Trouts Rd Corridor - how many tracks required?

[Derwan]

The Connecting SEQ 2031 plan indicates (and the Minister confirmed) that CoastLink services will run express via the new line on the Trouts Rd Corridor as it's more direct than the current route.  The Minister also mentioned how the line would service an area not previously serviced by rail.

My question is - if there will be stations with all-stoppers on the line as well as services running express, how many tracks will be required?  Could they make do with 2?  Or will they need 3 or 4?  Is there enough room in the corridor for 3 or 4 tracks plus a road?  Will the road end up a tunnel?  (The Connecting SEQ 2031 plan indicates "potentially in tunnel".)

My thoughts:  Considering it's a new line, it would be the perfect opportunity to provide the infrastructure required for now and the future, with construction costs lower than if they have to try to work around operating lines such as the present Corinda to Darra situation.  I say build 4 tracks!  Freight can continue to run on the current (longer) route.

[Golliwog]

The original plan is for dual track with an extra track at stations for expresses. This may change when they complete the planning stage.

[ozbob]

How about a double main line with passing loops at stations?  We might see more of this as it is a cost effective method of providing express paths at peaks with the utility of stopping trains whilst keeping construction costs overall down.




Ed: Golliwog posted it just before me ..   

[colinw]

Put the platforms on the loop, and give the expresses the main line without taking the turnout, or better still build stations with 4 platforms.

Even if local stations & services are provided, keep the station spacings fairly wide.

[somebody]

That arrangement only works if the signal headways can be very tight.  Otherwise (on current technology) the train which is stopping needs to wait 2-5 minutes at the station, and that's unacceptable.

But going back to the point, I dispute the notion that it's more direct.  The only way it would be is if it connected to the CBD via Kelvin Grove, which could line up with the CRR1 tunnel at Roma St, and that would be quite a nice way of doing it.

Put the platforms on the loop, and give the expresses the main line without taking the turnout, or better still build stations with 4 platforms.

Even if local stations & services are provided, keep the station spacings fairly wide.

<foaming> I'll go you better than that.  Only provide 2 side platforms, but allow the through trains to run through the station at 160km/h. </foaming>

[Derwan]

But going back to the point, I dispute the notion that it's more direct.  The only way it would be is if it connected to the CBD via Kelvin Grove, which could line up with the CRR1 tunnel at Roma St, and that would be quite a nice way of doing it.

That would appear to be what the red dotted line is suggesting.  Perhaps we'll see a second portal that links up with CRR1 underground?

[#Metro]

Is 4 tracks really needed? Sounds like overkill. OTOH what Somebody said is also true.
Lots of possibilities...

[IMGT]http://i998.photobucket.com/albums/af104/tramtrain/ideas/station_generic.png[/IMGT]

[IMGT]http://i998.photobucket.com/albums/af104/tramtrain/ideas/station_generic2.png[/IMGT]

[ozbob]

Yes, the arrangement I posted is little misleading the platforms are serviced by trains on the loops, through trains straight through.  It can have four platforms or two platforms outside the loops.

Despite merriment in some circles, this arrangement is being seriously considered and for something like the North West Corridor would work fine.

[colinw]

Regarding the signalling comment above, I'd assume that by the time this is built we'll have an ETCS level 2 or equivalent system in Brisbane.  WBTNI even hints at full Level 3 (moving block) with in-cab signalling, although even in Europe fully functional level 3 seems to be a distant & expensive dream.

[somebody]

Regarding the signalling comment above, I'd assume that by the time this is built we'll have an ETCS level 2 or equivalent system in Brisbane.  WBTNI even hints at full Level 3 (moving block) with in-cab signalling, although even in Europe fully functional level 3 seems to be a distant & expensive dream.

Never heard that this was something even being looked at.  The only rumbling of improved signaling I can remember is the state opposition at the last election.

[somebody]

That would appear to be what the red dotted line is suggesting.  Perhaps we'll see a second portal that links up with CRR1 underground?

Where are you referring to?  The Connecting SEQ 2031 document?

[colinw]

Regarding the signalling comment above, I'd assume that by the time this is built we'll have an ETCS level 2 or equivalent system in Brisbane.  WBTNI even hints at full Level 3 (moving block) with in-cab signalling, although even in Europe fully functional level 3 seems to be a distant & expensive dream.

Never heard that this was something even being looked at.  The only rumbling of improved signaling I can remember is the state opposition at the last election.

Its in the Western Brisbane Transport Network Investigation document.  I'll try to dig up more details ...

[mufreight]

The simple cost effective solution is to build the new line with three tracks with the middle track bi-directional to enable the express services to pass all stations services on the move giving more flexibility with timetabling.
Making provision for a future fourth track with the below rail infrastructure such as culverts underpasses and overbridges and tunnels without provision of the actual forth track or signalling would be a  be a sensible provision that would save both money and disruption in the future.

[somebody]

Its in the Western Brisbane Transport Network Investigation document.  I'll try to dig up more details ...

Indeed it is.  I still wouldn't hold my breath.

[BrizCommuter]

That arrangement only works if the signal headways can be very tight.  Otherwise (on current technology) the train which is stopping needs to wait 2-5 minutes at the station, and that's unacceptable.

Japan can manage train overtaking with only around 1-2 minute dwell.

[Derwan]

Where are you referring to?  The Connecting SEQ 2031 document?

Yes.

[Golliwog]

From what I've heard they're thinking of at least 3 stations, maybe more. Bridgeman Downs, Stafford Heights and Everton Park. As I understand they have started looking into the rail line in more detail now so they should be able to release something....at some point in the future. No idea when though.

[SteelPan]

   So long as it ain't SINGLE track - ie, much of the GC line for so many years!  Remember, we're "special" in Qld and have been known for doing some "special" things.....

[somebody]

  So long as it ain't SINGLE track - ie, much of the GC line for so many years!  Remember, we're "special" in Qld and have been known for doing some "special" things.....

Triplicated tracks are one thing I don't think any other state does.

I don't think you need to sweat this one though.  I do see a need for more than two tracks to allow for passing moves if the trains beyond Petrie are to go this way as may be envisaged.

[ozbob]

The line from Burnley to Box Hill (Melbourne) on the 5' 3" is a triple, quad Richmond to Burnley (Glen Waverley line branches off).  Lilydale and Belgrave lines use the triple. Works fine at peaks.  Similarly Caulfield to Moorabbin is a triple (Frankston line).  There are plans to triple the line from Caulfield to Dandenong as well.

[somebody]

The line from Burnley to Box Hill (Melbourne) on the 5' 3" is a triple, quad Richmond to Burnley (Glen Waverley line branches off).  Lilydale and Belgrave lines use the triple. Works fine at peaks.  Similarly Caulfield to Moorabbin is a triple (Frankston line).  There are plans to triple the line from Caulfield to Dandenong as well.

You learn something new every day.