New services Rosewood

[ozbob]

http://www.translink.com.au/servicechange.php?id=535

New service for Rosewood line - effective 27 April 2010

A new afternoon peak service on the Rosewood line will be introduced on Tuesday 27 April to provide an extra return service between Ipswich and Rosewood stations.

Departs    Ipswich    5.30pm
Arrives    Rosewood    5.48pm
Departs    Rosewood    5.55pm
Arrives    Ipswich    6.13pm

The service will initially operate for a three month trial period.

Two other Rosewood services will be adjusted to allow for the new services:

                       new time    old time
Departs    Rosewood    5.06pm    5.12pm
Arrives    Ipswich    5.24pm    5.30pm
Departs    Ipswich    6.19pm    6.14pm
Arrives    Rosewood    6.37pm    6.32pm

[ozbob]

Media Release 23 April 2010

SEQ:  Ipswich Rosewood railway gains an important afternoon peak service

RAIL Back On Track (http://backontrack.org) a web based community support group for rail and public transport and an advocate for public transport commuters has welcomed today's announcement of  additional services between Ipswich and Rosewood in the afternoon peak (1,2).

Robert Dow, Spokesman for RAIL Back On Track said:

"The Ipswich area generally is one of the fastest growing regions in Queensland. The railway line is in place, increased train services will further encourage utilisation of public transport and help relieve congestion.  Increased services between Rosewood and Ipswich will also help relieve parking problems around Ipswich itself and further in along the railway line as commuters west of Ipswich will have better options for their journeys."

"More progressive service improvements will be needed in time.  It is pleasing to know that the long afternoon weekday peak gap will be relieved some what, and there will be better options for citizens employed in Ipswich and on the long haul rail commute on the western line."

"Thank you!"

References:

1. http://www.translink.com.au/servicechange.php?id=535

2. http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=3573.0

Contact:

Robert Dow
Administration
admin@backontrack.org

[ozbob]

A welcome improvement, will allow pax on the 4.35 ex Central (very popular service) to travel through to Rosewood.

[somebody]

Success, ozbob!

While it could have been done better (like, having the service in the middle of the gap), and again with the secrecy at least this is a welcome improvement.

For the Rosewood line, might I suggest that the next thing is to abolish the interchange at Ipswich?  This could be done quite easily with a 2-3 minute dwell at Ipswich for outbound services to lock the back 3 cars.  Inbound is even easier, where you just have to open the back 3 cars.

It's the same thing for the Nambour line on weekends, I would suggest.  Perhaps they will get rid of the shuttles here, but I'll believe that one when I see it.

[ozbob]

Indeed!  

This might be an important turning point, placement of services to address frequency and lead patronage increase and support,  rather than just reactive 'congestion busters' ...

The early Gold Coaster is similar in that sense.

[Arnz]

Now it's time to push for the extra 8:30pm (or thereabout) Nambour service.  

There is a Friday-only Nambour - Brisbane City service that departs around 8:15pm (ICE positioning reasons), perhaps push for that service to be extended to Monday-Friday (to accomodate the handful of late shift workers and uni students connecting at Landsborough), and have the ICE moved from the 6pm Brisbane-Nambour to the 8:30pm service.

[Arnz]

For the Rosewood line, might I suggest that the next thing is to abolish the interchange at Ipswich?  This could be done quite easily with a 2-3 minute dwell at Ipswich for outbound services to lock the back 3 cars.  Inbound is even easier, where you just have to open the back 3 cars.

The ICRS report had something about abolishing the Rosewood shuttles and having the Ipswich trains continue through and turn-back at Rosewood.  If I recall it was 2tph to Rosewood in that report.

[somebody]

Even if they don't up the frequency, abolishing the changeover is a service upgrade as well as a cost saving, although there is the chance the there would need to be a crew change anyway.  Caboolture-Rosewood would be a long time for a single driver to be at the controls, but perhaps there is a change at Bowen Hills on all of these services.

[ozbob]

Now it's time to push for the extra 8:30pm (or thereabout) Nambour service.  

Yes, have been and will continue to do so. It is a very sad gap ...

[ozbob]

From the Queensland Times click here!

Rosewood's rail relief

Rosewood's rail relief

Zane Jackson | 24th April 2010

COMMUTERS travelling on rail services between Ipswich and Rosewood will be thankful for an extra service in the afternoon.

Transport Minister Rachel Nolan and MP Wayne Wendt announced the new train service.
Sarah Harvey

COMMUTERS travelling on rail services between Ipswich and Rosewood will be thankful for an extra service in the afternoon to plug a gap of more than an hour during peak hours.

Transport Minister and Member for Ipswich Rachel Nolan announced a service will now run from Ipswich Station to Rosewood at 5.30pm.

Commuter advocacy group Rail Back on Track previously campaigned for three years for an extra service leaving Ipswich about that time, to fill the gap between the 4.38pm and 5.51pm services.

The new service would arrive at Rosewood at 5.48pm before leaving again at 5.55pm to arrive at Ipswich at 6.13pm, providing an extra 2250 seats for western commuters each week.

"It will make the life of commuters easier, especially in Rosewood, because it will save them the time and money of using a car, finding parking and a range of other issues," Ms Nolan said.

Member for Ipswich West Wayne Wendt said the new service would be greatly welcomed by residents of Rosewood and surrounding areas.

"People who work in Ipswich but catch the train home further south-west along the train line will definitely appreciate this improvement," Mr Wendt said.

"This would take up to 375 cars off busy roads, based on a full-seated train."

Rail Back on Track spokesman Robert Dow welcomed the extra service, and said it would encourage more commuters on to trains in one of Queensland's fast growing areas.

"Increased train services will further encourage utilisation of public transport and help relieve congestion," he said.

"Increased services between Rosewood and Ipswich will also help relieve parking problems around Ipswich itself, and further in along the railway line as commuters west of Ipswich will have better options for their journeys."

Because of the new service some previously existing services have changed times, with the outbound 6.14pm Ipswich to Rosewood train now leaving five minutes later at 6.19pm.

The inbound 5.12pm Rosewood service that arrived at Ipswich at 5.30pm will now leave at 5.06pm and arrive at Ipswich at 5.24pm.

http://media.apnonline.com.au/img/media/images/2010/04/23/IQT_24-04-2010_NEWS_04_anza23a_t325.jpg

Transport Minister Rachel Nolan and MP Wayne Wendt announced the new train service.
Sarah Harvey

[ozbob]

Media Release 24 April 2010

SEQ:  More Citytrain services, is the paradigm changing?  Go for the trifecta!

RAIL Back On Track (http://backontrack.org) a web based community support group for rail and public transport and an advocate for public transport commuters has welcomed the announcements this past of week of new Citytrain rail services on the Gold Coast and Ipswich/Rosewood lines (1,2,3,4).

Robert Dow, Spokesman for RAIL Back On Track said:

"The announcements of additional rail services on the Gold Coast and Rosewood lines has been welcomed by rail commuters."

"One of the most important factors for encouraging public transport use, and hence gaining the considerable economic benefit in terms of reduced congestion, lessened environmental impacts and a reduction in the massive costs associated with road trauma is that services must be frequent; first and foremost!  Public transport must be there to use of course and it needs to be relatively affordable."

"From our perspective, the service additions this week are an important turning point. They are an example of the placement of services to address frequency and lead patronage increase and support, rather than just reactive 'congestion busters'.  Something we have not seen on rail for some time. Well done TransLink, QR Passenger and the Minister for Transport. Lets continue to improve the gaps on all lines."

"A priority to complete the trifecta for the week would be the addition of a service from Central to Nambour to reduce the present two hour week night gap between 7.27pm and 9.28pm. A service leaving Central at 8.27pm  for Nambour would be of considerable benefit to Sunshine Coast line commuters and would further encourage public transport utilisation."

"Train frequency in south-east Queensland, particularly off peak needs significant improvement (5).  In time this will be possible as track amplifications and new trains and crew are placed in service. It is important though to promptly address the major disincentives for travel that exist on all lines, to keep them momentum gained this week moving forward!"

References:

1.  21 Apr 2010: SEQ: Gold Coast hits the jackpot yet again http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=3739.0

2.  http://www.translink.com.au/servicechange.php?id=529

3.  23 Apr 2010: SEQ: Ipswich Rosewood railway gains an important afternoon peak service http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=3747.0

4.  http://www.translink.com.au/servicechange.php?id=535

5.  18 April 2010 SEQ:  Train timetable gaps and service frequency needs urgent improvement http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=3727.0

Contact:

Robert Dow
Administration
admin@backontrack.org

[somebody]

If one assumes that the 30 minute frequency beyond Darra is here to stay, then the cost of extending the 30 minute frequency to Rosewood is negligible.  You are talking about the electricity to power the rear unit, and the need to have an extra unit in the inventory (which may not actually be a cost as most of the AM peak trains are through trains).  No extra crew time, so long as the timetable is re-timed.

[ozbob]

PIDs at Roma St for the first 4.38pm Rosewood service ..





Photographs R Dow 27th April 2010

[ozbob]

From the Ipswich News 29th April 2010 page 3

Rail's better deal

[somebody]

Looking at the timetable, it seems that pax are expected to arrive at Ipswich at 5:13pm, then wait 17mins .  Why couldn't they just have extended the train which arrives at Ipswich at 5:28pm, waited 2 mins to lock the back 3 cars, then carried on.

I'm not at all happy with the attitude of the public servants.  They seem to be intentionally setting out to provide a shoddy service.  Someone I work with tells me they were supposed to send some document to him, but the email address was wrong.  So rather than re-sending now, the put the job in the system be to sent in 10 days.  It's just not good enough.

[bwebber]

Folks
I would take a different view.  Ipswich - Rosewood should never have been electrified.  The service would be better run by buses releasing the trains for carrying far more passengers elsewhere.
Brian

[ozbob]

The rail line will be important as the residential areas expand, has already started.  The line is carrying good peak loads.  The bus substitution was a nightmare, I went for a few rides during the Sadliers Crossing bridge closures.  The folks out that way are very grateful that the railway line is there and are looking towards growth in services.  Two three car sets is all it takes to provide a good service Ipswich - Rosewood.  That is not going to cause much impact on the overall train availability.

Electrification to Grandchester is a real possibility as well.

[somebody]

Please get rid of the shuttles.  They don't apply in the AM peak, so the savings in trains isn't there.

[mufreight]

Shuttles are a necessicity for both unit utilisation and operational issues relating to the short (3car) platforms between Ipswich and Rosewood.

[Golliwog]

Is there anything stopping QR from doing what they did on the North Coast line and using temporary platforms to extend them to a 6 car length?

[#Metro]

Commuter advocacy group Rail Back on Track previously campaigned for three years for an extra service leaving Ipswich about that time, to fill the gap between the 4.38pm and 5.51pm services.

Is there any chance of an achievements board going up on the forum for all of RailBOT's successful campaigns?

[somebody]

Shuttles are a necessicity for both unit utilisation and operational issues relating to the short (3car) platforms between Ipswich and Rosewood.

Sigh.  Did you read my post?  Given that the shuttles don't apply in the AM peak, there is no saving in unit utilisation.  As for the "operational issues" just lock the back 3 cars at Ipswich heading west, and unlock them heading east.  Far better than the shuttle; the only cost is the electricity.

[mufreight]

The platform length on the platform used at Rosewood is only a little over three cars long and a six car set then blocks the level crossing untill the train is reversed and sets back, on the evening train that continues through the first three cars are locked off, and on the morning service that operates through the rear three cars are locked off as far as Ipswich.
As for the number of additional three car sets that would be required to operate all services through it would effectively require at least the equivelent of an additional two three car sets daily in terms of utilisation which would effectively mean that one six car trail would not be avaliable for servicing or cleaning.
These sets would clock up a lot of dead milage, money better spent on improving service frequencies.

[somebody]

Whenever I have been on the 11:06pm Rosewood train the back 3 cars have been locked, not the front 3.

Looking at it in Google, it seems that the outbound platform is good for 6 cars, but the inbound is only good for 3 cars, although it isn't very easy to make out.

As for utilisation, if the units are in use in the AM peak, then they must be in the inventory.  I don't know why you have such a thing about train maintenance; a necessary job to be sure, but it doesn't require 3/4 of the fleet to be out of service off peak to allow it.

[Arnz]

Is there anything stopping QR from doing what they did on the North Coast line and using temporary platforms to extend them to a 6 car length?

Crossing issues at various stations as mufreight pointed out, and two, not enough Patronage to justify it.  

The stations beyond Landsborough on the NCL had "temporary" platform extensions a few months after the "zero harm" initiatives were installed in place due to the "large" amount of complaints from Sunshine Coast passengers regarding the unnecessary overcrowding during peak periods (and a few off-peak trains) in the front 3 cars between Landsborough and Gympie/Nambour as a result of the "Zero Harm" initiatives.

However, whilst between Caboolture and Landsborough may be overcrowded on some peak trains, the overcrowding now isn't as bad as the 3-car restrictions north of Landsborough when "Zero Harm" and "Short Platforms" were still in place.

[Golliwog]

I get the Rosewood could be an issue, as on one side they have the crossing, and the other theres a siding (I think, google earth isn´t that clear) but I think it could still be extended. All the others are on long generally straight sections with plenty of room for the platform to be lengthened. While the patronage may be low, surely there would be operational advantages due to being able to have a through running train instead of a shuttle, not to mention making it a more attractive option to passengers.

[somebody]

I get the Rosewood could be an issue, as on one side they have the crossing, and the other theres a siding (I think, google earth isn´t that clear) but I think it could still be extended. All the others are on long generally straight sections with plenty of room for the platform to be lengthened. While the patronage may be low, surely there would be operational advantages due to being able to have a through running train instead of a shuttle, not to mention making it a more attractive option to passengers.

Exactly.  They could have through running every half hour for almost the same cost as the silly hourly shuttle.  It's only really the extra electricity they are paying for.

[mufreight]

From your post re Rosewood lets be thankful that QR is making the decisions on the Rosewood and Namour rail services subject to the demands of that bureaucratic black hole Translink.
A lot of the concepts posted would be great if there was a bottomless purse to pay fpr them but in reality that is not the case, perhaps to fund some of these less than realistic proposals we should withdraw services from another line.

[somebody]

From your post re Rosewood lets be thankful that QR is making the decisions on the Rosewood and Namour rail services subject to the demands of that bureaucratic black hole Translink.
A lot of the concepts posted would be great if there was a bottomless purse to pay fpr them but in reality that is not the case, perhaps to fund some of these less than realistic proposals we should withdraw services from another line.

Doomben?

Seriously though, please explain to me what additional costs would be involved besides an almost negligible electricity cost.  I would assume that double guards is something that would end.

[Arnz]

One less guard would save a wage.   As it's known two guards are required on "zero harm" effected 6-carriage services.

[somebody]

One less guard would save a wage.   As it's known two guards are required on "zero harm" effected 6-carriage services.

It's unacceptable.  How stupid is that?

[longboi]

One less guard would save a wage.   As it's known two guards are required on "zero harm" effected 6-carriage services.

It's unacceptable.  How stupid is that?

Its pretty sensible policy. One guard has to continue with the actual 'guard duties' to ensure safe train operations while the other locks doors and moves pax if necessary.
If QR wants to achieve zero harm they can't leave anything to chance.

[somebody]

One less guard would save a wage.   As it's known two guards are required on "zero harm" effected 6-carriage services.

It's unacceptable.  How stupid is that?

Its pretty sensible policy. One guard has to continue with the actual 'guard duties' to ensure safe train operations while the other locks doors and moves pax if necessary.
If QR wants to achieve zero harm they can't leave anything to chance.

Sigh.  That would only work out if there were no station staff.  Even then, it is exceedingly dubious (read: ridiculous) to argue that the guard needs to be in his compartment while the rear 3 cars are being locked.

[longboi]

One less guard would save a wage.   As it's known two guards are required on "zero harm" effected 6-carriage services.

It's unacceptable.  How stupid is that?

Its pretty sensible policy. One guard has to continue with the actual 'guard duties' to ensure safe train operations while the other locks doors and moves pax if necessary.
If QR wants to achieve zero harm they can't leave anything to chance.

Sigh.  That would only work out if there were no station staff.  Even then, it is exceedingly dubious (read: ridiculous) to argue that the guard needs to be in his compartment while the rear 3 cars are being locked.

Is that right? Who would assist with the driver with setting back at stations like Eudlo. Furthermore the guard has other safety-related duties that you don't know about while the train is travelling.

[somebody]

But we are talking about duties while the train is standing completely still!

[mufreight]

Reading through the recent posts on this thread I am greatly relieved that most of those posting are not in control of the rail commuter network both in terms of service delivery and the costs that we would all have to pay for these frequently illconsidered and impractical pie in the sky posts that only detract from the credibility of this website.

[somebody]

If you are going to make posts like this:

Reading through the recent posts on this thread I am greatly relieved that most of those posting are not in control of the rail commuter network both in terms of service delivery and the costs that we would all have to pay for these frequently illconsidered and impractical pie in the sky posts that only detract from the credibility of this website.

and this:

From your post re Rosewood lets be thankful that QR is making the decisions on the Rosewood and Namour rail services subject to the demands of that bureaucratic black hole Translink.
A lot of the concepts posted would be great if there was a bottomless purse to pay fpr them but in reality that is not the case, perhaps to fund some of these less than realistic proposals we should withdraw services from another line.

The least you could do would be to be able to answer questions like this:

Seriously though, please explain to me what additional costs would be involved besides an almost negligible electricity cost.  I would assume that double guards is something that would end.

[mufreight]

the equivalent of 29 Ipswich to Rosewood trips daily in terms of mileage for a three car set or 580 + kms.
it all costs in terms of operating costs and wear and tear as well as power, now if you feel that you would rather use that mileage up in dead running rather than carrying commuters and you as an individual are prepared to pay for it the I feel quite sure that Mr Scurrah would welcome you phone call and check.

[Golliwog]

It wouldn't be dead running. I thought the propsal was to extend the platforms to fit 6 car trains using temporary platforms like they did with the north coast line, so these trains could carry passengers in all 6 cars.

[somebody]

It wouldn't be dead running. I thought the propsal was to extend the platforms to fit 6 car trains using temporary platforms like they did with the north coast line, so these trains could carry passengers in all 6 cars.

That's one proposal.  Another proposal is to just lock/unlock the rear 3 cars at Ipswich.

the equivalent of 29 Ipswich to Rosewood trips daily in terms of mileage for a three car set or 580 + kms.
it all costs in terms of operating costs and wear and tear as well as power, now if you feel that you would rather use that mileage up in dead running rather than carrying commuters and you as an individual are prepared to pay for it the I feel quite sure that Mr Scurrah would welcome you phone call and check.

But it shouldn't cost much of the crew's time (ignoring zero harm rules).  Since the crew of the Rosewood service is underutilised anyway.  And no additional signalers or station staff. 

Yes, you are correct that it would put wear on the trains, as well as the electricity which I mentioned.  I don't think these items are a big deal, and they would increase patronage on a poorly used line.  The additional fares may well cover the additional costs you mention.