Gentlemen
Great to be among friends.
I am an ordinary punter on the shorncliffe line. They took 6 months more than scheduled on the banyo station “accessibility upgrade” (an irony if there was one).
They then keep shutting down the track for “signal testing”. This has been going on for years. I think they are training drivers in this, on our time, with our inconvienence.
Apart from training drivers they need to test ETCS as it’s still quite new to QLD as they’re installing it into cross river rail. They also need to install it on all the units that will be operating on crr and to ensure everything was fitted correctly to the train they would probably need to test the unit itself to check for any faults on both the line and the train, this is just an assumption and I could be wrong but it’s needed so that when crr opens, trains can run safely using ETCS.
I guess that the Shorncliffe line is one of the least busy lines within the Brisbane train network (apart from Airport and Doomben), which is why they chose to test ETCS on the Shorncliffe line.
As to why they didn’t test on the Airport or Doomben lines, I bet Airtrain needs the train line to be open for passenger service, so they cannot close down the Airport line for ETCS testing. And QR probably doesn’t see much worth in testing on the single-track-with-no-passing-loops Doomben Line.
If level crossing removals still a thing to plan… Would be nice to elevate Deagon & Sandgate stations to remove like 4 crossings…
Banyo accessability upgrade is a joke without proper LXRP in plan.
Adams, Kennerly, Curlew, and Palm all seem to be too small for TMR to consider removing the level crossings.
As of St Vincent, they did consider removing the level crossing:
They concluded that the overpass or underpass would become a cost-ineffective white elephant, and that upgrading the level crossing would be the most feasible outcome.
Would of be better for prectinct/amenties to have Banyo station to be elevated to unify St Vincent/Turnel th
Biggest case for Deagon & Sandgate station to be elevated to remove Adams & Kennedy bottlenecks and unify the communities. Plus better bikeway network can be placed under the train line to improve Stanley Day & Curlew parks safety.
Palm st is optional tho
The last not mentioned is at Nudgee station so it woukd wants a pedestraian/active transport friendly overpass, not just for disability users
I like the idea of a high-capacity pedestrian overpass over Nudgee station to access the new sports grounds. If TMR is considering upgrading Nudgee station, then it would be good for them to consider the overpass. It would also be a bonus if the overpass would provide direct access to the station. This makes the sports ground accessible by train as well, providing another mode of transport to the sports ground other than driving.
While in theory it would be nice and would provide some benefits, I think there are many much higher priorities which would need to be removed first (e.g. Coorparoo, Runcorn stretch of Beenleigh/GC line, Wacol, Wynnum Central, Strathpine, Alderley, Mitchelton etc).
Yea true but this thread is Shorncliffe line focus 
Yes, my bad.
Where’s the do nothing (BAU), upgrade level-crossing, and remove level-crossing colour coded options?
‘Upgrade level-crossing’ is mentioned in the graphic (and the most favourable option according to TMR).
The BAU option will probably be pointless to show. Why bring up plans to upgrade the level crossing and provide solution to do nothing?
Remove level crossing options: “All grade separated options, which include the removal of the level crossing, would have considerable property and community impacts including resumptions. Modelling also indicates that these options will attract additional traffic, including heavy vehicles, worsening congestion and reducing precinct amenity”
The cheapest option would have been to close the crossing off to cars completely.
The Cost, Property impacts, Precinct amenity, and Network congestion would all be ‘performs well’.
It seems the station got more of an upgrade then the crossing itself.
Pedestrian access can be made via the stations pedestrian bridge.
I would argue that most level crossings on the Shorncliffe line would do more harm in the process of removing than the benefits of them being removed
I agree that the crossings should not be removed, especially the Adams St and Kennerley St crossings since they are the only form of road access to the part of Deagon adjacent to the Cabbage Tree Creek.
The best way to remove the level crossing is to grade-separate the railway line. But, tunnelling the railway would be expensive. Considering the lower population of Shorncliffe/Sandgate/Deagon areas, TMR would be better off investing that money on improving rail infrastructure that serves higher-population areas in Brisbane (e.g. Redcliffe line, Beenleigh line). Elevating the railway would also require the houses next to the rail line to be demolished, so I guess TMR would decide to leave those crossings be.
One of the biggest issues in doing that is the fact there are two schools plus a university on the eastern side of the track. It will have a significant negative impact on traffic in the local area and also add congestion to an already busy Toombul Road. The Shorncliffe line is definitely a challenging one for any type of level crossing removal.
