Rail capacity on the northern line

[mufreight]

Many are aware of the current lack of rail capacity on the Northern line between Brisbane and Rockhampton.  This has effects beyond simply a lack of train paths for the operation of passenger services between the Brisbane CBD and Nambour which presently restricts the number of commuter passenger rail services that are able to be operated north of Caboolture to the point that some 44% of passenger services have to be provide by bus, considerably slower, inconvenient and more costly to operate.

There is however a greater almost unseen impact of this lack of infrastructure as a consequence of decades of neglect by Governments of both persuasions, the consequences of this failure to provide adequate rail infrastructure are not only the inability to operate rail commuter passenger services but the operation of freight services is even more severely restricted forcing ever increasing tonnages of freight on to the already over stressed Bruce Highway with increasing financial and social costs to the state and those resident in the north.

Road freight operators are seeking to operate even larger trucks in the form of B triples and A Double road trains to cater for this increased freight traffic while rail services are becoming increasingly uncompetitive with road freight due to a lack of train paths and the short lengths of crossing loops which restrict the length of the trains to around 700m length.

As an example of political expediency overruling logical infrastructure planning three weeks following the by-election for the seat of Glass House with the seat going to an opposition Liberal candidate Mr Powell, work was ceased on the Beerburrum to Landsborough realignment and duplication project, this effectively removed any advantages that the duplication of the section from Caboolture to Beerburrum could have provided as it only effectively moved the bottle neck a few kilometres north of Caboolture to Beerburrum.

At the present time the completion of the section from Beerburrum to Landsborough would if as an isolated project simply move the bottleneck from Beerburrum to Landsborough the only positive would be that transit times to Landsborough would be shortened by perhaps ten minutes but it would provide no additional capacity for passenger services to Nambour or services either passenger or freight north of Nambour.    

With the current growth of freight traffic to and from the north of the state the lack of capacity to move this increasing tonnage of freight by rail there is an urgent need to be able to provide additional train paths and to operate longer trains.

If the realignment and duplication was to be completed between Beerburrum and Landsborough and the section between Mooloolah and Palmwoods realigned and duplicated the lack of train paths for both passenger and freight services would be resolved and more frequent freight services could be operated without interfering with the commuter services to and from Nambour, transit times could also be reduced by a further eight to ten minutes.

However to make rail freight more competitive with road transport there is a need to lower not only transit times  but also the operating costs.

The proposed works between Beerburrum and Nambour would remove the restrictions on train length as far as Nambour but beyond Nambour train lengths would remain restricted to 700 metres.

The solution is to extend a number of crossing loops or provide sections of double track as passing lanes at selected locations.

In the section between Nambour and Gympie North the construction of extended crossing loops at Cooroy and Pomona  would enable the operation of longer trains between Nambour and Gympie North, were the section between Cooroy and Pomona duplicated it would provide a 9 kilometre passing lane which would enable trains to cross or overtake without stopping further reducing both transit times and operating costs.

Between Gympie North and Maryborough West an extended crossing look could be constructed at Tiaro while between Maryborough West and Bundaberg the loop at Isis Junction could be extended with the loops between Bundaberg and Gladstone at Flinden and Miriam Vale could also be extended.

The line between Gladstone is effectively double track and coupled with the loop extensions proposed would enable the operation of trains of up to 1800 m between Brisbane and Rockhampton, this would result in a lowering of operating costs in the region of 18% for freight services to the north making rail freight services more cost competitive with road transport reducing the numbers of trucks that would otherwise be operating on the Bruce Highway.

The longer trains would also mean less than half the number of trains would need to be operated to move the same tonnage of freight.

Now it is over to the politicians with the big question being will they do anything?  

[SurfRail]

+1.

Simple projects like those the ARTC has been putting in place for a decade now to gradually improve system capacity and transit times, without huge expenditure.

The Sunshine Coast should be the focus, but there is seemingly little reason why passing loops and signalling changes couldn't be commissioned here and there on a more frequent basis up the line - especially now the government is not paying for the Blackwater and other coal systems.

[Fares_Fair]

+2 

Regards,
Fares_Fair.

[Jonas Jade]

  fantastic post with a great realistic outlook!

[somebody]

If Landsborough terminators would be introduced there would be a benefit in upgrades only south of Landsborough.  The bus is competitive with the train Landsborough-Nambour for travel time anyway.

<ducks>

[Stillwater]

Competitive only if bus runs express Nambour-Landsborough NOT if it has to call in at the whistle stops in between -- Woombye, Palmwoods, Eudlo, Mooloolah.

[ozbob]

Rail is safer.  People wish to avoid the roads ...

[somebody]

Competitive only if bus runs express Nambour-Landsborough NOT if it has to call in at the whistle stops in between -- Woombye, Palmwoods, Eudlo, Mooloolah.

You could have a bus running express Landsborough-Nambour as well as an all stopper.  Although it would be slower for the intermediate stations.

[mufreight]

Competitive only if bus runs express Nambour-Landsborough NOT if it has to call in at the whistle stops in between -- Woombye, Palmwoods, Eudlo, Mooloolah.

You could have a bus running express Landsborough-Nambour as well as an all stopper.  Although it would be slower for the intermediate stations.

People from the Sunshine Coast have a proven preference to traveling by rail, if they wished to travel by road they would in the majority of cases make their journey by private car rather than bus.
Taking your thinking on the subject to the extreme perhaps all passenger rail commuter services north of Caboolture should be removed and replaced by buses.  The increased operating costs would further force fare increases accross the entire Translink network which would then in turn force more commuters into private cars and on the roads, the very thing that public transport is not supposed to encourage.

[somebody]

Competitive only if bus runs express Nambour-Landsborough NOT if it has to call in at the whistle stops in between -- Woombye, Palmwoods, Eudlo, Mooloolah.

You could have a bus running express Landsborough-Nambour as well as an all stopper.  Although it would be slower for the intermediate stations.

People from the Sunshine Coast have a proven preference to traveling by rail, if the wished to travel by road they would in the majority of cases make their journey by private car rather than bus.
Taking your thinking on the subject to the extreme perhaps all passenger rail commuter services north of Caboolture should be removed and replaced by buses.  The increased operating costs would further force fare increases accross the entire Translink network which would then in turn force more commuters into private cars and on the roads, the very thing that public transport is not supposed to encourage.

Yes, well they aren't going to duplicate Landsborough-Nambour in the near future, and a sizeable portion of the users of the service are from Landsborough itself, with Nambour the next busiest station.

The buses are quite a bit slower on the Caboolture-Landsborough section.  Perhaps a function of the stopping patterns.  I'm looking at what is the most achievable upgrade.  If you insist on operating all the trains through the Landsborough-Nambour section then there is little benefit in duplicating Beerburrum-Landsborough, isn't there?

[mufreight]

fantastic post with a great realistic outlook!

+3, but I think the main bottle neck is south of Nambour, not north of Gympie (open to correction) but certainly provides operator cost savings.

Simple solution is to target 1300m trains (for now), 1800m is longer than coal trains so maybe issue and more cost on Gladstone to Rocky section therefore the existing trains can be sent north in 1+1 format and spilt, unload or a one of each at Rocky or Gladstone with one or both trains heading nth with only simple decoupling.

Bundy already has at least one 1300m loop, Gympie Nth 900-1000m. An initial kick off project could simply target the running of say a few over length trains a day passing other over length loops at a small number of extended loops initially, say spaced around 100km apart (depending on sectional run time). At 100km spacing, thats probably one around Mirium Vale, already at least one at Bundy, Mary West, Gympie Nth and Nambour or Landsbough (or both).

So maybe 5 loop extensions required on NCL, a total of 4km of extra track, no new points. Plus work at Rocky/Gladstone (if required) and AC and Normanby yards. There is also an oppurtunity between Mayne and Albion.

regards
Shane

To be effective there needs to be a capacity to operate trains of at least double the maximum length of trains able to operate to the north of Rockhampton, arrives in Rockhampton divides the front half continues on and the second half trails along as paths, and crews permits.
The idea of operating overlength trains was used on the line between Maitland and Clapham for a number of years by the then NSWGR, one day for northbound services the following day for those operating south, most of the time it was not a problem as it did not apply to all services but when it came unstuck due to loco failures chaos ensued and eventualy the practice ceased.
The removal of four wheel rollingstock from the north coast line and the running of all bogie rollingstock trains to faster running times resolved the problems by allowing more trains to operate over a 24 hour period.
At that time some of the express goods trains operated to a faster timetable than the Brisbane Linited Express by better that an hour between Sydney and Brisbane.

[Arnz]

Landsborough carries over 40% of the peak passenger traffic on the Sunshine Coast Line (per the Load survey).  Although not all of them live at Landsborough, vast majority are park and ride commuters that drive from the Sunshine Coast area (eg. Maroochydore, Buderim, Sippy Downs or Caloundra).

[mufreight]

Another factor that has effect on the rail capacity is the Petrie - Lawnton bottleneck, this section of double track not only restricts passenger operations at this time as well as the operation of freight services, a situation that will be considerably magnified with the pending construction of the Petrie - Kippa-Ring line.
It would appear that the Minister was advised of the need for a further bridge and additional track accross the North Pine River at this point in a briefing by officers from TMR on 5th August 2010 and again in a briefing note from QR on 9th August 2010.
The silence from the government on this crucial peice of infrastructure has been deafening.
It would be nice to obtain further information on how the Government proposes to resolve this bottle neck and perhaps more important WHEN.   

[SurfRail]

Another factor that has effect on the rail capacity is the Petrie - Lawnton bottleneck, this section of double track not only restricts passenger operations at this time as well as the operation of freight services, a situation that will be considerably magnified with the pending construction of the Petrie - Kippa-Ring line.
It would appear that the Minister was advised of the need for a further bridge and additional track accross the North Pine River at this point in a briefing by officers from TMR on 5th August 2010 and again in a briefing note from QR on 9th August 2010.
The silence from the government on this crucial peice of infrastructure has been deafening.
It would be nice to obtain further information on how the Government proposes to resolve this bottle neck and perhaps more important WHEN.   

You can only hope that this will be a necessary pre-condition to MBRL proceeding, but the absolute lack of mention in the project concept design is a bit alarming.  According to the project documents, the South Pole is at Petrie.

[somebody]

I'm more worried about the number of platforms at Petrie than the bridge.  If there are less than 4 platforms, it would be a bottleneck.

[HappyTrainGuy]

but the absolute lack of mention in the project concept design is a bit alarming.

Publicly yes. Consultancy projects for different parts have been under tender since mid/late last year so even QR/Government don't even know what the final concept will be yet (Although they do have a ultimate plan that they wish to acheive. Wheather the government commit$ to the ultimate plan i$ another $tory). No doubt it will be released publically once they have assessed the different plans for the entire line and come to the conclusion of what it will actually be.

Re Lawnton-Petrie Bridge. A third rail minimum will be built for the MBRL.

[SurfRail]

but the absolute lack of mention in the project concept design is a bit alarming.

Publicly yes. Consultancy projects for different parts have been under tender since mid/late last year so even QR/Government don't even know what the final concept will be yet (Although they do have a ultimate plan that they wish to acheive. Wheather the government commit$ to the ultimate plan i$ another $tory). No doubt it will be released publically once they have assessed the different plans for the entire line and come to the conclusion of what it will actually be.

Re Lawnton-Petrie Bridge. A third rail minimum will be built for the MBRL.

I had expected as much, and knew Petrie was going to be 4 platforms.

I just hope they have learned their lesson with Darra!

[HappyTrainGuy]

Wasn't Darra the result of the Government being tightasses over funding allocation? They don't need any new princes, payroll or email systems now do they?  

[somebody]

I had expected as much, and knew Petrie was going to be 4 platforms.

Even so, it is still possible they will find a way to introduce an unnecessary conflicting move grade separation or no grade separation.

[HappyTrainGuy]

I had expected as much, and knew Petrie was going to be 4 platforms.

Even so, it is still possible they will find a way to introduce an unnecessary conflicting move grade separation or no grade separation.

A quick search on the extender site reveals.

https://secure.publicworks.qld.gov.au/etender/tender/display/tender-details.do?id=5318&action=display-tender-details&returnUrl=%2Ftender%2Fsearch%2Ftender-search.do%3Faction%3Ddo-advanced-tender-search%26amp%3BchangeLevel%3D%26amp%3Binputlist%3DhasETB%26amp%3BorderBy%3D%26amp%3BwithdrawalReason%3D%26amp%3BexpiredReason%3D%26amp%3BtenderState%3D%26amp%3BtenderId%3D%26amp%3Bkeywords%3D%26amp%3BtenderCode%3D%26amp%3BtenderTitle%3D%26amp%3Bstate%3DClosed%26amp%3Btype%3DAny%26amp%3BunspscCode1%3D%26amp%3BunspscCode2%3D%26amp%3BunspscCode3%3D%26amp%3BissuingBusinessId%3D20%26amp%3BregionId%3D-1%26amp%3BopeningDateFromString%3D%26amp%3BopeningDateToString%3D%26amp%3BclosingDateFromString%3D%26amp%3BclosingDateToString%3D%26amp%3BawardedDateFromString%3D%26amp%3BawardedDateToString%3D%26amp%3BageRestriction%3D0%26amp%3BgroupBy%3DNone

The Lawnton to Petrie 3rd Track Project relates to the upgrade and extension of existing railway network from Lawnton to Petrie (including additional station facilities at Petrie), and to provide connecting infrastructure to the Moreton Bay Rail Link spur.

This Consultancy Agreement is to deliver a Planning Study to explore 3 options for connecting the Moreton Bay Rail Link to the North Coast Line, inclusive of cost plans to +/- 30%:

Ultimate Design – Third and fourth track, grade separated
Option 1 Interim – Third track and grade separated
Option 2 Interim – Third track and flat junction

[mufreight]

but the absolute lack of mention in the project concept design is a bit alarming.

Publicly yes. Consultancy projects for different parts have been under tender since mid/late last year so even QR/Government don't even know what the final concept will be yet (Although they do have a ultimate plan that they wish to acheive. Wheather the government commit$ to the ultimate plan i$ another $tory). No doubt it will be released publically once they have assessed the different plans for the entire line and come to the conclusion of what it will actually be.

Re Lawnton-Petrie Bridge. A third rail minimum will be built for the MBRL.

To be realistic there is a definate need to cater for the needs of the MBRL for four platforms through Petrie.
From the operational needs there is no question that as a bare minimum a third line has to be built betweeb Petrie and Lawnton.
In terms of the economics of the project there is no great additional cost in building the bridge as a double track bridge as against a single track structure.
A fourth crossing of the North Pine River will be required with the construction of the CAMCOS link and short term there would be considerable operating advantages in constructing the fourth line between Strathpine and Petrie as part of the bridge construction project.
It will now remain to be seen if the Government of the day follows what would seem to be the accepted practice of only half building rail infrastructure as another penny wise pound foolish solution

[ozbob]

Yes, the cycle of building half baked needs to be broken, no wonder funding is so short it is spent going back and fixing up earlier botches ..  ever escalating cycle of waste ...

[Fares_Fair]

but the absolute lack of mention in the project concept design is a bit alarming.

Publicly yes. Consultancy projects for different parts have been under tender since mid/late last year so even QR/Government don't even know what the final concept will be yet (Although they do have a ultimate plan that they wish to acheive. Wheather the government commit$ to the ultimate plan i$ another $tory). No doubt it will be released publically once they have assessed the different plans for the entire line and come to the conclusion of what it will actually be.

Re Lawnton-Petrie Bridge. A third rail minimum will be built for the MBRL.

To be realistic there is a definate need to cater for the needs of the MBRL for four platforms through Petrie.
From the operational needs there is no question that as a bare minimum a third line has to be built betweeb Petrie and Lawnton.
In terms of the economics of the project there is no great additional cost in building the bridge as a double track bridge as against a single track structure.
A fourth crossing of the North Pine River will be required with the construction of the CAMCOS link and short term there would be considerable operating advantages in constructing the fourth line between Strathpine and Petrie as part of the bridge construction project.
It will now remain to be seen if the Government of the day follows what would seem to be the accepted practice of only half building rail infrastructure as another penny wise pound foolish solution

I asked the Minister when I had my meeting back on 30 August, if the issues along the track around Petrie, caused by the MBRL, would be addressed. I was told they would be.
No information was given on what that would entail.

Regards,
Fares_Fair.

[SurfRail]

According to Link by Happytrainguy,

The Lawnton to Petrie 3rd Track Project relates to the upgrade and extension of existing railway network from Lawnton to Petrie (including additional station facilities at Petrie), and to provide connecting infrastructure to the Moreton Bay Rail Link spur.

This Consultancy Agreement is to deliver a Planning Study to explore 3 options for connecting the Moreton Bay Rail Link to the North Coast Line, inclusive of cost plans to +/- 30%:

Ultimate Design – Third and fourth track, grade separated
Option 1 Interim – Third track and grade separated
Option 2 Interim – Third track and flat junction

Very easy to sit back and say why do anything but Ultimate Design, "how stupid is any other decision", they know what they want, but can they (using our money) afford it, hopefully so and time will tell.

regards
Shane

They can absolutely afford to do this properly.  The alternative is to leave it for another government to fix in 10 years time or less at greater cost.

[#Metro]

This is one reason why:

1. I don't usually mind if fares go up, provided that concessions are in place so that people who need them get them. Everyone else seems to fork out 10x the cost for cars, so PT fares ... you can see it depends on the intrinsic quality of service as to what people are prepared to pay.

2. I don't like developments in la la. I'd rather see exisiting infrastructure strengthened and development take place on the way.

3. Core Frequent Network over heavy, costly infrastructure (but pollies do like their monuments).

[SurfRail]

They can absolutely afford to do this properly.  The alternative is to leave it for another government to fix in 10 years time or less at greater cost.

Its called priorities, Police want better gear higher salaries money, prisons are over crowded, parents claim schools are under staffed and have worst performance in Australia, Teachers want pay rises, Nurses want more money, hospitals have long waiting lists, roads are falling apart, bridges need urgent repairs, whingers on internet chat groups call for 15min train time tables, local councils want more funding, Park Rangers need equipment, no one wants to pay more taxes or high levies, Charlievile, Mt Isa and Longreach wants to keep their twice a week trains, Sunshine Coast wants dual track, Gold Coast wants extension of HR and LR, people complain when they try and sell a few things to pay for others and the bank has warned Treasury, you borrow more money and we will increase the risk and interest rates.

Easy isn't it! Agree if its not done (and I hope it is), needs to be done in such a way that the cost is minimised for future.

Regards
Shane

It's called borrowing.  Borrowing to fund a productive asset is not an issue for any government in Australia at present, especially something like this where the savings from the el cheapo flawed option could only be chump change.  If they really had priority issues, they wouldn't be building the line at all.

[Stillwater]

Yep. 
If it has a positive cost-benefit, society is actually in front.

[HappyTrainGuy]

Its called priorities, Police want better gear higher salaries money, prisons are over crowded, parents claim schools are under staffed and have worst performance in Australia, Teachers want pay rises, Nurses want more money, hospitals have long waiting lists, roads are falling apart, bridges need urgent repairs, whingers on internet chat groups call for 15min train time tables, local councils want more funding, Park Rangers need equipment, no one wants to pay more taxes or high levies, Charlievile, Mt Isa and Longreach wants to keep their twice a week trains, Sunshine Coast wants dual track, Gold Coast wants extension of HR and LR, people complain when they try and sell a few things to pay for others and the bank has warned Treasury, you borrow more money and we will increase the risk and interest rates.

Easy isn't it! Agree if its not done (and I hope it is), needs to be done in such a way that the cost is minimised for future.

Regards
Shane

I went past Petrie yesterday afternoon and after having a look at the road bridge raised a few questions. The first one was can they actually get a third track under the Gympie Road overpass bridge on the current allignment at speed via the stabling replacment once more ballast is added and the wires raised? And the second was the clearence on the right hand side on Petrie approach for a third or fourth track that way. To me it doesn't look like the bridge is actually tall enough once ballast rail, overhead supports and safeworkings are added (Gaps between trains flexing at speed, trackside infrastructure including the bridge supports/foundations etc). It might just be me/where I was standing and there is enough for to squeeze 4 tracks through but could it be a possability that the bridge might have to be knocked down and replaced if they want to have a 3rd or 4th track between Petrie-Lawnton?

Although it could explain why its going to cost an estimated 1.5billion or could that blowout the cost even more with major delays for trains, buses, schools, local businesses and residents considering the limited options for travel available there (Via Youngs Crossing, via the Bruce highway into Strathpine or via the Gympie Road overpass http://www.nearmap.com/?q=@-27.271720,152.979770&ll=-27.27172,152.97977&z=15&t=h&nmd=20111103 ).

What would you think would make up the MBRL costings.
- Design, Engeneering, Consultants, Enviroment impact studies, Distruptions to local property owners/businesses/roads etc, buying property, security, advertising, public information sessions, access roads, transportation etc.
- Removal/modifications-reconstruction/brand new Gympie Road overpass.
- Additional bridge and track/s between Lawnton-Petrie.
- Additional 4th minimum or 5th platforms at Petrie (For the Petrie starters/terminators/express services. Sorta like a middle docking platform but still connected to both lines and turn the carpark into an island platform for the spur).
- 6 new stations with 175m side platforms (Kippa Ring will be an island platform) and new park and ride facilities.
- Kippa Ring interchange and associated works.
- New Petrie Park and Ride.
- 2 TODs at Rothwell and Kallangur.
- Major earthworks.
- Changes to the road network.
- Noise reduction barriers, safety fencing.
- 10m high Bridge over the Bruce Highway.
- Bike/pedistrian pathway along the corridor.
- Something like roughly 16 bridges. Bridges and earthworks though the swampland - Similar to the Gold Coast line between Helensvale-Robina.
- Multiple level crossings/overpasses if grade seperated.
- 13km dual tracks, ballast, overheads, signaling, trackside equipment.
- Removing/relocating Petrie stabling to Kippa Ring with the beefed up prison fence/security/extra capacity.

Anything else you think might be in the project...

[SurfRail]

They could save money and increase efficiency and speed if they cut out Murrumba Downs and Kinsellas Road - no asphalt to be laid, no lines to be slewed, no platforms to build, better economies of scale at the resulting four stations.

[HappyTrainGuy]

Kingsellas Road East was supposed to be built in 2025 but there was a recent major property development signed for the area by Urbex?

MD is expected to have 1590 boardings per day and KRE is expected to have 1630 daily boardings.

[Fares_Fair]

Murrumba Downs is a newish large growth area, surely it would warrant a nearby station?

Regards,
Fares_Fair.

[somebody]

What's the likely capacity in tph over the twin track bridge, without using the bi-di?  There's no stations in that section, so that's not a constraint.

[HappyTrainGuy]

What bridge are you referring to? THe current bridge between Lawnton and Petrie? Citybound using both the main line and middle track you can get a train through roughly every two minutes by running a mix of all stoppers and express trains as by the time the all stopper makes the trip the previous express service would be passing Bray Park on its way to Strathpine. Currently it has about 17 services between Petrie-Lawnton between 7am-8am heading to the city and there is still capacity available. Any more and the innercity becomes a problem needing help from CRR to increase capacity.

[somebody]

Yeah, Lawnton-Petrie.  If CRR goes through without amplification here, then what?

[SurfRail]

Kingsellas Road East was supposed to be built in 2025 but there was a recent major property development signed for the area by Urbex?

MD is expected to have 1590 boardings per day and KRE is expected to have 1630 daily boardings.

You could consolidate that patronage between Kallangur, Mango Hill and Rothwell though.  It would also be much easier to design a feeder bus network with only 4 stations.

Murrumba Downs is a newish large growth area, surely it would warrant a nearby station?

Regards,
Fares_Fair.

A rail service is needed, but you can provide that by building Kallangur and Mango Hill only.  MB is probably less than a kilometre down the line, which is far too close an interval.

[HappyTrainGuy]

Yeah, Lawnton-Petrie.  If CRR goes through without amplification here, then what?

Who knows. Maybe flyovers, Trouts Road, removal of Petrie starters/terminators and 9 car services might have to be brought forward to help out. Pretty sure I heard or read in some report that with CRR/Trouts road/CAMOS in 2030 or something ideally Petrie-Strathpine would be running something like 20 trains per hour in the middle of peak if some lines went to 9 car services via CRR to maximise the capacity on the infrastructure with additional rollingstock (8 to/from Caboolture, 8 to/from CAMOS/Nambour/Gympie and 4 Petrie starters/terminators which could be replaced or combined with Strathpines starters/terminators depending on how they schedule the stopping pattern on services in the future. Chuck say an extra 6 for MBRL and it could roughly be 26 trains per hour which might just be possible if signaling was modified/upgraded).

There might be a few ways to modify Petrie to help out. Petrie could go UP UP DWN DWN by shifting the current 2/3 platforms south and turn them into the MBRL spur platforms with a flyover the mains and platforms 1/4 being the NCL platforms. If they built 5 platforms at Petrie with a flyover to the north for MBRL and routed some Cabulcha/Nambour citybound trains to use the MBRL spur platforms inbetween Kippa Ring services it might be enough for a interm solution but long term I wouldn't know. Then comes the cost.

Option 1.


Option 2.


I'd hate to be the person that has to figure out a solution to this mess if they can't get a new bridge up as the worst case scanario but who knows maybe they already have a solution.

[#Metro]

I think a flyover should be designed such that a cross-platform transfer between NCL trains and MBRL trains is possible. Why? Because it allows the option of running the MBRL as a high frequency shuttle service in the off peak to counteract the low 2tph frequency.

[somebody]

I think a flyover should be designed such that a cross-platform transfer between NCL trains and MBRL trains is possible. Why? Because it allows the option of running the MBRL as a high frequency shuttle service in the off peak to counteract the low 2tph frequency.

Ewww.

It should be a tiered service if the extra trains aren't needed to serve Lawnton-Virginia.

And don't give them ideas.  One of the positives of the MBRL is that it will achieve 4tph to Petrie.

[HappyTrainGuy]

counteract the low 2tph frequency.

I'm living in 4tph land sooo....

[#Metro]

Ewww.

It should be a tiered service if the extra trains aren't needed to serve Lawnton-Virginia.

And don't give them ideas.  One of the positives of the MBRL is that it will achieve 4tph to Petrie.

Yes, but you could get 4tph to BOTH with a shuttle service.
Alternative is to have NCL line passengers transfer to MBRL services - I'm sure that would go down well with NCL passengers (not).

Decent frequency (15 minutes, 6 am - 9pm) should be policy standard for all Core Frequent Network services. CFN is like the main highway system, applied to PT. Must be high capacity, decent hours, decent legibility, decent everything. New railways should not be built to run coverage/welfare-style services - at $100 - $200 million PER KM you want some decent bang.