Consultation: QR/TL versus CityRail

[somebody]

For those who may be interested, CityRail are planning to implement a new timetable for the Illawarra line.  The proposed timetable is available here: http://www.cityrail.info/timetables/2010/

Note how they are actually calling for feedback, for which submissions close next month, for implementation around the end of the year.  This timetable will take advantage of the full duplication of the Cronulla branch (which I believe is unnecessary) and greatly speed up the peak expresses from Cronulla.  Also have a 15 minute frequency to Cronulla off peak with pretty much full time express operation. 

QR/TL are planning to implement a slightly tweaked Ipswich/Caboolture timetable around the middle of the year, and we haven't seen a damn thing.

[#Metro]

I do know that they have consultations every now and then, but they seem ad hoc.
Last time the timetables changed, everyone kicked up a stink, and they had to be amended.

Interesting to know, the CityCat has a ferry at least every 20 minutes in the off peak...
Why not trains? Why not buses within the inner ring?

[mufreight]

Translink consult with commuters, you have to be kidding, the resident 5 year old feral could shoot holes in what their experts will propose, the lack the ability to co-ordinate rail services with other rail services and when it comes to rail/bus connections one doubts they have ever read the rail timetables before setting out those for conecting bus services and if they condesended to consult with the commuters who use these services? they might be forced to publicly admit the levels of their incompetence.

[stephenk]

I think the forthcoming Ipswich - Caboolture timetable will have a significant re-write. I think QR are starting to listen with the CRG groups, and I am expecting that will try and gain feedback on the new timetables before they are introduced. Sydney CityRail's customer consultation on timetables seems to be pretty good.

Lets just hope that this years QR timetables don't repeat the mistakes of the March 2008 Ferny Grove Line timetable. This resulted in only a few days notice to passengers, severe overcrowding, and a partial re-write of the timetable after 2 days. I find it difficult to understand how QR did not foresee the problems with having a 20min all stations gap in the middle of the am peak! Even after the re-write, the timetable is still rather mediocre.

[Mozz]

Thanks for reminding me of that one Stephen - IIRC there was also an initial "go on the attack" approach to the new timetable which blamed commuters for not changing their patterns of travel to the CBD to suit the new timetable but that strategy was quickly withdrawn.

[somebody]

I think the forthcoming Ipswich - Caboolture timetable will have a significant re-write.

Let's hope so, but do you have a reason for saying so?  Is it just an impression from a CRG, or more solid?

they might be forced to publicly admit the levels of their incompetence.

And there's the rub.

[ozbob]

As far as I am aware there has been no active general timetable consultation of the form above for CityRail.  The various CRGs do raise the various line specific issues at the respective meetings, and there is feedback direct to QR and TransLink by various commuters.

I would like to see proposed changes made public and period of consultation/feedback undertaken with the public.  This may result in some further fine tuning before final timetables set.

I think we will see a simplification of patterns, more tier type timetables and some real frequency improvements in time.

[#Metro]

If they had a higher frequency, timetable consultation would be less of an issue or non-existent.
It is because the frequencies are so low and there are so many gaps that a lot of value is placed on the few services that remain...

[mufreight]

Worth bearing in mind that the timetableing is done by Translink who it would seem on the track record so far can not accept that public transport is a service industry and needs to provide the standards of service required.
Little things like co-ordination of services so that passengers coming say from Beenleigh do not arrive at Roma Street and see the Ipswich train depart without sufficent time to to make the transfer. and have to sit and wait for 30 minutes for the next service.
Passengers from Ipswich find the same circumstances with transfers to Airport services, a service for which they pay a premium fare for the entire journey.
Buses that are scheduled to miss connections with trains by as little as one minute.
Has Translink consulted with anyone who uses public transport, from their efforts to date one would be readily convinced that the answer is no, but they do have a call centre that is effectively used as a buffer for complaint and public relations officers who assure commuters that yes we will change that then years later nothing has been done.

[Fares_Fair]

We have specifically requested (in our North Coast Line CRG) that TransLink attend a CRG Meeting
to discuss the many and varied issues that fall under it's jurisdiction (and outside of QR's).
To date, we have been told, all invitations requested by QR have been rejected.

They are an absolute (and apparently cowardly) disgrace !

Regards,
Fares_Fair.

[#Metro]

Little things like co-ordination of services so that passengers coming say from Beenleigh do not arrive at Roma Street and see the Ipswich train depart without sufficent time to to make the transfer. and have to sit and wait for 30 minutes for the next service.

Brisbane is not the only city to suffer from chronically low frequency public transport. However, I've heard of the "Pulse timetable". In the off peak, trains could all be synchronised (minus a few exceptions such as Rosewood, Doomben etc) to converge on Roma Street (or Central) at the same time and layover for a period long enough for everyone to make a seamless connection.

Then all the trains would depart. Could this work in Brisbane?
An excellent plain english paper which explains some innovations.

http://www.thredbo.itls.usyd.edu.au/downloads/thredbo10_papers/thredbo10-themeE-Nielsen-Lange.pdf

The new bus system was introduced in 1996 because of very little demand for the traditional service, despite a modest renewal of the system in 1992 with 4 lines at 1 hour intervals. Before and one year after effects of restructuring the city bus service

* 960 000 new customers and 240 000 old customers travelling more
* 80% of new passengers on the system were new public transport customers
* The public subsidy per passenger was dramatically reduced from 7.50 DM to 0.45 DM (DM = Deutche mark)
* 70% of the bus operation is covered by fares

Its called innovative planning and competency... The savings can then be fed back into the system on new services. It requires an increase in brains and innovation...much harder to do it seems...

[#Metro]

The organization could work using heavy rail as the core.

1. Heavy rail lines in the off peak synchronise at Roma Street (which has 10 platforms)
2. All buses are then scheduled to arrive before and depart after the rail service at all interconnecting stations.

Could it work here??

Roma Street
Beenleigh <---> Ferny Grove = 2 platforms
Ipswich <---> Caboolture = 2 platforms
Cleveland <---> 1 platform
Shorncliffe <---> 1 platform
Airport <---> GoldCoast = 2 platforms
------
8 platforms in total required. Everything else could be scheduled outside of the pulse period (i.e. extra services, Bowen Hill terminators/Roma St starters, Doomben services). Would the headway allow?

[mufreight]

No practical reason why services can not be co-ordinated other than Translink stupidity and pigheadness.
It is relatively simple for inbound trains off the Beenleigh/Gold Coast line to be co-ordinated with outbound Ipswich line trains, and there are no practical obstacles to prevent Airport trains operating 4/5 minutes behind inbound Ipswich line trains thus allowing time for transfers at Central.
As for bus - rail co-ordination, private operators managed to achieve this quite successfully basing the bus services on the rail timetable with sufficent time for the transfers so why is this too hard for the ? planners at Translink, are they less inteligent than those of years past or is it their objective to make public transport as difficult to use and as pasenger unfriendly as possible to deter use by commuters so that additional services will not be needed.

[#Metro]

All trains in the pulse "basket" (see above post) would be at the platforms on Roma St at approximately the same time window (say a 10 minute layover?). Assuming that this is possible, this would leave 40 minutes free (60 min minus 2x 10 min layovers) for any other non-pulse service (such as Doomben etc).

The whole thing can be synchronised to begin at the start of the hour (say 7.00 PM - 7.10 PM is the first pulse) and half-hour (7.30PM - 7.40PM is the second pulse). Importantly, this would require no new trains and no extra funding.

Key BUZ services could also be synchronised with the trains at Roma St Busway. If we assume the bus platform has space for 4 or 5 buses, then we pick the 4 or 5 most frequent/important to arrive & depart 10 minutes before the rail pulse, and then get another complete set to arrive & depart 10 minutes after the rail pulse at Roma Street. The gaps can be filled by any other bus services...

The for BUZ routes which jump to mind are:
385 The Gap / 385 Cultural Centre
333 Chermside / 333 Cultural Centre
111 Eight Mile Plains / 111 Roma Street
444 Moggil / 444 Cultural Centre
109+66 RCH / 109+66 UQ Lakes (Yet to exist!)

From the buses, it is also obvious that a wasted opportunity exists- most terminate at Cultural Centre (useless) and are not-cross town. They could be combined to make use of the rail connection. For example 111 + 333  but this might have problems in itself?

Worth considering...

[#Metro]

As an aside, QR should consider the merits of combining, at least in the off peak...

Cleveland ---> Bowen Hills & Terminate
to become Cleveland ---> Shorncliffe (when not going to Doomben)

and also

Richlands/Corinda ---> Shornecliffe

to

Richlands/Corinda ---> Brisbane Airport (rather than Roma St start ---> Airport)

Does anyone know if this would be possible/problems?

[somebody]

Cleveland ---> Bowen Hills & Terminate
to become Cleveland ---> Shorncliffe (when not going to Doomben)

I agree with this, but I would add that it would require the Doomben line being permanently detached from the Cleveland line.  Otherwise one of the lines would have a staggered timetable.  Just run the odd Roma St-Doomben service, if that line is to keep it's poor rail service.

Corinda trains should really be extending to Petrie or Caboolutre anyway.

[dwb]

I'd rather they just increased the frequency of all lines than pulse the timetable. Interchange is not an issue if there is frequency.

[#Metro]

I agree with this, but I would add that it would require the Doomben line being permanently detached from the Cleveland line.  Otherwise one of the lines would have a staggered timetable.  Just run the odd Roma St-Doomben service, if that line is to keep it's poor rail service.

The passenger loadings on this line are extremely low.
Inconvenience the few to convenience the many...

[somebody]

The passenger loadings on this line are extremely low.
Inconvenience the few to convenience the many...

Gee, tramtrain, for no extra cost you can inconvenience no one.

[#Metro]

I'd rather they just increased the frequency of all lines than pulse the timetable. Interchange is not an issue if there is frequency.

I would too. I think there are enough trains for 15 mins frequency and most (but not all) lines can do it.
And we have heard nothing in the way of new services from the much touted 301 000 new seats initiative.

[mufreight]

Maybe by Christmas we will see new better thought out timetables for rail, by then there should be another six, six car trains avaliable for service, current deliveries are more IMU's which should remove the need to use SMU's on the longer services and free up the SMU's released for additional services.
The main problem remains track capacity particularly through the CBD and the cross river link.
The sooner that Translink is removed from the planning process the sooner that practical progress can be made rather than band aid solutions that make no allowance for equipment failures as they do not provide redundency back up.

[somebody]

The sooner that Translink is removed from the planning process the sooner that practical progress

While we've had our differences, Hear Here!!

What possible value could a competent Translink add to QR's timetabling?

[somebody]

A few revisions have now been made to the proposed timetable.  Most notably to me is that the super expresses are slightly less super, now with a stop at Hurstville rather than non stop Redfern to Sutherland (23km track distance).

Main point is that the consultation isn't just a window dressing process.

[STB]

The sooner that Translink is removed from the planning process the sooner that practical progress

While we've had our differences, Hear Here!!

What possible value could a competent Translink add to QR's timetabling?

Ensuring that bus to rail connections is maintained for one!

[somebody]

What possible value could a competent Translink add to QR's timetabling?

Ensuring that bus to rail connections is maintained for one!

Actually, I don't think that is a fair point.  If the train timetable changes, the bus timetable has to move.  Fitting in the trains with the buses is not something which should be considered.

[mufreight]

If the rail frequencies are improved the failure of buses to connect diminishes as a problem.
A commuter who would not be prepared to endure a 30 minute wait will be far more inclined to use public transport if that wait is reduced to 15 minutes by increased frequency of rail services.

[Golliwog]

If the rail frequencies are improved the failure of buses to connect diminishes as a problem.
A commuter who would not be prepared to endure a 30 minute wait will be far more inclined to use public transport if that wait is reduced to 15 minutes by increased frequency of rail services.

Not exactly, if the bus is still coming at the same frequency, then if the person still catches the original train service, they would still have a 30 minute wait. Just now theres another train that goes by while they wait.

[mufreight]

If the rail frequencies are improved the failure of buses to connect diminishes as a problem.
A commuter who would not be prepared to endure a 30 minute wait will be far more inclined to use public transport if that wait is reduced to 15 minutes by increased frequency of rail services.

Not exactly, if the bus is still coming at the same frequency, then if the person still catches the original train service, they would still have a 30 minute wait. Just now theres another train that goes by while they wait.

I would question you theory on that one, I have no choice but to use co-ordinated services on a regular basis and it would mean that I would catch the same bus yes but my overall travel time would be at least 15 minutes shorter and should the bus when timetabled to make a connection with a rail service runs late as the frequently do and misses the connection  as a passenger I am only 15 minutes late rather than 30.

I would question how frequently Golliwg uses co-ordinated services, especially those outside of the Brisbane Council area, that it would seem that he basis his theory on.

[Golliwog]

I was simply going on if you had a train at 10am, and you said you had to wait basically 30 minutes for the bus, so say it comes at 10.29 and the next train was at 10.30am originally. Then if you upped the train frequency to 15 minutes, yes the person catching the train that got in at 10.15 would have a shorter wait, but what about those who still have to catch the train that would get in at 10am?

[somebody]

If the rail frequencies are improved the failure of buses to connect diminishes as a problem.
A commuter who would not be prepared to endure a 30 minute wait will be far more inclined to use public transport if that wait is reduced to 15 minutes by increased frequency of rail services.

Not exactly, if the bus is still coming at the same frequency, then if the person still catches the original train service, they would still have a 30 minute wait. Just now theres another train that goes by while they wait.

If the rail services went to 15 minute frequency and bus services remained the same, at least the inbound journey would be significantly improved.  There would still be great annoyance heading outbound though.