Brisbane Underground Metro System

[petey3801]

The signalling on the Springfield line is also not set up for freight. It is set up for MUs only. 3-aspect signals reasonably closely spaced.

Ballast and rail trains on the Richlands and Springfield lines need an Authority to Travel and are subject to heavy speed restrictions due to the signalling.

[SurfRail]

Best thing is to run a freight raline along the Ips line and segregate from suburban services as much as possible.

The much better option would be to build the Ebenezer to Kagaru to Bromelton line, because then you can purpose build it for dual gauge and double-stacking from scratch.  Gets virtually all freight and coal off the Ipswich line west of Sherwood except for the occasional train to Box Flat (if they ever run that way again) or the Dinmore cattle siding, for which you definitely do not need a dedicated line. 

Build this new southern route and any third or fourth between Darra and pswich would be a stranded investment unless you intend running tiered services eg all to Redbank then express to Darra, and have all-stoppers originate at Redbank.

Even Perth has the occasional freight movement on the Midland line and you can timetable 15 minute trains around them if they are as limited as this would be (ie a few a week).

For this to work at its best, you would need CRR and the related amplifications, so passenger trains (other than the XPT) no longer run at all on the Salisbury to Dutton Park dual-gauge road.  It becomes a dedicated freight line feeding the dedicated port flyover and Cleveland track.  Maybe need a passing loop on the line between Buranda and the port too, to avoid any need to interfere with Cleveland line operations.

[mufreight]

The foam over freight operation is beyond belief, there is no source of freight on the Springfield line and it will have no connection with the main western line until such time as the loop line through the Ripley Valley is constructed and makes a connection at Ipswich.
That line would have a trailing connection to the Western main line and for a freight service to then be operated via the Springfield line would require that the train reverse direction at Ipswich to take a longer route, aint going to happen.
Time to cut out the B*** S**t and reduce the foam that does nothing for the credibility of this forum and get a bit real.   

Get a grip.

Obviously I am referring to such a connection being provided.

There is no operational justification for such a connection IF the line between Springfield Central through the Ripley Valley is ever constructed, once again more foam on a subject of which you plainly lack any knowledge or understanding of.

[somebody]

I reiterate my previous comment.

[HappyTrainGuy]

Sorry Simon but I concur 100% with mufreight. There is no need, reason or advantage what so ever to send freight anywhere near Springfield. All Aurizon drivers would need to undergo driver training again to be familiar and certified to run the line. The permitted speed difference between the two rollingstock would be around 60kph. Signaling is not in the slightest bit configured for any type of freight train (3 aspect with relatively close spacing). As petey said even the current trains that are working on the extension part of the line need to obey specific safeworkings.

[somebody]

Riddle me this.  What is the cost likely to be of connecting Ripley Valley to beyond Rosewood + signalling upgrades vs Corinda flyover vs Kagaru corridor.

[SurfRail]

Riddle me this.  What is the cost likely to be of connecting Ripley Valley to beyond Rosewood + signalling upgrades vs Corinda flyover vs Kagaru corridor.

Only Kagaru lets you do double-stacking, which will get you to the Bromelton yard (if ever built) or to Acacia Ridge (assuming if passenger trains to Flagstone or beyond ever happen that there would still be a non-electrified dual-gauge track in the corridor).  No chance whatsoever with the other routes. 

Double-stacking gives you considerable advantages in capacity and in my mind is enough of a reason to pursue the dedicated line, quite beyond the beneficial effect of separating all this freight from metropolitan traffic completely.

[somebody]

Only Kagaru lets you do double-stacking, which will get you to the Bromelton yard (if ever built) or to Acacia Ridge (assuming if passenger trains to Flagstone or beyond ever happen that there would still be a non-electrified dual-gauge track in the corridor).  No chance whatsoever with the other routes. 

Yeah, but aren't there significant impediments with getting between the Ipswich region and Toowoomba with tunnels for double stacking?  What are you envisaging the double stacking would be used for?

[mufreight]

Riddle me this.  What is the cost likely to be of connecting Ripley Valley to beyond Rosewood + signalling upgrades vs Corinda flyover vs Kagaru corridor.

Only Kagaru lets you do double-stacking, which will get you to the Bromelton yard (if ever built) or to Acacia Ridge (assuming if passenger trains to Flagstone or beyond ever happen that there would still be a non-electrified dual-gauge track in the corridor).  No chance whatsoever with the other routes. 

Double-stacking gives you considerable advantages in capacity and in my mind is enough of a reason to pursue the dedicated line, quite beyond the beneficial effect of separating all this freight from metropolitan traffic completely.

There are also the restrictions that come from a track formation that only caters for a 20 tonne axle load which leaves little scope for double stacking, a minimum axle load capacity in the region of 28/30 tonnes would be required for effective double stacking and in any case the majority of the freight that would be moved over that line would be coal,

[SurfRail]

^ But it enables future flexibility in the event the line from Melbourne to Brisbane is ever built, whether or not it goes via Toowoomba.  That line would most likely be engineered to accommodate it (and you certainly wouldn't want to do anything to prejudice it).

Getting freight and coal off the Ipswich line is still enough of a reason to build the Kagaru route.

[mufreight]

^ But it enables future flexibility in the event the line from Melbourne to Brisbane is ever built, whether or not it goes via Toowoomba.  That line would most likely be engineered to accommodate it (and you certainly wouldn't want to do anything to prejudice it).

Getting freight and coal off the Ipswich line is still enough of a reason to build the Kagaru route.

Not according to the clowns in the Newman Emmerson circus

[somebody]

more stuctual.

My understanding is that the structures are perfectly capable of taking NG freight.

[mufreight]

more stuctual.

My understanding is that the structures are perfectly capable of taking NG freight.

Fantastic, Simon finaly understands something.
If the Inland rail line is ever built it is still not a carved in stone decision that it will be built via Toowoomba, next any new SG construction being a greenfield construction would logicly be built to a 30 tonne axle load and clearances to allow for double stacking.
A look at a map will also show that if the line were to be constructed from Rosewood (Ebinezzer) to Kagaru then trains would have to reverse direction and head south to reach the Bromelton inland port/freight centre.
Double stacking into Acacia Ridge from Kagaru would require a number of road over rail bridges to be raised as would be the case with numerous bridges between Rosewood and Gorbang Junction in NSW.
Again I might suggest that a little research and practical knownedge would greatly assist you levels of understanding with a result of considerably less foam.

[somebody]

No.

[mufreight]

more stuctual.

My understanding is that the structures are perfectly capable of taking NG freight.

Fantastic, Simon finaly understands something.
If the Inland rail line is ever built it is still not a carved in stone decision that it will be built via Toowoomba, next any new SG construction being a greenfield construction would logicly be built to a 30 tonne axle load and clearances to allow for double stacking.
A look at a map will also show that if the line were to be constructed from Rosewood (Ebinezzer) to Kagaru then trains would have to reverse direction and head south to reach the Bromelton inland port/freight centre.
Double stacking into Acacia Ridge from Kagaru would require a number of road over rail bridges to be raised as would be the case with numerous bridges between Rosewood and Gorbang Junction in NSW.
Again I might suggest that a little research and practical knownedge would greatly assist you levels of understanding with a result of considerably less foam.

Why would you have to "reverse" the train at Kagaru, just build a suitable bend?

And new alignment bound for interstate trains will only ever be done with DD in mind, even if the brownfield connections still have low heights all greenfield works will be built to do DD standards and of course suitable axle loading, gradients etc. If you lower your standards on this, you pretty much phuck the project from the start and its longterm usefulness and viability of even turning one sod of dirt. Hence why we will never ever see a freighter on Springfield line.

Yes they could put another leg on the connection making a Y junction at Kagaru but they are still reversing direction which will add to the total distance traveled having to run south to Bromelton from Kagaru just as the routing of the line via Toowoombe will add an additional 85 kilometeres as against the line being routed via Thanes and Murphys gap to Tamrookum.
The additional distance costs money to construct and takes time to travel that further disadvantages rail in competition with road.

[mufreight]

Yes, but if you are paying for the new line down the range. The Southern route means you get 5-10mtpa and the Toowoomba route gets you another 10mtpa and maybe risk loosing 1-2mtpa but as this is long haul freight, unlikely.

It is highly unlikely that the SG line via Toowoomba would get up as the intention was that the coal traffic off the downs would be divirted to Gladstone via Miles and Banana on SG.
Were that traffic to be routed down the range and into the Port of Brisbane a number of problems arise ranging from a lack of room at the Port of Brisbane for stockpiles through to the environmental issues.
At the present time the existing infrastructure acts as a restriction on the tonnage that can be shipped through the Port of Brisbane and there are more than enough screams from the greenies over environmental concerns that any government would be wary as to how much increase they would allow.
As for long haul freight on the Inland line it would in the main be freight ex Melbourne, Adelaide Whyalla and the west, Perth.
On the east west freight haul between the west and Sydney and Melbourne rail now holds better than 75% of the market and it could be expected that rail could take the share between the south and western originating points and Brisbane from the present 18% or thereabouts up to the region of the 75% share that the east west line has.
If rail is to do that it needs to be as time competitive as possible as well as being cost effective and operating trains an additional 150 or so Klm with no tonnage advantage in operating the additional distance is definately on the minus side of the books and a disincentitive to use rail even in a long haul market.

[Golliwog]

The POB does have limitations, but they are expanding: http://www.portbris.com.au/port-development

They're meant to have berth 12 open this year, and they're continually dredging the shipping channel and using that to extend Fishermans island.

[ozbob]

This seems to have disappeared.

Only reference to it I can find presently on TMR website is this brief mention in Queensland Transport and Roads Investment Program (PDF, 62 KB) 14 Jun 2011

Cross River Rail: The first stage of the Brisbane Inner City
Metro is the Cross River Rail project, which will remove the
restriction for train services in the inner city through Central
and Roma Street stations. The Cross River Rail study team
is currently developing the Business Case for the project,
construction commencement of which has been delayed to
at least 2015. The project is part of the Building Australia
Fund, jointly funded by the Australian Government and
Queensland Government

[ozbob]

Brisbanetimes --> Brisbane's underground rail must look ahead to earn funding

Brisbane's future underground rail project under George Street must mesh with a stand-alone "driverless mini-metro" system in the city's CBD to give the project "more bang for its buck", an experienced tunnelling expert said.

It must also plan for more than one rail track in each direction.

Scott Keniston from the Australian Tunnelling Society will deliver a speech outlining these issues at the University of Queensland on Thursday to re-open public debate about the future of Brisbane's underground rail.

Mr Keniston founded Bamser, a tunnelling advice service for Brisbane until it was bought out by a national management buyout and now operates from Perth to Sydney.

Mr Keniston has advised the New South Wales' government on its North West Rail metro system – Australia's first driverless metro system - and has advised the past two Queensland Governments on the Cross River Rail and Legacy Way tunnels.

"One of the key things that the new government needs to take into consideration is that the George Street corridor is a one-time deal," Mr Keniston said."The alignment works really well, but are two tracks though that corridor really enough given that there is only one Roma Street?" he asked.

Mr Keniston said Brisbane has had cross-river link suggestions for 90 years well before Labor's Cross River Rail and the LNP's Bus and Train Tunnel in the past decade.

"We have actually had 90 years of proposals - and some of them very credible - which haven't been built," Mr Keniston said.

"And the reason for that is funding," he said.

"And if you are going to compete for funding you need to have the 'best bang for buck' and get more for less."

Mr Keniston will on Thursday recommend a three-pronged approach to give the new Cross River Rail "more bang for the buck."

1 - Using a 'driverless metro system' around the inner-city; similar to Bucharest.

2 - Including extra underground train lines under George Street, but not adding the trackwork until needed.

3 - Planning for a time 15 to 20 years ahead, when Brisbane's busways are all light rail.

Mr Keniston said all of Brisbane's busways were built to be switched to light rail.

He said the idea of an 'inner-city metro' – separate but meshed to the new version Cross River Rail – had first been considered by Campbell Newman as Brisbane's lord mayor in 2011.

"I had spoken to him two days beforehand and given him a presentation on how cost-effective a metro system might be," Mr Keniston said.

Mr Keniston said the scheme was shouted down in the media before figures could be checked to see if they could be achieved.

"And then shortly thereafter he went off and declared that he would run for premier and the idea never went any further."

Mr Keniston - who has a background in undergound mine engineering – said the incremental cost in providing the extra space under George Street would not be significant in the overall cost.

"It is not necessary to fit them out with tracks, but to create the (underground) space and have one eye on the future is appropriate," he said.

He will on Thursday suggest the tunnels under George Street be dug by "road headers" and not tunnel boring machines, because TBM's provide only a circular tunnel – not flexible enough - and "road headers" could save one year in construction time and costs.

However Mr Keniston said his strongest argument was that Brisbane needed to plan for 15 to 20 years in the future when most of Brisbane's busways have been converted to light rail and "driverless metro" system ran through the inner-city.

Features of a metro system

- Driverless tram-like carriages running in a circuit;

- Stations are 800 metres to a kilometre apart;

- no timetables, just high frequency service around the inner-city;

- More standing rather than sitting passenger areas.

Mr Keniston said "metro" was inevitable in inner-city Brisbane.

"Almost certainly Brisbane will get metro," he said.

"There are already comparable cities around the world with comparable population densities have managed to fund and operate driverless metro," he said.

He named Bucharest in Romania - with its six metro lines - as a similar case to Brisbane.

Bucharest has a large urban area and a population of about 2.2 million residents, while Brisbane – which includes Australia's largest local authority - has around 2.3 million residents.

"Driveless metro is very much the norm now and is being rolled out in very similar environments around the world," he said.

"For Brisbane it's a case of when, not if, is probably the summary."

Funding issues

Mr Keniston said capturing value uplift - the rising value of properties close to good infrastructure - was the model to explore.

"There are a number of stakeholders which already benefit from the alignment being chosen," he said.

"And they get that by default.

"The government benefits most by controlling most of the land around the future George Street station .

"But others will be taken on the journey and currently will garner that uplift in value for free.

"But I imagine that the opportunities to build on or around the stations would be something that the state  would be interested in valuing potentially for a transaction."

Scott Keniston speaks on Thursday at University of Queensland's Advanced Engineering Building; Room: 49-301 from 5.30pm for 6pm.

[pandmaster]

He is onto something with value capture and digging additional tunnels to be used at a later date. IMHO it makes no sense to build a metro at this stage, with the drastic requirement for a second river crossing and the inability (and probably lack of demand) to convert the GC, Cleveland or Beenleigh lines to metro due to freight sharing the tracks. Perhaps the additional tunnels could be used for a metro in the future though. At least he is ambitious. More commuter rail would be a miracle, let alone a metro.

[ozbob]

Present thinking at TMR  ... 

Brisbane inner city metro 

http://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/Projects/Name/B/Brisbane-inner-city-metro.aspx

The Queensland Government's initial proposal is

The Queensland Government has released a proposal for an underground metro system, linking Toowong, West End, the City, Newstead and Bowen Hills; with possible extensions to Bulimba and Hamilton North Shore.

Project info

Over the next 25 years, the population in the inner five kilometre ring surrounding Brisbane's CBD will grow by about 50 per cent, or an extra 90 000 residents. At the same time, the number of workers needing to enter the city each day will double from 200 000 to 400 000.

The Queensland Government has released a proposal for an underground metro system, linking Toowong, West End, the City, Newstead and Bowen Hills; with possible extensions to Bulimba and Hamilton North Shore. The plans include an international-standard, underground metro rail system — similar to the London Tube and the Paris Metro.

The proposal to build underground rail under Brisbane city over the next two decades would help south east Queensland cope with unprecedented inner-city population growth.

The first step is delivery of the Cross River Rail project, which will open up the bottleneck restricting train services in the inner city through Central and Roma Street stations. Cross River Rail includes a new rail line, a new river crossing and new inner city rail stations.

The next step after Cross River Rail would be the metro project, which can bring in high capacity and high frequency services.

Map --> here!  External PDF

I have saved and uploaded the map > here!
Should the original link at TMR disappear.

[ozbob]

What a rippa of an acronym  Italics   

[verbatim9]

Do we need it all underground 80% should be and using LRT overhead electricity not third rail. As new technologies allow for LRT to run for a distance catenary free. That will save on overall costs.

[Old Northern Road]

IMO the route of the metro should be

Indooroopilly
UQ
West End
South Brisbane
Albert St/George St (wherever the CRR station is)
Eagle St
Fortitude Valley

Then splitting into 2 branches:

- One heading south through New Farm and on to Morningside

- The other to Newstead, Bulimba, Hamilton, Doomben, Airport

[kaykayt]

IMO the route of the metro should be

Indooroopilly
UQ
West End
South Brisbane
Albert St/George St (wherever the CRR station is)
Eagle St
Fortitude Valley

Then splitting into 2 branches:

- One heading south through New Farm and on to Morningside

- The other to Newstead, Bulimba, Hamilton, Doomben, Airport

Then eventually extending it to western suburbs (Kenmore, Mt Ommaney and so on)

[kaykayt]

LONG POST

I've had another play around with what the heavy rail network should look like - firstly pre-CRR, then by the 2040s.

This ignores LRT and metro corridors.  I expect the Gold Coast network would continue to expand along the lines I have discussed previously.  I think LD's metro concept is very sound, except that I would have the following:
- 2 northern branches forking at Aspley - one to the nearest NWTC station, and one to Carseldine.
- One of those branches would go all the way to Loganholme, the other would only operate as far as Garden City, hence not overserving the periphery
- I think it is going to be easiest to maintain the current INB route from Roma Street to the RBWH via QUT Kelvin Grove.
- The east-west route could be Gold Coast style light rail due to the likely lower passenger volumes, but the north south one would have to be heavier duty (500+ capacity per service and off-road, so something not too dissimilar from the newer 3-car DLR trains in London).

The design philosophy is to disaggregate the core of the network to provide 4 separate through-routed track pairs.  The light metro alignment would take the busway corridor with some modification, so no significant imposition on what I am proposing.

Pre-CRR network

Service characteristics

15 minute off-peak frequency is achieved everywhere except north of Caboolture, west of Ipswich, south of Coopers Plains and the Doomben branch (where 2 tph services operate at minimum, except north of Nambour where it would be a few per day to Cooroy or beyond).

Sector 1:

1. Caboolture to Ipswich - all Caboolture to Petrie, then Strathpine, Northgate, Eagle Junction, all Bowen Hills to Milton, Indooroopilly, Darra, all Darra to Ipswich
2. Kippa-Ring to Springfield Central - all Kippa-Ring to Northgate, then Eagle Junction, then all Bowen Hills to Springfield Central
9. Sunshine Coast to Roma Street - all stations from Nambour to Caboolture, then Petrie, Northgate, Eagle Junction and Bowen Hills, then all stations to Roma Street.  Some services will extend to/from Cooroy or Gympie North.
10. Rosewood shuttle - no through services past Ipswich.

Sector 2:

3. Shorncliffe to Cleveland - all stations in the off-peak, peak hour expresses run express from Wynnum Central to Buranda.
4. Airport to Roma Street - preferably all stations if contractual requirement can be relaxed, otherwise as per current.  (Supplementary full time service to allow 15 minute frequency to the Airport).
5. Airport to Gold Coast - current, except all trains stop at Park Road, Altandi, Loganlea and Beenleigh no matter the time of day.
6. Ferny Grove to Beenleigh - all stations in the off-peak, peak hour expresses run express from Kuraby to Park Road.
7. Ferny Grove to Coopers Plains - all stations
8. Doomben to Roma Street - all stations

Infrastructure requirements

Extensions

- Petrie to Kippa-Ring
- Richlands to Springfield Central

Amplifications

- 2 realigned tracks from Landsborough to Beerburrum
- 3 tracks from Caboolture to Petrie
- 4 tracks from Petrie to Strathpine
- 2 tracks from Sandgate to Shorncliffe and either a lengthened Cronulla style platform for Shorncliffe with an "A" and "B" end, extending into the current dead end, or a second platform (the gunzel in me cries about this because it would make it harder to run steam there if the triangle has to go, but if it works out as a better option then the anoraks will have to get their jollies elsewhere).
- 2 tracks from Manly to Cleveland
- Doomben line is either duplicated or at minimum has a passing loop and both platforms at Ascot and Doomben working regularly
- Coomera River duplication is done to allow better peak services

2040s network

Service characteristics

15 minute off-peak frequency is achieved everywhere except the Sunshine Coast Hinterland (north from Caboolture along the NCL) and west of Wulkuraka.

Sector "0":

0. Roma Street to Bowen Hills via Ekka - inner city shuttle.  This maintains service to the Ekka redevelopment and RBWH without needing to divert services here from CRR1 as is currently intended.  A 5th platform would be needed at Bowen Hills connected to the "hole in the wall".  Would probably run to and from platform 10 at Roma Street unless occupied by long distance trains, in which case it would be platform 7.

Sector 1 (via CRR2):

4. Strathpine to Wulkuraka - all stations Strathpine to Darra, then Redbank and then all stations to Wulkuraka
5. Shorncliffe to Redbank - all stations
11. Ipswich to Gatton - all stations

Sector 2 (via Merivale Bridge):

8. Ferny Grove to Kuraby - all stations.
9. Ferny Grove to Clevelandp - all stations in the off-peak, peak hour expresses run express from Wynnum Central to Buranda.

Sector 3 (via NWTC and CRR1):

1. Sunshine Coast to Gold Coast - Maroochydore, Caloundra, Caloundra South, all stations Beerwah to Caboolture, then Petrie, Strathpine, Alderley, all stations Roma Street to Yeerongpilly, Salisbury, Kuraby, Beenleigh, Coomera, Helensvale, Parkwood, Nerang, Robina, Elanora and Coolangatta
2. Caboolture to Coomera - all stations Caboolture to Petrie, then Strathpine, all stations Strathpine to Yeerongpilly
3. Kippa-Ring to Flagstone - all stations Kippa-Ring to Yeerongpilly, then all stations Salisbury to Flagstone
10. Sunshine Coast Hinterland - all stations from Beerwah to Nambour, Cooroy or Gympie North.
12. Sunshine Coast local – all stations from Beerwah to Maroochydore
13. Gold Coast local – all stations from Coomera to Coolangatta

The coast locals provide service to suburban type stations in between those on the express pattern to Brisbane (ie the less prominent and heavily patronised ones).  This speeds up the expresses.

The small number of stations to be provided on the NWTC means only "CoastLink" trains will need to run express through this section and can be timetabled around.

Sector 4 (via main line)

6. Hamilton Northshore to Springfield Central - all stations
7. Brisbane Domestic Airport to Ipswich - all stations from the airport terminals to Milton, then Indooroopilly, Corinda, Oxley, Darra, Springfield Central, then all stations to Ipswich..

Infrastructure requirements

Extensions
- Yeerongpilly to Roma Street via Gabba
- Strathpine to Roma Street via Alderley
- Eagle Junction to Corinda via Teneriffe, Riverside, South Bank and UQ
- Springfield Central to Ipswich
- Salisbury to Flagstone
- Beerwah to Maroochydore
- Varsity Lakes to Coolangatta
- Doomben to Hamilton Northshore

Amplifications
- 2 realigned tracks from Nambour to Landsborough
- Possible fifth track in the vicinity of Toombul-Wooloowin for freight/long-distance to get around the Sector 1 and 4 lines converging at  Eagle Junction and Sector 4 lines descending into CRR2
- 4 tracks from Corinda to Redbank (electrification of current 4th track Corinda to Darra) and additional platform at Oxley
- 3 tracks from Redbank to Ipswich
- 2 realigned tracks from Grandchester to Gatton through the Little Liverpool range and with electrification installed
- 4 passenger tracks from Yeerongpilly to Salisbury and 1 dual gauge freight/NSW train track
- 4 tracks from Salisbury to Loganlea
- Preferably - realign tracks from Coopers Plains to Fruitgrove and from Compton Road to Kingston to speed up transit times and consolidate station locations
- Infill stations on the Gold Coast line for local services
- Additional platforms at new interchange stations (Beerwah, Kuraby, Coomera, Bowen Hills, Strathpine)
- Upgrade Boggo Junction to eliminate or minimise crossing conflicts between Cleveland and Kuraby trains
- Prioritise development around the Ferny Grove line and inner core of the network to stimulate patronage, create value capture and improve operating and capital cost recovery
- Sell off Mayne north yards
- 3 principal train depots/maintenance centres at Mayne (Sectors 2 and 4), Clapham (Sector 3) and Wulkuraka (Sector 1 – NGR), and additional/expanding out-stabling points elsewhere

I rlly like that concept

[verbatim9]

Good thing about dedicated metro lines are that they can become easily driver less. An LRT metro could too as long as its grade seperated.

[kaykayt]

How much does metro cost per km in comparison to heavy rail, light rail and busways? In Brisbane.

[ozbob]

How much does metro cost per km in comparison to heavy rail, light rail and busways? In Brisbane.

Anything in Brisbane is costly. Depends a little where it is built, property costs resumptions etc.  Greenfield railway eg. Springfield is cheaper than say busway like the Eastern Busway which was a rolled gold cost.

A guide to metro cost would be the North West Metro in Sydney.

$8.3 billion for 36 km dual track, includes 15km of tunnels.

> http://plenarygroup.com/asia-pacific/projects/north-west-rail-link-ppp.html

[SurfRail]

Generally speaking, tunnelling is getting cheaper to do - both a function of improvements in technique and the fact the construction pricing boom seems to be levelling off.  Still significantly cheaper to build on the surface (at grade, in a trench or on a viaduct) though.

[verbatim9]

Generally speaking, tunnelling is getting cheaper to do - both a function of improvements in technique and the fact the construction pricing boom seems to be levelling off.  Still significantly cheaper to build on the surface (at grade, in a trench or on a viaduct) though.

Thank god for the mining down turn and labour rates getting back to normal level. Plus tunnelling becoming cheaper we should be advocating for tunnelled LRT and busways where possible 👍

Sent from my SM-G360G using Tapatalk

[SurfRail]

^ Not sure why.  Tunnelling basically removes the main advantage of LRT, which is that it exists at street level and displaces cars from the corridors it operates on.

Busways aren't needed anywhere else in Brisbane that would require extensive tunnelling - (relatively) short section from Langlands Park to Camp Hill aside.  Gympie Rd just needs bus lanes, and tunnelling doesn't seem like it's going to fix Melbourne and Grey Streets.

[#Metro]

I am generally against "infrastructure porn", where basically all sorts of fantasy "sexy" infrastructure (bridges, tunnels, monorails, metro, HSR etc) gets paraded around and judged mainly on aesthetics or 'but city X [usually Paris] has it."

That said, I am not going stop anyone from having a discussion about these things.

However, I prefer to focus on more incremental upgrades.

I think there is potential to run buses in Class B ROW. Give them the LRT treatment basically, but run bus. For example, LRT style bus lanes and stops through the valley to KSD, along KSD to the Portside development.

SurfRail is right - advantage of LRT over bus is simply the capacity in Class B ROW. It is about double that of BRT and so can do well on high volume corridors that are handling above 4500 - 5000 pphd (a superbus every 2 minutes).

LRT is good up to 10 000 pphd or so in Class B ROW, and that is street level. It's way cheaper than metro, which must have Class A all the way. LRT can be run in Class A, but doesn't have to, and can transition to Class B seamlessly. It is used in Amsterdam, for example. Trams will start in the street median, and then enter the metro alignment and act as a train.

[verbatim9]

LRT can be run in Class A, but doesn't have to, and can transition to Class B seamlessly. It is used in Amsterdam, for example. Trams will start in the street median, and then enter the metro alignment and act as a train.

Yeah they call it a snel tram. I have ridden it 👍🚋

https://nl.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metro/sneltramlijn_51

"Amsterdam, however, wanted to reduce the number of buses in the city and was therefore come up with the plan to double rail. A large number of hearings was held in which the opponents were prominent, along with the management of CN and a delegation of the bus manufacturers. The baanbusplan (BRT) eventually fell through, because thetown council of Amstelveen chose seventeen to sixteen votes for the tram"

Sent from my SM-G360G using Tapatalk

[Otto]

Just found this..

A REAL rubber tyred Metro



Skip to 4:55

[verbatim9]

Just found this..

A REAL rubber tyred Metro



Skip to 4:55