Auckland Transport has applied for resource consent to start digging the first section of the City Rail link from Britomart to Wyndham. This is needed so that construction can begin before the end of the year.
This section is being built as a cut and cover tunnel due to it’s proximity to the surface and as such going to cause huge disruptions while it’s being built, especially to the many buses that use Albert St. We are yet to hear just what AT plan to do to address that particular issue although I understand it is something they are working on right now.
But it’s not just vehicles that will be affected. The images show that significant works need to be done at Britomart itself and that will almost certainly affect how people use the station.
AT say a second resource consent application will happen for the section from Wyndham St to Mt Eden at a later date.
It’s good to see AT taking another step forward with the CRL.
Processing...
Wooohoo!
Hopefully they close lower queen st to general traffic and route the busses up there during the construction. Then when its done we can put the buses back on albert and the public, having experinced lower queen without cars will demand lower queen stays closed
Interesting to see that post-CRL Britomart will have only 4 platforms.
Sensible decision to reduce Britomart to 4 platforms. With the large number of passengers expected to use the outer platforms once CRL opens, placing barriers along the opposite edges will definitely improve safety during overcrowding. The image appears to show the middle platforms not being barriered; could this be an indication that they are intended to be used for intercity or regional services.
Yip. The platforms are already getting pretty crowded and slow at times.
Agree. The platforms are pretty narrow.. maybe need to add platform screen doors in the future.
The area covered by the application starts at the west end of the platforms, so the existing 5 platforms are unaffected.
Britomart was always under built. Subject to hopelessly low predictions of the same people who today oppose the CRL. There frankly is inadequate space for the people who are turning up to use it, so a train slot is being cannibalised for more platform space. However with through-routing more trains will use the two outer lines than the remaining deadend ones.
Is this a mistake we are going to repeat with the new stations? Are same models being used by the same planners? Are the same miserablist politicians pouring scorn on the likely success of the project and threfore slashing funds at every opportunity?
Looking at that axio again is does look like one bay is still double tracked, which means there’s still five tracks, is that right?
Once the crl has been open for a while and starts to struggle with the larger than projected number of passenger running trains to the dead end platforms would be a waste of train paths surely.
What about the surface ramps (for LRT use), are they still there after all this is done and will access to them be lost by the CRL lines going all the way through now?
Maybe won’t use these for LRT anytime soon, but since they are there if we can keep them in reserve it would make sense to do so.
Yes won’t ever be for LRT, but using them as platforms makes connection with the concourse is tricky. When pax number really high could use these for alighting only, doors open one side only for exit before other side opens for entry- very efficient, people not pushing past each other….out one side and in the other. Separate exits to street with own HOP barriers…. Not good for transfers to other platforms but that’s not expected to be a high number here, I’d have thought, except Eastern Line to Parnell etc…. Could then put much higher volumes through as main building and concourse would be for departures only but a number of new exits would need to be built.
The LRT ramps are outside the existing platforms, joining the formation beyond the east (down) end of the patforms, so aren’t affected by the CRL line extensions at the west (up) end.
But they don’t have any space for platforms of their own, and only connect to the same two track throat tunnel as the current trains use. So they are quite useless to run light rail on: can’t go anywhere, and can’t stop to let people on or off!
Best idea I’ve heard for the space is to use them for exit-only platforms.
Building two new platforms and their associated paraphernalia (lifts, escalators, barriers, etc) would cost an awful lot of money, which I doubt could be justified. If platform capacity becomes an issue, reducing dwell times by smartening up operating procedures (eg driver door control) and reducing headways through signalling improvements would probably be much cheaper.
Mike the cost would be small for the utility if the demand is there; as that would mean the system is so rocking… and nothing needs to be done, or spent, until it is. I don’t see a problem here, and there is no other apparent use for the space.
“the cost would be small” – I’d be very surprised; “nothing needs to be done [until the system is rocking]” – absolutely agree; “no other apparent use for the space” – I’ve no idea, but a lot will have changed before there’s a need to look at this.
It’s just a shame that this rare bit of PT future proofing has come to naught.
Well that was a daft scheme compared to the CRL, which unlocks the whole existing rail network and provides a real grade separate Rapid Transit core to the bus and ferry systems. I think we will find that space useful in the future.
Don’t write off tram-trains……and they could make great use of the Britomart station tram/train ramps. The stopping place would be at ground level outside the current Britomart transport centre where the buses park.
While there is no cost effective use for tram/trains at present, but that is not to say this will always be the case. Compared to heavy rail, or the proposed light rail, tram trains are in many ways the imperfect compromise. But in certain niche markets overseas they are really effective, including metre gauge, which is slightly less than New Zealand’s track gauge.
And there may well be a niche in future for them here. With Auckland’s train protection system, the basic building blocks are there to develop into a more advanced train control system. This would become a type comparable to those in Europe, used to protect lighter weight tram-trains operating in a heavy rail environment.
Here is a link to a regional Spanish network operating metre gauge tram-trains.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alicante_Tram
So, I reckon – keep those Britomart ramps.
Sure so tram trains can stop outside on the street… so why bring them down in to Britomart? The thing there is you have to just stick them into the existing tracks in the eastern tunnel, where the tram trains would need to use the same signalling system as the trains so there isn’t really any gain. It’s just a case of replacing one train with one (presumably smaller) tram.
If you want to run tram trains, say out east to Botany, the best thing to do would be to take them past Britomart at street level and join them to the main line just after quay park junction. Joining them in at the throat tunnel and forcing them through the junction is about the worst thing you could do, it would just add more pressure on the weakest link in the network.
Yes, fair call on the congestion aspect through the Britomart throat.
One application I thought may be useful for tram-trains is the airport link. Not ideal, but a possible get out of jail card if the proposed Kirkbride Road layout really does screw up heavy rail for good. Tram-trains would be less ideal than heavy rail, but certainly faster than a transfer at Onehunga or conventional light-rail down Dominion Road, even if Dominion Road does end up with dedicated ROW over large sections.
Tram-trains could however combine with a tram link down Dominion Road creating two possible airport options; express via Onehunga or stop at all stations via Dom Road.
For an airport link via Onehunga, you’d need to route the tram-train alongside Britomart to rejoin the line up to Newmarket and beyond to Onehunga. Could this somehow deal with the possible sources of traffic at the foot of the Parnell rise not well served by the proposed Parnell station?
Trams on our rail lines will always be a poor option because of platform heights (and other rail specific conditions). To suit our high platforms they’d make awful street trams. Best to run trains on the rail network and trams on the surface.
And run trains for longer distances where they will always be faster because of own right of way, over longer distances that difference seriously adds up. Including between the airport and the city. Airport to Manukau and Botany is a different matter, however.
Patrick, your comments are true to a point, but it is the detail design engineering to support a specific business case that determines feasibility.
Clearly tram-trains work as a niche product in a number of cities overseas with a range of circumstances that have some similarities to NZ. Robust analysis would have provided the case to invest in preference to other options. On that basis, it would be foolish to summarily dismiss tram-trains from ever having a place in Auckland.
You might note that rail to the airport has consistently been an easier sell than the city rail link. Without detracting in any way from the importance of the city rail link, what I have suggested offers the possibility that tram trains are able to remove Onehunga, Airport and Dominion road traffic from requiring access to the CRL, and they also deal with the Kirkbride Road issue.
tuktuk, yeah, sure, by all means lets have an in-depth study by experts, I am just commenting on a blog [!]. If you like I’ll now add; ‘It seems to me’ in front of everything, although don’t we all take that as read?
But I think you contradict yourself a little when you then go on to say that because people like rail to the airport as a priority we should find a way, any way, to do that first. The in-depth studies by experts, however, clearly and consistently say that the CRL is better value and higher priority.
My view [for what it’s worth] is suspicious of half-pie solutions, tram-train systems do work in a few places elsewhere, primarily in places with large legacy rail systems with high levels of redundancy; left over track from the pre-car rail age. Auckland doesn’t have that, we have a crowded little one and two track network of considerable length but not much coverage. But it does offer nearly the only separate right of way out of traffic [esp. once are level crossings removed], and this is precious and must be used as efficiently as possible.
What needs to be added with new complementary systems, bus, bikes, ferries, and trams is extended coverage, not more systems on the same routes, IMV. LRT in different directions, but city to airport is too far for anything still in traffic even for only half of the route; I can’t see how it can be time competitive. Am pretty sure any decent study would conclude that [happy to be shown to be wrong- I have learnt a huge amount here and have ‘upgraded’ my views many times]
One of the very good things about Transport Blog is that it is very open to discussion of a range of ideas including different modes.
I just didn’t want to see any given mode automatically dismissed, in this instance tram-trains.
Transport Blog remains an oasis of ideas for a better a future and I really commend and respect the amount of time and energy it must take to keep the site going from strength to strength. In particular, a key feature of the site is putting the techo transport stuff within a town planning and architecture context.
Is that spur on Lower Albert for a future line to the shore?
Unlikely. Might be where the TBM is going to be assembled.
Shore line runs under Wellesley St, via a Wynyard Station.
The plan says temporary support area, so maybe not a spur
It’s not a spur it’s construction access.
Does this mean that there will be some additional storage tracks available for some time towards Wyndham?
yes
Yes!! Some long term engineering that ticks all the boxes. Civils this is what it is all about, something great for 150 years plus and takes the blockage off the.main spine of the main rapid network. Go hard for the cities sake. Start of the transport industry 180 degree turn hopefully!!
Rail wise this can work if West services terminate at Newmarket and transfer passengers to Britomart bound trains and vice versa. That will reduce access and platform demand at Britomart. Similarly this could happen with Onehunga services at Penrose if the distance between platforms could be reduced, again another service not duplicating at Britomart, (I don’t think there’s enough room at Newmarket for both terminating)
As for the buses, its going to be even worse than the clusterf%@K that currently exists in downtown.
Question: Does this mean there will be some through services at Britomart once this initial section is completed?
I wouldn’t expect so, no station to go to. But using it for stabling very helpful at peek times, run them all in at morning peek and park them up the spur and get them off the platform for the next incoming train. And reverse at the end of the day, should do wonders
Is the signalling being designed to allow the new tracks to be used to turn trains round, thus increasing current capacity?
Hopefully, could get an extra four or so trains at peak if so.
I doubt that there will be any track laid in the cut and cover sections until the rest of the CRL is built. The purpose of this exercise is to align with the construction timelines of the Downtown centre redevelopment. Track and other rail systems can be installed later
Yes but there is case for commissioning sufficient lengths of the tunnels to aid scheduling and efficiency, and inter peak storage. This would add cost, or rather bring it forward, so would presumably only occur if demand warrants it.
That 600m twin track first section of tunnel could stable 12 single units, or 6 double length trains, between the peaks.
That would allow the peak time capacity of Britomart to be boosted by up to six trains during the peak period, or three of they were double consists.
Why wouldn’t they commission it, with a gain like that for the cost of tracks and signals they’ll need to build anyway.
Interestingly the resource consent docs specifically say that this is about the tunnels only and not any operation of the trains. Says the consent to operate trains will be part of the consent for the rest of the project (which I would expect to be done by the time this is finished being built).
On one side it makes sense to make use of the infrastructure if it’s there however on the other side I imagine the govt could argue that with a few more trains per hour it delays the need for the rest of the project by a year or two.
Both tunnels are to be bored from the Mt Eden end so the lower Albert section will not have anything to do with the TBM.
Why not continue with the cut and cover to Aotea station?
cost… you may have noticed some visionaries in Wellington are refusing to let us spend our taxes wisely on transport infrastructure in Auckland. Also this is a sensible division of the task, keep disruption contained, Aotea is also the site on the end of the bored tunnel so I’m assuming that we don’t want to do it until we have the main boring task out of the way.
Aotea will be a big job in it self, staging is sensible on lots of levels, including skills and construction sector capacity issues.
Visionaries in Auckland (Key, Joyce), Christchurch (Brownlee) and Napier (Bridges) actually – the lack of vision has nothing to do with Wellingtonians!
My apologies to Napier – Bridges is, of course, from Tauranga (still not Wellington).
Mike I think everyone understands that Wellington is shorthand for the government…. where ever its constituent parts are from. And anyway Joyce, the arch provincialist, is fully ex-urban.
Misleading shorthand, though, because it’s nothing to do with Wellington or Wellingtonians – and the prime decision maker is an Aucklander. So why not “the Beehive” (cf the UK’s “Whitehall”)? That way you’re not maligning hundreds of thousands of innocents, nor absolving certain Aucklanders from their lack of vision.
London, Washington, Moscow, Tokyo, Canberra, Ulan Bator, Apia….
Imagine they’ll need the station box open to pull the TBM out of so not much point in building it now if they’d have to open it all up again in a few years time.
Since some of this is going ahead, will it see two(UP and DOWN mains)platforms lengthened at Britomart to accomodate more units there?
I think it is ridiculous that Britomart is only going to have 2 platforms for commuter rail…Surely it would be smarter to have some trains halt at Britomart- with the platforms already there.There is only a limited number of services you can have if you only have 2 functioning platforms….
Instead of the connection at Aotea which also looks to have 2 platforms…- more businesses are at Wynyard Quarter/Shortland and Lower Albert.
Not to mention the bus stop and ferry terminal.Surely 40 trains cannot stop at britomart for 3-4 mins each in one hour…No point constructing something if capacity is going to be reduced and long term expansions is curtailed….40 trains per hour at the main station is not enough- if this much money is invested the cost of ensuring 4 tracks fully functioning and at least 80 trains per hour should not proportionally be that much higher.
we need to think beyond a northern line ( and it should not be where the rail bus runs now…) and look at an eastern line ( one that actually goes east)
a north western line and a central line( trams don’t cut it when you have bus lanes…not worth the investment)
thus considering the CRL is the HEART of the network making it really really big is vital…
most successful cities do that. HKG airport was seen as far to big when it was planned etc- they said it would reach capacity in 2050 etc… its going to reach capacity in the next 2-3 years.
Two platforms is enough when you only have two tracks. Two platforms at 2.5 mins per train (they’ll only stop for about 60 seconds each) is 48 trains an hour. That’s four lines running every five minutes.
Each train will hold just under a thousand people when full up. That’s just shy 100,000 people in two hours. This thing could singlehandleldy move every existing commuter into the city centre at peak times.
If we do a northern line or any else they should have their own tunnels and stations, not cram them all into the first one. The CRL doesn’t have to do everything for the rest of time.
Nick, don’t disagree, but there is a physical people movement aspect to this.
If a crush loaded EMU (6 car) arrives at Britomart from the Eastern Line when CRL is working, assume 2/3rds alight and 1/3rd stay on to continue up the line to say Aotea or K’Rd or points out west.
That means about 600 people are exiting the train and assume a similar number (another 600) also boarding to go up the line, all in 60 seconds. through about 12 “exit/entry points” – the 6 car EMU doors.
i.e. About 50 “per door”, exit, and a similar number per door, board.
It takes about 60 seconds for a fairly loaded 3 car EMU to fully empty of everyone once it stops at Britomart and the doors open in my observation.
Thats 6 doors with about 50 people exiting per door, most doors can allow one maybe two people to exit a second, so at 50 per door, thats about a maximum 50 seconds of “waiting” while everyone alights.
And thats not time contrained right now, as the EMUs always have to change drivers/ends, so the dwell time is quite longer at Britomart, so the crush to board is not present like it will be its a through station.
if we got on average 50 out per door in 30 seconds thats about 2 per seconds exiting the doors, then allow 10 seconds for doors to open and another 10 to shut, so thats 50 seconds minimum of “dwell time” needed to unload the train.
If we’re picking up folks too, then we’d need another 30 seconds to let everyone board, so 50 seconds becomes 1 minute 20 dwell time once door times are included.
Yes its doable – but not through the same doors if you are effectively changing the majority of the passengers at a station.
[And when some are staying on the train and some exiting, there is a need for people on the train to shuffle around to let departing folks get off the train]
So, I reckon we’re going to need to use those “LRT ramps” on the outer side of these platforms to allow the bulk of those 600+ folks to alight – while the 600 wanting to board the train come in from the Britomart platform side.
Thus doubling the throughput.
Patrick did say yesterday that open the LRT ramp side doors first,to allow those to get off, then the normal side.
But it may that people may want to alight and board from both sides both RLT ramps and Britomart side, so it may have to be open both sides at once.
And for 30 seconds there is a scrum as those alighting push past those boarding etc, then doors close and we’re on our way again.
Without both sets of doors in use in the CRL a 60 second dwell time will become very difficult to achieve.
This may also mean that other CRL stations e.g Aotea station etc with their island platform designs – that CRL trains will need a longer dwell time to allow the single side exiting/boarding that will occur.
Sot he maximum throughput of the CRL will be dictated by the longest dwell time at the CRL stations, meaning that it may be that 24 TPH (1 every 2.5 minutes may be the best achievable depending on usage patterns at the stations.
And if two CRL trains arrive at say Aotea at the same time (forecast as the future busiest station in the network), then the central island platform could become massively overloaded with people as two 6 car train loads exit and another two try and board.
If 600 people get of it would be at Aotea not Britomart and mt eden will be the only big transfer station but will be nowhere near 600. Maybe 100 boarding at each and slightly more at Aotea after the shore line goes in
Realistically crush loaded would be around 100 at mteden 200 krd 500 aotea and 250 at britomart. With loading
Nick’s scenario paints a (futuristic, but possible) scenario, in which 1040 or so people a train transit “through” Britomart at (AM/PM) peak (i.e. arrive – or leave – on a train) on either the up or the down lines.
While a train every 2.5 minutes = “average” per minute of 410, trains are discrete things that arrive and depart every 2.5 minutes so average per minute doesn’t really matter.
And note that just before a train arrives 1000 or so people could be waiting to board it at that platform and BM doesn’t really handle those sorts of numbers well now and CRL doesn’t plan on reconfiguring the platforms that much.
But anyway assume 25% alight (and a similar number board), at BM thats 500 people a “stop” spread over two lines, or 250 per “train” as an average (=21/door), so yes, thats do-able as BM stands for a 6 car EMU every 2.5 minutes in either direction with 60 second dwell.
But the thing is when sizing infrastructure like this, you have to size for likely peaks not the averages.
So what sort of peak could we envisage?
What if there was a match on at Eden Park and its half an hour before kick off time, so its “peak load” at all CRL stations including Britomart as train loads of people converge on Eden park.
So all the trains going through BM are picking up (on the up line), and few getting off at BM, and assume the pick up rate is 50% of each train load are trying to board at BM having bused, ferried or walked, driven etc to BM to get a train
– then the load is 500 trying to fit on one train in its 60 second dwell time, fitting 500 people on to a 6 car emu over 12 doors = 41/door – do-able in 60 seconds just with door opening and closing included.
And assume the down line is also out of action as its being used as an up line “stuffing point” for Aotea station – so the normal 2nd line is out of action/is not picking up at BM), so its a single line, peak load, single direction scenario.
Now move it down the road to Aotea, where you have a similar number arriving per minute on North Shore trains to go to Eden park, then you can have a problem – you’d need one dedicated line just to move the bulk of the “up line” fans to Eden Park on the normal (from BM and points further out) trains, and a second up line just to move the NS fans to Eden Park (I assume you’d run the CRL down line as an up line here to get these NS fans moved as well in this scenario). As there is no way you can fit a NS train load onto a mostly full from BM train quickly.
I assume here that the down line is “stuffed full” of empty trains between BM and Aotea, to handle the load, so as each train on the down line fills up and departs Aotea – the next train comes out of the tunnel to Aotea to take its place for loading, the loads and departs 2.5 minutes later. [And the line of trains in the tunnel is replenished by trains going “up” via the down line through BM].
So while this is happening, you’d have double the load of BM station folks – funnelling through a constrained station platform area at Aotea.
Yes it will be a nice problem to have (all fans using PT to get to the Game), it would cope, but it can become a real problem to manage if you don’t design for it.
When the game is over, the reverse will play out, except now you may well have more people getting off the trains at Aotea – as they all alight at Aotea to go the pubs and other entertainments – as well transfer to the Aotea line to the Shore.
Like I said, not a problem yet, but one that needs thought about now as top how to handle it.
And within the realms of possibility.
never say never Sailor…. the future is unwritten.
I’m not sure why Auckland will need separate boarding/alighting platforms when busy metros such as London’s (peal dwell time c40s) don’t.
One thing that is needed is snappier working, eg the doors should open as soon as the train stops.
London has some terribly cramped and dangerously crowded platforms, so they’re hardly the example of what to do.
Anyway, tube trains have four sets of doors per carriage, ours have two.
“London has some terribly cramped and dangerously crowded platforms, so they’re hardly the example of what to do” – precisely, so Auckland’s relatively spacious platforms should make things easier without having to resort to the major expense of separate boarding/alighting platforms. .
Poor design of the station (particularly Britomart), they never figured it would be as popular as it was, so didn’t design it for London Tube type volumes.
And Aotea platform and tunnels have to fit in the width of a road corridor so it too is constrained as to capacity, Mt Eden and K’Rd station(s) shouldn’t suffer that problem to the same degree as they are more laterally spread out.
I prefer the system they have in oarts of germany and the Soviet metros. The doors start opening before the train has fully stopped. Means once it has stopped u dont have to wait for the doors
Why would you want to hold the train up for 3-4 mins?
Door opens, people get out, people get in, doors close. Shouldn’t take more than a minute.
Holding the train up for 4 minutes will delay all the non-britomart journeys. Allot of people will be coming from the south and east heading to aotea square and not want to hang around for no apparent reason in britomart.
whatever I guess most other cities are Stupid to have more than 2 platforms at their MAIN transport hub….
typical NZ mentality only plan for the next 10 years with no future or expanding to new routes ( aka more than the better transport plan…)
you just cannot efficiently run trains from 5- hopefully 8 different lines on just 2 platforms… its just ridiculous.
Wait NO it makes sense cause we are only going to have trains every 20 min on each line… sad and what a waste of an investment
MT Eden- Britomart should at least be quadruple tracked
Using the logic of most people here, SYD was stupid to have 6 platforms at townhall station…
same with Melbourne at Southern Cross
Victoria Terminus in Bombay…
all nutters who know nothing about public transport!!
well guess what those cities outdo AKL- I wonder why…
MrBee; indeed if we were building from a blank canvas then all sorts of infra would be different, but that isn’t the case, and anyway AKL will never be as big as Sydney, yet the CRL and the new Metro system it will enable will be extremely efficient, tight but very well used. And high utilisation of infra is no bad thing. What I would campaign for is that the stations are not underbuilt, and the addition of future lines not made more difficult than otherwise might be the case, but they shouldn’t be parallel to the existing ones but rather cover new territory, like perpendicular to the CRL, to Wynyard and the North Shore. We do need to husband our money; invest smartly, four tunnels on one route would be a crazy over build now; two will be transformational enough.
Jonathan, the design of Aotea Station allows for the future North Shore line, and whatever it connects to, to have new east west platforms perpendicular to the north-south ones. The CRL has to take the existing four lines, and will do so with up to five minute headways on every line by through routing as pairs. The second tunnel can take the next four lines, also each every five minutes or better. This is a metro model, high frequency on a small number of service patterns.
The lumbering commuter rail model of Melbourne and Sydney is exactly what we should avoid (and indeed exactly what both Melbourne and Sydney are trying to fix). Have you ever caught a train from Southern Cross? For a start you have to hike for hundreds of metres to get to the right platform, and that is after figuring out which platform you need to be at. Getting from the street to the train can take ten minutes. The thing is a big messy waste.
Except Britomart already has the Platforms for a North Shore line…
I just do not see people from Wynyard Quarter, Lower Albert or Shortland St- where most businesses are walking up to catch a train to the shore, when before it was mere 2 min away at Britomart
Aotea is not really the center of business activity…
not to mention Britomart is the hub- ferry /bus etc it is silly to get people from Central Suburbs to take a bus to Britomart/Lower Albert and get them to walk up many roads to a station to get to the shore, when previously it was a mere hop to Britomart.
I don’t understand why Britomart can’t be redesigned to have all 5 tracks run through so North Shore etc can easily be connected.
is Aotea going to be designed with the North Shore platforms in place? all will they have to dig again…
when you do a massive project it pays to plan well in the long term…
Jonathan – no it doesn’t have platforms for a shore line and would require substantial modification to do so. Even if that happened it doesn’t address other and probably larger issues with what your suggesting. It would require a junction largely under the downtown mall site which would severely limit development options for it. A junction would also reduce the potential capacity of the existing lines as Britomart is still limited by the two track throat tunnel. A junction right there would also cause even more chances for unreliability -they are already issues with scheduling trains through the ones we have.
Also you’re wrong to say most employment is around Britomart and Wynyard. Far more is currently closer to Aotea and that doesn’t include all the students who would use Aotea either. It is predicted that even without a NS line Aotea will easily be the busiest station for this reason.
Except the numbers say otherwise; Aotea is exactly under heart of the densest concentration of employment in the Country, a short walk to two universities and just as connected to the other lines as Britomart. And short transfer to the ferry building should someone want to travel from the Shore to then go back again by boat. Britomart’s additional platforms are for intercity services. Anyway adding another whole line’s passengers to Britomart’s already crowded platforms makes no sense at all, let alone the difficulty and lack of redundancy in having everything all end up in one room! The Shore line will have it’s own new platforms under and perpendicular to the CRL, and is being planned for in the new build. There is future proofing here, and hopefully it is open to the potential considerable success of this system, after all pax is growing at 18%pa now, before even all the new trains are running let alone the the CRL being open… [that’s a doubling every four years!]
There are plenty of options for a Shore line, here’s just one [direct to the airport?: http://greaterakl.wpengine.com/2012/11/29/300-queen-st-the-perfect-future-transit-station/
> Britomart already has the Platforms for a North Shore line…
No it doesn’t, there is no line to the north shore, and it’s not planned to go near britomart.
> I just do not see people from Wynyard Quarter, Lower Albert or Shortland St- where most businesses are walking up to catch a train to the shore, when before it was mere 2 min away at Britomart
People from wynyard quarter going to the shore will get on at the planned wynyard station. lower albert and shortland st workers can choose which station to walk to. Britomart is a 10 minute walk from wynyard, not 2 mins.
> Aotea is not really the center of business activity…
Except that it is.
> silly to get people from Central Suburbs to take a bus to Britomart/Lower Albert and get them to walk up many roads to a station to get to the shore, when previously it was a mere hop to Britomart.
I live in the central suburbs. I often work on the shore. At the moment my bus terminates at the civic and i walk 10-15 mins down to get the northern express. Catching the shore line from aotea will be a massive improvement.
The previous central suburb i lived in the buses terminated on Victoria St after travelling along Wellesley, again not convenient for Britomart, but is so for Aotea. For other central suburb buses that do travel to britomart, passengers for the shore can simply get off the bus earlier rather than continue to Britomart and walk back up. No doubt the routing of buses would be reviewed before any shore line goes live in order to optimise transfers.
Post, CRL britomart is primarily a through station on a metro network. Overseas you will see main stations with many platforms, but those are typically terminal stations for inter-city routes. They need many platforms because there are so many different services from different parts of the country that are terminating there. Britomart has exactly one inter-city service, and it only runs once every two days.
If you take a look at say London Kings Cross and St Pancras station, the mainline terminal stations have dozens of platforms. The metro tube stops though have one platform per track. Therefore with one track in and one track out, and no terminating inter-city services, britomart needs only two platforms.
I don’t think Britomart will be our main station in the future. I think Aotea will be our main station. Especially if they are going to build a link to the North Shore that goes through Aotea.
Most city workers, shoppers, and residents will want to get on and off at Aotea. Most western line passengers will want to get on at Aotea.
They should future-proof Aotea right now.
Yes both western and southern line trains will arrive at Aotea before Britomart, it will be mad busy, and extremely useful for many different destinations.
Where do u see than plan to run the southern line through the tunnel first? The main page on the CRL shows southern train coming into britomart and then the tunnel
Where does the indication come from that southern lines will hit britomart via the tunnel?
I was looking for the planned/suggested running patterns the other day, and all i could find on the CRL site was an indication that in ‘the future’ southern lines will come in to britomart via parnell, and then head out west via the tunnel.
https://at.govt.nz/projects-roadworks/city-rail-link/city-rail-link-route/#future
Istr Micheal Cullen saying aotea would be bigger than britomart back in 2008, in a herald article (son of britomart it was called).
Only the TBM head needs to be lifted out at Aotea. The remaining sections of machine fit inside the lined tunnel and can be drawn back out to the starting point. The head is relatively short so could be removed with little disruption to the, hopefully, complete Aotea Station.
With luck we will see the consent application going in for Aotea before the tunnels so work can carry on from Wyndam St without pause.
I like the sound of that Don.
methunks this ist goed news.
Can they not use the TBM from NSW when the tunnels for the North West Rail Link in Sydney are completed? http://nwrail.transport.nsw.gov.au/The-Project/Tunnelling
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHs8007mDnU
TBMs are built for a job and when that job is completed they are scrapped. If you want a fail using someone elses old machine……..
The problem is not the supply of equipment it is those in central govt refusing to let us spend our taxes as we see fit.
Not scrapped. Sent back for refurb / mods for next job from what I understand.
Why not Alice?
Two reasons:
– Diameter, three lanes of cars (road traffic) is a lot bigger than 1 train
– Geology, as Luke has alluded to the geological formations that are being tunnelled through are different so the cutting head will need to be different.
I believe designing the boring machine for the specific job will be more cost effective, primarily because the time taken to complete the job will be less and the wage cost to operate the tunnelling becomes a factor as the length of the job increases.
And the CRL tunnels need to be two separate tunnels for safety, not just one double width tunnel with two tracks in it.
(and a double track tunnel would need 4 times the volume of excavation of two single track tunnel).
In the case of a fire or other emergency in a tunnel, escape/fire exit tunnels between the two CRL tunnels will allow the taking of refuge in the adjacent tunnel.
Probably designed to mulch their way thru a different type of dirt?
Auckland’s “dirt” = volcanic basalt lava flows.
Sydney’s “dirt” = sandstone.
Our dirt would rip the teeth off a TBM designed for Sydney.
I do not think the tunnel goes through basalt. I think the alignment is through waitemata group rocks which are sandstones and mudstones (plus some grit layers).
On another note has anyone heard any news about the light rail projects. I have heard a rumour (unconfirmed ) that they are thinking about tunnelling beneath K road. Is this going to be a short tunnel to avoid the ridge line or something longer ( I am thinking the vector tunnel might be a problem then). Maybe they will dust off the old URS designs for lower Queen street which where supposed to be part of the britomart project.
Auckland is built on a series of volcanoes, so without doubt they will hit basalt. Maybe not in the cut and cover part they’re doing first, but definitely in the tunnel they plan to do later with a TBM. When they were digging on the other side of Queen St, at the bottom of Albert Park, they found massive lava flows – no reason to think that the other side of the street would be different. As Don says, TBMs are built for each job to suit the conditions.
Regarding K Road – when TransportBlog published the original sections through / along the line, it showed why the line needed to go deep below K Road – because it has to get below the motorway on the other side. My guess would be that they will be a long way deeper than any other tunnel in the vicinity. If it was anywhere near the surface in Karanagahape, it would come bursting out in mid air (on tracks), and zoom over the motorway. While that would be pretty exciting to see, it’d be a bugger to build with all Auckland’s motorway traffic in the way.
Oops, sorry, just realized that you were asking about LR under K Rd – my mistake.
As I understand it there are sections of volcanic rock to contend with for the bored part of the CRL.
If a LR route is planned up Queen St crossing K Rd into Upper Queen St it would probably need to pass under K Rd, but that would be more like a bridge, or underpass, than a tunnel as such, ie not very long. It would then make sense of the hitherto absurd over-widening of Upper Queen St forced through by some drunk-on-Auto-priority traffic engineer a decade or so ago.
Happy result, I guess there could be platforms there? Be a great place to park the bike and use the LR to defeat the hills either into the city, or up Dom Rd for some Asian treats, for gentler riders wanting to stick to the ridges…
I just checked with the Geology/Hydrogeology support team on the CRL project. There is no basalt predicted to be within the tunnel alignment (it is just Waitemata Group for the drill logs at the depth that the tunnel will be constructed). The said the basalt that is within the project is just beyond the southern portal, in a cut and fill section of the project between the southern portal and Mt Eden Station (South of the Kingsland ridge is what they actually said). The Albert Park volcanics do not cross Queen Street (or only slightly to the other side – it basically hit the Queen Street valley, did a sharp turn and the flowed down the stream valley to the sea). They said that generally TBM can not cope with a change in geology like switching from siltstone to basalts, they are configured for one type of geology. They also mention that basalt is too hard for most TBMs, and said that in LA where basalt was encountered constructing the subway for the 1984 LA Olympics that they decided to blast it instead of using the TBM. Wiki also talks about the problem that TBMs had with crumbling basalt in constructing the Roberston tunnel (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robertson_Tunnel). With the exception of the volcanic cones themselves, lava flows are a surficial feature (the Mt Eden lava flows are the thickest I have encountered during drilling ~ 42.5m thick but in most places I have encountered basalt lava flows they are less than 5 m thick). The design time does not expect for the TBM to deal with basalt for the CRL tunnel.
They also said ALICE could not be used because as part of the Waterview project it was agreed that ALICE would be scrapped and some parts sold back to the manufacturer (I think I have seen a news report saying that as well or perhaps it was a post on this forum).
thanks andy, that’s great info, and good news. And of course the Waterview TBM can’t used for the CRL tunnels completely wrong size, and anyway they are optimised for each task.
F yeah! When’s thé starting ceremony i’ll bring m’y spade.
I don’t quite understand the need for light rail to go under K rd.
The Auckland trams used to be able climb Queen St to K rd so therefore I assume the reason is to prevent traffic displacement on K rd. Reason anyone?
Mainly to keep traffic flowing on K’Rd I expect more than LRT limitation, after all it has to make it up the Queen St “hill” to get the KRd.
And allows a K’Rd transfer station right under K’Rd.
Three reasons I’d have thought: make the route quicker, eliminate disruption to east west traffic on K (vehicles, bikes, pedestrians), reduce the height and flatten the curve at the top. Remember modern trams are long, you don’t want them going over a peak!
Old trams didn’t cross KRd, they turned into it, or out of it in fact, didn’t they only run down Upper Queen?
For LRT to work well every intersection and each part of the way will have to designed to reduce delay as much as possible, priority signals etc, but also any opportunity to bypass traffic must be taken.
Any reason you don’t like?
Patrick this Whites Aviation photo from 1947 clearly shows K’Rd/Queen St intersection – it has tram tracks going left and right from (upper) Q’St uphill into K’Rd – but none at all on (what we now know as) Upper Queen St on the other side of K’Rd.
http://ndhadeliver.natlib.govt.nz/content-aggregator/getIEs?system=tapuhi&id=1508638 (Full record: http://tapuhi.natlib.govt.nz/cgi-bin/spydus/NAV/GLOBAL/OPHDR/1/1508638)
Also shows the K’Rd/Symonds intersection which had lines from Symonds St and K’Rd intersection in a “wye”, so trams could get onto Symonds St going both north and south on Symonds from K’Rd (and v.v.).
Also shows the original cemetary between Alex Evans and K’Rd in its full extent before they shoved the motorway through half of it.
I think it my be a design option. Not sure they have downsected options yet. I do not think it is more than a feasibility and costing option study.
It is only a rumour, something that someone mentioned. I was wondering if anyone knew more.
A quick point, the old trams were small unibodied things made of wood on a cast iron chassis, a bit shorter than a standard bus, with a high floor, dickey little steps… and basically zero consideration for safety.
The fact that trams of a hundred year old design (built to hundred year old standards) could do something doesn’t mean its applicable to the latest model of light rail vehicle. LRVs these days really are a metro train running in the street, not a wooden ‘horseless horse-trolley’ on tracks.
After all, the first generation of piston engined airliners could take off within the wingspan of a 747. Just because old airlines used to take off from a grassy strip at Hobsonville doesn’t mean the cutting edge ones can!
You mean the old trams were all the things that a modern LRT is not – but hopefully any LRT’s we get will be as fast as those trams were.
[The movies I’ve seen of the old trams on Queen St showed they could move pretty quickly, even allowing for the visual speed up due to the higher frame rate those old movies are usually projected at now.]
Any modern LRT can accelerate much faster than the passengers inside it can stand.
Problem is more that sudden braking if you haven’t designed your right of way right. And even if we do, we WILL have the occasional pedestrian jumping in the way and requiring an emergency brake. LRTs brake almost like cars, so you can imagine the jolt (that’s why they tend to come with even the handrails covered in foam).
Can I ask if the number of tracks leading into Britomart will be increased from 2-4, ending permanently the capacity issues?
Also it will be good if after construction the section of Albert Street between Wyndham Street and Quay Street and turn it into something like Wellingtons Cuba Mall
No and unlikely.
Nicholas, to answer a little more thoroughly. Britomart’s capacity issues are being ‘permanently’ solved [well at least substantially improved] by through-routing the station, turning it from a terminus to a Metro Station. This is increasing the access capacity from 2 points to 4, by adding 2 new ways in or out at the other end from the existing ones. This a way better than doubling the same way in and out.
Albert St will be re-built, how well or poorly depends on the balance of needs between the transportation and place making… how many buses and how much bus priority, how much room for general traffic, width of pavements, what happens to those slip lanes, any bike lanes? Trees?