QLD Transport talk from: Article: Transportation Jetsons-style

[somebody]

I think the reason why they went with bus is obvious (and simple).  Any attempt to improve QR/Citytrain services at the time was met with furious opposition.  Still is, but perhaps the degree is reducing.  Therefore they went with a different approach.

[SurfRail]

Using the Reserve Bank of Australia's inflation calculator, this comes out to be $601 million in today's dollars, services every 2 minutes and pretty good for carrying 44 million people per year, direct service. Perth paid what, $2 billion, got 4 trains/hour and 18 million pax per year. Perhaps one of the reasons why they don't run more frequent feeders to their train line is because they spent so much on concrete that they didn't have enough cash left over to run trains every 3 min???

Firstly, they paid $1.3bn.

Secondly, nothing stops Perth running more frequent trains.  They have sufficient rollingstock and track capacity, and the state is swimming in mineral wealth.  There is also no rule which says a busway needs to run every 2 minutes - try catching a bus from Adelaide to Golden Grove on a weekend.  It is solely a management and cultural thing, which is a lot easier to change than the physical extent of the network.

Thirdly, construction costs have risen HIGHER than inflation consistently for the past decade because of demand.  The true cost in today's dollars would be higher than the figure you have come up with using CPI.

Gold Coast - 80 km x 50 million/km + (200 million for bridge), + (18 trains x 10 million ea) = ~ 4.5 Billion, what's that ~ 9x what the SE busway cost... FERRARI
I can see why the engineers decided to tack the GC line onto the Beenleigh line .... services much sooner for lower cost (at least initially). Not perfect, I agree but practical.

The cost of constructing the line was nowhere near that much going from the original construction costs.  The entire line from Beenleigh to Robina (45km, including stations, rollingstock and dynamiting culverts out of entire hillsides) cost around $350m at the time.

Your rollingstock figures are also more expensive than what new trains today cost. 

If you want to do a proper comparison, add up:
- Cost of building the busway, the Beenleigh to Varsity Lakes extensions and the Salisbury to Kuraby capacity upgrades (required because they didn't do the Gold Coast line properly), and all the additional bus purchases required.
- Cost of building a single rail route from the city to say Robina and buses needed to feed that (which would almost certainly be fewer than a busway).

Make sure you factor in the cost of travelling time too, you are very fond of doing that (when it suits you).

Current route from Beenleigh to the city takes around double the time it would have taken with a direct line if Mandurah is any guide (40 min express vs I think about 25 min express, add around 50% for all-stoppers).  So, every person who has ever travelled on the line has paid around 60% more than they could have timewise.  Plus the busway is slower than a rail line would be, and fewer trains would be needed to maintain headways at higher speeds.

Cross River Rail is along within the $6 -8 billion dollar mark and required federal funding. Remember Perth had to go it alone and use state funds to pay for the entire thing and IA didn't exist then. So I think it is just fantasy to suggest that we "could have just re-ordered the spending" - you wouldn't have had that information..

Balderdash.  Your figures are way off.   

I'd suggest that in late 1990s figures building a line from Robina to the city going underground to serve the Gabba and following a CRR type alignment with a station under Roma St would probably have cost no more than $2bn.  Probably much less given what they were able to do in terms of civil works on the Gold Coast line.

We had plenty of decent local and international examples to go from without resorting to busways, so I don't buy your argument about "20/20 hindsight" one bit.

[HappyTrainGuy]

The Gold Coast line construction also included removal of the remaining single line sections of the Beenleigh line due to the nature and speed of both services (Gold Coast services running express Southbank-Beenleigh did that section in ~36-40 mins compared to all stoppers taking 50-56 mins to complete) before the tripple went up over a decade later to cope with extra demand/conflicts.

[Stillwater]

TT has profered in the past that he posts as a devil's advocate to spark debate.

[colinw]

No harm in that.    Debate is good as long as it stays civil.

[Stillwater]

And relevant, within the realms of the possible. 

[somebody]

Secondly, nothing stops Perth running more frequent trains.  They have sufficient rollingstock and track capacity, and the state is swimming in mineral wealth.  There is also no rule which says a busway needs to run every 2 minutes - try catching a bus from Adelaide to Golden Grove on a weekend.  It is solely a management and cultural thing, which is a lot easier to change than the physical extent of the network.

Cultural change is difficult.  It is not an axiom that it is preferable to finding another way.

Look at Gladys.  In a year, nothing really has changed.  Looks like little is likely to change in their entire first term.

[SurfRail]

TT has profered in the past that he posts as a devil's advocate to spark debate.

I have too (in a way I am doing so now!)  Debates are instructive because they throw up reasoning, history and assumptions moreso than the mere facts.

The busway is here and needs to be dealt with, but it certainly has been a success - you'll get no real argument from me there.

[#Metro]

Firstly, they paid $1.3bn.

Reference?

Secondly, nothing stops Perth running more frequent trains.  They have sufficient rollingstock and track capacity, and the state is swimming in mineral wealth.  There is also no rule which says a busway needs to run every 2 minutes - try catching a bus from Adelaide to Golden Grove on a weekend.  It is solely a management and cultural thing, which is a lot easier to change than the physical extent of the network.

Let's see, patronage at 18 million, 2 person per train makes it twice as expensive to run trains over here, track merges means caps on frequency over here....

Thirdly, construction costs have risen HIGHER than inflation consistently for the past decade because of demand.  The true cost in today's dollars would be higher than the figure you have come up with using CPI.

Um, and you have a crystal ball and time machine in which you can go back to 1997 and tell the planners there this?? This is what I mean with hindsight, pontification is so easy.

If you want to do a proper comparison, add up:
- Cost of building the busway, the Beenleigh to Varsity Lakes extensions and the Salisbury to Kuraby capacity upgrades (required because they didn't do the Gold Coast line properly), and all the additional bus purchases required.
- Cost of building a single rail route from the city to say Robina and buses needed to feed that (which would almost certainly be fewer than a busway).

Make sure you factor in the cost of travelling time too, you are very fond of doing that (when it suits you).

Current route from Beenleigh to the city takes around double the time it would have taken with a direct line if Mandurah is any guide (40 min express vs I think about 25 min express, add around 50% for all-stoppers).  So, every person who has ever travelled on the line has paid around 60% more than they could have timewise.  Plus the busway is slower than a rail line would be, and fewer trains would be needed to maintain headways at higher speeds.

Well that's you're argument to make, you still haven't answered my comments about entrenching legacy routing, not having $5 billion lying around and how exactly you could pour another 18 000 pphd into Roma Street Station on top of everything that the Cleveland, Beenleigh and Gold Coast lines currently do.

We had plenty of decent local and international examples to go from without resorting to busways, so I don't buy your argument about "20/20 hindsight" one bit.

But the issue is that the buses do a decent job on the corridor, better than the Perth examples you profess. Now they're not entirely comparable because the Perth system is designed to travel long distances of 80km. The busway is not designed for that - it is more like a metro.

TT has profered in the past that he posts as a devil's advocate to spark debate.

Debate and discussion is good.

For everyone on this forum - if they are that interested - go and dig up the 1997 busway documents / South East Transitway project or talk to Luke Franzmann or someone from Transport and Main Roads and find out why they chose what they did. I don't think anyone expected the busway to rival the patronage on the entire rail line. Again, crystal ball stuff!

[#Metro]

Now if some feel that the SE Busway is so good with its 2min headways etc, why do most of Brisbane's suburban lines exsist? Why not remove FG, DB, AP, SC, CL and BL lines and just rubber tyre them? There is something like 10 trains an hour from BL line in peak, at 500 people each thats 5000 people. A typical lane of traffic can move 1700 cars an hour, assume buses can do 1000 per hour carrying 50 each so plenty of capacity with no feeder buses required, as buses start from the back streets?

This is the leap of logics many people jump off when I talk about BRT or busways. When I say things like "The SEB is so fantastic" they actually hear on their end "Rail is cr%p". So then comes all the nitpicking - ooh, I don't like Cultural Centre (yeah, you like Roma Street merge?), I don't like the ride quality of buses (ever had to stop all stops to Beenleigh, my butt got sore), we could have run rail more frequently, we coulda/woulda/shoulda done XYZ, maybe we should ignore certain buses from the count and so forth. But many people do, they divide the world into with rail / against rail, so if you say nice things about buses, WELL you must anti-rail and rahahahah.

There are many technical reasons why, but there are also many political and cultural issues as well. We don't live in a purely math/geometry/technical world. You'd know this is you've read the Hobart threads or even the Gold Coast light rail threads.

Most of Brisbane's suburban lines exist because that's what we have, and therefore may be better to upgrade the existing infrastructure than bear the cost of ripping up the whole thing and starting all over again (BILLIONS). We just don't have cash to make the conversion of all of it. It is the core section that needs to be changed to release capacity, to get frequency and labour - the two staff per train needs to be reduced to one or even automated. Costs drive a lot of this.

Doomben could be a busway, but a Hamilton road alignment might be better. Alternatively, if CRR releases enough capacity, there might not be a reason to bother. Airport could be built as rail because a private company was happy to pay for that and its elevation made it rather cheap at $200 million. I've experienced Melbourne Skybus, and although the frequency is amazing, I'd take a proper airtrain. It's a comfort thing, and usually you are tired and jetlagged, you need the toilet facilites and big puffy seat. Also, many people catch it to the GC, so distance comes into it as does single seat to the GC too.

Sunshine Coast line is totally inappropriate for a busway. Over long distances you need a toilet, and speed matters much more than frequency (it's still important though). Trains can go at 130 km/hour depending on station spacing, bus can't do that. You do not want to spend 2 hours on a BT bus, trust me, going to the Sunshine Coast.

Same with the Cleveland line - distance, and with CRR more slots will be available, just put more trains on and feed them.
Same with Beenleigh - distance and CRR is going to fix up that line.
Shorncliffe Line is interesting - either run that as a feeder train or release capacity to run it more frequently.

[HappyTrainGuy]

RTT, The northside has two ways around any possible quadding of the corridor that being Trouts Road Strathpine-Petrie quad and a Northgate-Petrie quad. Strathpine-Petrie already has the reserved space available, a large portion of the Trouts road reserved and infrastructure in place for a quad including the current rail bridge near Lawnton. Most of the major works would be around the stations and the Strathpine area. Northgate-Petrie quad has reserved space along parts but for areas surrounding stations expensive resumptions will have to be made. Spend money on an expensive full quad Northgate-Petrie or sink some of that money into Trouts road/Strathpine-Petrie quad where a real benefit could be made.

[SurfRail]

Reference?

http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/03/26/why-rail-projects-in-nsw-cost-three-times-as-much-as-they-should/

Actually a bit less than that, and it was overbudget at even the lesser figure of $1.22bn stated.

Let's see, patronage at 18 million, 2 person per train makes it twice as expensive to run trains over here, track merges means caps on frequency over here....

You have no problem running buses that only carry 60 people per driver though!

There would not have been any issue with track merges if it had been built properly.  Underground from Gabba to Roma Street with the potential to extend to Ekka and/or Trouts Road.  Core capacity / CRR problem solved.

Um, and you have a crystal ball and time machine in which you can go back to 1997 and tell the planners there this?? This is what I mean with hindsight, pontification is so easy.

And yet the Gold Coast line was cheaper than the busway even though it was 3 times longer, involved about as much engineering and was being built only a few years previously (during the planning phase for the SEB).

Well that's you're argument to make, you still haven't answered my comments about entrenching legacy routing, not having $5 billion lying around and how exactly you could pour another 18 000 pphd into Roma Street Station on top of everything that the Cleveland, Beenleigh and Gold Coast lines currently do.

Yes I have:
- It would have given a new route through the city.
- It would have avoided the Beenleigh line mess.
- It would have provided faster travel for everybody on the corridor, whether coming from Robina or Garden City, because of the higher top end speed of the trains.
- It would have provided more capacity on the surface lines for Beenleigh and Cleveland trains. (I am assuming that the second CBD tunnel might not even have had to be built, meaning the capacity issue we are facing now would have only involved the construction of what is now platforms 5/6 at Central and the additional track pair from Bowen Hills to Roma Street instead of CRR.)
- It would have avoided the branching issue at the Gabba from day 1.
- I've made it pretty clear it would NOT have cost $5bn to implement.  If anything, the cost would have been not too dissimilar for the CBD-8MP busway stretch, which involves tunnelling and follows the same preferred alignment for a railway, and the cost to Beenleigh would have been comparable to the Gold Coast line costs.  Economies of scale would also have had an impact.

You are welcome to address the cost issues I have raised - also feel free to add to that the ability to defer construction of the second track paid through Central which would not have been required until later on as a CRR-type expansion project.

But the issue is that the buses do a decent job on the corridor, better than the Perth examples you profess. Now they're not entirely comparable because the Perth system is designed to travel long distances of 80km. The busway is not designed for that - it is more like a metro.

They do a better job here because the trunk runs more frequently, the "feeders" here run more frequently, the operating hours at night are still good and the urban form is such that the stations are generally more viable for walk-up patronage. 

Perth's patronage is growing at a staggering rate anyway, notwithstanding those issues.

[#Metro]

http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/03/26/why-rail-projects-in-nsw-cost-three-times-as-much-as-they-should/

Actually a bit less than that, and it was overbudget at even the lesser figure of $1.22bn stated.

Sorry, you'd have to point out the sentence. There's three pages and a lot of comments to wade through there.

Yes I have:
- It would have given a new route through the city.

No, how would you deal with the geometric issues imposed on the line when it merges at Roma Street and dumps 18 000 pphd (20 trains per hour - trains usually carry some air, even in peak) into the rail system on top of what the rail system already handles at this point (Remember Merivale and that junction is already close to saturation right now), and also the distance of Roma Street from the actual CBD.

There is a very good reason why a second merivale bridge was probs not a good idea - the merge plus entrenching legacy routing.
In all likelyhood you would have had to go via Wooloongabba, as everyone was trying to do since 1970. We would have had to wait for Cross River Rail,
something that is not even built or funded yet, and had we waited, we would have denied everyone on the southside a decade of decent public transport.

- It would have avoided the Beenleigh line mess.

It would have if it went down the M1. But conversely, CRR will benefit BOTH Beenleigh and GC trains because they are on the same line...

- It would have provided faster travel for everybody on the corridor, whether coming from Robina or Garden City, because of the higher top end speed of the trains.

Speed is a function of station spacing. So I think it would be similar, at least along this section. Remember, a lot of trips also occur in the off peak, and train frequency would be much much lower then in this context. In the off peak the SEB probably wouldn't carry more than say three train loads (2000-3000 pphd) in the off-peak (buses every 2 min is 30 buses / hour x 70 seats per bus = 2100 pphd). The frequency would be 2 tph, or 4 tph MAXIMUM WITH A TRAIN, THERE IS NO ESCAPING THIS. The difference is I only wait 2 minutes, people in Perth wait 15... this means that even if the train were faster, overall the journey would be the same or slower using a train because in the off-peak the frequency would drop, increasing waiting times massively. PLUS on top of that, transfer penalty (can't imagine it would be more than 5 minutes, but you get my gist - UQ pax would have to do double interchange, so add ~ 10 mins total to journey times...)

The only possible exception to this would be if they built the line and made it automatic. But why would you do this in such a low density area in 1997 with no idea that you were going to carry 44 million pax per year? This is crystal ball stuff.

- It would have provided more capacity on the surface lines for Beenleigh and Cleveland trains. (I am assuming that the second CBD tunnel might not even have had to be built, meaning the capacity issue we are facing now would have only involved the construction of what is now platforms 5/6 at Central and the additional track pair from Bowen Hills to Roma Street instead of CRR.)

Yes, but it would have had to be a de novo alignment all the way to the Gold Coast. It would have been VERY attractive to just extend the Beenleigh line when you realise that the planners didn't have a crystal ball or the benefit of hindsight.

- It would have avoided the branching issue at the Gabba from day 1.

What is the branching issue?

- I've made it pretty clear it would NOT have cost $5bn to implement.  If anything, the cost would have been not too dissimilar for the CBD-8MP busway stretch, which involves tunnelling and follows the same preferred alignment for a railway, and the cost to Beenleigh would have been comparable to the Gold Coast line costs.  Economies of scale would also have had an impact.

Yeah, but the busway works really well. And the Perth examples still fall far short of what the SEB performs. It falls short on cost, falls short on patronage, falls short on frequency, falls short on span. It seems like a LOT of effort to go to just to make sure the project had steel wheels...

As for the Gold Coast line, I can't blame the engineers for looking at the Beenleigh line and going "well there's already a railway there, so we'll just tack the line on to that and make the trains run express, GC only needs 2tph anyway. When we have more cash, we'll upgrade the Beenleigh line". I know if I were an engineer in 1997 without my crystal ball, I'd be doing that.

[somebody]

- It would have provided faster travel for everybody on the corridor, whether coming from Robina or Garden City, because of the higher top end speed of the trains.

This issue is blunted by the acceleration and stopping patterns.  I don't see much in it all actually.

[#Metro]

This issue is blunted by the acceleration and stopping patterns.  I don't see much in it all actually.

On this point, I agree with Simon, and I will also say, that the drop in frequency in the off peak when using a train
would also mean that even if the train were faster, the blowout in waiting time would also obliterate any speed gain
from the vehicle.

You know what, if what you say is true, then what is stopping anyone from putting rail tracks down the M1 now, connect to the GC line at Beenleigh,
and then connect your rails to the CBD? You'd have to send the train down CRR obviously, but we don't include that in the cost because we have to get that anyway.

[somebody]

This issue is blunted by the acceleration and stopping patterns.  I don't see much in it all actually.

On this point, I agree with Simon, and I will also say, that the drop in frequency in the off peak when using a train
would also mean that even if the train were faster, the blowout in waiting time would also obliterate any speed gain
from the vehicle.

You know what, if what you say is true, then what is stopping anyone from putting rail tracks down the M1 now, connect to the GC line at Beenleigh,
and then connect your rails to the CBD? You'd have to send the train down CRR obviously, but we don't include that in the cost because we have to get that anyway.

I didn't mean frequency.

[HappyTrainGuy]

But there's also a trade off when it comes to the travel time vs capacity vs station spacing.

[Gazza]

Roma Street and dumps 18 000 pphd (20 trains per hour - trains usually carry some air, even in peak) into the rail system on top of what the rail system already handles at this point (Remember Merivale and that junction is already close to saturation right now), and also the distance of Roma Street from the actual CBD.

The SE Line trains would just terminate at a platform pair where the current Busway platform is built, with an extra concourse built as necessary.
Same operational model as how the RRL platforms will work at SXS in Melbourne.

The frequency would be 2 tph, or 4 tph MAXIMUM WITH A TRAIN, THERE IS NO ESCAPING THIS.

There is escaping it. Thats why Melbourne just shifted to 10 min offpeak frequency!

If Perth is a model on how to do things, Melbourne can be too.

And Re Busways versus rail. I don't have a problem with the transport provided by either, but Rail performs better in peak IMO, and an SE rail line could have done more for the region than the Busway.

And I wouldn't do a tunnel from the Gabba to Roma St, it would have just been a 2nd merivale bridge, and new track pair to roma st (so there would be 6 tracks going past the barracks)

Yeah, you might well say its a Ferrari.....But CRR is a ferrari compared to the Cleveland solution isnt it 

[#Metro]

The SE Line trains would just terminate at a platform pair where the current Busway platform is built, with an extra concourse built as necessary.
Same operational model as how the RRL platforms will work at SXS in Melbourne.

But you have to merge don't you? Do you have to cross tracks? See what I'm saying. Crystal ball stuff.
How are you going to get to the Airport or Central Station?
You would have had to have 100% knowledge that it was going to carry phenomenal patronage to know to build the system like this.

There is escaping it. Thats why Melbourne just shifted to 10 min offpeak frequency!

Only around 2000 pphd needs to be carried in the off peak - four trains.
The bus does a service every 2 minutes, and no transfer required. It is still more frequent than the melbourne train line you hold up as a model and still carries more passengers.

If Perth is a model on how to do things, Melbourne can be too.

Yeah, and neither of these models existed back in 2001 either. Crystal ball stuff.

And Re Busways versus rail. I don't have a problem with the transport provided by either, but Rail performs better in peak IMO, and an SE rail line could have done more for the region than the Busway.

Busway can do peak AND off-peak. And you need that off peak frequency because you want ALL DAY decent service.

[Gazza]

But you have to merge don't you? Do you have to cross tracks?

Why would you have to? It would have its own track pair right into Roma St.

[#Metro]

Why would you have to? It would have its own track pair right into Roma St.

I want to see a diagram of this.

[#Metro]

So here is the question now.

With the lines

* Kippa Ring
* Springfield-Darra
* Greenbank/wherever
* Trouts Road

Should we now construct all these projects as separate lines from existing lines running down the median of freeways/separate from the existing QR rail network, with their own dedicated track pairs into Roma Street wherever, run them at 10 minute frequencies all day and use 44 million passengers per year as the patronage for these lines?

[Gazza]

Something roughly like this.


Uploaded with ImageShack.us

The merivale Bridge duplication is very rough in this drawing. The diagram in the ICIRS is better on how that bit would be done. See Appendix C drawings  on this page http://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/Projects/Name/I/Inner-City-Rail-Capacity-Study/Inner-City-Rail-Capacity-Study-publications.aspx

The actual bit around Roma St station wouldn't have to be underground as per the ICIRS because surface space would have been available to avoid underground platforms, since the INB didn't exist.

[Gazza]

with their own dedicated track pairs into Roma Street wherever,

Pretty much yes, due to the enabling works.

-Kippa Ring is having the triple extended, and a new bridge over pine river AFAIK

-Springfield Darra, well thats why they had to do the corinda - darra triple first. Thankfully the quad was already there to corinda.

-Greenbank depends on CRR plus quad to Salisbury, so yes it has its own track 'pair'

-Trouts Rd will access roma St directly via a tunnel under Kelvin Grove.

Apart from Trouts Rd, the other projects have less "importance", if that's the right word, because there's no City of 500,000 hanging off the end of the line.

Trouts Rd I think has some great planning behind it, with the idea of having local and express tracks, and exemplifies how the SEB could have been done.

running down the median of freeways

Haha funny you should mention that.  I reckon its almost a given that Trouts Rd will be done Perth style, with a Freeway built at the same time.

[#Metro]

So where would the INB go?

And with trains every 3 minutes, and reversing taking 8 minutes to do (apparently) where would the trains reverse?
18 000 pphd would be deposited there - Roma Street isn't centralised - it is quite a walk- whereas QSBS is directly underneath the Queen Street Mall. how are 18 000 people supposed to get to Central/Valley/Bowen Hills etc when the other services are also going to be packed in peak hour.

You would also have entrenched legacy routing via South Bank.

Perhaps I have missed something, but your image shows the tracks on the right hand side of the Merivale Bridge, so you'd need a tunnel immediately after that somewhere around South Brisbane - that gradient the busway dives into is quite steep and has a sharp turn, a tunnel would need to be shallower and gentler. I suspect also you'd need to obviously connect the trains to mayne yard somehow - how is that going to work plus a new city tunnel to Central, Valley and Bowen Hills.... $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

That's a lot of work just to do everything that the busway does already but run on steel wheels.

[Gazza]

And with trains every 3 minutes, and reversing taking 8 minutes to do (apparently) where would the trains reverse?

You can do better than 8 mins, if you step back crew. See the Victoria line in London.

everything that the busway does already but run on steel wheels.

If you are only care about people as far as  8MP plus the bus routes that feed in then yeah busway is fine.

Busway doesn't provide a GC express route, thats basically the whole basis of my argument.

but your image shows the tracks on the right hand side of the Merivale Bridge,

Here

The merivale Bridge duplication is very rough in this drawing. The diagram in the ICIRS is better on how that bit would be done. See Appendix C drawings  on this page http://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/Projects/Name/I/Inner-City-Rail-Capacity-Study/Inner-City-Rail-Capacity-Study-publications.aspx

I suspect also you'd need to obviously connect the trains to mayne yard somehow

Youd do it a bit like how the Mandurah/Clarkson lines connect in with the rest of the Network. They don't have a dedicated line to the yards at East Perth, rather there is a set of crossovers between the Tunnel Portal, and the point where the line branches Between Leederville and West Leederville.

This arrangement would go near the Barracks.

[#Metro]

And what about this:

18 000 pphd would be deposited there - Roma Street isn't centralised - it is quite a walk- whereas QSBS is directly underneath the Queen Street Mall. how are 18 000 people supposed to get to Central/Valley/Bowen Hills etc when the other services are also going to be packed in peak hour.

Queen Street Mall Access???
Legacy Routing?

and this:

You would also have entrenched legacy routing via South Bank.

With 18 000 pphd, this system would be at capacity right now in peak periods 20 tph/3minute headways (assuming all equal and it was carrying 44 million). It would cost MORE to construct (even just to 8 mile plains) because of the 2% gradient requirement, need for large interchanges, need for wires and track and run at lower frequency in the off peak. It would require transfer as well (not bad, but avoidable).  Importantly, if it were also connected and done as rail, you wouldn't be able to upgrade this later to a Vancouver style metro because that would have to run all the way to the GC. The only exception were if it were built to that standard - but again, you'd need a crystal ball to see this.

It would also dump people at Roma Street - which is far from where people need to be - Queen Street Mall.

[#Metro]

If anyone has the papers for the South East Transit Project, that would be revealing...
All I could come across was this http://search.informit.com.au/documentSummary;dn=291508130758425;res=IELENG

And again, my understanding is the project only cost around $500 million to do or 50 million/km.
http://www.ats.org.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=146&Itemid=4

[#Metro]

I'm also unconvinced that the speed would be that different with a train.
Again the costs seem to be around the $500 million mark, not $1.whatever billion
http://transporttextbook.com/?p=1136

The Mandurah line has 11 stations over 70 kilometres. The SE busway has 10 stations over about 18 kilometres or so. The higher speed of a train would confer no additional journey advantage IMHO simply because it would be forced to lower speeds simply because of station spacing being closer on the SEB than that in Perth.

If drawings are in the ICRCs then it means that the option for a second bridge is still open - more difficult but still open. So does this mean now RAIL BOT members are going to be campaigning for a second Merivale Bridge, scrap CRR make the GC line go down the Centre of the M1 a la Perth (maybe one station at 8 Mile Plains) all the way through logan, Parallel to the busway AND the beenleigh line then on to meet the Beenleigh line again at Beenleigh, run it every 10 mins all day??

[Golliwog]

Won't someone please think of the labour costs.

Like I keep saying the busway can be upgraded in the future to a rail option as part of a North South Subway system using rubber tyred metro or something like Skytrain. This would be cheaper to upgrade because the alignment has already been acquired.

Only a quick post (mega big assignment at uni at the moment) but you keep focusing on just the short distance covered by the SEB. If instead of building the SEB, they had inproved frequencies on the Beenleigh line and fed everything that currently feeds into the busway (130, 140, etc,etc) into that instead, and hten ran rail on a fast alignment down the highway corridor, for the GC trains to use, and use well (maybe have a few stops if they were warranted) then you now cut time off what is currently and >1hr trip from Brisbane to the GC, as well as boost capacity on both lines by avoiding mixing stopping patterns.

[#Metro]

Only a quick post (mega big assignment at uni at the moment) but you keep focusing on just the short distance covered by the SEB. If instead of building the SEB, they had inproved frequencies on the Beenleigh line and fed everything that currently feeds into the busway (130, 140, etc,etc) into that instead,

Well no, it is slower via the Beenleigh line. It's logical to think this, but stop spacing is quite close on the Beenleigh line and you have the same problems - it's slow, and it is via Merivale Bridge.

You also can't dump 18 000 pphd to the Beenleigh line - it would be maxed out already. Even with a new rail line, that would be maxed out too.

CRR will correct this. Once CRR is in, then you'd save 10 minutes on GC trains, 10 mins on Beenleigh trains then it becomes feasible.

Remember also that the stops are more concentrated on the SEB so it would be much, much slower than Mandurah IMHO. There would be no overall journey time advantage for Brisbane folk on the Brisbane section by using a train.

[Gazza]

Legacy Routing?

what are you talking about? A SE rail allignment avoids the curves of a 30 km chunk of "legacy" routing that occurs through Sunnybank, Trinder Park etc etc.

It's the whole basis of my proposal!

[SurfRail]

Well no, it is slower via the Beenleigh line. It's logical to think this, but stop spacing is quite close on the Beenleigh line and you have the same problems - it's slow, and it is via Merivale Bridge.

Missed the point.  How is the Beenleigh line the same for expresses? 

Region-wide benefits using the same infrastructure? 
Economies of scale?
Legacy routing issues?

Station spacing comparable to the Joondalup line combined with express running would be a superior outcome.

[colinw]

CRR will correct this. Once CRR is in, then you'd save 10 minutes on GC trains, 10 mins on Beenleigh trains then it becomes feasible.

After a few recent Beenleigh line trips, I have been thinking about this a lot lately.

My conclusion is that CRR won't fix a damn thing other than some capacity problems. The Beenleigh line is r**ted all the way to Beenleigh with poor alignment, and severe capacity constraints beyond Salisbury unless the ever-lame Kuraby triplication is fixed and extended.

I am starting to go cold on CRR as a panacea for our rail system. Sure, it adds some capacity, but it is still repeating the fundamental error of the Gold Coast line which is tacking a new high grade line onto a crappy low capacity steam era line.

There is no point building CRR unless we do something sensible with the line between Salisbury & Beenleigh.

If we build CRR in its current form, there's still not going to be quarter hourly anything beyond about Coopers Plains without yet another mega-project from Salisbury to at least Loganlea.

There, I've said it now. Stop treating CRR as the ultimate fix-all for our rail system. Cargo-cult nonsense.

I will not be supporting any more CityTrain "concrete fests" until we deal with the existing deficiencies and cultural problems with our system. I do not support building a single extension of the rail system as long we continue to build lines like Richlands & Kippa-Ring and run them at half hourly frequency. It is simply not a worthwhile use of State infrastructure funding.

The Kippa-Ring line should not be built at all unless it is going to be run properly. Ditto Springfield and CRR.

[somebody]

CRR won't fix a damn thing other than some capacity problems. The Beenleigh line is r**ted all the way to Beenleigh with poor alignment, and severe capacity constraints beyond Salisbury unless the ever-lame Kuraby triplication is fixed and extended.

It will fix the alignment via South Bank, which is probably the worst part.

the 2% gradient requirement,

That's a nonsense requirement.  Perhaps they should ask Cityrail how they manage 3.3% from Wynyard to the Harbour Bridge, or the TGV how they manage 3.5%

[colinw]

CRR won't fix a damn thing other than some capacity problems. The Beenleigh line is r**ted all the way to Beenleigh with poor alignment, and severe capacity constraints beyond Salisbury unless the ever-lame Kuraby triplication is fixed and extended.

It will fix the alignment via South Bank, which is probably the worst part.

That is true, however what happens when you get to Salisbury?  Where are all these CRR trains going to go, and how fast?  To get full benefit from CRR it is going to require something like a tunnel from Banoon to Runcorn and then another big realignment from about Kuraby to Kingston (how?!). 

Even with CRR up & running, what is going to happen if you try to jam 4tph or better Beenleigh & Gold Coast services through Salisbury - Kuraby - Beenleigh?

I don't think CRR by itself will improve much at all for the Beenleigh/Gold Coast line, other than providing a 10 minute time saving at the city end.

Mind you, I do like the idea of a station at the 'Gabba and a full time Ekka station. Adding major destinations to the system is never a bad thing.

I'm just getting a bit sick of the infrastructure mega-spend without the corresponding increase in service, and don't see how CRR can achieve the service increase by itself.

If CRR is built without the Salisbury to Beenleigh upgrades also required, it will end up being seriously under-utilised.

I await, and hope for, someone to prove me wrong about this.

[colinw]

That's a nonsense requirement.  Perhaps they should ask Cityrail how they manage 3.3% from Wynyard to the Harbour Bridge, or the TGV how they manage 3.5%

+! 

Unless the line is intended to also carry freight, there is no reason why 2.5% or even 3% gradients cannot be used where necessary.  Wouldn't go about 3% except in a really tight spot or if doing LRT / Light Metro or Rubber-tyred metro.

Be aware, however, that steeper gradients do have an effect on headway due to the impact on train braking distances in the downhill distance. The "braking curve" gets extended by the gradient, which in turn makes your ATP system more conservative and eats into either headway or operating speed to compensate.

The effect is not so severe as to mandate you avoid using steeper gradients to cheapen projects.

The desire to have Metro-like braking performance and tight headways with steep gradients is one of the major things driving rubber-tyred systems.

[HappyTrainGuy]

I do not support building a single extension of the rail system as long we continue to build lines like Richlands & Kippa-Ring and run them at half hourly frequency. It is simply not a worthwhile use of State infrastructure funding.

The Kippa-Ring line should not be built at all unless it is going to be run properly. Ditto Springfield and CRR.

Unfortunatly that is something that QR has limited control over when it comes to frequency.

[colinw]

Would QR run higher frequency services even if it was up to them?  They had decades (before TransLink) to do so, and never chose to.

I really don't care if it is TransLink, QR, the Transport Minister or Yogi Bear's fault - until we start operating our rail lines properly there is no point building any more of the things.  Building a rail line then running it at half hourly frequency is just plain DUMB! (Not to mention a massive waste of money).

[#Metro]

Missed the point.  How is the Beenleigh line the same for expresses?

Region-wide benefits using the same infrastructure?
Economies of scale?
Legacy routing issues?

Station spacing comparable to the Joondalup line combined with express running would be a superior outcome.

The Gold Coast trains in peak at the moment don't make any stops after departing Beenleigh until they get to Park Road, where they interchange with Cleveland services. Under a SEB as rail scenario, you'd have to have the Gold Coast trains stopping at Mater Hill, Stopping at Buranda, Stopping at Greenslopes, Stopping at Holland Park West, Stopping at Griffith University, Stopping at Garden City, Stopping at Springwood, and it wouldn't be much faster than what the busway does now. And not only that you'd be stopping at South Bank, Stopping at South Brisbane, need a new bridge over the River and then terminate at Roma Street, which is absolutely suboptimal city location when compared to QSBS, KGSBS and Adelaide Street, and the Financial district around Creek Street. It would also be stopping one station before Central! That's also unless you build a new CBD tunnel to Central, Bowen Hills etc. Spewing 18 000 pphd into Roma Street would then mean that pax bound for Central/Valley would have to transfer to existing trains, which I might add are already at full load in peak hour, you'd have to locate the INB somewhere else as well.

Not only that, during peak hour @ 18 000 pphd it would right now be at maximum capacity, so BOTH Merivale Bridges would be at capacity and therefore you'd have to go off and build CRR again. At least in peak the busway can be more direct because it can use the Captain Cook Bridge.

For $500 million bucks the SEB is a steal for what it does. People can whinge all they like about Gold Coast but in 1997 I'm sure the network carried far less and it would have been logical for them to tack it on to the Beenleigh line because they wanted services sooner. If this "down the freeway" argument is so fantastic, why can't you just put it down the freeway now? It doesn't have to replace the SEB at all.