North West Transport Corridor (Trouts Road Corridor)

[HappyTrainGuy]

I don't have any issues with the station spacing on the MBRL. Some areas you might question why but those will be booming big time in a few years. KSRE might not have that many houses near by but the area is already starting to be developed.

[HappyTrainGuy]

re cab line upgrades. The corridor has been reserved and designed for a future quad so station rebuilds won't be totally required. MBRC want to eventually resume the nearby industrial sites to the west at Strathpine and convert the area into a TOD with upgraded council buildings and facilities along with additional platforms and a proper bus interchange.


Bray Park might get played around with when it comes to station buildings (track will be on the east). Lawnton has always been know that the service road on the eastern side is going to be sacrificed for a 4th track (want a better example just look at the works going on with the new bridge ).

[SurfRail]

I wouldn't bother with freight - it needs to go to the port and industrial precincts in the east of town, so the long term goal should be to get it over or under (probably under) the Brisbane River in the vicinity of the Gateway and to build a new alignment following the Gateway down to Drewvale and Forestvale and into the current line.  Gradually move Acacia Ridge and Moolabin to a new, bigger, fit for purpose intermodal terminal out of town.

Build some freight refuges (limited stretched of third track) between Caboolture and Petrie.  Petrie to Strathpine becomes 4 up-up-down-down tracks (as I understand it the MBRL junction still enables this), with the outer tracks serving Kippa-ring and the inner tracks being the main line.  South of Strathpine, the inner tracks go into the NWTC with a connection to the centre track from Strathpine to Virginia, which now becomes an exclusive freight and Traveltrain only line.

Commence diving around Virginia and emerge somewhere around Gibson Island, so that trains can go to either the Port or further south.  (Connection to Pinkenba probably wouldn't be achievable and there is only so much that would be going there anyway.)

[ozbob]

For interest:


http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/racq-council-back-new-rail-line-20100831-14fih.html

RACQ, council back new rail line
    September 1, 2010
    Brisbane City Council and the RACQ last night both firmly backed the state government plan for a new rail line from Strathpine to Alderley.

    The new "north-west line" running from Strathpine to Alderley was a feature of yesterday's new 20-year-plan for transport planning for south-east Queensland.

    Until recently it had been viewed only as a road tunnel project, under the State Government's Western Brisbane Transport Network Investigation.

    The tunnel option is known in the local community as part of the Trouts Road corridor which runs north-south from Chermside, through Aspley and to Albany Creek in a largely state government-owned land corridor.

    Lord Mayor Campbell Newman said he was very frustrated not to have seen the Connecting Queensland 2031 document before it was released yesterday.

    "But having said that, I am right behind this and I really am ready to support it," Cr Newman said.
    "But what people want to know is: 'what is going on, what are you going to do?'," he said.
    He urged the government to move quickly on the proposed rail project.

    "It is about time that they started to talk about how they are actually going to do it."

    RACQ general manger Gary Fites agreed, saying the north-west rail and ring road project in the Strathpine to Alderley area would benefit north-west Brisbane.

    "In fact we regard that as a bit of a win to see that at least confirmed in the plan," Mr Fites said.

    "So I just give you that in terms of our support for appropriate continuing development of public transport," he said.
    Mr Fites said the proposed rail line would become an important part of the Trouts Road corridor.

    "In fact, we are ticking that box because, as we read the map, the new proposed line from Alderley to Strathpine would be incorporated in that Trouts Road corridor," he said.

    "So it will become a combined dual modal [road and rail] transport corridor to accommodate the northern end of the western road bypass and also the northern section of that proposed rail corridor. "

    Mr Fites said a new funding model for transport infrastructure projects was urgently needed after the lower than expected traffic figures for the Clem7 toll tunnel, rather than public private partnerships.

    He said the decision by Clem7 tunnel operator's RiverCity Motorway to write down $1.56 billion from the value of the under-river tollway for the 2009-10 financial year was a sign a funding change was necessary.

    "One would hope that as they look at funding models for that western bypass, I think recent experience shows they need a new model for that," he said.

    "I think the Clem7 clearly shows that 'toll it and they will not come', or certainly nowhere near the projections."
    "And I think if the government is fair dinkum about keeping traffic out of the inner-city area and allowing traffic to go around, rather than through, they have to do all they can by moving away from the current model of tolls."
    One option, he suggested is 'shadow tolling' where the government pays the toll for the infrastructure project.

[STB]

Of which you won't be able to get with BaT. 

[ozbob]

The old article ^ just further highlights the fiasco that is polyticks and transport planning.  Expediency and worthless commitments ...

[Gazza]

So, I was looking for a quick yes/no answer on this one, but how viable would it to be build a Trouts Rd line without a tunnel from Alderley to Roma St, and just have lines sharing tracks for 5km between Alderley and Bowen hills.
Essentially do the project in 2 stages.

The reason why I'm thinking this way is that the above ground portion from Alderley to Bald Hills 12.2km long, so virtually the same length as MBRL. And both are pretty comparable in terms of the numbers of stations you'd build and number of road bridges needed.
The one thing that pushes the price of the Trouts Rd line up is the resumptions needed around Alderley....You'd take out about 20 houses, and the whole line from Everton Park to Alderley would just be a 2km long viaduct to get it over the multiple roads and creeks in the area.

See attached kmz

or https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=zu-pvgqZc2U0.k1bv3aMt7meI

[BrizCommuter]

One of the main advantages of a Trouts Rd line would be to divert the Caboolture/Sunshine Coast, or less preferably MBRL services through the Northern Suburbs, allowing for a potential increase in capacity on all northern branches (Caboolture/Sunshine Coast, MBRL, Shorncliffe, Airport, Doomben, and Ferny Grove). It would also decrease journey times for many of the formally mentioned commuters, even without express services!

If the Trouts Rd line is directly linked up with Cross River Rail / BaT at Roma Street it would negate the need to build extra capacity between Roma St, through Exhibition, Albion, to Northgate.

If it Trouts Rd was to run via the Ferny Grove Line south of Alderley then it would add to congestion on the suburbans through the city. The suburban tracks already handle 18tph in the am peak, and thus there is very limited capacity for extra services. It would also not improve journey times for anyone apart from those living on the new section on line (which currently has no train service).

BrizCommuter has an almost finished article on this very subject, that concludes that Cross River Rail / BaT should be built to link with the Trouts Rd Line instead of the Exhibition Line. In the long term, this would be the most cost effective long term solution. Just a shame our pollies only think about the next 3 years.

[Gazza]

Could you send Trouts trains via Woolongabba if that direct connection chord from the Ferny Grove line to Mayne was built?

[BrizCommuter]

Could you send Trouts trains via Woolongabba if that direct connection chord from the Ferny Grove line to Mayne was built?

If passengers want to travel at 8kph between Windsor and Exhibition, then yes.

[#Metro]

Any trouts rd line will be expensive, as rail is expensive both to build (150-200 million/km, higher for tunnels) and operate (2x labour costs), lack of ATP.

This is a key reason for why buses have been favoured in the past.


If you are going to use a separate line rather than plug into the existing FG line, then one may as well send the tunnel via Red Hill-Ashgrove-Enoggera(interchange).

This (or any such project) is going to be costly though, 16 km x 150 million/km = $2.4 billion; A closer estimate would be around $3 billion. The Queensland Government has a major funding supply problem now, so I think large projects are off the table. You'd have to sell one or two power generators to pay for this project, or borrow the same.

[#Metro]

I am looking at the map again, a more expensive project but worth looking at is to ditch TR entirely and just build a new line to Albany creek via Old Northern Rd.

[Gazza]

I am looking at the map again, a more expensive project but worth looking at is to ditch TR entirely and just build a new line to Albany creek via Old Northern Rd.

How would trains from Caboolture and the Sunshine Coast use such a line?

[#Metro]

They would not use said line.

[BrizCommuter]

I am looking at the map again, a more expensive project but worth looking at is to ditch TR entirely and just build a new line to Albany creek via Old Northern Rd.

Poor cost benefit if it does not relieve the northern branches as per Trouts Rd. The Trouts Rd corridor is preserved, with few property resumptions required.

[#Metro]

Possibly. Though there are a number of solutions for the Albany Creek area...

The TR alignment is good for long distance services, but for more local services, the density/location of residences are off.

[Gazza]

Yes, the whole point of trouts rd is that it provides a faster route into town for trains from the north, with the bonus that you'd get to add some nice widely spaced local stations on that north east part of the city which currently lack a good fast line haul route.
So a two in one benefit.
Plus the trouts rd corridoor is dead straight and wide, so easy to build the line (much like how Kippa Ring has had a reservation for decades they have just been able to use with ease)

assengers want to travel at 8kph between Windsor and Exhibition, then yes.

Presumably as part of the works you would rejig the tracks yards by sacraficing a couple of stabling roads so you could have through tracks that don't have conflicting moves, sort of like what happens at MacDonaldtown.

[SurfRail]

Maybe as a cost-saving move you just build CRR but only to Roma St itself plus a Bondi Junction style turnback, then extend through to Trouts Rd when the money is in place. 

Is there any particular reason why NGR stock would need access to Mayne?  They can't be maintained or overhauled there, and likely won't need to be stored there to form CRR trains if additional stabling capacity is built up around say Clapham and the various out-stabling yards like Robina.

You don't need a surface connection to turn-back trains if you build it in such a way that the next point of continuation is to keep going north.

It also avoids a problem I have long considered - what do you do if, having built a station at the Ekka, you suddely withdraw most of the trains which go that way once Trouts Rd is built?  Maybe better not to get people's expectations up, and just ensure there is good accessibility to Bowen Hills and RBWH busway.

[SurfRail]

Gazza - can the direct option be realigned to provide a station underneath Musk Ave in the KGUV?  That looks like a choice candidate for good patronage.  I suppose you could just get people to transfer to the busway, but we know it is already overcrowded and it makes things less than ideal for travel in from the north.

Next stop would be underneath the land bounded by Alderley Ave, South Pine Rd and the railway which you would resume in full and redevelop, and potentially tie in with grade-sepping the FG line LX.

[red dragin]

Some hard rock under KGUV and deep foundations for some building's (village centre is effectively 5 stories deep on Musk Ave frontage).

With all the buildings, accessing the station box might be an issue? The park where the big trees where moved to years ago is an option but you'd have to not disturb the tree's and it was also a bicycle racing track in its day - possible artifacts?

[SurfRail]

Some hard rock under KGUV and deep foundations for some building's (village centre is effectively 5 stories deep on Musk Ave frontage).

With all the buildings, accessing the station box might be an issue? The park where the big trees where moved to years ago is an option but you'd have to not disturb the tree's and it was also a bicycle racing track in its day - possible artifacts?

I'm also uncertain of the impact Legacy Way has on the alignment TBH.

[Gazza]

I'd just put a stop under McCaskie park, since its only 100m from Musk Ave anyway.

Further thoughts... Shift Carseline West station further north to make it closer to Bracken Ridge.

[SurfRail]

Could a station work at Linkfield Rd?  Looks like a good park n ride and bus feeder opportunity.  It's basically floodplain nearby so no intensive development will be happening.

I sketched one and posted on SSC but can't remember where I put it (and I've probably modified it already).  Mine was assuming it comes off the NCL at the South Pine River bridge over the swamp and entered tunnel around the back of Bald Hills somewhere just north of the RSCPA complex at the Linkfield Rd / Gympie Rd intersection and had a below-ground level but not underground station like Lutwyche or Boronia.

I think I left Rode Rd off mine, but on the basis I was aiming for something that could be all-stops for all patterns between Strathpine and Roma St, and avoid the need for more than 2 tracks because it would still be substantially faster than the current route.

[aldonius]

Linkfield Rd station for sure. Join the existing corridor at Kremzow Rd. This renders the Beams Rd station un-needed.

Also, Rode Rd is preferable to Hamilton Rd.

[Gazza]

Yep, Linkfield Rd was exactly what I was thinking. I mean, I wouldn't mind a station under the new overpass at Telegraph Rd, but that would degrade the current service a bit.

Putting it on the new line avoids that isssue.

Mine was assuming it comes off the NCL at the South Pine River bridge over the swamp and entered tunnel around the back of Bald Hills somewhere just north of the RSCPA complex at the Linkfield Rd / Gympie Rd intersection and had a below-ground level but not underground station like Lutwyche or Boronia.

The assumption I was working off was that it would run at ground level along side the Gympie Arterial Rd, with the Linkfield Rd ramps modified to be like what you see at Garden Rd at Richlands. Line then ramps up to cross over the Gympie Arterial at the point where the road curves (So you can avoid a long span diagonal bridge crossing the road)

I went with both Rode and Hamilton Roads because they are the only two roads in the area with continuous east west connectvity for buses.

Rode Rd for PCH , Hamilton Rd for Chermside.

Stations I'd see no reason couldn't just be up up down down with twin island platforms. Build the stations elevated over the cross roads. with lifts on both sides to eliminate the need for people coming from buses to have to cross roads (Like at Canning Bridge)

[Arnz]

I would make it 4 tracks from the start with a island platform in the middle at the proposed stations  for the middle tracks.  The outer tracks being used for the Cab/NBR expresses and/or Traveltrain/Freight services (if they decide to send them up Trouts instead of via Northgate)

[aldonius]

Arnz, Trouts only connects to CRR and (maybe, but for no good reason) the FG line. Neither of which are good for freight or traveltrain services.

[Old Northern Road]

I don't think I'd bother with a station at Linkfield Rd.  I'd have stations at:
Albany Creek Rd
Rode Rd or Hamilton Rd
Stafford Rd

Lines could be run as:
Caboolture, Maroochydore - Trouts Rd/CRR
Kippa-Ring, Shorncliffe - Mains
Ferny Grove, Airport, Doomben - Suburbans

[Golliwog]

Arnz, Trouts only connects to CRR and (maybe, but for no good reason) the FG line. Neither of which are good for freight or traveltrain services.

That all depends on how they do the junction at Exhibition/Roma St. Considering it's all currently thoughts/lines on pages, now would actually be the best time to consider what you want to use it for.

I agree with Arnz that the Trouts Rd corridor would be faster for freight/long distance so if you can design something that will work for those services from Alderley-the main line without blowing the budget, I'd say go for it.

[aldonius]

I suppose if the connection is done by a dive from the Ekka loop (north of the CRR portal) then it's totally possible for freight to access it. But allowing freight (or diesels) has significant grade and/or ventilation complications.

The Tilts, OTOH...

[HappyTrainGuy]

"Members from the internet forum rbot talking about a new railway line".

Any trouts rd line will be expensive, as rail is expensive both to build (150-200 million/km, higher for tunnels) and operate (2x labour costs), lack of ATP.

This is a key reason for why buses have been favoured in the past.

Wrong sorry. THe whole Alderley-Bald Hills corridor is all up and down up and down. It is no where near flat. The intersection of Hamilton Road and Trouts road has about a 6-15m elevation difference in nearly all directions. Just remember Bridgeman Downs, Aspley, Chermside West, McDowall, Albany Creek, Stafford Heights and Everton Park are all hilly areas with a few flood plains running through. Parts of Alderley/Everton Park and Bald Hills are located on a flood plain. To get it ready for a railway line lots and lots of earthworks will have to be done, bridges to get railway infrastructure off the flood plains will have to be done, road modifications such as rerouting roads or overpasses and there's a bucket load more. That is the reason as to why Trouts road is still reserved as both a car and railway corridor. To get any type of train or car running there is going to cost a fortune.

IMHO Trouts road is only ever going to be put on the cards once Landsborough has a railway line going east.

[ozbob]

^

OT I know, but that image reminds me of the scene at Goodna when there was some good folk at Goodna watching the water rise under the Church St Ippy Hwy Bridge whilst their homes were being flooded .. Jan 2011

[hU0N]

Any trouts rd line will be expensive, as rail is expensive both to build (150-200 million/km, higher for tunnels) and operate (2x labour costs), lack of ATP.

This is a key reason for why buses have been favoured in the past.


If you are going to use a separate line rather than plug into the existing FG line, then one may as well send the tunnel via Red Hill-Ashgrove-Enoggera(interchange).

This (or any such project) is going to be costly though, 16 km x 150 million/km = $2.4 billion; A closer estimate would be around $3 billion. The Queensland Government has a major funding supply problem now, so I think large projects are off the table. You'd have to sell one or two power generators to pay for this project, or borrow the same.

Stations at Red Hill and Ashgrove would be very very deep.  Approaching Red Hill, a train would have to dive under Countess St (road surface approximately 15m -20m AHD where the crossing would be) and the ICB (road surface around 25m AHD where the crossing might be).  The Red Hill commercial district is about 700m past this dive at a street level of 65m AHD, but the train wouldn't be able to rise much because 1100m beyond Red Hill, it would need to dive under Ithaca Creek (creek bed approximately 4m AHD).  Similarly, the Ashgrove commercial district is at a street level of 35m AHD but about 900m beyond the Ithaca Creek dive and about 700m short of a dive under Enoggera Creek (creek bed approximately 10m AHD).

With those kinds of numbers, we are talking a platform level at Red Hill 15-20 storeys below street level, and then at Ashgrove about 5-10 storeys below street level.  I'm not sure how this would effect the practicality of these stations operationally speaking.

[BrizCommuter]

BrizCommuter has just written an article (a long time coming) on Trouts Road Corridor.
http://brizcommuter.blogspot.com.au/2015/05/trouts-road-corridor-key-to-unlocking.html

[pandmaster]

Great article. I do not see the point of adding more tracks between Northgate and Bowen Hills when the NWTC would improve travel times and open a massive area up for high density TODs. IMHO the new tunnel should terminate at Alderley, since the tunnelling equipment will already be in the ground. I think that it would be prudent to link the tunnel to the Exhibition line for operational flexibility (and perhaps have a a line from the existing tracks use the tunnel if possible). If the choice was one or the other, I would pick Alderley.

[ozbob]

BrizCommuter has just written an article (a long time coming) on Trouts Road Corridor.
http://brizcommuter.blogspot.com.au/2015/05/trouts-road-corridor-key-to-unlocking.html

  good job!

[ozbob]

For interest ...

Media release 6th October 2010

Rail Revolution: Use Trouts road corridor to escape North West congestion by rail

RAIL Back On Track (http://backontrack.org) a web based community support group for rail and public transport and an advocate for public transport commuters has highlighted the importance of the Trouts Road corridor for rail.

Robert Dow, Spokesman for RAIL Back On Track said:

"The recent RACQ Travel Time survey (1) confirms that some of the worst congestion is the North Western suburbs. For example, Wardell Street, Enoggera, recorded traffic speeds of just 8.6 km/hour. Sicklefield Road, Enoggera, was even worse, with speeds of 4.9 km/hour, just a bit faster than walking pace."

"The Trouts Road Rail line, which featured in the connecting SEQ 2031 draft plan will be an invaluable piece of public infrastructure to residents of the North West because it will allow people in the North West to escape the mess of congestion on the roads."

"To maximise the benefits of Rail as widely as possible, RAIL Back on Track suggests that high standard bus and cycling interchanges be built with rail. Furthermore, wider station spacing would allow higher average speeds for faster journeys." (2)

"A 'world-class' bus rapid transit feeder bus network to rail generally would allow for seamless interchange. In this way, people could access the benefits of rail from street stops in low-density suburban areas many kilometres from the stations in much the same way that buses round up passengers in the suburbs and feed into the busway system."

"Indeed, this is what Perth, and places overseas like Toronto are already doing." (2)(3)(4)

"An idea to consider would be combining the Gold Coast and Sunshine Coast ExpressLink trains into a single service, running through the Cross River Rail subway and then into a tunnel under Enoggera Road to emerge into the Trouts Road Corridor, bringing the benefits of 9-car trains and the potential for even faster, and more direct journeys to this suburban congestion hotspot." (5)

"Further investment in rail is required in order to allow the rail system to be converted to full metro-style operation in the future, to stimulate transit oriented development, to allow all residents to escape congestion on roads, and to decisively break with the 'car-first, people second' ideology that has dominated transport decisions in Brisbane since the 1960s."

"Train frequency in south-east Queensland is at worlds worst practice (6). The failure to properly utilise the network we already have is compounding congestion issues. The Rail Revolution cannot come soon enough!

References:

1. RACQ Travel time survey, http://www.racq.com.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/57729/Travel_Time_2010.pdf

2. The Challenge of Expanding Perth's Rail System, Public Transport Authority of WA
http://rtsa.com.au/assets/2009/06/rtsa240408peter-martinovich-pres.pdf

3. Viva (bus rapid transit)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viva_%28bus_rapid_transit%29

4. http://www.ptua.org.au/myths/parkride.shtml

5. Trouts Road Corridor
http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=3625.0

6. SEQ: Poor train frequency is penny wise but pound foolish http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=4505.0

Contact:

Robert Dow
Administration
admin@backontrack.org

[Jonno]

5 years later and nothing has been fixed.  5 years we won't get back!

[colinw]

Great article by BrizCommuter, and good to see a realistic statement for once of the modest increment in actual capacity ERTMS will give.  24tph with ERTMS Level 2 in a mixed use commuter environment like Brisbane is about right; to achieve that reliably you must design for 28 to 30 tph and then NOT use the full theoretical capability or you end up with cascading delays on even minor incidents. 

As the eventual construction of MBRL shows, it is best to just keep plugging and never give up.  Sure we don't get the time back, but as long as nothing that outright prevents something being built occurs then hope is not lost.  It is easy to feel negative given recent decisions, but compare Brisbane now with what we had 20 years ago around the time the Springfield line was first mooted - many small steps, some not so small ones, and also a few mis-steps (bus review!)

In the category of preventing things being built, I include such stupidity as the former BaT design not having the Trouts Rd stub tunnels or the Park Road interchange, and also the bloody minded decision of the former Government selling the CRR land at Yeerongpilly. Even the loss of the Yeerongpilly land may not be a bad thing, as it could force Yeerongpilly CRR to be a full underground station and a move of the portals further south.

[#Metro]

What I really liked was the automatic trains on the NWRL...