Corinda to Darra - quadruplication (Corinda precinct)

[somebody]

It is time for our freight lines to be given thoer own dedicated, non-conflicted/excluded lines linking our ports, major rail lines and inter-modal sites.

I might incur some ire here, but given that freight is all carried on single tracks outside of Acacia Ridge/Helidon (or nearby)/Beerburrum, how much freight is there?  Can't it easily slot between passenger services off peak, and even in the peak in the case of the Ipswich line as far in as Tennyson.

[Jon Bryant]

It is a chicken and egg issue.  The low voumes now are due to (1) an over investment in freeways and (2) indirect and conflicted freight routes.  Again we must take a "end-ste target" approach to be sustainable so we must start building netwoks to cater for much greater volumes than now.  Small incremenatal increases in rail will only rsult in more congestion.

[johnnigh]

Am I correct in saying that all but a trivial amount of freight on the Corinda - Ipswich axis is coal from the Oakey coal fields? Providing for this toxic trade (I live behind the noise barrier at Corinda, and the coal dust has to be washed away every week from outdoor furniture - hope we don't get dusty lungs, not to mention the background pollution levels from city air) may not be the smartest thing to invest in if the 'clean coal' myth turns out to be just that, as everyone except Marrn Ferrsn and Q'land pollies of every kind all know. Hopes for inland rail freight are yet to be realized but won't that have to be standard gauge?

And isn't the Port of Brisbane coal loader an insignificant and expensive item? When northern ports are better able to cope with shipments coal to Brisbane will be the first to go - at least I hope so - while a rail from central Q to the southern coal fields is planned in the fantasy world of clean coal.

Just because TrackStar thought of building the fourth unpowered track doesn't mean QR wasn't keen. More profit for TrackStar and more profit for QR, at least in the short run.  

[WTN]

Providing for this toxic trade (I live behind the noise barrier at Corinda, and the coal dust has to be washed away every week from outdoor furniture - hope we don't get dusty lungs, not to mention the background pollution levels from city air) may not be the smartest thing to invest in if the 'clean coal' myth turns out to be just that, as everyone except Marrn Ferrsn and Q'land pollies of every kind all know.

The coal dust worries me too.  I'm concerned it could be a health hazard.  Makes me wonder why the wagons aren't covered when many road trucks cover their load.

[ozbob]

Photographs showing the new freight line and siding coming together up from Corinda.
Line far left first photo is the new sub.






Looking Up from the Cliveden Avenue Road bridge, 4 lines.



Photographs mufreight 22nd October 2009

[ozbob]

View from Cliveden Avenue bridge.

Down, towards Corinda










Up, towards Oxley







Photographs R Dow 7th November 2009

[ozbob]

At Corinda Station looking UP towards Oxley.



Photograph mufreight 7th November 2009

[ozbob]

A few photographs around Corinda Sunday 24th January













Photographs R Dow 24th January 2010

[mufreight]

It would seem from the removal of the crosses off the signals at Corinda and with the instalation of the point motors for the freight loop and catchpoints that this section has been commissioned which would greatly facilitate the operation of ballast trains for the Corinda - Darra section as the tracklaying proceeds.

[ozbob]

These aerial photographs from nearmap.com show the layout of the new freight lines joining the existing tracks at the down end of Corinda






At the UP end the road from platform two extends to form the third suburban line.




The freight line loop merges with the freight line to form the new fourth line.  

[ozbob]

Rail train on the new freight line through Corinda, returning from dropping rail on the Richlands branch.  







Photographs R Dow 26th July 2010

[#Metro]

Is this the "non-electrified" bit that is often talked about?

[mufreight]

yes

[#Metro]

yes

Would it make much difference to practical track capacity if it were electrified?
Or is it too short a segment to make much difference?

[ozbob]

It is important that it be electrified, improves redundancy and the cost is minor.  Most of the OHT supports are in place!  Who knows we may yet see it electrified ...

[somebody]

It is important that it be electrified, improves redundancy and the cost is minor.  Most of the OHT supports are in place!  Who knows we may yet see it electrified ...

More importantly, it can remove conflicting moves as trains don't need to switch between the Mains and suburbans as often.  Also, would have made the bi-di signalling on the 3rd & 4th tracks unnecessary.

[mufreight]

The signalling on all four tracks is now bi-directional, yes with the four tracks it would be overkill and was based on the original concept of only three tracks.
At present with only three tracks wired from Corinda to Susannah Street and the intention to operate freight services using the fourth track as a dedicated freight line there is a definite need for bi-directional signalling but that would not be the case had all four tracks been wired for the full length and the fourth platform been built at Oxley as the Governments own passenger loading predictions tell will be needed by 2016

[somebody]

Wow.  That was probably more expensive than the electrification + 4th platform.  If not, close to it.

[mufreight]

There is no question that there would have been a considerable saving over the final costs of this project not only on the signalling but also on the costs of electrifying the fourth track and the construction of the platform on the fourth line at Oxley.
Other savings would accrue from the flexibility of actually operating trains and the operational redundancy that these works would provide.
Another example of the short-sightedness of this government for the sake of economy costing more.

[somebody]

Is all that going to allow the old pair of tracks to both run inbound in the AM peak?

[ozbob]

Yes

[ozbob]

Here is a sketch map of the track layout presently at Corinda

[somebody]

Thanks for that map, ozbob.

Looks like that means that a via Tennyson train needs to terminate and reverse, it needs to wrong road in one direction heading to or from Tennyson (probably to), and then use the crossovers around Oxley Rd.  Also, if heading from Darra to Tennyson, you need to wrong road through Corinda #2.

A couple of limitations here.  Perhaps the first one isn't too big a deal.

[mufreight]

Well all the coal trains currently operate through Platform 2 which is connected to the normal running line for trains from Corinda to Yeerongpilly, some 17 plus movements a day without creating any problems.

[somebody]

Well all the coal trains currently operate through Platform 2 which is connected to the normal running line for trains from Corinda to Yeerongpilly, some 17 plus movements a day without creating any problems.

You mean in both directions?  I suppose that's OK.  Once the 4th track opens, I would presume they will use the "up sub" heading away from the port at least.

[ozbob]

Some possible improvements to the present track layout at Corinda, courtesy mufreight

Nearmap images

East end of Corinda, UP sub to platform 1



West end of Corinda

[mufreight]

The first option, the top two images would require four turnouts and one diamond crossing with an additional four signals. 
The second option, the lower image requires only two turnouts and one diamond crossing with one, possibly two new signals and an additional turnout aspect an existing signal.
From an operational viewpoint the first option is possibly preferable with more flexibility for operations but well over twice the cost due to the complexity of the required signalling and the relocation of overhead supports.
To wire the fourth line from Corinda to the brickworks where the overhead starts over the fourth line would require some 38 to 41 additional overhead supports to wire the approximately 3 km. missing link.
Far less costly to carry out these works now rather than in 2016 by which time the Government itself predicts the fourth line will need to be available for passenger use. 

[somebody]

The signalling on all four tracks is now bi-directional, yes with the four tracks it would be overkill and was based on the original concept of only three tracks.
At present with only three tracks wired from Corinda to Susannah Street and the intention to operate freight services using the fourth track as a dedicated freight line there is a definite need for bi-directional signalling but that would not be the case had all four tracks been wired for the full length and the fourth platform been built at Oxley as the Governments own passenger loading predictions tell will be needed by 2016

Looking at the sketch of the arrangements at Corinda & the May 2008 map showing arrangements at Darra, neither has the crossovers for both main tracks heading inbound in the AM peak, which I would suggest is the most logical arrangement.  That would completely eliminate the need for conflicting moves in the AM peak as far as I can see.

Similarly, in the PM peak, trains from Richlands need to be able to cross to the Corinda #5 track so that Oxley #1 doesn't need to operate in the inbound direction.

What was the point of the bi-di signaling if they aren't going to install appropriate crossovers?  I still don't see the need for the bi-di signaling on the down main (Corinda #5 track)

[mufreight]

There is a crossover at Panhard Street between Oxley and Darra.

[somebody]

There is a crossover at Panhard Street between Oxley and Darra.

But you are unable to reach the up main from that crossover, at least from the diagram.  Also, at Corinda reaching the down sub on the north side of Corinda means conflicting with the up sub.

[ozbob]

A full coal train passes on the new freight line through Corinda yard at night.

Photography R Dow 27th October 2010

[mufreight]

At Panhard Street there is a crossover that enables a train travelling westbound on the down suburban to cross to the up suburban or alternatively a train travelling eastbound on the up suburban to cross to the down suburban.
There is also a series of cascading crossovers that enables movements to or from the down sub to the up main and then if required to the down main.
It is only the up suburban that can not access the main lines at Panhard Street, to make such a movement would require the installation of an additional crossover connecting the down suburban to the up main at a point further east of the existing crossover between those lines and a further crossover from the up main to the down main again at a point east of the existing crossover between the up and down mains creating a fully duplicated series of crossovers giving full accessibility from the mains to the suburban's for westbound movements and from the suburban's to the mains for eastbound movements.
The track configuration is readily visible on nearmap 

[somebody]

At Panhard Street there is a crossover that enables a train travelling westbound on the down suburban to cross to the up suburban or alternatively a train travelling eastbound on the up suburban to cross to the down suburban.
There is also a series of cascading crossovers that enables movements to or from the down sub to the up main and then if required to the down main.
It is only the up suburban that can not access the main lines at Panhard Street, to make such a movement would require the installation of an additional crossover connecting the down suburban to the up main at a point further east of the existing crossover between those lines and a further crossover from the up main to the down main again at a point east of the existing crossover between the up and down mains creating a fully duplicated series of crossovers giving full accessibility from the mains to the suburban's for westbound movements and from the suburban's to the mains for eastbound movements.
The track configuration is readily visible on nearmap 

Yes, I can see now that all sensible movements have been allowed for, the only proviso is that it requires a conflicting move to head inbound from Richlands towards Roma St in the PM peak.  Not the end of the world, especially if train frequency is still going to favour the AM.

In fact, the lack of wiring of the up sub and the 4th platform at Oxley would really only make it easier to run via Tennyson services, which is something which does have a lot of merit after CRR1.

[mufreight]

With the current track configuration the opportunity exists to operate services from Richlands that will have a cross platform transfer for passengers continuing towards Ipswich and dependent on the opposing moves these trains can then IF needed cross to the mains either at Panhard Street or at Sherwood but it is envisaged that Richlands/Springfield line trains will run on the suburban's and being bi-directional on all tracks any crossover between the suburban's to the mains can be made in increments between Darra and Sherwood to avoid conflicting movements.
At the present time to avoid having to block other trains some coal trains have continued as far as Corinda to cross from the mains to the suburban's to run round through Tennyson.
The failure to wire the fourth track, the up suburban from Corinda to Panhard Street, the lack of a connection to the platform 2 (up suburban line) and the lack of the fourth platform at Oxley inhibit the maximum flexibility of routing of trains when there are conflicting routings, something that in time will without doubt prove expensive to remedy.

[#Metro]

The failure to wire the fourth track, the up suburban from Corinda to Panhard Street, the lack of a connection to the platform 2 (up suburban line) and the lack of the fourth platform at Oxley inhibit the maximum flexibility of routing of trains when there are conflicting routings, something that in time will without doubt prove expensive to remedy.

This is one for the half-bake list.

[somebody]

Ignoring Tennyson trains, in the AM, inbound trains from Ipswich/Redbank can operate through the down main & Darra platform #4 without using a crossover, as you know, from Richlands they can operate through Darra #2, Oxley #2, Corinda #4 & Sherwood #2, while outbound trains run through Milton-Sherwood #1, Oxley #1, and Darra #1.  Ipswich trains could run under the Richlands branch line from there.  No conflicting moves, unless you count the Milton #2 & #4 trains needing to use the same track at Roma St.  In the PM, there would need to be a conflicting move somewhere to have the counter peak trains from Richlands cross the outbound trains which probably shouldn't all use Darra #1.

That's what I would envisage, but it is reasonably likely that QR have different plans.  These plans do not allow for cross platform interchange at Darra.  Off peak that may be possible if Ipswich trains operate as per present, and Richlands trains run as a shuttle on the Down Sub in both directions, although that does have conflicting moves.

[ozbob]

Few random photographs at Corinda.  Trains setting off for Tennyson might be on borrowed time ..











Photographs R Dow 29th November 2010

[johnnigh]

Since the Great Flood, QR (or whoever decides on train paths) has been sending freights, by preference, on the electric tracks. In fact, from my strategic observation point overlooking the line near the old marshalling yards, I can confidently say there is an order of preference:

• 1. the original main line tracks
• 2. the new electrified track
• 3. the non-electrified freight line
• 4. the never-used passing loop

This might be of no interest except that their first preference - heavily used at night - is far the noisiest, due to all the points they cross around the Dunlop Tce bridge. Local residents had enjoyed a peaceful few months following the new freight track's completion, then the Flood, and now the constant crashing...

[ozbob]

It has been suggested to me that a possible reason why the mains are being used (it seems preferentially over the so called 'freight' line) is the need for crews to be qualified for the route (new line).  I am not sure if that is the reason but nothing surpises me anymore.

In any case the whole thing is half baked.  The subs should be continous at Corinda and fully electrified.  Darra would have been much better with two island platforms, the fifth line a freight loop joining down from the Darra station.  Trains to and from Richlands can then just stay on the subs all the way  to and from town (this assumes that 4th platform Oxley had been done too of course, as it is, it will have to done anyway at great expense relative to what it would have cost as part of the recent project).  The freighters would stick to the subs, minimal conflicts compared to the basket case on their hands now.  The Ippy flyers on the mains ...

[Golliwog]

And if there was enough funding to go around this could have happened. But if that were the case then duplications further north on the Sunshine Coast line would have been completed, Mitchelton to Ferny Grove would have been done as one project, and a lot of other things.

Theres always going to be some way that the project could have been done better, or have had some better aspect. Darra probably could have been made as a double island station, but the constructability side of things would have probably made that far more expensive. As it was they ended up with that 2nd temporary platform.