It would be quite embarrassing to open a project that caused an insanely large amount of disruptions to the rail network, that has been sold as “a way to add capacity to the system”… With only 6 trains per hour.
Or even just 4 if they run Redcliffe/Beenleigh and Gold Coast/Caboolture-Nambour on their current 30 minute frequencies.
I keep saying it: the whole project is a horrible liability that will make the opening of the Redcliffe Peninsula line look charitable in comparison.
The Metro Tunnel is at least opening on a soft launch timetable with extra services alongside the current timetable.
When we toured Albert st station a month or so ago the project officers present clarified that no trains have passed through the entire tunnel yet. From the perspective of the project manager of Albert st station I got the impression that the Albert st station will likely be the last station to complete. In Q1 or Q2 things should be complete enough to begin testing of all systems which could take up to 6months.
The project officer from the government was clearly avoiding any comment on timelines for opening. I personally felt that he was unwilling to be drawn on a comment that might be political.
There were no comments from anyone that suggested major unexpected issues in construction so far which could indicate a blowout.
It is possible that some significant signalling compatibility issues have been noted between the tunnel and the broader network. This happened with the Elizabeth line in London and caused massive delays and cost blowouts but London has a vastly more complex network than ours.
I think (as I did with the previous announcement) that they are rolling in all CRR costs, all ECTS costs, LGCFR costs, accessibility upgrades, QTMP. And viewing all of those costs as part of CRR that there may have avoided without CRR. It’s the only way I can imagine that much money being missed in previous budgets.
The 2029 opening is probably a compilation from all the projects the same as the budget is.
The real worry is the government saying 2029 for “first passenger services” - not full services or anything but first!
I can only imagine they’ll get it completed by contractors and handed over to QR so it doesn’t cost anymore. But then QR will have some deliberately protracted testing, training and “integration” period - using all the excuses under the sun to blame Labor: they never told you the real schedule, we won’t stuff up like they did with Redcliffe, they didn’t order new trains early enough etc
We can definitely have some off-peak service improvements (i.e. 15min frequencies) across major lines with our current fleet though. It may take some time for peak-hour services to improve drastically, but travelling by train wouldn’t be so painful during other times once CRR opens.
They will open before 2028 so they can say they saved the project before the election.
Come on, guys, it is not that hard to see through their bulshit.
Also, they are adding numbers like the ETCS to the “CRR” costs to make labor look bad.
IT is al incredibly petty and does not bode well for other rail projects because it is an easy excuse to say “rail too expensive”.
With current fleet, perhaps. I think there might be some issues with shoulder peak services as sets need to be moved from the city area back to suburban/interurban termini. Is there enough crew, though? My guess is probably not, and trying to go to early would be RailFail 2.0 (or is it 3.0 now?).
There isn’t a brand new branch line that would require an immediate upgrade to the QR fleet and staff as far as I know. There would only be a rerouting of the lines. So I don’t see a rail fail happening after CRR.
The worst that can happen is having the trains run the same way as they do now.
Just pointing out that services won’t just transition from the current aboveground layout to the final 3 sector track paring overnight. What I have seen points to there always being a soft opening and ~6 month transition period before the full connection of the GC/Beenleigh Lines and SC/Redcliffe Peninsular.
It’s not like we don’t have soft launch options either. Just terminate at Ekka station so as to keep sectorisation. (Though I suppose that does require having a few spare trains.)
Which all makes sense and is the sort of thing I thought would happen before 2029….but it’s the statement of ‘first passenger services’ in 2029 that’s alarming as it suggests no sort of transitional arrangement or soft launch before then.
I very much doubt the assertion that the first passenger service will actually be in 2029. They’ll just claim that thanks to their superior management, they were able to get the project back on track and finished earlier than expected.
If it really does take until 2029, then shiver me timbers; rail to Birtyna has no chance in hell.
As a comparison, the Metro tunnel in Melbourne had trains begin testing in July 2023 and is having a soft opening in December 2025, 2 and half years or so later. This is quite a long testing period even for Australian standards. This may in part be due to the construction of their stations not being very advanced at the time.
In other words, even with a 2.5 year testing program, we would have to begin full testing of the CRR tunnels in late 2026 for a 2029 opening to make sense. The knowledge I have is that full testing is expected to begin no later than mid 2026, with stations expected to be completed and handed over by the end of next year.
If the government has completed contract negotiations to resolve the budget as they claim with clear performance milestones then they must know what the real timeframe is and are lying now. Or there is absurd bloat built into the contracts which is deliberately costing taxpayers more.
Either way the deception of this should be actively called out.
I was under the impression that a decision was made to delay testing until after all stations were completed, a contrast to Melbourne who has been testing alongside— causing the issue.
