seq stabling strategic investigation summary report · the purpose and strategic aim of the seq ssi...

SEQ Stabling StrategicInvestigation

Summary report

25 September 2012

Department of Transport and MainRoads

Parsons Brinckerhoff Australia Pty LimitedABN 80 078 004 798

Level 4, Northbank Plaza69 Ann StreetBrisbane QLD 4000GPO Box 2907Brisbane QLD 4001AustraliaTelephone +61 7 3854 6200Facsimile +61 7 3854 6500Email [email protected]

Certified to ISO 9001, ISO 14001, AS/NZS 4801A+ GRI Rating: Sustainability Report 20102110606B-RPT003-C1-sm-final report Executive Summary.docx

mailto:[email protected]

©Parsons Brinckerhoff Australia Ply Limited [2012].

Copyright in the drawings, information and data recorded in this document (the information) is the property of Parsons Brinckerhoff. This document and the information are solely for the use of the authorised recipient and this document may not be used, copied or reproduced in whole or part for any purpose other than that for which it was supplied by Parsons Brinckerhoff. Parsons Brinckerhoff makes no representation,undertakes no duty and accepts no responsibility to any third party who may use or rely upon this document or the information.

Please note that when viewed electronically this document may contain pages that have been intentionally left blank . These blank pages may occur because in consideration of the environment and for your convenience,this document has been set up so that it can be printed correctly in double-sided format.

2110606B-RPT003·C..SM·FINAL REPORT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.DOCX

SEQ Stabling Strategic Investigation

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 2110606B-RPT003-C-SM-FINAL REPORT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Page i

ContentsPage number

Glossary iii

1. Introduction 4

2. Project scope 5

3. Strategic context 6

3.1 Rail network development in SEQ 6

3.2 Future train stabling – implications 7

3.2.1 Desirable stabling attributes 73.2.2 Fleet and stabling growth 83.2.3 Fleet composition 93.2.4 Stabling location 10

3.3 Existing stabling locations, capacity and expandability 11

3.3.1 Capacity and expansion capability 113.3.2 Land use compatibility 12

3.4 Sites currently under investigation 15

4. Investigation methodology and findings 17

4.1 Summary of methodology 17

4.1.1 Stage 1: Scope definition 174.1.2 Stage 2: Site selection and shortlisting 174.1.3 Stage 3: Reporting 18

4.2 Identified stabling demand 18

4.3 Site identification 19

4.4 Site assessment 21

4.5 Concept design and detailed assessment 22

4.6 Preferred stabling locations 27

5. Study conclusions 29

5.1 Existing stabling facilities cannot meet strategic requirements 29

5.2 Land use compatibility of existing stabling locations 29

5.3 Limited feasible and operationally desirable stabling locations available for development 29

5.4 Implementation of future operations and network capacity upgrades 30

5.5 Inner city stabling 30

5.6 Investment redundancy risk 30

5.7 Cross River Rail (CRR) implementation – timing and scope 31

5.8 New Generation Rollingstock (NGR) delivery 31


Page ii 2110606B-RPT003-C-SM-FINAL REPORT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF

6. Implementation program 32

6.1 Short term (2012 – 2020/21) stabling investment program 32

6.1.1 Pre 2021 recommended investment 336.1.2 Considerations for 2021 (post CRR) requirements 346.1.3 Post 2021 stabling requirements land preservation 35

6.2 Medium to long term 2021-2051 stabling investment program 36

7. Bibliography 38

List of tablesPage number

Table 3.1 Desirable stabling attributes 7Table 3.2 Summarised fleet growth – 2012 to 2051 8Table 3.3 Existing outer network stabling: capacity and expansion capability 11Table 3.4 SEQ Future Stabling – Feasibility Study: Sites under investigation 15Table 4.1 Summarised stabling demand over time 18Table 4.2: Assessment criteria 21Table 4.3: Project outcomes (shortlisted sites assessment) – all costs in 2012 dollars 25Table 4.4: Recommended stabling 27Table 6.1: Recommended 2012-2020 stabling investment 33Table 6.2: Comparison of recommended stabling investment program to estimated demand 34Table 6.3 Future land preservation recommendations 35Table 6.4: Recommended stabling, 2021-2031 36

List of figuresPage number

Figure 3.1 Connecting SEQ 2031 concept rail network 6Figure 3.2 Fleet and stabling growth (2012-2051) 9Figure 3.3 Change in fleet size and composition, 2012-2051 10Figure 3.4 Existing outer network stabling and activity centres 14Figure 4-1 Stage 2 project tasks 17Figure 4.2 Map of all potential sites identified 20Figure 4.3 Shortlisted stabling locations 23


PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 2110606B-RPT003-C-SM-FINAL REPORT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Page iii

Glossary

CAMCOS Caloundra and Maroochydore Corridor Study – proposedBeerburrum to Caloundra, Kawana and Maroochydore railway

CRR Cross River Rail

CSEQ2031 Connecting SEQ 2031 (Integrated Regional Transport Plan forSouth East Queensland – 2011)

HCSMU High Capacity Suburban Multiple Unit - 175 m length (equivalentto 7-car length)

L2N Landsborough to Nambour rail upgrade project

MBRL Moreton Bay Rail Link (Petrie – Kippa-Ring railway)

NGR New Generation Rollingstock

Rail Strategy Rail Strategy for SEQ (2010) – a major input into CSEQ2031,but with a 2051 planning horizon.

SEQ South East Queensland

SEQ SSI South East Queensland Stabling Strategic Investigation (thisproject)

TTA TransLink Transit Authority

TMR Department of Transport and Main Roads

2110606B-RPT003-C-SM-FINAL REPORT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF

1. IntroductionThe South East Queensland rail system has a number of stabling facilities in the outer regionsof the network that are used to store trains when they are not in service. However, thesefacilities are at capacity, and with additional rolling stock coming into service to meet growingnetwork demand, there is a pressing need to provide additional stabling.

The ‘Train Stabling Strategy’ assessment undertaken by Queensland Rail in 2009 highlightedthe limited scope for capacity expansion of existing stabling facilities for a range of reasons,including environmental and built environment (urban encroachment) constraints, and thatexisting facilities may not be suitable to support future operations due to changes in networksectorisation and operating patterns, and the introduction of longer trains.

The need for additional stabling has been recognised as a priority by TMR and QueenslandRail and a number of actions taken, including the delivery of this study, the South EastQueensland Stabling Strategic Investigation (SEQ SSI).

The purpose and strategic aim of the SEQ SSI was to identify the short (pre-2020), medium(2020 to 2031) and long term (2031 to 2051) train stabling requirements in the outer parts ofthe network to support the future operation of the SEQ passenger rail network, as envisagedin the ‘rail revolution’ vision outlined in Connecting SEQ 2031.

This report summarises the work carried out and the outcomes delivered by SEQ SSI project.Specifically, this report addresses:

Project scope

Strategic context

Methodology

Findings

Study conclusions; and

A suggested implementation program.

In conjunction with the SEQ SSI, the Queensland Rail SEQ Future Stabling - Feasibility Studywas also commissioned to undertake detailed investigation and design at sites previouslyidentified as potentially suitable for development, including Thorneside, Dakabin, Banyo andElimbah. These investigations were undertaken by Queensland Rail in a separate project.

Given the lead times for property acquisition and construction for additional stabling facilities,considering and implementing the recommendations contained within this report are a priorityfor both TMR and Queensland Rail.

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 2110606B-RPT003-C-SM-FINAL REPORT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Page 5

2. Project scopeThe scope of the SEQ SSI project was to:

Identify and document the short (pre-2020), medium (2020 to 2031) and long term (2031-2051) train stabling requirements taking into account the projected UrbanLink, CoastLinkand ExpressLink service requirements

Identify and document at a conceptual level the technical and functional specifications forfuture stabling, including (but not limited to) having regard to capacity, train consist length,fleet mix, crew facilities, access, maintenance activities, etc.

Develop an evaluation framework to enable the suitability of sites to be assessed

Identify stabling options across the SEQ network to support the short, medium and longterm operational requirements including:

assessment of the capability and suitability of existing stabling locations, and

identification and assessment of new stabling locations.

In addressing these scope items, the project also included detailed consultation with keystakeholders including Queensland Rail and the Translink Transit Authority (TTA).

The scope did not include:

Consideration of near city stabling depots (e.g. Mayne and Clapham)

Consideration of depots associated with new lines such as Moreton Bay Rail Link,Springfield/Ripley, Sunshine Coast and Flagstone/Beaudesert.


3. Strategic context

3.1 Rail network development in SEQ

“Connecting SEQ 2031: an integrated regional transport plan for South East Queensland”(CSEQ2031), identifies the goal of rail being the backbone of the future passenger transportsystem, as shown in the figure below.

Figure 3.1 Connecting SEQ 2031 concept rail network


A number of rail network strategies necessary to fulfil the rail network goals expressed inCSEQ2031 have been developed, including:

sectorisation of rail operations to support UrbanLink, ExpressLink and CoastLink servicetypes

alternative operational termini for these service types, and

increasing train lengths from the current 6-car length up to 7 and 9 car equivalent lengths(to support UrbanLink and ExpressLink/CoastLink respectively).

These strategies have implications for the location, capacity and capability for existing andfuture train stabling to support future rail operations. Put in other terms, the three primarydrivers for developing a stabling strategy are fleet growth to support future services, fleetcomposition and facility location.

3.2 Future train stabling – implications

3.2.1 Desirable stabling attributes

In developing a strategy for the provision of adequate stabling capacity, the elements of adesirable stabling facility should be understood and taken into consideration.

Train stabling is required to stable trains when not in use. This includes stabling of the fleetwhen the system is not operating (e.g. overnight), and stabling those trains required only toprovide the extra peak period services when these trains are not in service. The key elementsof a desirable facility are as follows:

Table 3.1 Desirable stabling attributes

Element Considerations

Location on the network Best provided on the far side of where trains terminate and restart,to reduce dead-running, reduce the dwell time needed for turn-backs, reduce capacity pressures on the network and have trainsbest placed to respond to train failures

Should be configured to suit the network sectorisation and allow forefficient entry and exit to avoid train crossing conflicts and to meetrequired headways

Should support future operating strategies – i.e. UrbanLink,ExpressLink and CoastLink

Type of trains to be stabled 6, 7 or 9 car (or combinations of these types)

Number of trains to bestabled Number of trains be stabled by corridor or location to service peak

demand

Amenity Facilities need to meet design criteria that allows for secure storageof trains, amenity and safety for train crew, and capacity for somecleaning and light maintenance activities to suit network operations

Stabling facilities are ideally located away from residential areas tominimise community impacts


3.2.2 Fleet and stabling growth

A number of strategic patronage demand modelling, rail operational and fleet assessmentanalyses have been undertaken to support the development of CSEQ2031, and theimplementation of key initiatives to support the ‘rail revolution’ vision outlined in this plan.

In particular, these have been undertaken to support the planning and business casedevelopment for Cross River Rail (CRR) and New Generation Rollingstock (NGR) projects.

The estimated growth in fleet over the planning horizon articulated in CSEQ2031 issummarised in the following table.

Table 3.2 Summarised fleet growth – 2012 to 2051

Year Estimated fleet size(3-car units)

2012 211

2020 (without CRR) 270

2021 (with CRR) 320

2031 616

2051 926

As shown in Table 3.2, a fleet size in the order of 900 3-car units will be required by 2051,which is over four times greater than today. This increase in train numbers naturally brings anincrease in train stabling requirements.

Ideal network stabling locations correlate with the variation of service requirements over anygiven day, and are specifically driven by the AM and PM peak periods requirements. For eachpeak period, the majority of the fleet should be stabled to readily commence peak directionservices. That is, the majority of the fleet should be located in the outer network to provideinbound services in the AM peak; and in the inner city to provide outbound services in the PMpeak.

The service imbalance between peak direction services and contra peak / non-peak directionservices means there are varying needs for stabling capacity over a day, with more stabling onthe outer network to accommodate starting AM peak inbound and terminating PM peakoutbound services, and more stabling on the inner network to accommodate terminating AMpeak inbound services and starting PM peak outbound services. This requirement leads to asituation whereby more stabling is required than the actual size of the fleet.

At the current time, the SEQ network does not provide this preferable sort of stablingarrangement. Instead, significant inner city stabling is provided at Mayne Yard which enablesAM peak services to terminate at the inner city and be well located to commence PM peakservices. However, there is currently a shortfall of outer network stabling which results in deadrunning of empty trains from inner city stabling to outer network locations prior to the start ofthe AM peak period. Both inner and outer network stabling capacity will need to be increasedto accommodate forecast increases in train services, with greater increases required in theouter network.


Assuming the preferred scenario whereby stabling can be adequately provided in both theouter and inner regions of the network to best suit rail operations, the projected growth instabling requirement between 2012 and 2051 has been calculated, and is shown in Figure 3.2below, contrasted with the projected growth in fleet:

Figure 3.2 Fleet and stabling growth (2012-2051)

Details of the corridor by corridor composition of the stabling demand are contained in Section4.2.

As discussed, it is ideal to have more stabling than fleet to optimise network operations. Inpractice however, this is not always possible due to constraints in providing such stabling. Infact, this can be seen at the current time whereby the amount of stabling is virtually the sameas the fleet size. With effectively no spare stabling capacity, any increase in fleet size must beaccompanied by at least a corresponding amount of additional stabling, or more if greateroperational efficiency if required. This is discussed in further detail in Section 3.2.4.

In the short term, the key driver for fleet growth is the New Generation Rollingstock project(NGR), which is currently progressing the procurement of up to 200 3-car sets (net increase100+ due to fleet retirements) to cater for pre-2020 service requirements. Delivery of the newNGR fleet is anticipated to commence in 2014, which will require additional stabling to be inplace at this time to accommodate the new trains. As can be readily calculated from Figure3.2, between 80 and 150 additional 3-car stabling berths will need to progressively comeavailable up to 2021 to cater for NGR related fleet growth.

3.2.3 Fleet composition

Over time, train lengths will increase from the current 6-car length up to 7 and 9 car equivalentlengths (for UrbanLink and CoastLink/ExpressLink service types respectively). Stablingfacilities must be designed to cater for the trains that they are expected to house by ensuring

219334

372

702

1130

211270

320

616

926

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

2005 2015 2025 2035 2045 2055

3-ca

r equ

ival

ents

Estimated fleet and stabling growth2012-2051

Stabling requirement Fleet size

Stabling growth rate 4.25% pa (2012-2051)

Note step change in fleetand stabling sizeintroduced by CRR


that track lengths of each stabling road are of the correct length. Furthermore, each depotmust provide facilities appropriate to the expected train types to be stabled. This includesitems such as decanting facilities, train crew platforms in the right location as well as cleaningand maintenance facilities.

Figure 3.3 shows the estimated changes in fleet composition from 2012 to 2051.

Figure 3.3 Change in fleet size and composition, 2012-2051

The change in fleet composition over time presents a number of challenges, particularly forexisting facilities where there is little or no room to expand train storage roads for longer trains.Planning for new facilities must also take into the account the future length of trains and withappropriate regards for when they are expected to come into service.

3.2.4 Stabling location

Stabling facilities play an important role in the efficient operation of a rail network and it isimportant that they be located to best suit the rail operations of the day. Facilities are bestprovided on the far side of termini stations to reduce dead-running, reduce the dwell timeneeded for turn-backs, reduce capacity pressures on the network and have trains best placedto respond to train failures.

The SEQ network has historically followed this principle, with facilities located at places suchas Ipswich, Beenleigh, Caboolture and Nambour (and more recently at Robina). Unfortunatelythough, termini stations generally exist in popular urban centres where stabling facilities areperceived as undesirable by the local community due to visual and noise amenity issues andthe ‘higher and better use’ challenges imposed by local planning schemes. Pressure nowexists to move existing facilities away from urban areas and restrict development of newfacilities to more industrial areas. This constraint makes it more difficult to locate facilities inthe optimum location.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

2012 2021 2031 2051

Tota

l tra

ins (

estim

ated

)

Change in fleet composition2012-2051

9-car (Express/CoastLink)

7-car (UrbanLink)

6-car


Another important consideration in locating stabling facilities is their ability to be readilyaccessed during the peaks whilst also avoiding train crossing conflicts with main line services.This is particularly significant for the near-city depots, where the peak service frequenciesseverely limit opportunities for crossing due to the conflicts on at-grade connections. Thesectorisation and network configuration for all planning horizons requires trains to be removedfrom the AM peak service and then re-entered for the PM service. Both actions cause crossingconflicts at critical locations on the network such as Park Road and Roma Street junctions,and for Mayne (and in the future Clapham) depots, impacting peak operations. This challengehas been identified in a number of other recent studies including:

CSEQ2031, under Key Action 3.4: “Rail system efficiency and safety planning: Plan newrail stabling facilities” - as part of new rail service improvements and rail corridors tominimise ‘dead running’ of trains and reduce junction conflicts

The recent 2012 expert panel review of the Cross River Rail scheme where the followingaction was identified in the pre-CRR capacity improvement works: “Constructing targetedstabling facilities for additional trains at locations that reduce junction conflicts andimprove capacity”

Considering the discussion above, planning for the location of future stabling locationstherefore needs to consider:

Rail operations, taking into account current and future termini locations, ability to efficientlyaccess the network at a local level, and ability to reduce or remove broader networkjunction conflicts

Local planning constraints, locating facilities in keeping with the relevant planningschemes.

3.3 Existing stabling locations, capacity and expandability

3.3.1 Capacity and expansion capability

At present, Mayne is the predominant stabling depot with medium-sized outer network depotslocated at Ipswich, Redbank, Robina, Beenleigh and Caboolture. Small numbers of trains arealso stabled at station sidings at Nambour, Petrie, Manly and Gympie North.

Table 3.3 lists the outer network stabling locations and their capacity, and summaries optionsfor expansion or reconfiguration to meet future demand.

Table 3.3 Existing outer network stabling: capacity and expansion capability

Location Currentcapacity

Future needs Options and challenges for expansion

Petrie 4x3 car Ceases to be aterminus with MBRLand StrathpineUrbanLink terminus

Limited – MBRL likely to impact stationconfiguration significantly, environmentconstraints

Caboolture 20x3 car Future ExpressLinkterminal – needs tosupport 9-car trainsand possible smallnumber of 7-car trains.

Limited – site full, built-up urban area. Maybe possible to reconfigure small number ofroads to 7-car length. Not feasible toreconfigure existing layout to support 9-car trains


Location Currentcapacity

Future needs Options and challenges for expansion

Nambour 6x3 car Future ExpressLinkterminal – needs tosupport 9-car trains

Extra one 6-car on existing site, potentialto expand site towards the south, subjectto possible council objections due toplanning conflicts. L2N may impact currentstabling facilities.

Manly 6x3 car Ceases to be aterminus. If continuingto serve Cleveland linewill need to support 7-car trains

Extra two or three 6-car on existing site,difficult to expand site due to built-up area.May be possible to support 7-car trainswith reconfiguration to single-end.

Ipswich 15x3 car Ceases to be aterminus withdevelopment of Ripley

Limited – site full, built-up urban area. Maybe possible to expand small number ofroads to accept 7-car trains.

Redbank 12x3 car Future UrbanLinkterminal – needs tosupport 7-car trains

Additional six 6-car can readily beprovided within existing depot footprint.Can be expanded on western end toaccommodate same number of 7-cartrains. New site on north side of line mayalso be possible to develop

Robina 14x3 car Not a terminus. If itcontinues to serveGold Coast line willneed to support 9-cartrains

Additional three 6-car can be providedwithin existing footprint; further expansionrequires extension northwards overMudgeeraba Creek. Extension is neededto support longer trains

Beenleigh 16x3 car Ceases to be aterminus in mediumterm, but returns as aterminus in long term(ca 2051) where itwould be required tosupport 9-car trains

Limited on existing site. Further expansionexpensive (electrical substation relocationrequired). Station rebuilding/lengthening totake 7 and 9 car trains will block entranceto sidings.

Gympie 2x3 car Not considered in thisstudy

Not considered in this study

Total 95 x 3 car

From Table 3.3 it can be seen that there is very limited ability for the existing sites to providethe necessary level of additional stabling required in the SEQ network by 2021. With theexceptions of Redbank and Robina, none of the existing sites offer any substantive or readyoption for expansion within their existing footprint. Of the minimum 80 3-car berths required by2021, the existing sites would only be able to supply 26 of these at best – assuming themaximum developments within existing footprints at Manly, Robina, Redbank and Nambourwere all adopted.

3.3.2 Land use compatibility

As also shown in Table 3.3, a number of the existing sites are located in built up urban areaswhich have grown and developed around the rail network over time. A number of these areashave now been identified as important activity centres in the South East Queensland RegionalPlan.

The South East Queensland Regional Plan (2009-2031) identifies a network of regionalactivity centres across South East Queensland. It proposes that ‘regional activity centres areaccessible locations that have concentrated businesses, services and facilities for


employment, research and education, as well as higher density residential developmentserving a regional population.' (SEQRP, p 96)

SEQRP further notes that development of regional activity centres should follow 'transitoriented development' principles. The 'Transit Oriented Development: guide for practitioners inQueensland' (DIP, 2010) provides many of these principles. They include ensuring that transit-supportive land uses should be prioritised in the area up to 800m from transit stops such asrailway stations.

Transit-supportive land uses are high intensity uses such offices and eating places, compacthousing, street-based retail, civic uses, recreational and cultural facilities and entertainmentuses. Non-supportive low intensity uses include car-based enclosed shopping centres,industrial uses, warehousing and drive through premises. (TOD Guide, p 14) Rail stablingfacilities would be considered low intensity uses and thus not preferred within the designatedregional centres.

In order to support the Regional Plan policies, any stabling facilities in these locations shouldbe located well away (i.e. more than 800m walk) from the main railway station and outside anyidentified 'centre' under local planning schemes.

Rail-served regional activity centres of potential significance to the SEQ SSI include:

Nambour

Caboolture/Morayfield

Strathpine

Wynnum Central

Cleveland

Beenleigh

Goodna

Ipswich

Logan Central

These locations are shown in Figure 3.4 with attention drawn to those activity centres wherethere are conflicts with existing stabling facilities.


Figure 3.4 Existing outer network stabling and activity centres


Figure 3.4 clearly shows the conflict between facilities at Beenleigh, Ipswich, Caboolture andNambour and the intent of the SEQ Regional Plan1. All of these sites have, to varying levels,been the subject of community complaints and most are under pressure to be relocated to freeup space for other developments. Importantly, these four sites represent approximately 60% ofthe total outer network stabling within SEQ, which compounds the challenge for provision ofadequate stabling capacity should these sites be forced elsewhere to satisfy regional and localplanning schemes.

Although the existing sites will continue to provide an important role in the provision of a totalstabling solution for SEQ, it is clear that developing them alone will not be enough due to:

Limited and inadequate opportunity for expansion at most sites, including expansion forlonger trains

Conflict with surrounding urban development in many locations. In some cases this mayactually work to reduce overall stabling capacity if sites are compelled away.

Given that existing sites will be unable to handle future demand, either major expansion ofexisting sites or construction of new sites (or a combination of both) will be required to meetthe future demand.

3.4 Sites currently under investigation

As noted in the introduction to this report, the SEQ Future Stabling – Feasibility Study is beingundertaken by Queensland Rail in parallel with the SEQ SSI project, to progress feasibilityassessment on a number of sites previously identified as potential locations to support futurestabling requirements.

These are summarised in the following table.

Table 3.4 SEQ Future Stabling – Feasibility Study: Sites under investigation

Site Location Comment

Thorneside Located to the south ofThorneside railway station,using the land madeavailable by the disusedangle.

Adjacent to a sewage treatment plant.Facility greatly improves stabling on ClevelandLine, reducing dead-running from Mayne andproviding relief from junction conflict at Park Road

Elimbah Located about 1.3km southof Elimbah station in landmade available following there-alignment of the NCLbetween Caboolture andBeerburrum

Serves as an additional facility to Caboolture,removing pressure to expand there

Banyo Located adjacent to Banyoworkshops

Would provide stabling for Shorncliffe Line,reducing dead-running from Mayne for AM andPM peak periods. Also provides capacity flow overfor day-time off peak at Mayne

1 The exception is Robina, which although listed as a principal activity centre, does not conflict with the existing stablingfacility due to its location on the outskirts of the area and proximity to land unable to be developed ondue to flood problems


Site Location Comment

Dakabin Located about 800m north ofDakabin Station in largewooded section of vacantQueensland Rail land

Competing for priority with land also slated aspotential relocation spot for Dakabin Station.

All of the sites identified in Table 3.4 were independently identified by the SEQ SSI as sitesworthy of investigation, with the exception of Banyo as the Shorncliffe line was not in the SEQSSI scope. No design was undertaken by the SEQ SSI project for these sites, with theexception of additional stabling capacity at Thorneside, although they were all still consideredwhen developing corridor level recommendations for stabling.


4. Investigation methodology and findings

4.1 Summary of methodology

The project was undertaken in three stages:

4.1.1 Stage 1: Scope definition

This stage developed the framework for the remainder of the project and the tasks were:

identify and document stabling demand for 2020, 2031 and 2051

document desirable design and operational requirements for stabling facilities

undertake a review of existing facilities

prepare a site selection and evaluation framework

The outputs from Stage 1 can be found in the SEQ SSI Volume 1 report.

4.1.2 Stage 2: Site selection and shortlisting

The purpose of Stage 2 was to identify the locations on the network that represent theoptimum investment choices to meet the stabling requirements of the rail strategy. This stagewas undertaken in five steps as per Figure 4-1 below and repeated for each of the four main

Site identification•Rules for sites to be placed on 'long list'•‘McHarg’ process includes major environmental constraints;

minimum size

Preliminary filter•Qualitative assessment to reach 'short list'•Operations, Planning and environment, Social Impact,

Civils/Constructability, Site Footprint

Concept design•Site visit•Concept design and detailed review of short listed sites

Options packaging and assessment•Based on stabling demand requirement identify site or sites from

shortlist that meet the demand.•Assess to determine preferred option based on constituent sites

performance

Preferred option•Based on stabling demand requirement identify site or sites from

shortlist that meet the demand.•Consider staging

Figure 4-1 Stage 2 project tasks


rail corridors – Eastern (Cleveland Line), Western (Ipswich Line), Southern (Beenleigh/GoldCoast Lines) and Northern (Caboolture/Nambour Lines).

The outcomes of Stage 2 are documented in the SEQ SSI Volume 2 report.

4.1.3 Stage 3: Reporting

Stage 3 of the SEQ SSI project was final reporting, including recommendations of options foreach of these four corridors for overnight stabling at remote depots, plus comment on the nearcity day-time off-peak stabling requirements.

The outcomes of Stage 3 are documented in the SEQ SSI Volume 2 report.

Appendices, supporting the work done in Stages 1 and 2 of the project are included in theSEQ SSI Volume 3 report.

4.2 Identified stabling demand

The SEQ SSI project considered stabling for a number of planning horizons:

2020 – Short term demand prior to implementation of Cross River Rail (CRR)

2021 – Short term demand following the immediate introduction of CRR

2031 – Medium term demand representing network operations developed as part of CRRplanning.

2051 – Long term demand representing network operations developed for the RailStrategy (undertaken for Connecting SEQ 2031).

The 2020 and 2021 stabling demands are from the TMR Strategic Stabling RequirementsDiscussion Paper (in turn sourcing data from the Connecting Rail and Communities 2020report and CRR Rail Operations Report). Stabling demand for 2031 and 2051 have beencalculated by the project team based on the Cross River Rail 2031 service strategy and theproposed SEQ Rail Strategy 2051 Rail Network service strategy, respectively.

The most operationally efficient stabling requirements for over-night and day-time off-peakstabling for these planning scenarios are as summarised in Table 4.1.

Table 4.1 Summarised stabling demand over time

Current(2012)

2020 2021 2031 2051

3-car Equivalent

South 30 34 52 148 183

North 32 60 78 164 217

West 27 46 42 75 197

East 6 26 20 37 51

Outer networktotal

95 166 192 424 648

Inner City 124 168 180 218 482

Total 219 334 372 702 1130


4.3 Site identification

A systematic review of rail corridors was undertaken in order to locate potential additional sitesfor stabling. This was done as a desktop assessment using GIS and other informationavailable from state government and local council databases.

The process used for site identification was a constraints mapping (or sieve mapping) planninganalysis. This approach classifies areas based on a range of constraint layers. Areas with thefewest constraints are thus readily identified. For this project, the constraint layers that wereused covered a range of environmental matters including koala habitat and remnantvegetation and a measure of urban development density.

The sites identified through the constraints composite map were then validated throughanalysis of aerial photography to identify existing uses. Any sites which were shown to includehigh intensity/high value uses, schools and recognised high-value nature reserves (‘showstoppers’) were excluded.

In addition, a theoretical site was deliberately located at or near each terminus station whichwould present an ideal location from an operations perspective, regardless of any constraints.

Using this approach, a ‘long list’ of 74 sites was identified. This list consisted of:

Eastern corridor (Cleveland Line): 15

Northern corridor (Caboolture/Nambour Lines): 22

Western corridor (Ipswich Line): 14

Southern corridor (Beenleigh/Gold Coast Lines): 23

Figure 4-2 shows all sites that were identified


Figure 4.2 Map of all potential sites identified


4.4 Site assessment

A desktop assessment was undertaken of all 74 sites identified. This assessment consideredoperational, planning and environment, social impact, site footprint and constructability issues.Detailed investigation was undertaken of planning and environmental issues, whileassessment of other factors was based on professional judgement by technical specialists toprovide guidance on operational and configuration issues.

The particular factors that were investigated are listed in Table 4.2 below

Table 4.2: Assessment criteria

# Criterion Factors considered

1 Operations and location Proximity to terminus/dead runningLocation relative to terminus (‘upstream or downstream’)Proximity to nearest station (crew access)Access to and from main line, including location relative tomain line, geometry, gradient and curvature and impact onmain line operations

2 Configuration andfootprint

Possible practical capacity based on available landConfiguration (simple or complex arrangement, curvature ofsidings etc)Space for crewing facilities and buildingsAccess roads and parking (ease of access)

3 Planning andenvironmental constraints(regulation/legislation)

Vegetation/ coastal waterways/heritage protection overlaysNative title issuesHabitat (including Koala)Strategic designation/planning scheme zoning

4 Socio-economic impact Sensitive adjoining land users (noise, light, traffic)Additional land acquisition (quantum)Plant and services relocation

5 Civils and constructability Hydrology/floodingGeotechContours/cut and fill requiredAccess to services and utilities (power, sewer)

Each criterion was weighted to reflect the degree to which it was considered to be important inselecting a location. The overall weighting adopted gave the greatest weight to environmentand social criteria, medium weight to ‘operation and location’ and the least weighting to designand construction criteria.

Each site was assessed and given a score between 1 and 5 for each criterion, where ‘5’indicated excellent performance/minimal impact and ‘1’ was poor performance/severe impact.The scores were weighted and totalled. For each corridor this allowed sites to be ranked, andthe best performing sites identified. To test that the weighting system was not significantlyskewing results, a number of alternative weightings were also used as sensitivity testing.

It was found that there were in each case ‘stand out’ sites which scored significantly betterthan the others. Following confirmation with key stakeholders, these sites were shortlisted


and developed further to concept design stage and detailed assessment. The outcome of thisassessment was a shortlist of 15 sites, which are described further in the following section.

4.5 Concept design and detailed assessment

The 15 shortlisted sites were taken through to the concept design and detailed assessmentstage. This stage included:

2D CAD design to provide concept layouts of tracks, turnouts, parking and buildings

preliminary costing, including construction and property acquisition costs

refined operations assessment, including calculation of dead running costs

review of planning and environmental impacts

A site visit to each location was also undertaken to ground truth concepts.

A map of all shortlisted sites by corridor is provided in Figure 4.3.


Figure 4.3 Shortlisted stabling locations

Three initially shortlisted sites were not included in the concept design stage. The two sites atElimbah (Mansfield Road) and Dakabin were part of the Queensland Rail scope of works inthe SEQ Stabling Detailed Site Investigation project and so were not analysed further. Theproposed site at Coolangatta was noted but not further investigated as sites on proposedfuture lines were out of scope for this study.

Notably, the shortlisted site at Thorneside was included in the shortlist even thoughThorneside was also part of the SEQ Stabling Detailed Site Investigation scope. The rationalefor this decision was that the specific piece of land identified by the SEQ SSI project wasimmediately adjacent to the previously identified site and could serve as a valid future stage.


The 15 assessed sites are listed in Table 4.3, below. This table also documents the estimatedcapital, property acquisition and annual dead running costs as at 2051 (in 2012 dollars) andhighlights the preferred and alternative sites.

Also referenced in the table are sites currently being investigated by Queensland Rail. Thesesites are important elements of the holistic stabling solution for the northern corridor and havetherefore been included for completeness.


Table 4.3: Project outcomes (shortlisted sites assessment) – all costs in 2012 dollars

Site Capacity Construction Cost ($million –inclusive of property costs)for 2051 operations

PropertyAcquisitionCost ($million)

Cost pertrain ($million)

Dead runningcosts ($ million– see note)

Site conclusion

Cleveland terminus

Thorneside (E7) 22x7 car $49.5 $0.424 $2.3 $2.2 Recommended, subject to resolution ofpollution issues from neighbouringsewage treatment plant

Birkdale (E6) 22x7 car $48.0 $1.436 $2.2 $1.6 Not preferred

Hemmant (E13a) 22x7 car $54.1 $1.550 $2.5 $4.3 Alternative if Thorneside not feasible

Nambour terminus

Nambour (N2b) 8x9 car $28.9 $4.434 $3.6 nil Preferred

Woombye (N3) 8x9 car $26.0 $0.795 $3.3 0.3m Alternative if Nambour not available

Caboolture/Caboolture North terminus

Elimbah “b” (N5b)Queensland Rail site

Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown $1.5 m Preferred, should be lower cost thanElimbah C, subject to satisfactoryQueensland Rail investigations

Elimbah “c” (N5c) 16x9 car5x7 car

$81.3 $3.8m $3.9 $1.0 Not preferred

Strathpine terminus

Strathpine (N11) 12x7 car $40.8 $0.675 $3.4 nil Not preferred

Dakabin (N10)Queensland Rail site

Assumed 12x7 Unknown Unknown Unknown $1.0 Preferred, should be lower cost withoutlocal train access issues associated withStrathpine. Subject to satisfactoryQueensland Rail investigations.


Site Capacity Construction Cost ($million –inclusive of property costs)for 2051 operations

PropertyAcquisitionCost ($million)

Cost pertrain ($million)

Dead runningcosts ($ million– see note)

Site conclusion

Rosewood terminus

Rosewood (W1a) 14x9 car $31.5 $0.120 $2.3 Nil Preferred

Wulkuraka (W4) 14x9 $45.5 $2.365 $3.3 $2.1 Not preferred

Redbank terminus

Redbank (W5a) 17x7 $34.9 ($20m for extension ofexisting sidings

$0.405 $2.1m Nil Preferred

Varsity Lakes/Elanora/Coolangatta terminus

Coolangatta (S1) Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown minimal Consider if available

Robina (S2) 29x9 $105.8 $0.210 $3.7 $5.6 (toCoolangatta)

Preferred

Beenleigh terminus

Ormeau (S9) 11x9 $34.8 $0.210 $3.2 $0.9 Preferred

Bethania (S13) 11x9 $36.2 $1.000 $3.3 $0.6 Not preferred (for Beenleigh)

Loganlea terminus

Bethania (S13) 13x9 $32.0 $1.000 $2.5 $0.5 Preferred (for Loganlea)

Loganlea (S16) 13x9 $46.6 $5.880 $4.6 $0.2 Not preferred

Inner city (off peak) stabling

Hemmant (E13a) 22x7 car $54.1 $1.550 $2.5 (not calculated) Use if developed for Cleveland line

Wacol (W6a) 9x9 car $19.3 $0 (QR land) $2.1 (not calculated) Preferred if required for Western Corridor

Note: all dead running costs are expressed in 2012 dollars and are the expected total annual dead running costs from the stabling location to the specifiedterminus under the 2051 service plan.


4.6 Preferred stabling locations

Based on the detailed assessment of the 15 shortlisted in the concept design stage, preferredstabling options for each corridor were identified and, in most cases, an alternative option wasalso identified as a risk mitigation option. These preferred stabling options are listed in Table4.4 below, and represent the best combination of sites to support the totality of the short(2020), medium (2031) and long term (2051) network stabling requirements.

How these sites can be developed over time to support network growth is covered in Section 6– Implementation program.

Table 4.4: Recommended stabling

Corridor/Sector

Depot Location Comment/Trigger Function

Cleveland Thorneside (adjacent stationon western side)

If environmental/health concernswith sewage treatment plant can bemanaged

Over-night+day-time off-peak

Hemmant (south-east ofstation)

If Thorneside does not satisfyenvironmental/health concerns withsewage treatment plant


Nambour Nambour (south west ofstation

Over-night

Caboolture Elimbah (south of MansfieldRoad)

Develop when existing Caboolturecannot meet demand and/or longertrains are introduced

Strathpine Dakabin (north-west of station) Develop when this UrbanLink sectorcommences operations

Rosewood Rosewood (just to north-westof station)

Build when critical number ofstarting services exceedsIpswich/Redbank capacity

Ipswich Ipswich Retain whilst Ipswich remains aterminus. Retain to contribute today-time off-peak capacity inwestern corridor


Redbank South west of station (Existing)

NW of station

Expand to ultimate 12 train capacity.Increase length of existing sidings tosuit 7-car trains when introduced

Build when extra capacity isrequired



Gold Coast Robina Expand to meet demand plusintroduction of longer trains

Over-night

Beenleigh Existing Beenleigh

Ormeau (North east ofGoldmine Road)

Retain whilst Beenleigh remainsterminus, and prior to extraplatforms/longer trains. BuildOrmeau if extra platforms/longertrain triggers occur.

Over-night +potential forday-time off-peak ifClapham hasinsufficientcapacity


Corridor/Sector

Depot Location Comment/Trigger Function

Loganlea Bethania (south east ofstation)

Develop when this UrbanLink sectorcommences operations

Over-night+day-time off-peak (forSouth Subsector)

MBRL Kippa-Ring Over-nightFernyGrove

Mayne

Shorncliffe Banyo Over-night+day-time off-peak (forSouth Subsector)

Day-time off-peak corridorsDownSUB,Down MainDown CRR

Mayne Plus Banyo and Dakabin if Mayne iscapacity constrained

UP Sub Thorneside/HemmantBethania/Beenleigh/Ormeau

UP CRR ClaphamUP Main Redbank/Ipswich Develop Wacol if extra capacity is

neededThe over-night stabling recommendations are based on achieving close proximity to therespective terminus for each sector, together with consideration of how trains can access inand out of the stabling depot during both the AM and PM peaks. This is more easily managedat the end-of- line termini, but more problematic at intermediate locations where required tocross trains over either the AM or PM peak services. The day-time off-peak stablingrequirements and suitability of stabling depots needs more careful consideration of the accessissues where grade separation is not feasible, given the much greater service frequencies oneach near-city corridor during the peaks.

The assessment above assumes that new branches (Moreton Bay Rail Link, CAMCOS,Springfield and Ripley Valley, and Flagstone/Beaudesert) include stabling depots close tothese termini to meet their respective over-night stabling needs. Options for temporary stablingin future rail corridors should be considered where construction is staged. For example, anoption for limited stabling on the corridor extensions at Varsity Lakes and Elanora should beinvestigated to reduce dead running and demands on the Robina depot.


5. Study conclusionsThis study identified future stabling requirements and sites to support short, medium and longterm development of the SEQ rail network. In doing so the study also identified a range ofissues that need further consideration as part of the development of a comprehensive SEQstabling investment and implementation strategy. Appropriate consideration of these issueswill help to identify the most cost-effective, value for money approach to providing stablingcapacity that will meet the long term requirements of the SEQ network. These issues arediscussed in turn below.

5.1 Existing stabling facilities cannot meet strategic requirements

This study has shown that existing outer depots have very limited capability of being expandedto meet growth in demand. Furthermore, the introduction of bigger payload, longer trains onthe various sectors will make some existing stabling depots untenable or reduce their effectivecapacity.

A number of existing sites, including Caboolture, Beenleigh and Ipswich (comprising some60% of the outer network stabling capacity), are located in urban growth areas which is puttingincreasing community and council pressure on these sites to be relocated.

To meet this challenge, new sites will be required to meet network demand.

5.2 Land use compatibility of existing stabling locations

Operationally, train stabling facilities are best located close to terminus stations. However,these stations often exist in important activity centres for which planning intent and thedesirable development pattern are incompatible with train stabling. A number of existingstabling sites, including Nambour, Beenleigh, Caboolture and Ipswich all fall in this category. Itis likely that in the medium to long term, the incompatibility of these sites with local planningintent will be a catalyst for seeing these sites moved, requiring additional stabling at newerfacilities.

The exact timing of any closure of existing facilities will need to be carefully considered as partof the broader network development strategy – particularly with regard to rail operations. Whileany closure will be challenging, it does bring the opportunity to realise the value of existingsites for higher use at activity centres, to offset cost of new facilities.

Finally, all new stabling facilities will need to be developed with due regard to both current andfuture activity centres to ensure appropriate development occurs.

5.3 Limited feasible and operationally desirable stabling locationsavailable for development

There are limited viable sites for both outer-network overnight stabling and near-city day timeoff-peak stabling. The sites that are viable have been identified in this study. Earlydetermination of land requirements for stabling depots, and the protection of these sites frominappropriate development and/or their early acquisition in most recommended locationsshould be a priority.


5.4 Implementation of future operations and network capacityupgrades

The variation in future operating plans and uncertainty as to future sectorisation, networkcapacity upgrades actually undertaken and their timing, suggests the need for a robustsolution to future train stabling requirements.

The greater intensity of use of the network during the peaks, and the greater proportion of thefleet operating on the longer sectors, will require a higher proportion of stabling roads as aratio to the total fleet than has been possible to date, to balance the dual requirements ofovernight stabling at outer depots, and day-time off-peak stabling at near city sites.

The sectorisation and network configuration for all planning horizons requires trains to beremoved from the AM peak service and then re-entered for the PM service. Both actionscause crossing conflicts at critical locations on the network such as Park Road and RomaStreet junctions, and for Mayne and Clapham depots, impacting peak operations. Carefulplanning for off-peak stabling locations and operations will be required to resolve theseconflicts.

5.5 Inner city stabling

It is not possible to develop a comprehensive stabling strategy without due consideration ofboth outer and inner stabling requirements. Furthermore the two must work together toeffectively support desired network operations.

This study investigated viable sites for outer network stabling but did not investigate any innercity stabling sites. Development of a robust inner city stabling strategy to complement the workdone in this study, including Mayne and Clapham as a minimum, should be a priority.

5.6 Investment redundancy risk

The design and construction costs for new stabling facilities are considerable. Similarly,significant expansions of existing sites are also expensive, all the more so if surroundinginfrastructure needs to be relocated to make available sufficient space. An example of this isBeenleigh, where the most feasible option for expansion would require the relocation of amajor power sub-station.

Decisions to invest in new or expanded stabling facilities therefore need to be made carefullyto ensure best value for money outcomes. An important consideration in the decision is theinvestment timeframe, noting that in some cases stabling sites could well become redundantor operationally infeasible in the longer term. This could occur through infrastructure changeson the network or changes to sectorisation and network termini. Beenleigh is a good exampleof both of these – with planned line and station upgrades likely to make entry and exit into theexisting stabling facility impossible, and future network sectorisation potentially removingBeenleigh as a terminus altogether.

Considering this issue, a stabling strategy therefore needs to determine whether to:

Invest in additional capacity of existing sites, solving short term demand but potentiallycreating a stranded or unneeded asset in the longer term; or

Directing investment towards new sites, potentially bringing forward costs but avoidinglong term redundant infrastructure.


5.7 Cross River Rail (CRR) implementation – timing and scope

CRR is a critical component in the strategic development of the SEQ rail network. Planning forstabling undertaken in this study considered the stabling requirements up until the point CRRis delivered, as well as afterwards when significant new services will be unlocked, requiringfurther fleet and stabling to be delivered.

Understanding that CRR will take many years to deliver, a review by the Queenslandgovernment was commissioned to consider short term opportunities to provide additionalnetwork capacity to provide relief until CRR can be built.

One of the recommendations from this review was the delivery of targeted stabling facilities toreduce junction conflicts. This study has had due regard for this recommendation by providinga number of viable option on the Cleveland Line, all of which are suitable, if developed, forproviding relief to the AM peak junction conflicts problems at Park Road.

Furthermore, this study also endorses the delivery of a new connection between Mayne Yardand the Ferny Grove line which will improve junction performance at Roma St in both the AMand PM peak. (See Table 6.1).

Ongoing development of stabling planning for stabling should also have regard for the otherrecommendations that have come from the CRR review, including such things as peakspreading which will have an impact on operations and therefore stabling.

5.8 New Generation Rollingstock (NGR) delivery

In the short-term (i.e. pre 2020), demand for greater stabling in the SEQ is drivenpredominantly by new fleet planned to be procured under the proposed NGR project.However, the contract for NGR is yet to be awarded and there is currently no certainty as tothe number of trains to be included in the contract or the timeframe over which the trains willbe delivered. Both of these have an impact on stabling investment in terms of timing forprocurement and facility sizing.

As the NGR project develops and important procurement decisions made, it is important thatthe ramification of those decisions on the stabling program are appropriately considered.


6. Implementation programAny implementation strategy needs to consider the growth in demand over time to cater for thetotal fleet, plus the impact of network configuration and operation in deploying the fleet. Thevariation in the planning scenarios on sectorisation, assumptions on the new lines andcapacity upgrades (and when these may be implemented) suggest a robust approach betaken to providing for stabling that can accommodate alternate network developmentinvestment decisions. This suggests the following foci:

Building or expanding those stabling facilities that best suit the spectrum of likely networkdevelopment scenarios

Designing stabling facilities that allow for the long term capacity and be expandable toaccommodate longer trains

Proceeding with concept planning for all the recommended depot options to identify andprotect any land required not already owned by the state government. Protection of depotsites and surrounds from inappropriate development in the relevant local planningschemes should be progressed.

Suggested stabling investment programs for the short (2012-2020/21) and medium-longerterm (2021 – 2051) are presented in the following two sections.

6.1 Short term (2012 – 2020/21) stabling investment program

The short term stabling investment program described in this section meets three importantgoals:

It delivers the right stabling (size and location) to meet the expected level of fleet andservice growth up to 2020 without assuming that Cross River Rail (CRR) will beconstructed

It has due consideration to the step change impact that CRR will have on network capacityand fleet requirements should it be built, by providing stabling development options thatcan be expanded to suit the proposed CRR operations

It provides for the longer term development of the network by preserving those sitesidentified in this study that best suit the future development of the SEQ rail network.


6.1.1 Pre 2021 recommended investment

The recommended investment approach to meeting the stabling requirements of the 2020planning horizon are listed in Table 6.1 below.

Table 6.1: Recommended 2012-2020 stabling investment

Location Scope ExtraStabling (3-car units)

IndicativeCost(2012 $)

Overnight stabling

Nambour Build new depot (Stage 1 – 4 x 6 cartrains

8 $12m

Thorneside/Hemmant Build new depot (Stage 1 - 10 x 6 cartrains – build to 7 car length double endedroads)

20 $34m

Robina Complete 3 x 6 car roads (total 10 x 6 car) 12 $4.8m

Redbank Complete Stage 2, three 2 x 6 car roads 12 $9.6m

Kippa-Ring Build with MBRL to meet initial MBRLservices (10 x 6 car trains)

20 Included inMBRLbudget

TOTAL 72

‘Inner city’ off-peak stabling

Mayne No new stabling to be developed.However, direct connection to FernyGrove line should be built to eliminatecrossing conflicts at Roma Street

(TBD)

Clapham Build initial stage (20 x 6 car) subject toCRR design and constructionrequirements

40 (TBD)

TOTAL 40

Land acquisition to support long term stabling development

Various Refer to Section 6.1.3 for potential scopeof acquisitions

$2m

In addition to providing necessary stabling capacity, the configuration of stabling facilitiesrecommended for investment will also reduce dead running and therefore relieve junctionconflicts at both Roma St (by providing Clapham) and Park road (by providing Cleveland linestabling at either Thorneside or Hemmant).


The following table summarises, at a corridor level, how the investment approach described inTable 6.1 above satisfies the estimated stabling demand for the 2020 planning period.

Table 6.2: Comparison of recommended stabling investment program to estimateddemand

Current(2012)

Recommendedinvestment (newstabling)

Attrition Totalcapacityavailable

2020demand

2021demand

South 30 12 0 42 34 52

North 32 28 4 56 60 78

West 27 12 0 39 46 42

East 6 20 0 26 26 20

Outer networktotal

95 72 4 163 166 192

Inner City 124 40 0 164 168 180

Total 219 112 4 327 334 372Note: Attrition to stabling will likely be at Petrie (4 x 3 car) once Moreton Bay Rail Link is constructed, butattrition could also occur in other locations, such as Nambour and Manly, depending on operationalrequirements and other influences once the new Nambour Stage 1 and Thorneside/Hemmant facilitiesare developed respectively.

As shown in Table 6.2, the recommended investment program meets the optimal stablingrequirements of the network for the 2020 horizon (without Cross River Rail). Slightdiscrepancies exist on some corridors, but the numbers are not of a significance to warrantany concern at this stage of planning.

6.1.2 Considerations for 2021 (post CRR) requirements

With regards to the 2021 stabling demand (with Cross River Rail) there are some larger gapsbetween the capacity provided by the investment program and the demand – particularly in theSouth, North and Inner City.

Options for reducing the gaps include:

Do nothing – the total stabling produced at the conclusion of the investment program (327)is still just in excess of the total fleet size (320).This is similar to today’s situation in thatthe total stabling is almost equivalent to the fleet size. However, the impact of this isincreased dead-running and the associated increase in junction conflicts. Whilst thissituation is tolerable for the 2012 timetable, no planning or modelling has been conductedto conclusively demonstrate whether the planned 2021 operations could support this.

Bring forward targeted components from the next investment period (as described in 6.2).Possible inclusions in this bring-forward could be:

Banyo - to address north capacity but may also help relieve inner city day-time offpeak demand

Clapham Stage 2 - for inner city capacity, subject to operations and siteconstraints

Nambour Stage 2 - again for north, but subject to operations

Mayne expansion plans – to provide additional inner city capacity, but only if itmakes operational and investment sense to do so


Robina, expanding across creek on eastern side - to address south capacity

6.1.3 Post 2021 stabling requirements land preservation

In addition to developing new and existing sites to meet the requirements of the planned 2020/ 2021 stabling demand, land for future stabling facilities beyond 2021 should also bepreserved during this period. Depending on the specific circumstances at each site,acquisition, possibly triggered by hardship provisions, may be required.

The following table demonstrates the land requirements for post 2021 stabling developments.(The table does not include costs for Nambour or Thorneside/Hemmant which will need to beacquired for pre-2021 development).

Table 6.3 Future land preservation recommendations

Site Estimatedacquisitioncost($million) in2012 $

Comment

Ormeau $0.210 Preserve or acquire following more detailed planning torefine concept

Rosewood $0.120 Preserve or acquire following more detailed planning torefine concept

Robina $0.210 Preserve – no need for immediate acquisition

Bethania $1.000 Preserve or acquire following more detailed planning to refineconcept

RedbankNorth

$0.405 Do nothing until western corridor strategy is developed further

Elimbah TBC The Elimbah site currently under investigation by QueenslandRail (N5b) should be preferable to the N5c site investigatedhere. Potential acquisition costs (if any, noting that the site isbroadly in the old rail corridor) were not in scope in this project.However, should this site not be viable, potential landacquisition cost for site N5c of $3.8m could be possible.

The estimated acquisition costs listed in Table 6.3 above are based on land take calculationsusing cadastral data overlaid by the concept designs developed during this study. Assessmentof the likely value of the land was undertaken by experienced land valuation specialists whoconsidered the key factors involved in any purchase, including:

Required land take vs. balance area for each lot impacted – and the sell-off value forunused land

Current and planned future use of the land

Potential for land swaps, amalgamations or sub-divisions.

In most cases the potential acquisition costs (in 2012 $) are not substantial relative to the likelyconstruction costs of each site. This reflects well the selection criteria used to locate potentialsites – and specifically the requirements for each site to score well with regards to its strategicdesignation/planning scheme zoning.

Prior to any acquisition or preservations taking place, detailed planning work will be required todefine with much more accuracy the land requirements at each site.


6.2 Medium to long term 2021-2051 stabling investment program

The key drivers for a major investment in stabling during the medium-long term planningperiod include:

Timing for introduction of the 9 car trains on north-south corridor through CRR

Timing and corridor staging for the introduction of the 7-car trains

General increase in fleet size.

The introduction of longer trains will have a significant impact on current stabling depots fromboth major main line access and siding length constraints. Both the 9 car train and 7 car trainwill require reconfiguration of existing depots (e.g. Mayne, Robina) and the forced closure andreplacement of other depots (e.g. Beenleigh, Caboolture) due to operating constraints andcosts to modify.

The recommended actions for this period are listed in Table 6.4 below.

Table 6.4: Recommended stabling, 2021-2031

DepotLocation

Scope TotalCapacity

ExtraCapacity (3-car equiv)

IndicativeCapital Cost

(2012 $)

Overnight stabling

Elimbah Develop Elimbah and close Caboolture 13 x 9 car1 x 7 car

41 $42m

Nambour Extend 4 x 6 car roads to 9-car and addextra 2 x 9 car roads

6 x 9 car 10 $14.5m

Kippa-Ring No additional required in this period 10 x 7 car 0 nil

Dakabin Develop to suit start-up of StrathpineUrbanLink terminus, or prior to helpmeet day-time off-peak stabling(overflow from Mayne)

14 x 7 car 33 $40m (est-TBD)

Banyo Develop to provide Shorncliffe over-night requirements and part meetoverflow from Mayne for day-time off-peak

9 x 7 car 21 $25m (est-TBD)

Thorneside/Hemmant

Add additional 6 x 7 car roads to matchover-night requirements

16 x 7 car 17 $10m

Robina Expand across creek on eastern sidefor additional trains initially. Extend 5western side roads across creek when 9car trains are introduced.

33 x 9 car 79 $118m

Bethania Develop to suit start-up of Loganleaterminus UrbanLink services.

14 x 7 car 33 $32m

Rosewood Develop when Ipswich/Redbank (South)capacity exceeded.

8 x 6 car 16 $20m


DepotLocation

Scope TotalCapacity

ExtraCapacity (3-car equiv)

IndicativeCapital Cost

(2012 $)

Total 250 $301.5m

Additional options if required

Ormeau Dependent on decision as to future ofBeenleigh as a terminus.

Capacityavailableasrequired

TBD

RedbankNorth

Develop when Redbank (south) andIpswich capacity for day-time off-peak isexceeded.

TBD TBD

‘Inner city’ off-peak stabling

Mayne Major re-configuration to accommodatelonger trains and accesses to/from thesouth and west sectors.

TBD TBD

Clapham Complete development to maximise sitecapability, including for the longer trains.

TBD TBD

Note: TBD –yet to be determined – outside of scope for this study

The quantum of stabling provided at each site will be dependent on the network developmentand fleet acquisition in the intervening period, with the indicative 2031 sizing for each depot asindicated.

Development of stabling beyond 2031 will involve an expansion of new depots developed priorto that time to cater for increase in peak period train services. The new line extensions willdrive changing location of termini and have implications for depots established to meet initialnew corridor needs. The inner city capacity network solution beyond CRR will determine thesectorisation model, train lengths feasible on these sectors and both over-night and day-timeoff-peak stabling requirements.

The depot options identified, and early securing of these sites will allow some flexibility to caterfor the evolving network operation.


7. BibliographyDepartment of Infrastructure and Planning. (2009). South East Queensland Regional Plan 2009-2031.

Brisbane: Queensland Government.Department of Transport and Main Roads. (2011). Connecting SEQ 2031 - An integrated regional plan for

South East Queensland. Brisbane: Queensland Government.Department of Transport and Main Roads. (2012). SEQ Stabling Project Requirements Specification

Discussion Paper. Brisbane: Queensland Government.Franzmann, L., Hunter, R., Nugent, M., & Hawkins, H. (2010). Rail Strategy for SEQ. Brisbane:

Queensland Government.Growth Management Queensland. (2010). Transit oriented development: guide for practitioners in

Queensland. Brisbane: Queensland Government.Queensland Rail. (2009). Train Stabling Strategy. Brisbane: QR Limited.

seq stabling strategic investigation summary report · the purpose and strategic aim of the seq ssi...

Documents