Sherwood Rd substandard rail overpass

[johnnigh]

As part of the Sherwood Bus Depot project, a Brisbane City Council project, the State Govt suggested a number of improvements that should be made to the Sherwood Rd overpass. Council rejected all of these, in part arguing that future quadruplication of the Tennyson line would prevent them building a new bridge. The Walter Taylor South Action Group posted the following from somewhere in Council's website:
BCC Response to State Government issues on Sherwood Bus Depot

If you are following the DA process you will have noticed that on the 7th of May BCC responded to the State Governments concerns regarding the Sherwood Bus Depot:

Proposed Sherwood Road Intersection Design

"It is not proposed to construct Sherwood Road to the ultimate alignment as part of this development.  Critical design elements such as the final rail overbridge design cannot be resolved at the present time as the design of any future quadruplication of the Corinda-Yeerongpilly branch railway line is not known at the present time. Therefore any works proposed to comply with the ultimate design may be rendered redundant."
"It is not feasible or appropriate to provide a bikeway along the southern side of Sherwood Road as there is no connectivity offered to the west."
"there is no safe pedestrian crossing of the railway bridge westbound from the site on the south side of Sherwood Road as a result it would be inappropriate to encourage pedestrian movement in this direction whilst the current bridge remains."
"Reference is also made to Appendix A of Austroads Part 3.  This section discusses the relaxation of design parameters for "Brown field" sites such as this site.  The design parameter used for this intersection is as follows: Driver Reaction Time 1.5s; Eye Heights (m) 1.1 Car, 1.8 Bus and 2.4 Truck; ... The existing vertical curve geometry of the road over the rail bridge is based upon a design speed of 60kph so the same design has been used for the intersection sight line analysis.  The posted speed is also 60kph."
"GTA note that given the location of the site, it is highly unlikely that the pedestrian phase to cross Sherwood Road would be required at every cycle.  This is an important consideration as this pedestrian phase determines the green time provided for vehicles to exit th site rather than traffic volumes dictating the required green time."

Council's contempt for pedestrians is clear in this response. I have asked the bus depot project about this.

However, the two significant points for Back on Track is the Council hiding behind a future investment that is not part of any current plan, 'not in my lifetime' is the timeline for quad lines for Tennyson. Secondly, substandard overpasses appear to be tolerated by Council, and QR.

[#Metro]

Once again, cut costs, don't bother about benefits or inferior infrastructure... seems to be all the rage.

[mufreight]

The original Sherwood Road overpass was a timber overbridge and was replaced with the present structure some 25/30 years ago and there is room on the western side for this overpass to be duplicated, as for the span being for 2 or 4 tracks any duplication can be designed so that it could be readily extended, but if the posts of the writer of the previous post has previously suggested a number of other cross country connecting lines were to be constructed such as the southern freight corridor and the line that has been proposed connecting the Springfield line to the Gold Coast line then there would never be any need for additional tracks between Yeeroongpilly and Corinda so the construction of a new overpass on Sherwood Road to span four tracks would be a waste of funds better expended elsewhere on the system.

[Golliwog]

But the argument about the bridge being unable to be constructed due to lack of knowledge about whether or not it is to be quadrupled is utter nonsense. First, as has been pointed out, I have not heard of any plans for the Tennyson line to be quad tracked, and second, is it really that hard to build a bridge with open space under it that could fit another 2 tracks in at a later date if they decide to do so? Doing so shouldn't increase the cost of the bridge by much at all.

[somebody]

I find such nonsense arguments being put forward by BCC quite annoying actually.

[mufreight]

Might one suggest that you actualy go and have a look at the site, the rail corridor at this point lacks room for four tracks anyway.

[Golliwog]

Yes, but the government can, and if its going to quad track the Tennyson loop, will aquire land to do so. So how about BCC stop complaining, ask QR about the quad and if there are any plans yet about where the 2 extra tracks would be (both on the north/south side or one on each) and build accordingly. Or if there aren't any plans yet, make up their mind for them and build the bridge so it has space for 4 tracks in some way. None of this "well we don't know yet, and plans could change so lets do nothing."

[somebody]

Might one suggest that you actualy go and have a look at the site, the rail corridor at this point lacks room for four tracks anyway.

That makes the argument even bigger nonsense.  The whole concept that the Tennyson loop might be quadded seems exceedingly unlikely in my lifetime.

[mufreight]

Thank you Somebody for your most pertinent comment, you got it exactly right, that is exactly what this discussion has been "a lot of nonsense" .
Your comment hopefully will convey a message to some as to the relativity and credibility of their posts.
     

[Golliwog]

So what you're saying mufreight, is that if the Tennyson loop does end up being 4 tracks, they should have to waste a whole heap of money redoing the overpass again? If their going to be redoing the overpass again now, to add the pedestrian path on the southern side and whatever else it needs, I do not see what harm there is in planning for the possibility of the rail corridor being expanded.

[#Metro]

That makes the argument even bigger nonsense.  The whole concept that the Tennyson loop might be quadded seems exceedingly unlikely in my lifetime.

What about freight? This is a heavily used freight corridor.
And the possibility of running trains via Tennyson until the 2016 tunnel trough West End or Auchenflower completes?

[mufreight]

So what you're saying mufreight, is that if the Tennyson loop does end up being 4 tracks, they should have to waste a whole heap of money redoing the overpass again? If their going to be redoing the overpass again now, to add the pedestrian path on the southern side and whatever else it needs, I do not see what harm there is in planning for the possibility of the rail corridor being expanded.

The facts remain that there is more chance of winning Lotto without a ticket than the Tennyson loop will ever see additional tracks.

That makes the argument even bigger nonsense.  The whole concept that the Tennyson loop might be quadded seems exceedingly unlikely in my lifetime.

What about freight? This is a heavily used freight corridor.

And the possibility of running trains via Tennyson until the 2016 tunnel trough West End or Auchenflower completes?

Yes this section of line currently is used by freight services but your argument fails to recognise what you yourself have espoused in relation to freight bypass lines, the southern freight corridor will be built basicly to take the freight traffic (read coal and grain) off the passenger lines, the western freight bypass which you have again promoted would see traffic such as that presently from Moolabin and Acacia Ridge also divirted.
As for the fantasy lines through West End and Auchenflower and the need for passenger services via Tennyson I would suggest a cold shower.
At the present time the signaling on the line has the capability of handeling some 18 trains per hour in each direction, current usage would not exceed three trains per hour in each direction.
As has been said previously the money you propose to pour into less than practical fantasies is better spent resolving existing problems and needs to enable the currently required levels of service, particularly for comuters.

[somebody]

So what you're saying mufreight, is that if the Tennyson loop does end up being 4 tracks, they should have to waste a whole heap of money redoing the overpass again? If their going to be redoing the overpass again now, to add the pedestrian path on the southern side and whatever else it needs, I do not see what harm there is in planning for the possibility of the rail corridor being expanded.

They should take that chance.

If someone offered to buy your undrawn lotto ticket for $1000 you would sell wouldn't you?

[mufreight]

The point being overlooked here is that (a) I made the point that I did not take a ticket in the first place and used that comment to address the reality of the probability of Tennyson ever needing four tracks.
The other point is that the funds that you propose be expended on infrastructure that will not be needed could be better expended on the provision of a fourth platform at Oxley and electrification of the fourth track which the line loading forecasts by government have indicated will be required by 2016.
Should the need arise the existing bridge could be lengthened to increase its span and the duplicate bridge could be designed and built to cater for a future increase in its span if needed at some future time.
Again much ado on something lacking in consequence.

[somebody]

I meant a different hypothetical lotto ticket.

The other point is that the funds that you propose be expended on infrastructure that will not be needed could be better expended on the provision of a fourth platform at Oxley and electrification of the fourth track which the line loading forecasts by government have indicated will be required by 2016.
Should the need arise the existing bridge could be lengthened to increase its span and the duplicate bridge could be designed and built to cater for a future increase in its span if needed at some future time.
Again much ado on something lacking in consequence.

Fair call here.

Perhaps the only real problem with the current bridge is the difficulty for pedestrians, which is something the OP alluded to.  This would be something which appears should be sorted.  But Sherwood Rd is 2 lane anyway, no point in widenning just the bridge.

[stephenk]

Might one suggest that you actualy go and have a look at the site, the rail corridor at this point lacks room for four tracks anyway.

That makes the argument even bigger nonsense.  The whole concept that the Tennyson loop might be quadded seems exceedingly unlikely in my lifetime.

Routine services may need to be routed via the Tennyson Line sometime in the next 20 years. However, whether this requires additional tracks is another matter.

[somebody]

Routine services may need to be routed via the Tennyson Line sometime in the next 20 years. However, whether this requires additional tracks is another matter.

Can't see how that would cause the quadding requirement, even if it happens that the 2016 tunnel & the Merivale Bridge are insufficient.

[stephenk]

Routine services may need to be routed via the Tennyson Line sometime in the next 20 years. However, whether this requires additional tracks is another matter.

Can't see how that would cause the quadding requirement, even if it happens that the 2016 tunnel & the Merivale Bridge are insufficient.

Precisely. There would need to be grade-seperated junctions at each end, but I doubt that extra tracks would be needed. The ICRCS does not show more than 7tph using this line in peak, and 0tph off-peak. Although ideas in the 3031 document may change the proposed operating patterns. Even if the line had 4tph peak, you could still fit freight trains between services. If a freight refuge was required on the line, this could be sited where the sidings currently are.

[#Metro]

Yes this section of line currently is used by freight services but your argument fails to recognise what you yourself have espoused in relation to freight bypass lines, the southern freight corridor will be built basicly to take the freight traffic (read coal and grain) off the passenger lines, the western freight bypass which you have again promoted would see traffic such as that presently from Moolabin and Acacia Ridge also divirted.
As for the fantasy lines through West End and Auchenflower and the need for passenger services via Tennyson I would suggest a cold shower.
At the present time the signaling on the line has the capability of handeling some 18 trains per hour in each direction, current usage would not exceed three trains per hour in each direction.
As has been said previously the money you propose to pour into less than practical fantasies is better spent resolving existing problems and needs to enable the currently required levels of service, particularly for comuter

The forum needs to be a non-threatening environment for the open discussion of ideas.
The ICRCS p91 shows "5th track between Corinda and Tennyson Loop for freight" and also p92 shows "Additional refuge loop for freight in Tennyson Loop" and mentions that this loop is a capacity constraint (though my interpretation is that this is more of an inconvenience than a critical bottleneck).

Pages 36 ICRCS in the "recommended am peak period rail service" show 4 Springfield-originating trains going through what appears to be via Tennyson in 2016, and on p37 7 Beenleigh-originating trains in 2026. So a regular passenger service operating via Tennyson, although difficult to imagine today, may be a possibility in the distant future.

PS: Just so there is no misinterpretation, I'm merely discussing this, not "proposing" or "advocating" for it.

[mufreight]

Again someone who obviously has problems with reality strikes again with another piece of absurdity.
Springfield originating trains via Tennyson, you have to be kidding, explain why one would route commuter services via a slower more congested route.
There are currently two sets of tracks from Corinda to the CBD via indooroopilly, even with the construction and commissioning of the inner city cross river tunnels the additional traffic consequent to this bit of absurdity would require the construction of additional tracks between Yeerongpilly and Park Road over and above those needed for the cross river link.
I do not know what those who have created this latest episode of absurdity have been smoking but either they should give it up or distribute it more widely so that everyone can better appreciate the degree of their expertise in attempting to justify their future unemployment.
Quote from previous post by Tramtrain
Pages 36 ICRCS in the "recommended am peak period rail service" show 4 Springfield-originating trains going through what appears to be via Tennyson in 2016, and on p37 7 Beenleigh-originating trains in 2026. So a regular passenger service operating via Tennyson, although difficult to imagine today, may be a possibility in the distant future.

PS: Just so there is no misinterpretation, I'm merely discussing this, not "proposing" or "advocating" for it.
A number of recent posts have been akin to discussing works of fiction rather than reality and achieve little other than to damage the credibility of this website.

[stephenk]

The forum needs to be a non-threatening environment for the open discussion of ideas.
The ICRCS p91 shows "5th track between Corinda and Tennyson Loop for freight" and also p92 shows "Additional refuge loop for freight in Tennyson Loop" and mentions that this loop is a capacity constraint (though my interpretation is that this is more of an inconvenience than a critical bottleneck).

Pages 36 ICRCS in the "recommended am peak period rail service" show 4 Springfield-originating trains going through what appears to be via Tennyson in 2016, and on p37 7 Beenleigh-originating trains in 2026. So a regular passenger service operating via Tennyson, although difficult to imagine today, may be a possibility in the distant future.

PS: Just so there is no misinterpretation, I'm merely discussing this, not "proposing" or "advocating" for it.

Brisvegan, sorry, Tramtrain, page 36 in the ICRCS shows 4tph peak Springfield originating trains running along the Ipswich  suburban tracks and joining the Beenleigh originating trains at Roma Street East junction. They will not be running via Tennyson.

There are 7tph peak Beenleigh originating trains running via Tennyson in 2026 according to the ICRCS, however 7tph does not exactly require any extra tracks!

If a freight loop was required in the Tennyson loop, there is plenty of space where it could be located without having to rebuild or widen any bridges. Please have a look at the QR track maps or Google Earth. This freight loop would be required to hold freight trains so that can slot in between freight services on the main lines rather than capacity issues on the Tennyson Loop.

The proposed 5th tracks are between Darra and the start of the Tennyson Loop, and between Salisbury and Park Rd. These tracks are not through the Tennyson Loop. This is due to capacity issues between Corinda and Darra and Salisbury and Park Rd, not capacity issues on the Tennyson Loop.

Some of the plans in the forthcoming 3031 document and changes to the CRR study may change some of the current future operating plans mentioned in the ICRCS. Even when these 2 or maybe even 3 tunnels eventually get build, I still cannot see a scenario where the Tennyson Loop would require more capacity than 2 running tracks (approx 24tphpd with upgraded signalling).

[mufreight]

great to see that some do some research on the subject and present a factually correct post that provides a credible explanation rather than another insupportable item of spin.
Thanks Stephenk

[#Metro]

Page 36 in the ICRCS shows 4tph peak Springfield originating trains running along the Ipswich  suburban tracks and joining the Beenleigh originating trains at Roma Street East junction. They will not be running via Tennyson.

There are 7tph peak Beenleigh originating trains running via Tennyson in 2026 according to the ICRCS, however 7tph does not exactly require any extra tracks!

If a freight loop was required in the Tennyson loop, there is plenty of space where it could be located without having to rebuild or widen any bridges. Please have a look at the QR track maps or Google Earth. This freight loop would be required to hold freight trains so that can slot in between freight services on the main lines rather than capacity issues on the Tennyson Loop.

The proposed 5th tracks are between Darra and the start of the Tennyson Loop, and between Salisbury and Park Rd. These tracks are not through the Tennyson Loop. This is due to capacity issues between Corinda and Darra and Salisbury and Park Rd, not capacity issues on the Tennyson Loop.

Some of the plans in the forthcoming 3031 document and changes to the CRR study may change some of the current future operating plans mentioned in the ICRCS. Even when these 2 or maybe even 3 tunnels eventually get build, I still cannot see a scenario where the Tennyson Loop would require more capacity than 2 running tracks (approx 24tphpd with upgraded signalling).

Thanks for the explanation. I stand corrected.
It looked like Tennyson loop was being used as Beenleigh trains and Ips line trans were merging together in the diagram. Absence of labels also did not help.

great to see that some do some research on the subject and present a factually correct post that provides a credible explanation rather than another insupportable item of spin.
Thanks Stephenk

Pardon me, but I think you might want to consider some of the words used in your previous post about smoking etc.
These are awful things to say about anyone, let alone people you do not know! Nothing to do with PT!!!