Bowen Hills Freight By-pass and BNFC

[rtt_rules]

To start off, does Brisbane need a North Freight Corridore now and if so, how much is required and when? Last thing we want is to have extended Sydney style curfew applying to the NCL from Bowen Hills to Nambour and then go, wonder why rail cannot compete!

If I had the $, this is how I think it should proceed, headed nth from Rome Street junction on Normanby rooute.
- Stowage for 3 freighters trains, loop length 1200m minimum (plan for future). Ideally they would be in middle of mainline to reduce cross over conflict. Not hard to do now rebuilding the current yard and I think for low'ish cost.

- There is plenty of room in the old yard between FG flyover and Albion, but trains must currently use mainline and run between sparks on both main and into/out of Mayne. solution, just nth of Campbell St there is what looks like redundent trackage and plenty fo space, so start a single track dive and up out nth of FG flyover. The current Spark BH turnback which uses what is effectively the 5th track would be seperated into own shuntneck.

- From the nth of dive exit, there would be sufficent room for 4 holding loops again 1200m long as minimum. They would then merge into twin tracks, cross the bridge and then rejoin the main line with 50km/hr crossing and points. having two enables simulanteous entry and exit and eliminates any risk of holding on the main.

From south of Mayne, into Dive and through Nth Maybe yard, at least one track sparked.

- Nth from Albion, its not easy, Albion station would need to be moved one track to east using land available to use what is currently Nth Main, but getting closer to WW its gets messy (read costly) and remains so until past EJ near AP junction. Then going north there is on/off easy access for 5th track to Northgate. After Northgate both traffic volumes and land become progressively easier to deal with. But for now I would just focus on Normany to South Albion junction.

regards
Shane

[HappyTrainGuy]

Yes and no. What your suggesting is way to costly and not needed. Yes, some of the corridor is already preserved ie Northgate-Strathpine however its not a cheap option as you approach stations and associated infrastructure. The network can survive with freight trains running with passenger trains however there needs to be infrastructure added to support it and minimise disruptions between the two in the future... mainly being Trouts road, leaving the tripple Northgate-Bald Hills, a flyover at Petrie/Strathpine too, a quad Strathpine-Petrie and tripple Petrie-Caboolture. What that enables is Brisbane bound freight can run under the flyover joining the subs at Petrie/staying on the mains and splitting off at Strathpine and northbound freight running under the flyover joining the mains at Strathpine and utilise the express section Strathpine-Petrie (Caboolture/Nambour/CAMCOS etc would run exp Petrie-Strathpine on the mains continue along Trouts road-City. Kippa Ring would use the subs stopping all stations Petrie-Strathpine and continue to Bald Hills-Northgate-exp City with Shorncliffe taking up extra slack inbetween). Northgate-Caboolture freights are pretty fast due to the track averging 80-100kph with only a few places where the speed drops (Mostly Zillmere, Bald Hills and Petrie).

[petey3801]

I see what you're getting at RTT, but may I change a couple aspects..

Attached are two mud maps, one of the current track layout from Bowen Hills to just before Albion and the second one an ultered map including a freight dive.

This is assuming the current 4 tracks from Northgate to Bowen Hills are left as is and no extras built (on that formation, not including Trouts Road).

With my altered version of your idea RTT, the freight dive starts around about where the Hole in the Wall track joins with the mains, but the dive is located between the Up and Down mains, giving non-conflicting access between the mains and the dive. The tunnel then goes under the mains from Bowen Hills and the balloon junction. The old 5th road at Old Mayne Yard is altered to become the new Down Main line while the current Down Main is taken out. The freight dive then resurfaces in the gap left from the current Down Main that has been removed and, same as on the Normanby end, gives non-conflicting access between the Up and Down Mains and the freight dive (with 50km/h points at both ends, of course).

With 3 or 4 stabling roads/holding tracks at Normanby, I don't think there is any need for more holding tracks at old Mayne yard, however a couple holding roads could still be put in, but would require conflicting moves on the main lines to get into/out of them.

[Golliwog]

If CRR goes ahead as planned, the dive would be un-necessary. Have a look at this plan drawing: http://www.crossriverrail.qld.gov.au/images/stories/EIS/vol2/1-General-Arrangement/Pdf-crr-eis-general-arrangement-22.pdf (adjacent drawings are here: http://www.crossriverrail.qld.gov.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=130:reference-design-drawings&catid=50&Itemid=178)

Anyway, the gist (as I understand it anyway, all the dashed lines on top of each other are pretty confusing) is that exhibition will be quad track, with two of these being the pax tracks that will go onto the flyover over the mains/subs as shown. The other two appear to be called Exhibition up-down. Instead of joining into the mains adjacent to the FG flyover, they instead run as a 3rd pair past and under the FG flyover until after the crossovers from the subs to the mains (ie: the ones that would be used to get Shorncliffe trains off the subs and onto the mains once Petrie/Kippa Ring/whatever services leave the mains to go to CRR). This would get freight past Mayne, though it's not a grade seperated junction with access to Maybe via the balloons for pax services.

Would this be sufficient for freight needs through there?

[HappyTrainGuy]

Pretty much RTT. I dunno if they'll end up doing that when it comes to running paths, frequencies, rollingstock available and funding for it all but that seems to be one of the options that has stayed around after making the rounds back when CAMOS/SC upgrades were to be completed in a few years and when CRR plans were being thrown around connecting to Trouts road as a stage 2 plan (Originally it was SC express Trouts road and CAB via Bald Hills exp Northgate-City).

[HappyTrainGuy]

Brisbane already has a freight ban around peak hour which limits when and how trains access the BSA and how they can access the range/NCL. eg at nights its not uncommon to have a bunch of freighters literally following each other by minutes in the same direction.

[somebody]

Why don't you just have up trains going via Central #5?  Saves conflicting moves, for no disadvantage that I can see.  Not sure why you'd want to hold trains in the ekka loop.

[somebody]

ICRCS believed a 5th track would be doable at grade for around $350m.

[colinw]

Plus the pleasant odour for the pax as 2000HP (worse if faces a red) worth of diesel fumes spluts across the platform.

Not an issue if NCL freight uses electric locos.

I'm still cranky about the 3900s being taken off NCL duties.

[mufreight]

ICRCS believed a 5th track would be doable at grade for around $350m.

Money that would be better expended towards the Cross River Rail Project which would free up paths in the criticial Roma Street - Milton section and render the 5th line as you have proposed unecessicary.

[colinw]

+1. 

Sadly, thinking small, and sticking on short term patches & bandaids is the QLD way. I submit as exhibit A the 4th line between Corinda & Darra.

[somebody]

ICRCS believed a 5th track would be doable at grade for around $350m.

Money that would be better expended towards the Cross River Rail Project which would free up paths in the criticial Roma Street - Milton section and render the 5th line as you have proposed unecessicary.

How so?  Having Ipswich line trains use the suburbans in a post CRR world is the only way CRR will help Roma St-Milton.  Unless I am missing something.

[HappyTrainGuy]

You would be hard pressed to get a 5th track through there successfully in a timely manner not to mention the amount of delays in excuiting it. THe building/bridge supports/foundations have to be checked, the road bridge has to be replaced, maybe another bridge added over the busway/countless street, from the Milton Station to the bridge near normanby is around 1700m, all of the overhead masts and Roma Street sub station has to be reconfigured/replaced, track signals modified, points reconfigured, trackside equipment modified, Suncorp stadium to Milton station modifications ie current bridge + walkway etc etc.

[BrizCommuter]

Sorry, but this thread is wasting my internet bandwidth!

We need CRR, end of story.

[somebody]

Sorry, but this thread is wasting my internet bandwidth!

We need CRR, end of story.

But no other changes?

Not end of story.

[colinw]

Sorry, but this thread is wasting my internet bandwidth!

We need CRR, end of story.

Oops, didn't realise you were forced to read it. 

CRR is most assuredly not the end of the story, when it comes to conflicts between increasing NCL freight volumes and passenger services. It might help things around Albion somewhat, but what about north of there, what about Roma St west junction, what about Corinda?

Ignore freight capacity and we all end up hurting, either as a result of freight going to road or as a result of freight services suppressing the level of passenger service that can be provided.

CRR is not a panacea. It is one part of a bigger puzzle. I suspect probably a part that we cannot, and will not ever afford.

[SurfRail]

CRR is not a panacea. It is one part of a bigger puzzle. I suspect probably a part that we cannot, and will not ever afford.

If we keep building motorways, or handing out middle-class welfare, or never increase our tax take which is nearly the lowest in the developed world...

[colinw]

+1!  Sensible levels of debt to fund necessary infrastructure are not a bad thing.

As for motorways,  I don't think we should be extending much at all, and where we do it should be tolled.

[somebody]

+1!  Sensible levels of debt to fund necessary infrastructure are not a bad thing.

I think we are beyond sensible levels of debt, really.  Perhaps it should be more "justified increases" in debt.