Disclaimer: This post presents a conceptual or speculative idea for discussion. It may not be immediately feasible but aims to explore possibilities for the future of transport in Queensland.
Perth makes use of a number of freeway or motorway corridors, and has developed engineering standards for placing narrow gauge trains (like those used in QLD) into such corridors.
This provides a very fast trip versus cars in a motorway. Stations are generally enclosed which mitigates noise.
A key problem with the Beenleigh line is that it is a legacy alignment and is therefore slow. The Gold Coast - Beenleigh Faster Rail project is likely to only improve travel times by about 5 minutes or so.
The following R1 concept explores the idea of using the M3 or M1 Pacific Motorway alignment (either median, elevated or parallel) for separating the Gold Coast line from the Beenleigh line.
The current alignment has Gold Coast trains travel at an average speed of around 55 km/hr between Boggo Road (Park Road) and Beenleigh stations.
If Gold Coast trains could travel at higher average speeds, similar to Perth trains, significant time savings could be realised.
- At 100 km/hr the in-vehicle time for a train trip becomes 17 minutes faster.
- At 130 km/hr it becomes 20 minutes shorter.
- At 160 km/hr it becomes almost 25 minutes shorter.
These speeds are not in the HSR range, but within the capabilities of existing or future train rollingstock.
Time saved as compared to a Gold Coast express train running between Park Road and Beenleigh (~ 35 km, at average speed 55.26 km/hr in 38 minutes).
Overall R1 Concept
Alignment Description
-
Gold Coast trains dive into a tunnel around Dutton Park to get into the median of the M3 Pacific Motorway at around Greenslopes. (Note - this is an example, it is not essential that the service run in a median).
-
The first stop Westfield Mount Gravatt , which is about ~ 10 km from Park Road. At 160 km/hr this trip will take about 4-5 minutes for the train. The M1 would be widened at this point and the Macgregor Street Bridge replaced and widened.
-
Next stop Springwood Busway , which is another ~ 7.2 km from Westfield Mount Gravatt. This trip would take about 3 minutes on the train.
-
Next stop after that Logan Hyperdome , another ~ 7 km from Springwood, so another 3 minutes on the train.
-
Finally, the train would exit the M1 median to enter Beenleigh Station . This is a bit trickier as the train would need to hook into the alignment at Soudan Street (if that option is chosen with LGFR). That would be another ~ 7.5 km from Logan Hyperdome, so another 3-4 minutes on the train.
So in about ~ 20 minutes or so, the train has gone from Brisbane to Beenleigh; If we adjust for a 15-minute all day train frequency, the line would achieve journey time parity with the car travel (off-peak).
1 Like
In terms of space, Perth manages to squeeze it all into a 40 m section. For example, Mt Henry Bridge - Kwinana Freeway, Mandurah Line.
Joondalup in Perth provides an example of how the railway can transition out of a motorway alignment, serve a town centre or shopping centre, and then transition back:
Some concept mappings:
- Conversion of the SE Busway to a rail-based metro, or building a separate parallel rail-based metro does not have this advantage as these options would require tunnelling a new rail tunnel and stations in the Brisbane CBD, which would be astronomically expensive (10s of billions).
- Instead, using the Pacific Motorway Corridor for Gold Coast trains avoids having to construct a new rail tunnel under the Brisbane River, because the existing Cross River Rail tunnels can be used to get into the Brisbane CBD (‘Fairfield Connection’). This would avoid the cost of having new rail-based metro tunnels under the Brisbane River.
Fairfield Connection
A ‘Fairfield Connection’ could route Gold Coast trains off the Pacific Motorway corridor and into the Beenleigh line to transition into the Cross River Rail tunnel portal near Boggo Road.
Upper Mount Gravatt Concept
Springwood Concept
Loganhome Concept
Beenleigh Concept
2 Likes
So it’s an express overlay on the busway as well as a (no doubt much faster) route for the Gold Coast trains.
What I’m trying to figure out is sequencing for this in conjunction with Flagstone-Beaudesert, 9-car service, and getting more usage out of the subs.
In the short term the westside will borrow capacity on the subs. Once that runs out we go to CRR2 Clevewich, hopefully with Capalaba branch.
Post-Clevewich there’s very little on the subs from the south (just a residual Morningside service). Presumably by this point we’ve also done Flagstone, possibly as 9-car, possibly not, and CRR’s full in tph terms. To get more capacity we need to take CRR fully 9-car.
To me, the legacy Beenleigh alignment stays 6-car. It’s surely easier to quad the corridor and send Beenleigh back via Merivale (perhaps dropping to two platforms at the non-express stations) than it is to extend every platform.
With R1 things change a bit. We don’t need the quad south of Salisbury any more. But we also induce GC demand from the speed boost and getting to OOL and the busway overlay. The question in my mind is whether that’s enough to crowd Flagstone-Beaudesert out of CRR. Probably not but it might come surprisingly close.
The other question is whether it’s worth deviating to try and get a station in between Griffith and QSAC at Nathan.
1 Like
The assumption that a busway metro conversion needs an expensive tunnel is challenge by modern vehicle materials and design as are gradients.
The original Quirk metro was based on a Vancouver Skytrain like design with rubber wheels so that it could handle the gradients and curves.
The problem with the idea, and why it was replaced by Brisbane Metro, is that with the very high frequency (2 min in both directions), size, weight and length of the vehicles, you need a Priority A corridor.
The SE Busway is not Priority A corridor across its full length. Buses do cross into Melbourne Street at South Brisbane, and cross the Victoria Bridge. A rail-based metro - particularly an automated one - is not going to be able to use that corridor because it interacts with mixed traffic at intersections and there is an exposure to pedestrians on the surface.
It needs a tunnel under the Brisbane River.
This is true whether or not the gradients can be handled by the rail-based metro vehicle or not. The Victoria Bridge also cannot handle the weight a rail-based metro vehicles. Even LRT would require strengthening of the bridge and potentially that would limit the size and length of vehicles using it as well.
Now that tunnel can either be a new tunnel under the Brisbane River, or the repurposing of an existing tunnel (e.g. Cross River Rail) as per the R1 Gold Coast Regional Rapid Rail proposal.
The R1 proposal avoids tunneling under the Brisbane River (as it uses CRR) and also avoids constructing new underground stations within the CBD. Hence avoiding $$$. It is just using what we have got better in that section.
Tunnels and stations within the CBD frame are incredibly expensive, which is the reason we have Brisbane Metro (a bus based BRT service) as the current approach.
1 Like
Tunneling and building integrated South Brisbane station as originally planned removed the only non-Class A ROW. No need for massive under-river tunnel.
Hot take: now that the Grey St intersection is so simplified, is the primary capacity restriction actually at Mater Hill instead?
Jonno, if you would like to provide a worked up map of this concept and present it to members, I would encourage you to do so.
I’m happy to be persuaded, but i’m not sure how a rail based metro would avoid tunneling under the Brisbane River or alternatively have to cross the Victoria Bridge.
Post a map and members will be happy to look at it.
My own perspective on this is that we already have CRR, we can just leverage that existing tunnel and a new GC alignment to relieve the SEB.
I believe this should be a long term priority to have fast rail between Brisbane, The Gold Coast and Sunshine Coast, (and maybe Toowoomba)
Don’t need to
Here is the flythough they made.
No reason these couldn’t be light-weight Metro vehicles like Vancouver Sky Rail
Might have needed to add to the Victoria Bridge on the northern bank to allow for turning radius but all very doable.
I’m confused.
If the station is underground then it’s a tunnel under the river, isn’t it?
Light weight rubber tyre metros are the Quirk proposals, which RBOT showed would reduce busway capacity.
Importantly, a bus based busway can use two exit portals - Captain Cook Bridge and Cultural Centre.
A rail based metro (rubber or steel wheel) would be forced to send all passengers via Cultural Centre, maxing out capacity.
Again, if the Victoria Bridge won’t support the weight of LRT, why would it support a metro?
BCC has already looked into this and dropped it in favour of buses.
What do you think they missed?
No the tunnel was just from the southside of South Brisbane Station to Victoria Bridge.
What is the issue with sending all passengers by a single route if the capacity and passenger experience is significantly improved and it doesn’t congest like it does today?
I also don’t recall RBOT claiming the capacity would be reduced under rubber-tyred metro?
All assessments by BCC results in Bus as the answer as it is their political game card. If it is rail-based it will be run by State and their influence disappears.
Storey Bridge always claimed to not be able to handle LRT but weight of traffic on bridge (which is totally uncontrolled) could be far heavier.
Suspect the same for Victoria Bridge. Bridge full of stationary buses vs controllable single moving metro train in each direction.