Cleveland line

[#Metro]

The silver lining here is that the Cleveland line can get more services, possibly all day express services.

The big possibility is the replacement of the Eastern Busway with rail to Capalaba.

[timh]

The big possibility is the replacement of the Eastern Busway with rail to Capalaba.

I think you're really foaming there. Absolutely not going to happen. They're barely capable of moving forward with the existing plans which includes a large amount of median run busway, which is faaaar cheaper than heavy rail. Heavy rail along that alignment would be insanely expensive. I am perfectly happy with a busway (preferably Brisbane Metro) being constructed along the existing Eastern Busway corridor and I would personally not support future Rbot press releases pushing for a heavy rail on this corridor instead as it is such an unrealistic proposal.

[#Metro]

^ Yeah, but lots of people think a real metro is possible here, whole new lines happened in Sydney, so let's look at new QR lines.

Class A busway costs the same as rail, such as that $465 million section 1 km between buranda and stones corner.

RBOT supports rail. BCC is unlikely to run buses past the BCC boundary. Rail would solve that and increase frequency on the Southbank section of rail to the city. Rail is also more appropriate for longer distances to Redlands due to the higher speed (130 to 160 km/h).

Buses aren't the right mode if you want to connect Redlands. I think it's strange to run buses from very distant places like victoria point to the city.

[Cazza]

BCC is unlikely to run buses past the BCC boundary.

Are you forgetting about Ferny Hills, Arana Hills, Everton Hills, Albany Creek, Eaton's Hills and Strathpine? At the end of the day, Council boundaries don't mean anything as long as the local governments work together and are actually committed to finding a mutual and beneficial outcome. I see no good reason why the Brisbane "Metro" (makes me cringe everytime) can't run to Capalaba.

For heavy rail to Capalaba, I'm not sure whether you're suggesting run all the way along OCR from Buranda, or branch off around thronside/birkdale-ish and head south along OCR east.
The first option is doable, however, very expensive (not saying full separated busway won't be) and there's a lot of nothing between Carindale and Capalaba. As there already is a section of busway through stones corner, enough room to not have to have tunnelling all the way between Coorparoo and carindale, and that busway between carindale and Capalaba would be relatively cheaper and easier to implement, I don't see the need for heavy rail, especially if the Celebelabd line capacity is actually improved upon and maximised.

Back to Baileys comments, I hold some hope that they are acknowledging this huge constraint, but I'm not optimistic much will be done in the near future. Please prove me wrong Bailey, I'm willing and waiting...

[#Metro]

Are you forgetting about Ferny Hills, Arana Hills, Everton Hills, Albany Creek, Eaton's Hills and Strathpine? At the end of the day, Council boundaries don't mean anything as long as the local governments work together and are actually committed to finding a mutual and beneficial outcome. I see no good reason why the Brisbane "Metro" (makes me cringe everytime) can't run to Capalaba.

I haven't forgotten. Have you considered the service quality in the above mentioned areas?

[Cazza]

Have you considered the service quality of most areas of the BCC network? Entire Wynnum Rd corridor from Kangaroo Point to the bay, including Bulimba, Cannon Hill, Manly etc., Centenary suburbs (including 17 Mile Rocks), anything outside of walking distance in Inala-Forest Lake to the 100, Cavendish Rd/Chatsworth corridor through Coorparoo, Everton Park, Upper Kedron, Keppera, Brighton, Boondall/Taigum, Fitzgibbon, Nudgee/Banyo (including the extremely car dependant ACU), Hamilton. Need I continue?

The MBRC/BCC boundary is not holding service improvements back. It is the sheer willpower of those in charge to make improvements. And it's obviously not limited to BCC.

I apologise for not staying on topic.

[techblitz]

They need to try increasing the frequency of the 280/281 and advertise the time savings to the city......looks to be the quickest way in from vic point @ 60mins via Griffith uni...
Beats the 250(90mins) or connecting @ Cleveland from a bus(80 mins)...
Hourly frequency from vic point starting at 8.10am in the morning is nowhere near good enough.....no wonder people are driving out there..

[#Metro]

Yeah i have considered it. It's terrible.

It's even worse for areas outside BCC boundaries that are served by BCC buses.

That's why I led the 2014 RBOT new bus network proposal, which suggests how to fix it.

BCC is never going to run buses into redlands. It doesn't even listen to Translink.

Time to accept it for what it is rather than hope for what it isn't.

[kram0]

This d&$k head Bailey wants to identify how to make the Cleveland line more efficient to enable additional services? DUPLICATE IT.

You don't need a study for this you absolute tosser!! 

[timh]

This d&$k head Bailey wants to identify how to make the Cleveland line more efficient to enable additional services? DUPLICATE IT.

You don't need a study for this you absolute tosser!! 

Absolutely. They already have a study. QLD govt seems to be great at doing unnecessary excessive "studies" as an excuse instead of doing any actual work. For reference, see SCL duplication, Lindum road level crossing, Boundary road level crossing.....

Sent from my SM-G780F using Tapatalk

[#Metro]

Death by 1000 studies

[achiruel]

I can't remember as I haven't been out that way for a while, but is the dual gauge electrified? I don't think it is. Obviously that doesn't help areas beyond Manly, but could the number of short workings to Cannon Hill be increased if it was?

[ozbob]

I can't remember as I haven't been out that way for a while, but is the dual gauge electrified? I don't think it is. Obviously that doesn't help areas beyond Manly, but could the number of short workings to Cannon Hill be increased if it was?

No, not sparked.  Has been looked at time to time as it could offer some additional peak paths.  But nothing has progressed.

I did a trip back from Thornside behind a steam engine on the dual gauge line a while back, via the grade separated junction at Dutton Park through to Yeerongpilly and Sherwood. 
It would require OLE and additional track work.

The major issue is Manly <> Cleveland.

[#Metro]

I'm a little confused.

If the line is DG then why does freight have to be offloaded at Acacia Ridge and then trucked to the port of Brisbane??

[timh]

I'm a little confused.

If the line is DG then why does freight have to be offloaded at Acacia Ridge and then trucked to the port of Brisbane??

I don't think it has to be, but limitations mean trucking is easier/cheaper in some circumstances I believe. Limitations include sharing with passenger services between Salisbury and Dutton park and being unable to run double stacked containers due to overpass heights.

Funnily enough artc doesn't allow passenger services to use the DG between buranda-lindum

Sent from my SM-G780F using Tapatalk

[achiruel]

Isn't the DG north of AR controlled by QR, not ARTC?

Certainly, all the ARTC network information seems to suggest their network ends at Acacia Ridge.

[ozbob]

Isn't the DG north of AR controlled by QR, not ARTC?

Certainly, all the ARTC network information seems to suggest their network ends at Acacia Ridge.

Yes, I understand it is.

See page 34 https://www.sa-trackandsignal.net/Pdf_Line_Sets/DIN_MLD-BNE.pdf

[ozbob]

I'm a little confused.

If the line is DG then why does freight have to be offloaded at Acacia Ridge and then trucked to the port of Brisbane??

https://inlandrail.artc.com.au/where-we-go/projects/kagaru-to-acacia-ridge-bromelton/faqs/

Why does Inland Rail not continue to the Port of Brisbane?

Inland Rail will be linked to the Port of Brisbane from the day it opens, via the existing dual-gauge rail line to the port. Trains currently run to the port and will continue to do so once Inland Rail is operational.

Trains accessing the Port of Brisbane will not be double-stacked.

The Australian Government and Queensland Government are undertaking a joint study of options and requirements for port / rail connections that will consider current and future demand and the relationship with the Inland Rail project.

How can trains get to the Port of Brisbane when the line past Acacia Ridge does not accept double-stacked trains?

The Inland Rail Business Case found that approximately 66% of goods transported on Inland Rail would be for domestic use and not destined for the Port of Brisbane. This means these goods will be distributed on the road network from Acacia Ridge and Bromelton.

Trains carrying goods such as bulk commodities to the Port of Brisbane will only be single-stacked and can go straight through the Acacia Ridge facility. They'll run on the existing dual-gauge rail connection between Acacia Ridge and the Port of Brisbane.

[timh]

Isn't the DG north of AR controlled by QR, not ARTC?

Certainly, all the ARTC network information seems to suggest their network ends at Acacia Ridge.

Yes, I understand it is.

See page 34 https://www.sa-trackandsignal.net/Pdf_Line_Sets/DIN_MLD-BNE.pdf

Ah my mistake. QR then not ARTC. Either way my understanding is they don't like passenger trains on it at the moment, and so without the use of that third track it makes any kind of "express" running pattern on the Cleveland line a little tricky

Sent from my SM-G780F using Tapatalk

[ozbob]

Yes, I think it is very unlikely that the dual gauge will be used for Citytrain.  There is the potential for a lot more freight on it, including standard gauge trains which are very infrequent at best presently. (I don't think there has been one for years ..).

The best thing that can happen is upgrade Manly to Cleveland as outlined in the "Park Road to Cleveland Rail Upgrade Planning Project State 1 Duplication - Technical Assessment Report".

====



https://twitter.com/MarkRobinsonMP/status/1396042330247946241

[#Metro]

Is there a reason why double stack can't go to the port?

Height clearance issues?

I've seen trains go to and from the port using the passenger lines. Double stacking would probably not clear the wires. But if the DG was always used, would that still be an issue?

[ozbob]

Is there a reason why double stack can't go to the port?

Height clearance issues?

I've seen trains go to and from the port using the passenger lines. Double stacking would probably not clear the wires. But if the DG was always used, would that still be an issue?

Yes, the dual gauge track is sparked up to Dutton Park (and through to Roma St).  Clearance issues with the OLE.  The dual gauge line is heavily used by Citytrain Salisbury - Roma St. To be clear the dual gauge line is not sparked from Dutton Park junction through to the Port of Brisbane.   But to get to that section they have to run under wires. Hence my previous post > https://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=4491.msg246905#msg246905 by ARTC pointing out that only single stacked Acacia Ridge to the Port of Brisbane.

If the original concept for CRR had been maintained that is the tunnel through to Yeerongpilly the freight line could have been dedicated to freight.  But the half baked CRR version now is just a compromise on a compromise.

[#Metro]

How do other places solve this?

Do they double stack and run under sparks in Melbourne?

[ozbob]

How do other places solve this?

Do they double stack and run under sparks in Melbourne?

No.

Been some trials in India.



Note the loco has dual pantographs.  Front pantograph is for normal OLE, the extended pantograph for the high OLE to permit double stacking.

====



There is no way they will do this here in SEQ.  All the trains would have to be fitted with daul range pantographs ...

[ozbob]

 

[ozbob]

^ impressive stuff.  But hey, that is a real railway.

Here we are flat out removing a level crossing or two ...

[HappyTrainGuy]

ARTC/feds give some money as part of the DG construction and upkeep. Outside of readily available platforms signalling and lack of crossovers is the biggest hurdle. Signal spacing is based around freight trains and not passenger trains. It's also used as a crossing loop for port of brisbane trains and freighters if there are delays ie they bank up from the FI spur back to Dutton Park before being held at Corinda and then again outside of Rosewood. Depending on time slots  this also impacts how the DG track is used similar to freighters backing up at Nambour/Caboolture and then just hurdling into Brisbane in a convoy in and around the end of morning peak. Most DG trains don't bother going to the port as unloading/loading times are cost and time prohibitive at both ends and easier to unload everything at once at ACR and then truck it to the port (you get slugged with QR access fees ontop of the ARTC track access fee and PN Acacia Ridge access fee). Current double stacking ops in Australia are all done with diesel locomotives. They operate where there are clearances to do so. Mostly on the Adelaide-Perth route. They have their own dedicated track and do not share operations with any frequent passenger trains. The problem you have here is the electrification from Acacia Ridge to Dutton Park and then again at Lytton for the electrical feeder station there.

[achiruel]

So, given there's general consensus of no passenger trains on the DG along the Cleveland Line corridor, is there enough space in the corridor for a fourth track between Buranda and Cannon Hill/Murarrie? Looking at Google Maps satellite view, my general answer would be "no," although there may be limited stretches where it would be possible. So the chance of amplification on the inner-Cleveland line seems low.

[SurfRail]

I'm not convinced any track amplification is needed inbound of Manly for passenger services.

Cleveland expresses are not significantly faster than the all stoppers.  The main reason for them is capacity.  If you can run more trains Manly to Cleveland (following duplication and station rebuilds) then there's no reason for them.

The issues are:

- Duplicate Manly to Cleveland.

- Open LX eliminations - there are currently 8.  I think you could package up 6 of them as follows:

-- Cavendish Road and Stanley Street East - rail over road and combine with a rebuild of Coorparoo station.

-- The LXs at Lindum, Wynnum North, Wynnum and Wynnum Central stations.  You would do a complete rebuild of the line from Hemmant to Manly, which would involve provision for future freight tracks and a new connection to the PoB and connection to Acacia Ridge via the M1 alignment, elevated stations at Lindum, Wynnum North and Wynnum Central, closing Wynnum permanently and rebuilding Manly to have 3 platforms and better stabling facilities (eg move it to Thorneside where there is room) - and also fixing all the very low clearance bridges in this stretch.

That leaves:
-- Cannon Hill station (Barrack Road).
-- Murrarie station (Queensport Road South)

[HappyTrainGuy]

No room for a quad without resumptions and tighter curves slowing down trains. You'd be better keeping the status quo and blasting a new alignment through the slower sections.

[ozbob]

Queensland Parliament Hansard

https://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/documents/hansard/2021/2021_06_16_DAILY.pdf

Address-in-Reply 16th June 2021 page 1880

Dr ROBINSON (Oodgeroo—LNP)

" ...   In terms of rail, the duplication of the Cleveland line from Manly to Cleveland is critical and
should be brought forward to be built concurrentlywith Cross River Rail,
not long after as is the current pace under this government. In fact, the promised
time savings from Cross River Rail for commuters on the Cleveland line, apparently 14 minutes
according to the member for Capalaba, are impossible without the duplication of the rail, according to
transport authorities like Robert Dow from Rail Back on Track and others. I look forward to the member
for Capalaba re-issuing the election promise he made that it will be a 14-minute time saving. We will
hold him accountable to that election promise.

With the likelihood of the Brisbane Olympics in 2032, I again call on the government to stop
excluding the eastern busway and Cleveland line rail duplication and to announce these critical projects
for the sake of the constituents of Brisbane and Redlands so that Redlands can provide venues and
not be left out of the Olympics as we fear will be the case under this government. ... "

[ozbob]

https://twitter.com/railbotforum/status/1405594442958917632

[ozbob]

Queensland Parliament

https://documents.parliament.qld.gov.au/tableOffice/questionsAnswers/2021/1449-2021.pdf

Question on Notice
No. 1449
Asked on 17 November 2021

DR M ROBINSON ASKED MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND MAIN ROADS (HON M BAILEY)

QUESTION:

With reference to the SEQ City Deal and the identified need for major transport infrastructure to
service East and South-East Brisbane and Redland City leading into and during the 2032 Olympic
Games—
Will the Minister provide an update on the duplication of the Cleveland rail line and the Eastern
Busway?

ANSWER:

I thank the Member for Oodgeroo for the question.

The Department of Transport and Main Roads (TMR) is undertaking planning for the Cleveland
rail line, which includes the Manly to Cleveland section, to improve reliability and travel times.
Delivery of upgrades or improvements recommended by the planning investigations would be
dependent on, and staged according to, the highest investment priorities across the transport and
rail networks to meet population growth and service demand. In the meantime, Cross River Rail
will assist as it will reduce the interactions between Cleveland line trains and Gold Coast and
Beenleigh services at critical junctions like Park Road.

Eastern Priority Bus Corridor improvements are key to providing quality public transport outcomes
in the eastern suburbs of Brisbane and Redland City. TMR continues to review cost-effective
options to improve bus travel times, service reliability and active transport connections in the
corridor.

The Palaszczuk Government is getting on with delivering the Eastern Transitway. Construction
of Stage 1 bus priority measures on Old Cleveland Road through Carindale is well underway,
with works scheduled for completion mid-2022. The timing of further detailed planning and
business case development will be subject to forecast demand and available funding, including
potential cost-sharing with other levels of government.

The Queensland Transport and Roads Investment Program 2021–22 to 2024–25 is the sixth
record transport and roads infrastructure program in a row, outlining $27.5 billion in investment
over the next four years and estimated to support an average of 24,000 direct jobs over the life
of the program. Of this, $3.371 billion is committed across TMR's Metropolitan Region, covering
Brisbane City and the Redlands, which is estimated to support an average of 2930 direct jobs
over the life of the program.

[achiruel]

In the meantime, Cross River Rail
will assist as it will reduce the interactions between Cleveland line trains and Gold Coast and
Beenleigh services at critical junctions like Park Road.

Will CRR actually improve capacity for the Cleveland line short of any other improvements, such as duplication and/or installation of a third platform at Manly (and perhaps Cannon Hill if it's planned for interpeak shortworking to continue terminating there)? Or are the Minister's pants on fire?

[SurfRail]

If no trains run from / through Dutton Park to the existing Park Road surface platforms, then absolutely.  There will be no flat crosses at Park Road anymore between inbound Cleveland services and anything going from Park Road P1 towards Dutton Park.  Plenty of room then for more trains from Cleveland to Ferny Grove, which could operate fairly independently except for probably Doomben to Roma Street.  The problem is that creates more capacity through the city on this sector than is needed.

[#Metro]

This is good news - it means a rail alternative can be looked at for the eastern busway alignment.

[BrizCommuter]

In the meantime, Cross River Rail
will assist as it will reduce the interactions between Cleveland line trains and Gold Coast and
Beenleigh services at critical junctions like Park Road.

Will CRR actually improve capacity for the Cleveland line short of any other improvements, such as duplication and/or installation of a third platform at Manly (and perhaps Cannon Hill if it's planned for interpeak shortworking to continue terminating there)? Or are the Minister's pants on fire?

Yes and no. More track slots can be assigned to the Cleveland Line post CRR. However, more track and turnback infrastructure is required to increase peak services beyond the current 8tph.

[Gazza]

You have to wonder why they don't install a turnback at least prior to CRR and run some intensive service from Manly inbound.

[HappyTrainGuy]

You have to wonder why they don't install a turnback at least prior to CRR and run some intensive service from Manly inbound.

QR has done various studies into a 3rd platform at Manly to the extent that plans were drawn up. Treasury put a halt to some and stopped them altogether when planning was merged into TMR.  But hey let's do another study for a 3rd platform for the olympics

[#Metro]

QR has done various studies into a 3rd platform at Manly to the extent that plans were drawn up. Treasury put a halt to some and stopped them altogether when planning was merged into TMR.  But hey let's do another study for a 3rd platform for the olympics

Because what we have is a penny-wise, pound-foolish approach to management.
Relatively simple stuff is cut to compensate for the big stuff they stuff up.