Queensland UTC +10
Terms of use Privacy About us Media Contact

Links

Author Topic: North West Transport Corridor (Trouts Road Corridor)  (Read 28754 times)

Offline RustedWire

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2
North West Transport Corridor (Trouts Road Corridor)
« on: April 09, 2008, 11:30:27 AM »
There is a corridor of land which was the put aside near Stafford, along Trouts Rd, for a North West Highway. I propose a line to leave Alderley Station, cut up through parkland behind Harvery Norman and Anaconda at Everton Park, and then follow the trouts road corridor up to McDowall, Bridgeman Downs, all the way up to Albany Creek Road. From there it could turn left and travel to Albany Creek, servicing Eatons Hill and Brendale via the now closed Golf Driving Range and the South Pine Sports fields, linking up with Bald Hills or Strathpine Stations.

Alternatively at Albany Creek Road it could turn right and head over to Aspley and make it's way (probably by tunnel) to Carseldine.

Both these solutions would remove plenty of commuters from both the Caboolture Line and the Ferny Grove Line, who live in these suburbs and have to drive to these stations to catch a train.

I personally would like to see a new rail tunnel along Kelvin Grove Road to Alderly/ Enoggera as it just seems stupid that the Ferny Grove Line comes from one side of the city, and has to cut across to the other side before arriving at central.

If the KG Tunnel came to fruition, then i would route the Albany Creek / Brendale line via it, as well as the existing Ferny Grove Line via it, and service existing stations such as Newmarket and Wilston and Windsor with a new service, the Northern Loop, which would run from Roma St, out through the new KG tunnel, linking up with Alderley, carrying on along Newmarket to Windsor and then heading into Brunswick St as a Loop Service.
« Last Edit: February 22, 2018, 04:04:33 PM by ozbob »

Offline SteelPan

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 705
North West Transport Corridor (Trouts Road Corridor)
« Reply #1 on: April 14, 2008, 11:32:30 PM »
Another good idea.  Sadly, it would die of loneliness in a mere moment in the senior m'ment corridors of QT/QR - their all obsessed watching that dang-fangled new thing called B/W Tele-vision - they've just found out about  ;D
If urban rail was a sports stadium - there'd be a station on every corner!  Keep it LOUD for Pro-Rail!  :pr

Offline stephenk

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1397
  • Location: Land of reality
North West Transport Corridor (Trouts Road Corridor)
« Reply #2 on: April 16, 2008, 07:55:00 PM »
I think that using the above mentioned Trouts Rd transport corridor would be a great idea. Sadly with Queensland goverments obsession with road transport, I can't see it happening!

Personally I would have the line join the Ferny Grove Line as suggested at Alderley, with the FG Line being routed into a new cross-city tunnel (the usual Bowen Hills, Ekka, Central, Gabba suggestion). Even with 4 aspect signalling this could support a train every 3 minutes south of Alderley and every 6 minutes on the branches.

Evening peak service to Enoggera* 2007 - 7tph
Evening peak service to Enoggera* 2010 - 4tph
* departures from Central between 16:30 and 17:30.

Offline RustedWire

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2
North West Transport Corridor (Trouts Road Corridor)
« Reply #3 on: June 13, 2008, 04:44:56 PM »
Just out of interest, a Transit Orientated Development (i'm a planning student) has been outlined for Everton Park at the old Woolworths Distribution site. This would be ideally serviced by this proposed line. Furthermore, a current TOD, Kelvin Grove Urban Village would also benefit with the busway on one side of the Village and the new rail link on the KG Rd side.

Offline Markus

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 56
North West Transport Corridor (Trouts Road Corridor)
« Reply #4 on: July 06, 2009, 08:55:01 PM »
Hi RustedWire, trust yr studies are finished or u r doing well & srtill with us. Re your post about Trouts Rd, I too have recently suggested rail along this transport easement. It was, from North to South: the long proposed rail from Kippa Ring to Petrie continue to Bald Hills, down Trouts Rd to the Ferny Grove line. From re Windsor travel south & utilize the "additional river crossing" line. The result from all that is
1. The Kippa Ring line not only gets built, but it has somewhere to continue,
2. Trouts rd would be a new area served by P/T,
3. the wide easement on Ferny Gr line (ok, in certain sections) could be used for additional tracks,
4. All the above goes through the CBD & crosses the river to the South. ! All in one relatively straight line joining up several "destination locations". BTW, if anyone is laughing re the Kippa Ring line - even the average Joe has only to look at the car parking situation at Petrie or note that Anzac Ave is congested even out of peak hrs, (with future plans to widen)   :o, to realise such a line would be patronised very well.

Offline stephenk

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1397
  • Location: Land of reality
North West Transport Corridor (Trouts Road Corridor)
« Reply #5 on: July 14, 2009, 07:46:02 PM »
Just out of interest, a Transit Orientated Development (i'm a planning student) has been outlined for Everton Park at the old Woolworths Distribution site. This would be ideally serviced by this proposed line. Furthermore, a current TOD, Kelvin Grove Urban Village would also benefit with the busway on one side of the Village and the new rail link on the KG Rd side.

Interesting location for a transit orientated development as Everton Park and Everton Hills currently have very poor public transport.
Evening peak service to Enoggera* 2007 - 7tph
Evening peak service to Enoggera* 2010 - 4tph
* departures from Central between 16:30 and 17:30.

Offline #Metro

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19721
  • DON'T SIGN! DON'T RENEW!!
North West Transport Corridor (Trouts Road Corridor)
« Reply #6 on: March 27, 2010, 09:52:32 AM »

There is a land reserve (originally for a freeway IIRC) between Everton Park and Bald Hills.
This image is from Google Maps and is reproduced here for the purposes of research, study, criticism and review.
http://maps.google.com/

This corridor would seem suitable for busway, heavy rail or a freeway/road.
What is interesting is that at both ends is a rail station. Possibilities?
Negative people... have a problem for every solution.
Posts are commentary and are not necessarily endorsed by RAIL Back on Track or its members. Not affiliated with, paid by or in conspiracy with MTR/Metro.

Offline #Metro

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19721
  • DON'T SIGN! DON'T RENEW!!
North West Transport Corridor (Trouts Road Corridor)
« Reply #7 on: March 27, 2010, 09:57:40 AM »
The Bald Hills end

http://maps.google.com
The image reproduce here is from Google Maps for the purposes of research, study, criticism and review.



The Enoggera end

http://maps.google.com
The image reproduced here is from Google Maps for the purposes of research, study, criticism and review.

Thoughts?
Negative people... have a problem for every solution.
Posts are commentary and are not necessarily endorsed by RAIL Back on Track or its members. Not affiliated with, paid by or in conspiracy with MTR/Metro.

Jon Bryant

  • Guest
North West Transport Corridor (Trouts Road Corridor)
« Reply #8 on: March 27, 2010, 11:23:54 AM »
Huge potential and should have been built years ago.  Was a freeway reserve now a multiple-modal corridor. Should just be a rail line.  Connect it to Moreton Bay line and connect it through CBD to Cleveland. 

somebody

  • Guest
North West Transport Corridor (Trouts Road Corridor)
« Reply #9 on: March 27, 2010, 11:55:54 AM »
Don't see it happenning.  There isn't much demand for PT in that corridor as far as I can see.

Jon Bryant

  • Guest
North West Transport Corridor (Trouts Road Corridor)
« Reply #10 on: March 27, 2010, 12:02:51 PM »
That's the approach.  No service therefore no demand so just give them more roads!!!!! This is why we have the traffic problems of today.  We assume we cannot capture trips that are already there and being made by car.  Ahhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!

somebody

  • Guest
North West Transport Corridor (Trouts Road Corridor)
« Reply #11 on: March 27, 2010, 12:55:18 PM »
That's the approach.  No service therefore no demand so just give them more roads!!!!! This is why we have the traffic problems of today.  We assume we cannot capture trips that are already there and being made by car.  Ahhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!
A 351 BUZ would make much more sense in the near term.

Offline #Metro

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19721
  • DON'T SIGN! DON'T RENEW!!
North West Transport Corridor (Trouts Road Corridor)
« Reply #12 on: March 27, 2010, 02:51:26 PM »
Quote
Don't see it happenning.  There isn't much demand for PT in that corridor as far as I can see.

I think this area is car dependant. So there is latent demand I think.
Look there is demand for the Ferny Grove Lines and Caboolture lines...
It could work with feeder buses too.

But I leave the options open. Might work well with freight too.
Negative people... have a problem for every solution.
Posts are commentary and are not necessarily endorsed by RAIL Back on Track or its members. Not affiliated with, paid by or in conspiracy with MTR/Metro.

Offline #Metro

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19721
  • DON'T SIGN! DON'T RENEW!!
North West Transport Corridor (Trouts Road Corridor)
« Reply #13 on: March 27, 2010, 03:03:42 PM »
The Western Suburbs need looking at too.
Busway, Railway and Light Rail options.  Why the western suburbs (Kenmore, Riverhills, Jindalee, Indooroopilly to CBD) don't seem to have much by the way of bus priority or rail extension... compared to say the corridor of suburbs around the SE Busway... you could be looking at demand at the level requiring another SE- style busway or Rail route...

http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=2684.0
« Last Edit: March 27, 2010, 04:00:58 PM by tramtrain »
Negative people... have a problem for every solution.
Posts are commentary and are not necessarily endorsed by RAIL Back on Track or its members. Not affiliated with, paid by or in conspiracy with MTR/Metro.

Offline stephenk

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1397
  • Location: Land of reality
North West Transport Corridor (Trouts Road Corridor)
« Reply #14 on: March 27, 2010, 04:23:50 PM »
Don't see it happenning.  There isn't much demand for PT in that corridor as far as I can see.

That may have something to do with that area not being well served by public transport. Look at how of the success the 345 route has become - improve the frequency and many people will move to PT.

I'm not too sure whether this corridor should be a busway, LRT, or heavy rail, but I would be very disappointed if it became just another road.

The big question is what happens at the southern end of the corridor - Enoggera or Alderley:
- A busway could transfer to rail, increasing demand on the FG line requiring extra services, and/or buses could continue into the city on the slow(ish) moving Kelvin Grove/Enoggera Rd corridor.
- LRT would have to transfer to rail, and would increase demand on the FG line requiring extra services. - -- Heavy rail could join up with the FG line, but would there be enough track capacity on the inner FG line and suburbans in the future to allow this?

If both the first and second cross city tunnel was built in accordance with the ICRCS-Rail Operations Review, then yes there would be up to 10tph paths available for trains from the Trouts Rd corridor to join the FG line, or extra services on the FG line to cope with transfers from bus or LRT. If the second cross city rail tunnel was built as a self contained metro (hello Tramtrain), then there would not be sufficient track capacity through the CBD for trains from the Trouts Rd corridor or extra FG line services.
Evening peak service to Enoggera* 2007 - 7tph
Evening peak service to Enoggera* 2010 - 4tph
* departures from Central between 16:30 and 17:30.

somebody

  • Guest
North West Transport Corridor (Trouts Road Corridor)
« Reply #15 on: March 27, 2010, 04:35:37 PM »
That may have something to do with that area not being well served by public transport. Look at how of the success the 345 route has become - improve the frequency and many people will move to PT.
It may at that, of course.  But also is the population density on that corridor comparable to areas further east?

If a heavy rail corridor were built here, I'd think that the FG line would be close to capacity soon after its openning.

Offline stephenk

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1397
  • Location: Land of reality
North West Transport Corridor (Trouts Road Corridor)
« Reply #16 on: March 27, 2010, 05:27:34 PM »
If both cross city rail tunnels were built in accordance to the ICRCS, then the FG line would be running 13tph in 2026. As the FG line would have exclusive use of the suburbans, then for a max capacity of 23tph, there would be up to 10tph available for the "Trout" Line in 2026. The FG line would need re-signalling between Enoggera and Bowen Hills, expresses would have be eliminated on that stretch, and the junction at Enoggera would have to be grade-separated (with resulting expensive property resumptions).

If the other options where bus or LRT passengers would transfer to the FG line were chosen, then more services would have to operated on the FG line to cope. The suburbans could reach capacity without the second cross city rail tunnel (as the suburbans will be shared between Ferny Grove and Petrie services). 
Evening peak service to Enoggera* 2007 - 7tph
Evening peak service to Enoggera* 2010 - 4tph
* departures from Central between 16:30 and 17:30.

somebody

  • Guest
North West Transport Corridor (Trouts Road Corridor)
« Reply #17 on: March 27, 2010, 05:58:58 PM »
If you assume 6tph on the Trouts corridor in peak, that leaves only 4tph room for growth between Trouts and FG.

Maybe I shouldn't be so negative.  I just see other priorities in the network before we even think about such things.

Offline #Metro

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19721
  • DON'T SIGN! DON'T RENEW!!
North West Transport Corridor (Trouts Road Corridor)
« Reply #18 on: March 27, 2010, 06:07:07 PM »
How much capacity would be needed?
Negative people... have a problem for every solution.
Posts are commentary and are not necessarily endorsed by RAIL Back on Track or its members. Not affiliated with, paid by or in conspiracy with MTR/Metro.

Jon Bryant

  • Guest
North West Transport Corridor (Trouts Road Corridor)
« Reply #19 on: March 27, 2010, 06:23:32 PM »
Trouts Raod would/should cross the FGline at Alderley but continue under/along Enoggera Road to Kelvin Grove and into City.  No capacity problems and could aleviate any capacity problems on Caboolture line from Moreton Bay line.

Offline Arnz

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2271
North West Transport Corridor (Trouts Road Corridor)
« Reply #20 on: March 27, 2010, 07:14:55 PM »
Trouts Raod would/should cross the FGline at Alderley but continue under/along Enoggera Road to Kelvin Grove and into City.  No capacity problems and could aleviate any capacity problems on Caboolture line from Moreton Bay line.

You could potentially re-route Nambour/Gympie/Sunshine Coast (CAMCOS) trains along this route, rejoin the North Coast Line around Bald Hills, and leave the existing route between Bald Hills and Bowen Hills for the Caboolture all-stoppers and Freights.
Rgds,
Arnz

Unless stated otherwise, Opinions stated in my posts are those of my own view only.

Offline stephenk

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1397
  • Location: Land of reality
North West Transport Corridor (Trouts Road Corridor)
« Reply #21 on: March 27, 2010, 07:22:46 PM »
Maybe I shouldn't be so negative.  I just see other priorities in the network before we even think about such things.

I agree, there are bigger fish to fry. However if the Trouts Rd corridor was not utilised for mass transit, then it would be a terrible wasted opportunity.

Trouts Road would/should cross the FGline at Alderley but continue under/along Enoggera Road to Kelvin Grove and into City.  No capacity problems and could aleviate any capacity problems on Caboolture line from Moreton Bay line.

The would bump the price up heavily to amounts that would probably make the project unjustifiable. As mentioned before there isn't a bottomless pot of money, even if road spending was diverted. Enoggera and Kelvin Grove roads are rather hilly, so a train tunnel would have be bored at deep level. Also, there is pressure on the rail system at both ends, building a new line into the CBD from the north only would not solve the bigger picture.

How much capacity would be needed?

The Trouts Road corridor has a very large catchment area, although not at particularly high density. I would think that a heavy rail line could attract enough passengers to require a pretty frequent peak service. LRT or a busway would be cheaper to construct (particularly the latter), but due to lack of one stop ride into the city may not be as attractive.  The extra capacity required on the FG line in this case would be equal to the number of passengers having to interchange from the bus/LRT corridor .
Evening peak service to Enoggera* 2007 - 7tph
Evening peak service to Enoggera* 2010 - 4tph
* departures from Central between 16:30 and 17:30.

Jon Bryant

  • Guest
North West Transport Corridor (Trouts Road Corridor)
« Reply #22 on: March 27, 2010, 07:44:37 PM »
They are planning to build a multi billion dollar tunnel and freeway which would not be required if new western lines were built.  Connection via FG means a slow trip into the City thus reducing the attractiveness.  London's Underground is a web of lines that allow people to move around the city.  Let's be bold in our thinking not constrained by bad planning over the last 40 years.  Plus ever person we take off the road saves    us taxes spent on roads, health, etc., etc. Plus returns more per dollar to our economy. The upfront cost are massive but the benefits are even bigger.

Offline paulg

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 166
North West Transport Corridor (Trouts Road Corridor)
« Reply #23 on: March 27, 2010, 08:49:24 PM »
The Western Brisbane Transport Network Investigation considered a railway line for this corridor but did not make it into their final recommendations.

Instead they propose a motorway with bus lanes and a veloway:
http://www.transport.qld.gov.au/Home/Projects_and_initiatives/Projects/Western_brisbane_transport_network_investigation/Western_brisbane_transport_network_strategy_projects#project_11

The motorway would join up with a tunnel connecting Enogerra and the end of the Western Motorway at Toowong. There is also a proposal for a road tunnel under Stafford Road.

Tunnels tunnels everywhere... :)

Jon Bryant

  • Guest
North West Transport Corridor (Trouts Road Corridor)
« Reply #24 on: March 27, 2010, 09:00:14 PM »
The Clem 7 has shown in just 2 weeks that these tunnels need to become rail tunnels not road tunels

Offline #Metro

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19721
  • DON'T SIGN! DON'T RENEW!!
North West Transport Corridor (Trouts Road Corridor)
« Reply #25 on: March 27, 2010, 09:24:39 PM »
Motorway?!  >:(
Thanks everyone for the constructive discussion! It is appreciated  :-t


Minimum width 60m ! Amazing. You could get a PT solution plus extra room and a nice spacious bikeway.
A heavy rail connection would be the best in terms of capacity. But in terms of direct/feeder connections and frequency bus or light rail would have the advantage. On the other hand, the Kippa Ring line, CAMCOS trains and freight could use this route proposal.

Busway would be superior to collect lots of small routes and bundle them.
There are lots of peak hour rockets in the Northern suburbs which do this. A road or motorway would also allow buses to travel at high speed (although the PT patronage would be much lower as people could drive on the new motorway).

A light rail scheme could also work. I dare suggest that light rail is actually the same cost or cheaper.
The more recent busway projects have costs around $190-$500 million per kilometre.
Even busway at a generously low $50 million per kilometer it would still be quite costly. The advantage buses and LRT have would be the frequency- though the distance all the way to Bald Hills is pushing it for a bus. LRT might be more efficient as it has lower running costs, longer vehicle life and fewer operators required per given number of passengers.

Grade-separated Light Rail could also have multiple branches (to Eatons Hill, etc) and jump off the tracks to run in local main roads or medians. Melbourne's St Kilda tram, Adelaide's Glenelg Tram and Sydney's Lilyfield Light Rail all do this.
Light Rail (and also buses off the busway to a lesser degree) need not terminate at Enoggera. If capacity at Enoggera runs down, the line could be extended to the city. This staging would be one option to reduce project costs and risks.

For future capacity, LRT would also allow easier conversion to a heavy rail route if required. Neither a freeway or busway option would allow this. I'm leaning towards a LRT or Heavy rail solution.

The Western Suburbs are in a similar situation. But that will be for another time.

Negative people... have a problem for every solution.
Posts are commentary and are not necessarily endorsed by RAIL Back on Track or its members. Not affiliated with, paid by or in conspiracy with MTR/Metro.

Offline stephenk

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1397
  • Location: Land of reality
North West Transport Corridor (Trouts Road Corridor)
« Reply #26 on: March 27, 2010, 09:27:24 PM »
 London's Underground is a web of lines that allow people to move around the city.  

True, but London is also a smaller city, with much higher population density which makes heavy metro rail more financially justifiable. There have also only been 2 (well about 1.6 actually) new tube lines in the last half-century due to the vast construction costs.
Evening peak service to Enoggera* 2007 - 7tph
Evening peak service to Enoggera* 2010 - 4tph
* departures from Central between 16:30 and 17:30.

Offline #Metro

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19721
  • DON'T SIGN! DON'T RENEW!!
North West Transport Corridor (Trouts Road Corridor)
« Reply #27 on: March 27, 2010, 09:39:10 PM »
I agree that a metro in this corridor would not be a suitable fit for purpose, however I think Jonno was highlighting that we need a comprehensive web of services with more connections, not just more connections for cars.

This is the "Network Effect" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect
Negative people... have a problem for every solution.
Posts are commentary and are not necessarily endorsed by RAIL Back on Track or its members. Not affiliated with, paid by or in conspiracy with MTR/Metro.

Offline longboi

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1022
North West Transport Corridor (Trouts Road Corridor)
« Reply #28 on: March 27, 2010, 09:42:37 PM »
The best two option in my opinion are busway or heavy rail. Heavy rail has the added advantage as acting as a bypass for the current NCL, however for this to be successful there would need to be flyovers at Enoggera and could not be implemented without both ICRCS tunnels.

On the other hand, a busway could bring great benefit to Bridgeman Downs/Carseldine/Albany Creek/Eatons Hill bus users and would provide direct connectivity to Mitchelton with a bus/rail interchange at Enoggera. If we wanted to be really ambitious, that North-Western busway could travel along a similar alignment to Kedron Brook and connect to the Northern Busway for direct City connection.

Offline stephenk

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1397
  • Location: Land of reality
North West Transport Corridor (Trouts Road Corridor)
« Reply #29 on: March 27, 2010, 10:05:10 PM »
If we wanted to be really ambitious, that North-Western busway could travel along a similar alignment to Kedron Brook and connect to the Northern Busway for direct City connection.

Now that's an idea!

Edit: Although after looking at a map, maybe routing along a Stafford Rd alignment (bus lanes maybe, but it's already a busy road) may be better than following the meandering brook.
« Last Edit: March 27, 2010, 10:11:57 PM by stephenk »
Evening peak service to Enoggera* 2007 - 7tph
Evening peak service to Enoggera* 2010 - 4tph
* departures from Central between 16:30 and 17:30.

Jon Bryant

  • Guest
North West Transport Corridor (Trouts Road Corridor)
« Reply #30 on: March 27, 2010, 10:18:23 PM »
As long as the reserve is use for PT and not a freeway is the key.  I support heavy rail because I also support PT catering for  40-50% of all trips.  To move these volumes day in day out is going to take high frequency high volume transit system.  This leans towards heavy rail and metros.  Love the busways but just wonder if they can move these cast volumes day in day out.   

Offline #Metro

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19721
  • DON'T SIGN! DON'T RENEW!!
North West Transport Corridor (Trouts Road Corridor)
« Reply #31 on: March 27, 2010, 10:25:42 PM »
Quote
Edit: Although after looking at a map, maybe routing along a Stafford Rd alignment (bus lanes maybe, but it's already a busy road) may be better than following the meandering brook.

I agree with StephenK, due to potential flooding issues with the Brook.
Bus is good but needs to be cheaper- much cheaper IMHO.

Heavy rail has the capacity, though it does not have the frequency (every 30 minutes?) or the ability to reach down to the local road level... this is important as frequency is powerful at attracting passengers.

Advantages/disadvantages on all modes...
Negative people... have a problem for every solution.
Posts are commentary and are not necessarily endorsed by RAIL Back on Track or its members. Not affiliated with, paid by or in conspiracy with MTR/Metro.

Offline longboi

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1022
North West Transport Corridor (Trouts Road Corridor)
« Reply #32 on: March 28, 2010, 05:23:38 AM »
Quote
Edit: Although after looking at a map, maybe routing along a Stafford Rd alignment (bus lanes maybe, but it's already a busy road) may be better than following the meandering brook.

I agree with StephenK, due to potential flooding issues with the Brook.
Bus is good but needs to be cheaper- much cheaper IMHO.

Yeah a Stafford Rd alignment is perfectly fine. It would need to be underground pretty much the whole way though.

Offline Derwan

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2542
  • Now a bus person
    • Andrew's Place
North West Transport Corridor (Trouts Road Corridor)
« Reply #33 on: March 28, 2010, 07:53:40 AM »
To build the Sunshine Coast and Kippa-Ring lines, additional track capacity will be required between Bowen Hills and Petrie.  Why not just put some of that additional capacity along the Trouts Road corridor instead of beside the current tracks?  You then have the added advantage of services more areas with heavy rail.

I don't know how they're going to increase capacity between Bowen Hills and Northgate.  It will require many resumptions as there are buildings to the edge of the current corridor.  There are several roads that run beside the current corridor.  There are sections where the corridor is several metres below ground level.  How are they going to dig these out while still allowing services to run?  Adding tracks beside current tracks cause a lot of disruption as we've seen on the Ipswich Line - and requires buses with drivers to be hired.

Adding lines along the Trouts Road Corridor may end up being cheaper!
Website   |   Facebook   |  Twitter

somebody

  • Guest
North West Transport Corridor (Trouts Road Corridor)
« Reply #34 on: March 28, 2010, 10:39:35 AM »
To build the Sunshine Coast and Kippa-Ring lines, additional track capacity will be required between Bowen Hills and Petrie.  
Who says?  Unless you are talking about the Lawnton-Petrie triplication or the Bowen Hills-Northgate section.  There would need to be enhanced stabling though.

If this new tunnel can access the Airport and Doomben lines without interfering with the current quad tracks, that would probably be sufficient amplification.

Heavy rail has the capacity, though it does not have the frequency (every 30 minutes?) or the ability to reach down to the local road level... this is important as frequency is powerful at attracting passengers.
Exactly.  The problems with heavy rail are the same as the problems with flying a 747 between any two points.  It has to be relatively full to be cost effective.  I don't mean the individual trains, but the corridor, because a sizeable part of the costs are fixed regardless of who uses it.

That's why I think this corridor should be busway rather than heavy rail.  You can still have a single seat connection by using Kelvin Grove Rd between Enoggera and Normanby.  The busway solution allows buses to fan out from the busway to give many more potential pax a single seat journey.
« Last Edit: March 28, 2010, 11:52:29 AM by somebody »

Offline Derwan

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2542
  • Now a bus person
    • Andrew's Place
North West Transport Corridor (Trouts Road Corridor)
« Reply #35 on: March 28, 2010, 05:20:18 PM »
Who says?  Unless you are talking about the Lawnton-Petrie triplication or the Bowen Hills-Northgate section.  There would need to be enhanced stabling though.

Sorry - my memory of the ICRCS isn't the best.  My comments on the Bowen Hills to Northgate section stand.

Edit:  Sorry - my original post stands.  The ICRCS didn't take the Kippa-Ring line into consideration - and my post was based on building both the Sunshine coast and Kippa-Ring lines.  My opinion is that increased capacity would be required between Bowen Hills and Petrie if both lines were built.
« Last Edit: March 28, 2010, 05:24:49 PM by Derwan »
Website   |   Facebook   |  Twitter

Offline stephenk

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1397
  • Location: Land of reality
North West Transport Corridor (Trouts Road Corridor)
« Reply #36 on: March 28, 2010, 06:10:42 PM »
To build the Sunshine Coast and Kippa-Ring lines, additional track capacity will be required between Bowen Hills and Petrie.  
Who says?  Unless you are talking about the Lawnton-Petrie triplication or the Bowen Hills-Northgate section.  There would need to be enhanced stabling though.

If this new tunnel can access the Airport and Doomben lines without interfering with the current quad tracks, that would probably be sufficient amplification.
The ICRCS states that there needs to be a 5th track between Bowen Hills and Northgate in 2015, and 3rd track between Lawnton and Petrie in 2012, and progressive triplications between Petrie and Caboolture between 2020 and 2024. The ICRCS was written assuming no Kippa-Ring Line.

The post 1st tunnel scenario with the above infrastructure in place has 18tph inbound ex-Caboolture trains (mains in CBD), and 10tph ex-Petrie trains (suburbans in CBD shared with 11tph ex-FG). Thus there is not really any extra capacity for Kippa-Ring services unless they could be run down the conflicting move alley that will be the Shorncliffe, Airport, and Doomben Lines into the new tunnel. This routing would cause many operational issues. There would also have to be stabling on the Kippa-Ring Line as both Caboolture and Petrie/Kippa-Ring services would have to share a track in the reverse-peak direction.

Post 2nd tunnel scenario has  21tph ex-Caboolture (2nd new tunnel in CBD), and 11tph ex-Petrie (mains in CBD). In this scenario there should be a fair bit of capacity for Kippa-Ring services on the existing line.

I can conclude that if a heavy rail corridor was built along Trouts Rd between the Caboolture/Petrie Lines and the FG Line, and the 2nd tunnel was in place, it would probably be better to run Kippa-Ring services via the Caboolture/Petrie Lines. This is because there would probably be more spare capacity on that corridor than the Ferny Grove+Trouts Rd corridor. This would also be cheaper (as there would not have to be a grade-seperated junction across the Caboolture/Petrie Lines), and have less operational issues (timetables based around one line grouping instead of two).

Also if a line on the Trouts Rd corridor was built to meet the Caboolture/Petrie Line, then extra tracks (particularly in the counter peak direction) would be required as far the terminus for the Trouts Rd services.  It would thus be most cost effective to terminate the Trouts Rd services at the station where the lines would meet.  
Evening peak service to Enoggera* 2007 - 7tph
Evening peak service to Enoggera* 2010 - 4tph
* departures from Central between 16:30 and 17:30.

Offline #Metro

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19721
  • DON'T SIGN! DON'T RENEW!!
North West Transport Corridor (Trouts Road Corridor)
« Reply #37 on: March 28, 2010, 06:42:58 PM »
Would the FG line likely need triplication?
Some of those trains might not be passenger trains (assuming a Heavy rail option was chosen).
Negative people... have a problem for every solution.
Posts are commentary and are not necessarily endorsed by RAIL Back on Track or its members. Not affiliated with, paid by or in conspiracy with MTR/Metro.

Offline longboi

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1022
North West Transport Corridor (Trouts Road Corridor)
« Reply #38 on: March 28, 2010, 06:48:14 PM »
Would the FG line likely need triplication?
Some of those trains might not be passenger trains (assuming a Heavy rail option was chosen).
I don't think freight should be run on the Trouts Rd corridor - Leave it on the NCL.

Also if a line on the Trouts Rd corridor was built to meet the Caboolture/Petrie Line, then extra tracks (particularly in the counter peak direction) would be required as far the terminus for the Trouts Rd services.  It would thus be most cost effective to terminate the Trouts Rd services at the station where the lines would meet. 

Are you talking about the Enoggera end or the Bald Hills end?

somebody

  • Guest
North West Transport Corridor (Trouts Road Corridor)
« Reply #39 on: March 28, 2010, 06:59:18 PM »
The ICRCS states that there needs to be a 5th track between Bowen Hills and Northgate in 2015, and 3rd track between Lawnton and Petrie in 2012, and progressive triplications between Petrie and Caboolture between 2020 and 2024. The ICRCS was written assuming no Kippa-Ring Line.

The post 1st tunnel scenario with the above infrastructure in place has 18tph inbound ex-Caboolture trains (mains in CBD), and 10tph ex-Petrie trains (suburbans in CBD shared with 11tph ex-FG). Thus there is not really any extra capacity for Kippa-Ring services unless they could be run down the conflicting move alley that will be the Shorncliffe, Airport, and Doomben Lines into the new tunnel. This routing would cause many operational issues. There would also have to be stabling on the Kippa-Ring Line as both Caboolture and Petrie/Kippa-Ring services would have to share a track in the reverse-peak direction.

Post 2nd tunnel scenario has  21tph ex-Caboolture (2nd new tunnel in CBD), and 11tph ex-Petrie (mains in CBD). In this scenario there should be a fair bit of capacity for Kippa-Ring services on the existing line.

I can conclude that if a heavy rail corridor was built along Trouts Rd between the Caboolture/Petrie Lines and the FG Line, and the 2nd tunnel was in place, it would probably be better to run Kippa-Ring services via the Caboolture/Petrie Lines. This is because there would probably be more spare capacity on that corridor than the Ferny Grove+Trouts Rd corridor. This would also be cheaper (as there would not have to be a grade-seperated junction across the Caboolture/Petrie Lines), and have less operational issues (timetables based around one line grouping instead of two).

Also if a line on the Trouts Rd corridor was built to meet the Caboolture/Petrie Line, then extra tracks (particularly in the counter peak direction) would be required as far the terminus for the Trouts Rd services.  It would thus be most cost effective to terminate the Trouts Rd services at the station where the lines would meet.  
The conclusion in your post is such that it doesn't make sense to build the corridor as heavy rail in my view.  Also, the FG line is rather indirect, so I'm not a fan.

I struggle to believe these kinds of growth forecasts.  28tph from the current Caboolture line, as compared to 11tph at present including Nambour and Petrie trains.  That's a 150% growth!  By my calcs, that's 5.89%p.a. growth over 16 years.  Possible, I guess.

I would agree that some changes are needed between Bowen Hills and Virginia.  In an ideal world, it should be done such that no conflicting moves are necessary.

My opinion is that increased capacity would be required between Bowen Hills and Petrie if both lines were built.
I doubt amplicification is required between Virginia and Lawnton though.

Would the FG line likely need triplication?
It wouldn't be effective unless there was stabling at Ferny Grove.

 

Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 


“You can't understand a city without using its public transportation system.” -- Erol Ozan