to the airport would be better done with buses.

People can get dropped off at stations by either friends/relatives or taxis (or in an ideal world buses). Much cheaper than a taxi fare from Helensvale to Coolangatta Airport or airport parking. It is unfortunate that the inland route of the Gold Coast Line makes it useless for most Gold Coast beach tourists to access the Airport.

I've used the Gold Coast Airport for a low cost flight to Japan. There was no reasonable public transport alternative from Brisbane, so I had to get a lift with relatives. That's 4 car journeys from Brisbane to Coolangatta due to lack of decent public transport alternative.

[O_128]

if the light rail was being done properly and starting from helensvale then this wouldnt be  a problem

[stephenk]

I just hope people don't get confused between the two airports. It would be horrible to realise that you turned up to the wrong one.

Londoner's can cope with turning up to the correct airport when faced with choice of London City, Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted, and Luton. It's really not that difficult to check the correct airport on the ticket!

Some cities also have direct rail services between two airports, such as in Shanghai and Tokyo.

[somebody]

Londoner's can cope with turning up to the correct airport when faced with choice of London City, Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted, and Luton. It's really not that difficult to check the correct airport on the ticket!

Some cities also have direct rail services between two airports, such as in Shanghai and Tokyo.

My mum made the mistake of flying in to Avalon on Jetstar when they just said Melbourne.  She realised before she flew, but she wasn't particularly pleased.

Once you are used to the idea that you need to check the airport it should be OK.  Perhaps that one was Jetstar's fault for saying "Melbourne" when Avalon isn't Melbourne really.

[somebody]

I've used the Gold Coast Airport for a low cost flight to Japan. There was no reasonable public transport alternative from Brisbane, so I had to get a lift with relatives. That's 4 car journeys from Brisbane to Coolangatta due to lack of decent public transport alternative.

Checking the journey planner, you need to use a 765 & 702 from Robina.  The 765 meets the train generally and the 702 runs every 15 mins, I'm pretty sure.  Perhaps not fun still.

I assume that you were going to Osaka on JQ.  That's about the only Japan flight I know of from the Gold Coast.

[Golliwog]

-AGT between UQ and Toowong if 2nd tunnel not routed via UQ.

I really think having the 2nd tunnel go via UQ would be the better option. It provides better access from more locations. IMO, an AGT between UQ and Toowong is just an expensive upgrade of the 402/412 buses from Toowong.

Also, I was happy to see mention of non-ballasted trackbed being the proposed trackform for the rail in the tunnels. As long as its built correctly, whilst being a bit more expensive to begin with, it can require almost no maintenance. Asides from rail breaks obviously, but those happen.

[#Metro]

UQ must feature somewhere. Whether by heavy rail or metro, it must be served.
Having no connection is not ok IMHO.

[somebody]

-AGT between UQ and Toowong if 2nd tunnel not routed via UQ.

I really think having the 2nd tunnel go via UQ would be the better option. It provides better access from more locations. IMO, an AGT between UQ and Toowong is just an expensive upgrade of the 402/412 buses from Toowong.

Also, I was happy to see mention of non-ballasted trackbed being the proposed trackform for the rail in the tunnels. As long as its built correctly, whilst being a bit more expensive to begin with, it can require almost no maintenance. Asides from rail breaks obviously, but those happen.

I agree with the part that it should go via UQ, if a West End-CBD-Newstead tunnel is widely supported.

CityRail's older tunnels have non ballasted trackbed, but the Airport line is ballasted!?  Go figure.  Perhaps it was built with some penny pinching.

[mufreight]

Where are the tunnels on the Airport line, one would doubt that the Airport line being built on a viaduct for most of its length was built using balasted track to save money as balasted track is quieter than track laid on continuous slab as the noise problems that Sydney has endured with underground lines exemplifies

[somebody]

Where are the tunnels on the Airport line,

I was talking about Sydney's airport line.

[Golliwog]

Where are the tunnels on the Airport line, one would doubt that the Airport line being built on a viaduct for most of its length was built using balasted track to save money as balasted track is quieter than track laid on continuous slab as the noise problems that Sydney has endured with underground lines exemplifies

Ballasted track with a fixed restraint (ie: A concrete viaduct instead of just air or soil) is actually quite a good choice as the main cause of maintenance on ballasted track is fixing the levels of the rails because when its unrestrained the ballast settles, where as in the viaduct the only problem that can cause settlement is the ballast fractureing nad wearing down under load.