Qld's most important rail infrastructure project

[achiruel]

It seems these are the two most important issues facing us right now.  CRR is required for increased CityTrain capacity & also redundancy.  NCL duplication/realignment will massively help the freight task to all points north of Caboolture (+maybe less rail-buses  )  Which one should have greater priority?

[mufreight]

It seems these are the two most important issues facing us right now.  CRR is required for increased CityTrain capacity & also redundancy.  NCL duplication/realignment will massively help the freight task to all points north of Caboolture (+maybe less rail-buses  )  Which one should have greater priority?

This is another no brainer poll,
without the additional capacity that will be provided by CRR there is insufficent capacity through the CBD to add the additional services from MBRL, or the Gold Coast or to allow for the expansion of services from the Sunshine Coast (Main North Line, Nambour) or for Camcos, how many repeats of the meltdown of last week does it take to get a bit of logical commonsense to surface?

[Gazza]

Who's voting for the SC duplication? I know it enables more freight and all, but that freight still comes through inner brisbane too, and that is going to be just as much of a bottleneck in future years.

[Arnz]

A better question is "What is Qld's most important rail infrastructure project after CRR?" 

[mufreight]

Who's voting for the SC duplication? I know it enables more freight and all, but that freight still comes through inner brisbane too, and that is going to be just as much of a bottleneck in future years.

Possibly in 30 years time for freight which skirts rather than runs directly through the CBD as is the case with the passenger services

[achiruel]

Who's voting for the SC duplication?

I'm more interested in who voted for "Something else" and exactly what the something else was? 

[Mr X]

South Brisbane terminators + Fairfield solution? 

[Fares_Fair]

Who's voting for the SC duplication? I know it enables more freight and all, but that freight still comes through inner brisbane too, and that is going to be just as much of a bottleneck in future years.

I confess, I did, no surprises there.

My reason.
The inner city bottleneck (Merivale Bridge) will hit the wall in 2016.
The Sunshine Coast has already hit the wall.

Further support from this report quote below:

Inner City Rail Capacity Study - Stage 3 Freight Analysis
  produced for Queensland Transport by SYSTEMWIDE, states in Chapter 9, p25;

Conclusion  p25,
  "From an inner city perspective, the best course of action for the future of freight is
  to increase the North coast intermodal train consist lengths to 1500m. Doing so will
  alleviate the need to upgrade the inner city, and will allow the current (desired)
  freight distribution to be maintained with operational viability. If 1500m trains
  cannot be accommodated, the freight services should be spread apart ...

  This will avoid infrastructure upgrades to the inner city under medium
  growth, and only requires a fifth track around Roma West junction under high
  growth to ensure a robust operation.
 
  The freight curfew should remain, as running freight services during the peak hour
  can only be achieved by extensive additional infrastructure, or by removing
  passenger services causing unacceptable overloading."


Regards,
Fares_Fair.

[somebody]

Who's voting for the SC duplication? I know it enables more freight and all, but that freight still comes through inner brisbane too, and that is going to be just as much of a bottleneck in future years.

Inner City Rail Capacity Study - Stage 3 Freight Analysis
  produced for Queensland Transport by SYSTEMWIDE, states in Chapter 9, p25;

Conclusion  p25,
  "From an inner city perspective, the best course of action for the future of freight is
  to increase the North coast intermodal train consist lengths to 1500m. Doing so will
   alleviate the need to upgrade the inner city, and will allow the current (desired)
   freight distribution to be maintained with operational viability. If 1500m trains
  cannot be accommodated, the freight services should be spread apart ...

  This will avoid infrastructure upgrades to the inner city under medium
  growth, and only requires a fifth track around Roma West junction under high
  growth to ensure a robust operation.
 
  The freight curfew should remain, as running freight services during the peak hour
  can only be achieved by extensive additional infrastructure, or by removing
  passenger services causing unacceptable overloading."


Regards,
Fares_Fair.

That's talking about freight path via Exhibition.

[ozbob]

Yes, and was the part of the reasoning for Cross River Rail.  Cross River Rail actually has much benefit for improved freight paths as well.

e.g. http://www.aecom.com/Where+We+Are/Australia+-+New+Zealand/Transportation/_projectsList/Cross+River+Rail

The reader should note that the freight strategy comments FF has posted above are in the context that Cross River Rail equivalent exists  eg. http://www.systemwide.com.au/pdfs/Systemwide%27s%20Brisbane%20Inner%20City%20Rail%20Capacity%20Study.pdf

[ozbob]

A better question is "What is Qld's most important rail infrastructure project after CRR?" 

That can be other poll.  This is just testing what members think is the absolute priority and that seems very clear.

I actually strongly support Sunshine Coast Line improvements.  I personally feel it is a national disgrace that we are still fighting to have something done.

Many here have suggested various upgrade paths, and all achievable. 

[somebody]

Cross River Rail actually has much benefit for improved freight paths as well.

By making it easier to get across the Merivale bridge, yes.

[ozbob]

Indeed, and

The Yeerongpilly to Beaudesert Road quad track is
augmented by a dedicated freight track from Salisbury to
Clapham Rail Yard, allowing freight operations to continue
all day without peak curfews between Salisbury and the
Port of Brisbane.
The ability to operate without peak curfews will allow time
sensitive intermodal freight to arrive at the Port of
Brisbane or Acacia Ridge more easily, and provides
approximately 20-30 additional hours a week of relatively
unrestricted freight operations to occur between Salisbury
and the Port of Brisbane during the day.

http://www.crossriverrail.qld.gov.au/images/stories/reference_design_overview/Pdf-crr-reference-design-overview-august-2011-complete.pdf

page 74

[Fares_Fair]

Yes, and was the part of the reasoning for Cross River Rail.  Cross River Rail actually has much benefit for improved freight paths as well.

e.g. http://www.aecom.com/Where+We+Are/Australia+-+New+Zealand/Transportation/_projectsList/Cross+River+Rail

The reader should note that the freight strategy comments FF has posted above are in the context that Cross River Rail equivalent exists  eg. http://www.systemwide.com.au/pdfs/Systemwide%27s%20Brisbane%20Inner%20City%20Rail%20Capacity%20Study.pdf

Hello ozbob,

I'm not certain that that is the case.
If that is the case then I will certainly stand corrected.

The link you provided doesn't confirm the situation, or at least I can't see it anywhere.
It states:

Queensland Transport commissioned the Inner City Rail
Capacity Study (ICRCS) to identify and assess options
for future development of the inner city rail network to
provide sufficient capacity to cater for demand to 2026
while allowing for the longer term development of the
rail network.

True, the study is for 2026, but parts of it suggest it is based upon current situation, not a post CRR scenario.
I admit, the Key Assumptions are not very clear on this.

The Inner City Rail Capacity Study – Stage 3 Freight Analysis dated September 2008, p2

1.4       Methodology
The key outcome from this study is to ensure that the inner city layout can support
the future freight movements. This can be quantified by determining the number of
paths available versus the paths required. If the current infrastructure is found to
be  insufficient  for  future  freight  requirements,  variations  to  operations  and
additional infrastructure have been  analysed and assessed. The analysis provides
a  recommendation  regarding  the  optimal  solution  for  the  inner  city  freight
operations to cater for future growth.


It also refers to the future underground passenger system (assumed by me to be CRR), that would suggest that it does not include CRR.

4.  Other issues
4.1       Underground rail freight
It  was  agreed  in  the  Workshop  that  the future underground passenger system
would not be used for rail freight.
4.2       Freight operation
There  will  be  increases  in  the  length  of  freight  trains  in  the  future  which  will
necessitate the need for longer holding roads. The existing 800 metre roads in the
exhibition loop area will be of limited use in the future.
4.3       Current rail freight capacity limits
QR indicated that with current growth predictions the NCL – Exhibition loop freight
would  reach  system  capacity  by  approximately  2011/2012  (based  on  continued
operation of 650 metre rollingstock). If rollingstock was increased to 1500 metres
long the capacity threshold would be reached by 2020. The current traffic on the
NCL was noted at 10 trains each way per day.


I am going right through the document to confirm the status without any doubt.
I'm not making any judgement one way or the other.

Regards,
Fares_Fair.

[ozbob]

ICRCS  was the study the confirmed the need for CRR.  It is the opening document.  It implies when the second crossing is in place, if then the current infrastructure if found insufficient etc.

Assuming stage 1 and stage 2 proceed the freight strategy is what they expect.  Without CRR or equivalent nothing will move and the rest is irrelevant.

The system is already at capacity, how on the earth can more freight be added without CRR?  CRR allows stage 3 freight strategy.

Read this again --> http://www.systemwide.com.au/pdfs/Systemwide%27s%20Brisbane%20Inner%20City%20Rail%20Capacity%20Study.pdf

[Fares_Fair]

I agree the study identified the need for CRR, however it does not appear to assume that CRR is already in place for it's analysis.
I have read and re-read the link, it does not clarify it IMHO.

The section above in my post states that freight at 650m will reach capacity by 2011/12 but that freight at 1500m will extend this to 2020.
AISI allowing for 1500m freight trains along NCL will alleviate the inner city situation, CRR or no CRR.

Regards,
Fares_Fair

[ozbob]

I agree the study identified the need for CRR, however it does not appear to assume that CRR is already in place for it's analysis.
I have read and re-read the link, it does not clarify it IMHO.

The section above in my post states that freight at 650m will reach capacity by 2011/12 but that freight at 1500m will extend this to 2020.

Regards,
Fares_Fair

More particularly here, the tunnels (CRR) allow more paths for the freight. Hence the conclusions they made.

http://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/~/media/29c468e8-24a4-4a19-a639-6c7293f19ef5/pdf_icrcs_stage_3_technical_pre_feasibility_appendix_a_4_freight_needs.pdf

What is confusing they focus on the existing (some possible surface modifications) for the freight analysis as freight won't be running in CRR.  The fact that paths are made available by CRR is implicit but not clear.

Also throw away lines about 1500 metre trains through Brisbane need some thought ....   the passing loops up North need to be fixed and I expect some signalling changes as well.   It is not going happen for many years if at all.

[ozbob]

Here it acknowledges the effect of the tunnels

Combined passengers and freight forecast (within the freight analysis
scope)
The forecast data for train moves in the inner city shows only a marginal increase
between 2008 and 2026 medium and high freight growth numbers. The construction of
the two tunnels between now and 2022 sees the overall number of moves on the existing
tracks in the inner city remain relatively constant.

http://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/~/media/29c468e8-24a4-4a19-a639-6c7293f19ef5/pdf_icrcs_stage_3_technical_pre_feasibility_appendix_a_4_freight_needs.pdf  page 8

This is the enabler and gives rise to the conclusions you posted FF.

It is clear that the freight strategy is based around not only one CRR but the second as well!

Cross River Rail is a very strong and sound case.  Remember too that ICRCS is old and superseeded in some respects by the CRR documentation itself.



No worries ..

[Fares_Fair]

Yes, but from my post above;

4.  Other issues
4.1       Underground rail freight
It was agreed in the Workshop that the future underground passenger system would not be used for rail freight.

Agree 1500m freight trains won't happen overnight, and they would impact on passing times in the city.

[ozbob]

Indeed freight will not be running in CRR, but the fact that CRR is there is what enables more surface paths for freight etc.

That is clear from my previous post.

We are at capacity now, I understand from sources that some certain transport operators have been turned away from rail because of a lack of train paths.

The situation is not going to be resolved unless the new Government commits to the necessary upgrades on the Sunshine Coast line as Cross River Rail develops.

I really do think they need to reassess how they operate the Sunshine Coast Line.  Maybe more overnight fleeting (they may do this but not sure).  Rather than attempting to pass run several longish trains one after the other so they don't have to pass.  Down one night, UP the next and so forth.  That might squeeze some more capacity.

[Jonas Jade]

If you asked me six months ago, CRR vs SC duplication I would've gone for the SC. In fact I believe I have posts either on here or SSC stating that.

Now, after the Cleveland solution debacle et al, I've come around to CRR ahead of SC. The benefits are too much to ignore, especially as an enabler for the full benefits that the Sunshine coast duplication can bring.

[Fares_Fair]

http://www.crossriverrail.qld.gov.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=56&Itemid=89

Background

In 2007-08, the Queensland Government undertook the Inner City Rail Capacity Study, a prefeasibility study to identify possible solutions to capacity issues in Brisbane's inner city rail network.

The study found that an additional north-south river crossing for rail would be needed by 2016 to cope with the increasing demand for transport services in south-east Queensland.
The study recommended three potential options be investigated during the detailed feasibility phase of the project.
As part of the detailed feasibility phase of the project these options, plus many other possible solutions, were considered when selecting a study corridor for the Cross River Rail detailed feasibility phase.
Last Updated (Friday, 26 August 2011 16:35)

The Inner City Rail Capacity Study was the pre-feasibility phase of Cross River Rail.
The Queensland Government is progressing with the detailed feasibility phase of Cross River Rail, which supercedes work completed during the pre-feasibility phase.

I don't live in the inner city - how will Cross River Rail benefit me?
http://www.crossriverrail.qld.gov.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=68&Itemid=96

Cross River Rail's benefits reach far wider than just the inner city.

Passengers throughout South East Queensland will benefit from the project because more inner city capacity allows more services to operate across the region and enables the network to expand into new areas such as the southern Gold Coast and Redcliffe.
This extra capacity at the core of the region's rail network could double the number of express services from the Gold Coast to the CBD in the morning peak hour, getting people to work faster.
Last Updated (Thursday, 11 November 2010 11:30)

[Stillwater]

With the CRR Business Case prepared, submitted and accepted by IA, the Queensland team that worked on preparing the business case should not be disbanded.  Rather, it should be put to work on preparing the Business Case for the upgrade of the Sunshine Coast Line.  Maybe that is something one or other of the political parties could promise us in this election campaign.

[Fares_Fair]

TBH, and after reading through the ICRCS and the CRR study tonight, the major benefits of CRR are to the south, and that is necessary due to the single Merivale bridge crossing hitting capacity in 2016.
The Sunshine Coast gets cursory mentions without any detail of improvements, and most of these end at Caboolture, well shy of the Beerburrum bottleneck which won't go away with CRR, and will limit any improvements, it's the weakest link.

Even under CoastLink, (read it tonight but can't find it now - may need to correct) express services occur from Caboolture south, none are shown north of it.
Anyway, I intend going deeper into these studies, including CoastLink, ExpressLink etc to flesh out the situation as it relates to the Sunshine Coast.

Cross River Rail will allow the current number of
train services from the suburbs to the city to
double, greatly improving access from the
northern and southern population growth
corridors. This increased rail capacity is an
essential requirement for future network
enhancements on the Sunshine Coast
Kippa-Ring and the Gold Coast.

Regards,
Fares_Fair.

[ozbob]

1 March 2012 re-released 4 March 2012

SEQ: Cross River Rail is ready to proceed

RAIL Back On Track (http://backontrack.org) a web based community support group for rail and public transport and an advocate for public transport passengers has welcomed confirmation that Cross River Rail has now reached the 'ready to proceed' status as assessed by Infrastructure Australia (1).

Robert Dow, Spokesman for RAIL Back On Track said:

"RAIL Back On Track congratulates the Cross River Rail project development team on the confirmation that the project is now at the ready to proceed threshold."

"As we have long argued, Cross River Rail is a critical project for Queensland and Australia.  It will transform the rail network and provide the opportunity for capacity and frequency improvements on all lines, and improve redundancy on the rail network."

"As we saw with last Tuesday's total transport meltdown, when the train system can't cope, people flood buses which then fill, and that spills over to the road network bringing more congestion. The problem is that the present geometry of the network where all lines come together and are funnelled through a single core -  Roma Street, Central, Fortitude Valley and Bowen Hills - makes the network fault intolerant and vulnerable to cascading failures. Cross River Rail is the ultimate fix for this, as it will allow trains to bypass the critical four core stations."

"Cross River Rail is a state-building project. It will unlock the entire network and allow the region to have frequent services like Perth, WA already has, and to grow and new developments for affordable housing in places like Yarrabilba to have public transport."

"RAIL Back On Track members are wary of 'too good to be true' schemes such as the 'Cleveland Solution', which dissapointingly engaged in what we have come to call 'cost-only analysis', which unlike reputable and proper cost-benefit analysis, is based purely on comparing costs and ignoring any comparative appraisal of the benefits. Not only do we believe the Cleveland Solution to be undercosted, but even if it were cheaper, it would also have lower benefits too."

"Bipartisan support for Cross River Rail is now needed (2). Cross River Rail will deliver a positive economic and transport future for Queensland.  Even the RACQ the peak motoring body in Queensland acknowledges the importance of Cross River Rail (3)."

References:

1.  http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/state-election-2012/bigticket-rail-project-ready-to-proceed-20120229-1u3c0.html

2.  Cross River Rail bipartisan support is the way forward  http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=7523.0

3.  http://www.racq.com.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/86150/RACQ_Motoring_Matters_V5.pdf  page 6

Contact:

Robert Dow
Administration
admin@backontrack.org
RAIL Back On Track http://backontrack.org

[somebody]

Cross River Rail will allow the current number of
train services from the suburbs to the city to
double,

Not double, but increase by 50%.

It will also make it easier to dispense with all stopping Albion-Northgate.  Whether or not that actually happens remains to be seen.

[Fares_Fair]

That quote is from the CRR report, almost double is what is generally touted.

Regards,
Fares_Fair.

[achiruel]

It will also make it easier to dispense with all stopping Albion-Northgate.  Whether or not that actually happens remains to be seen.

Won't that require Trouts Rd in addition to CRR? i.e. the reason for the stopping is lack of paths through the Northgate-Bowen Hills section?

[SurfRail]

It will also make it easier to dispense with all stopping Albion-Northgate.  Whether or not that actually happens remains to be seen.

Won't that require Trouts Rd in addition to CRR? i.e. the reason for the stopping is lack of paths through the Northgate-Bowen Hills section?

The mains would be used by CRR services, which would all run express (at a minimum) from Northgate to Ekka, stopping only at Eagle Junction.  The suburban services (Shorncliffe, Airport, Doomben) would feed the Ipswich corridor.

At Mayne/Bowen Hills, the suburban services would flick over onto the mains, while the Ferny Grove line would feed the suburbans straight from the flyover and continue to feed the South Brisbane lines (Cleveland/wherever the Beenleigh all-stops pattern ends, looks like either Kuraby or Loganlea). 

In the current reference design the Doomben services may join with the Ferny Grove services - the impact would be minimal given the likely frequency out to Doomben would be half-hourly at best.

In short, you would not need Trouts Rd to have expresses - it would simply make those expresses faster and allow more capacity for freight and long-distance services.

[somebody]

Putting it another way, you remove the effect that the Ferny Grove line takes paths from Albion #1 & #2.

I hope they change their mind on the Doomben line.  That's a dumb aspect of the plans.