The Shorncliffe Line

[#Metro]

http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=4182.msg31029

To have a reliable 15-minute frequency, even in PEAK, we need the duplication and second platform at Shorncliffe.

As tramtrain alluded to, Shorncliffe Station is old and decrepit.  The first time I saw it, I found it hard to believe that a terminating station could look like this.  Even the line between Sandgate and Shorncliffe has been neglected - with one level crossing only recently having boom gates installed.  (That's right, there was a level crossing without boom gates!!)

I believe the boom gates were only installed because of the zero harm policy of the newer management at QR.

How much longer will this line be neglected?  How many more cars would be taken off the Gateway Motorway and Sandgate Road if this line had a decent frequency!

Duplicate the line, put in another proper platform. Simple.
Fix Shorncliffe Line

[Derwan]

From the other thread:

Actually, the Northgate terminators you are referring to would require additional infrastructure AIUI.  Don't you need to at least electrify a siding here.  Surely you aren't planning to block a running line in peak hour?  Perhaps it is possible to depart from platform 2 at Northgate, which you sort of implied above, but that still causes unpleasant timetabling constraints.  Even then, I don't think you can arrive on platform 1 in the PM peak.  So I am pretty dubious about it being doable in the AM and more in the PM.

Yes it's possible to arrive on platform 1 (from the suburbans only).  Southbound trains can also be routed to platform 2.  Even if the additional infrastructure was required, electrifying a section of track is quite a bit different to building an additional track and station platform.

But as previously mentioned, increased frequency to Shorncliffe would be more desirable.

Peak frequency doesn't really need to be better than 15 minutes.

Yes it does at certain times.

Regarding Banyo being between 2 roads, I doesn't look like it.

Look at Google Maps or Nearmap in satellite view.  Pay particular attention to where the platforms are - not where the station label is.  It may be possible to demolish all the shops and build a platform a bit further up.  It could probably be done without demolishing the recently refurbished public library.

Meanwhile, the duplication and extra platform could be built at Shorncliffe without any resumptions.

[somebody]

Yes it's possible to arrive on platform 1 (from the suburbans only).  Southbound trains can also be routed to platform 2.  Even if the additional infrastructure was required, electrifying a section of track is quite a bit different to building an additional track and station platform.

Ok, but I still have trouble supporting the notion of using such a crappy turnback procedure.

But as previously mentioned, increased frequency to Shorncliffe would be more desirable.

Peak frequency doesn't really need to be better than 15 minutes.

Yes it does at certain times.

Why?

Meanwhile, the duplication and extra platform could be built at Shorncliffe without any resumptions.

This one is a good point.  But there is probably a case for both at some stage.  Also the problem with short workings is they don't work so well (or at all) when demand is at the 6tph point.

Still, I think it is sufficient at present to merely fix up the second platform at Sandgate so it is usable.

[Derwan]

Ok, but I still have trouble supporting the notion of using such a crappy turnback procedure.

Yes - my original suggestion was merely a "What can we do to increase frequency between Northgate and the city with no/little infrastructure upgrade?"  As mentioned, the idea transitioned to more services on the Shorncliffe Line instead.

Why?

I currently catch one of two services.  They are just 14 minutes apart - the shortest gap during the morning peak period.  (As previously mentioned, I believe this is achieved by an empty running past the platform at Shorncliffe to do the turnback.)  Both services are crowded and run express from Northgate to Bowen Hills.  Although an increased frequency either side of these services might alleviate the crowding to a certain extent, it may be necessary in the not-too-distant future to increase the frequency even further around this time.

I also believe that many residents along the Shorncliffe Line simply drive to Northgate to get a decent frequency.  This is why the 4 carparks at Northgate are full every day - with nearby streets filled with parked cars.  If the Shorncliffe Line had a half-decent frequency (even 4tph), these drivers may choose to catch a train from their local station instead.  Stations such as Deagon, North Boondall and Boondall would also become popular for drivers from the north who currently drive to and park at a station on the Caboolture Line, Northgate or closer to the city.  In fact, at a CRG meeting, they mentioned that they were looking at an overhaul of the parking at Boondall to attract people who usually drive to a station closer to the city.  (It's one of the easiest stations to access from the Gateway Motorway.)  This wouldn't work with the current frequency.

As the frequency increases, so too will the patronage, in turn requiring a further frequency increase.

Still, I think it is sufficient at present to merely fix up the second platform at Sandgate so it is usable.

I would support this as a short-term solution provided it means that the line can sustain 4tph during peak.  (Even this would be a significant improvement!)  I don't think the planned 2026 is soon enough for the duplication and Shorncliffe Station upgrade.  While hundreds of millions are being spent on new lines, they won't even spend a few million required to get a decent frequency on the Shorncliffe Line.  I guess we don't live in a marginal seat.

[somebody]

I currently catch one of two services.  They are just 14 minutes apart - the shortest gap during the morning peak period.  (As previously mentioned, I believe this is achieved by an empty running past the platform at Shorncliffe to do the turnback.)  Both services are crowded and run express from Northgate to Bowen Hills.  Although an increased frequency either side of these services might alleviate the crowding to a certain extent, it may be necessary in the not-too-distant future to increase the frequency even further around this time.

I would be interested to know what is actually done here.  It may be as you expect, although the timetable has inbound trains at Sandgate at 6:47am, 7:11am, 7:25am and 7:51am.  Outbound passes Sandgate at: 6:57am, 7:28am & 7:55am.  Obviously, the 6:57am train returns at 7:11 & the 7:28am train returns at 7:51am.  The 7:25am inbound train must be formed by an empty, which could pass Sangate at 7:13am and still form the 7:25am.

I also believe that many residents along the Shorncliffe Line simply drive to Northgate to get a decent frequency.  This is why the 4 carparks at Northgate are full every day - with nearby streets filled with parked cars.  If the Shorncliffe Line had a half-decent frequency (even 4tph), these drivers may choose to catch a train from their local station instead.  Stations such as Deagon, North Boondall and Boondall would also become popular for drivers from the north who currently drive to and park at a station on the Caboolture Line, Northgate or closer to the city.  In fact, at a CRG meeting, they mentioned that they were looking at an overhaul of the parking at Boondall to attract people who usually drive to a station closer to the city.  (It's one of the easiest stations to access from the Gateway Motorway.)  This wouldn't work with the current frequency.

I'm sure this is correct.  There isn't that much point fixing up the AM timetable only though.  Needs to be 15 minutes in both peaks, as well as all day.

I would support this as a short-term solution provided it means that the line can sustain 4tph during peak.  (Even this would be a significant improvement!)  I don't think the planned 2026 is soon enough for the duplication and Shorncliffe Station upgrade.  While hundreds of millions are being spent on new lines, they won't even spend a few million required to get a decent frequency on the Shorncliffe Line.  I guess we don't live in a marginal seat.

It already can support this, but fixing up Sandgate is needed to add operating margin to the service.  As I have already said.

[somebody]

Further to my last post, I think that providing a 15 minute service for the entire peak would result in far greater spreading of the load.  And why not all day?

[Derwan]

I finished work a bit later than usual today and caught the 5:09 Shorncliffe Train from Central, so I thought I'd go on a bit of a trip.  The 5:09 is 18 minutes after the previous service, then there's a 5:20 (express) and a 5:33.  (Why couldn't they start this half-decent frequency earlier!!)

Anyway, I remained on the train past my usual destination of Boondall.  We arrived at Sandgate just as a city-bound service was arriving on platform 2!  Yes - they're using platform 2!  (I think this is the only service they use it for.)  The train virtually was virtually empty after Sandgate.

We arrived at Shorncliffe and I detrained.  There must've been a replacement crew waiting.  As soon as the train was checked, it departed as an empty towards the city.  The quick turnaround was required as the following service was scheduled to arrive just 10 minutes later as it was an express.

The next service arrived and a similar thing happened - but a little slower this time as they had a bit more time to spare.  I think the crew from the service I arrived on became the replacement crew for this one - but I think the crew from this service also headed back in it.  It headed to the city as an empty.

The next service arrived.  This service was scheduled to depart just 6 minutes after arrival and they did this using the normal turnback process - with the driver walking to the other end.

I'm yet to see the morning process, but given this, a higher frequency may be possible utilising standby crews at Shorncliffe and platform 2 at Sandgate.  There's absolutely no margin though - so they probably wouldn't want to rely on this process for too many services in a row.

[somebody]

Also, the 5:39pm ex-Shorncliffe train doesn't depart Sandgate until 5:45pm, so it loses 4 minutes.  This is presumably due to the safeworking problem STB was referring to.

I'd expect that standby crews would allow 6tph without that much difficulty.  8tph with a squeeze.

[colinw]

I think the future is clear.  Duplicate & build the second platform, make it function as a proper terminus.  If its left as it is now, the only possible result is eventual run-down to nothing & truncation of the line to Sandgate.

[somebody]

I think the future is clear.  Duplicate & build the second platform, make it function as a proper terminus.  If its left as it is now, the only possible result is eventual run-down to nothing & truncation of the line to Sandgate.

No way could they truncate the line.  The Shorncliffe station is either the second or third busiest station on the line, and about half as busy as Sandgate.

I would disagree on the way forward.  In the short term, the way forward is to implement 15 minute frequency all day, and maintained at that through the peaks.

[Derwan]

Also, the 5:39pm ex-Shorncliffe train doesn't depart Sandgate until 5:45pm, so it loses 4 minutes.  This is presumably due to the safeworking problem STB was referring to.

Yes I noticed this.  The city-bound service arrived just as we pulled up, but obviously had to wait there another 3 minutes.  Does anyone know WHAT this "saveworking problem" is?  Could it be to do with the level crossing?  Perhaps they have to manually operate it, which can only happen after it is deactivated after the outbound service's arrival?  *Shrugs*

I'd expect that standby crews would allow 6tph without that much difficulty.  8tph with a squeeze.

Given that we currently have 3tph in PEAK, I'm guessing there's still some room to move, which is perhaps why they put off the duplication until 2026.  However I think that once we have 4tph or better - more people will stop driving their cars to Northgate and more people will choose to park on the Shorncliffe line instead of the Caboolture line or closer.  Perhaps they're not increasing the frequency because they know this will have a flow on effect requiring the duplication sooner!!

[somebody]

Given that we currently have 3tph in PEAK, I'm guessing there's still some room to move,

Does this mean you are now coming around to my thinking on this topic?

However I think that once we have 4tph or better - more people will stop driving their cars to Northgate and more people will choose to park on the Shorncliffe line instead of the Caboolture line or closer.  Perhaps they're not increasing the frequency because they know this will have a flow on effect requiring the duplication sooner!!

A bit of a conspiracy theory.  Better to blame incompetence rather than malice.

[Derwan]

Does this mean you are now coming around to my thinking on this topic?

Not if it involves building a third platform at Banyo!

My view has not changed.  There is room to move in the short term and we need the frequency increased.  But in the medium-term, to have an adequately serviced line with appropriate frequencies, we ideally need the duplication and station upgrade.  It is certainly needed before 2026.

[somebody]

Fair 'nuff.  I'm not wedded to the 3rd platform at Banyo.  Thanks for replying.

I'm starting to get some optimism they may consider running a half decent service outside of the peaks.  AFTER which time, there will need to be a few infrastructure upgrades.  There will certainly be a need to upgrade the turnback capacity on the EJ-Shorncliffe line somewhere in the next 2 decades.

EDIT: I'm thinking that Boondall would be a more logical place for a 3rd and possibly 4th platform, and especially if plans for expanded park and ride facilities are there.  A 3rd platform would really only allow turning 4tph.  I suppose a possibility would be turning a few extra trains on a through running platform, although I do not like this.

[Derwan]

I'm thinking that Boondall would be a more logical place for a 3rd and possibly 4th platform.

That'd suit me!  It would also be good for events at the Entertainment Centre when they provide an additional service when they finish.  They currently have to run to at least to Sandgate to turn back.

But - I still think the Shorncliffe line is too small for turnbacks half way along it.  The duplication and second platform at Shorncliffe will suffice for some time into the future - and then I think eventually a 3rd platform at Shorncliffe like they're doing with Ferny Grove now, rather than a 3rd platform half way along the line.

[somebody]

While I don't think I can foresee a situation that I could support a 3rd platform at Shorncliffe, I am coming round to your point of view on your other points, for a few reasons:
1. The 2nd platform at Shorncliffe may be required eventually.
2. Short-terminating at Boondall would only offer small savings.

I'm not completely sold yet though.  I suppose the critical issue would be if the Shorncliffe 2nd platform can be dispensed with indefinitely or if it will be required soon enough.

If you did have a 3rd platform at Boondall, then the logical patterns would be all to Boondall, and BH, EJ, N, Boondall all to Shorncliffe.

[Derwan]

I'm working from home today, so I went for a drive to Shorncliffe this morning. Got there at 6:55am and there was already a train past the platform at Shorncliffe.  I assume this was an empty that just goes straight past the platform to do the turnback.

A passenger service arrived at 6:59 and executed an ordinary turnback departing at 7:09 (10-minute turnback).  The train beyond the platform then moved to the platform around 7:16 and departed at 7:23.  (These are the two services that I usually catch from Boondall.)

Another passenger service arrived at 7:30.  It remained at the platform.  At that stage I left to get back home and start work.  Its scheduled departure was 7:49.  (19-minute turnback.)

The next passenger service was scheduled to arrive at 7:57 and the next departure 8:04, then 8:20 (arr) / 8:25 (dep) and 8:36 (arr) / 8:43 (dep).  Turnback times are 7, 5 and 7 minutes - possibly handled by standby crews.  (Crew from one becomes the crew for the next, etc.  Also, Shorncliffe is actually a crew depot.)

My biggest gripe about the current AM timetable is that the increased frequency is at the wrong time.  For the 3 services above with quick turnback times, 2 of them get to the city after 9am.  This is pointless.  Meanwhile, there's a train that sits at Shorncliffe for 19 minutes at a time when more services are needed.

[somebody]

But it really needs to be a 15 minute all day frequency, stopping all stations.  And free the CAB trains from serving Albion/Wooloowin/Nundah and Toombul all day.  I'd love to know if this is to be an inclusion in the 2010 oops 2011 IPS-CAB timetable.

The information that Shorncliffe is a crew base actually reduces the imperative to add a platform at Shorncliffe, quite substantially.  By doing the crew swaps there all day, you don't need to crew swap at Bowen Hills, which is annoying.

[#Metro]

Voting will be closing soon on this poll.
Looks like there is an early lead
 

[ozbob]

Media Release 11 August 2010

SEQ:  Shorncliffe line needs a frequency boost!

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 again called for an increase in train frequency on all lines, and the Shorncliffe line (1, 2). The most important factor to encourage public transport use is that services must be frequent, bottom line.

Robert Dow, Spokesman for RAIL Back On Track said:

"The Shorncliffe line currently has a single platform at Shorncliffe station. To allow more frequent services, ideally starting with trains every 20 minutes and this eventually being upgraded to trains every 15 minutes off peak, a number of upgrades to the line should be considered:

1. Duplication of the track between Sandgate and Shorncliffe,

2. The construction of a second platform and major station upgrade at Shorncliffe,

3. More trains and connecting bus services put on in the off peak."

"It is interesting to note that in recent news Melbourne has a view to upgrade its heavy rail system to a metro service standard with buses and trains every 10 minutes. Melbourne has the best tram network in the world as well, something tragically missing from Brisbane (3). Perth also has trains every 15 minutes in the off-peak and weekends on many lines, and every 5-10 minutes during peak hour- effectively a metro style service where timetables can be thrown in the bin"

"Why cannot Brisbane, as one of the fastest growing regions in Australia and with more people than Perth, match its rail service quality?

"What commuters want is very simple:

1. More trains, more often, and

2. A regular, reliable bus that will take them to their local station in time to catch the train."

References:

1. The Shorncliffe line  http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=4190.0

2. SEQ: It's 'frequency' stupid ...  http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=4169.0

3. Melbourne Visit August 2010  http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=4195.0

Contact:

Robert Dow
Administration
admin@backontrack.org

[ozbob]

Some feedback received, thanks.

The Shorncliffe line has it own unique circumstances.
The single platform at Shorncliffe allows people to walk directly onto the train - no stairs, ramps or lifts needed.

Sandgate is in a similar situation.

A different tack could be considered.

Running time Sandgate to Shorncliffe is 2 minutes, normal turn back time for a six car unit is 6 minutes and time to run back to Sandgate is 2 minutes.
Total 10 minutes. (Too tight for comfort)

Without any changes, they can run 15 minute services at any time. This is still better than the 20 / 25 / and even more than this time between services at peak periods.

If they want to run 10 minute services at peak time, they can do it now without any infrastructure changes.

First down train in the morning to take a spare crew.  They work the train back leaving a crew down at Shorncliffe.  Next train is worked back by the crew down there.  This repeats to end of peak period.
By doing this, the turn back times are reduced to 2 minutes which allows the running of 10 minute services.

Very low tech, but takes away any excuses for not running a more frequent service.

[somebody]

Running time Sandgate to Shorncliffe is 2 minutes, normal turn back time for a six car unit is 6 minutes and time to run back to Sandgate is 2 minutes.
Total 10 minutes. (Too tight for comfort)

Is that the criteria?  If they can't do it easily then they shouldn't try?

Without any changes, they can run 15 minute services at any time. This is still better than the 20 / 25 / and even more than this time between services at peak periods.

If they want to run 10 minute services at peak time, they can do it now without any infrastructure changes.

Very low tech, but takes away any excuses for not running a more frequent service.

Hear here.

[#Metro]

Is that the criteria?  If they can't do it easily then they shouldn't try?

Unfortunately, that seem the mode of standard operation. By working this way, problems are not solved, just ignored for a later time.
This means that when the city grows and rail demand surges, this huge backlog of unfinished business will appear, giving us a rail system that is crippled in key parts, requiring remedial work which is then almost impossible to fund because every other unfinished problem is competing with it.

There are key bottlenecks in many places, often consisting of single track sections.

[#Metro]

The Shorncliffe line has it own unique circumstances.
The single platform at Shorncliffe allows people to walk directly onto the train - no stairs, ramps or lifts needed.

Sandgate is in a similar situation.

A different tack could be considered.

Running time Sandgate to Shorncliffe is 2 minutes, normal turn back time for a six car unit is 6 minutes and time to run back to Sandgate is 2 minutes.
Total 10 minutes. (Too tight for comfort)

Without any changes, they can run 15 minute services at any time. This is still better than the 20 / 25 / and even more than this time between services at peak periods.

If they want to run 10 minute services at peak time, they can do it now without any infrastructure changes.

First down train in the morning to take a spare crew.  They work the train back leaving a crew down at Shorncliffe.  Next train is worked back by the crew down there.  This repeats to end of peak period.
By doing this, the turn back times are reduced to 2 minutes which allows the running of 10 minute services.

Very low tech, but takes away any excuses for not running a more frequent service.

This is a good idea, but I have a question. I would like to see planning for a more long term, permanent solution worked on.

First down train in the morning to take a spare crew.  They work the train back leaving a crew down at Shorncliffe.  Next train is worked back by the crew down there.  This repeats to end of peak period.
By doing this, the turn back times are reduced to 2 minutes which allows the running of 10 minute services.

Taking spare crew down is a good idea, and a good short term solution. But is it a long term solution? Because it requires tying up a crew team for approximately half an hour on every train service. Over the course of a day, that is quite a lot of idle time.

[somebody]

First down train in the morning to take a spare crew.  They work the train back leaving a crew down at Shorncliffe.  Next train is worked back by the crew down there.  This repeats to end of peak period.
By doing this, the turn back times are reduced to 2 minutes which allows the running of 10 minute services.

Taking spare crew down is a good idea, and a good short term solution. But is it a long term solution? Because it requires tying up a crew team for approximately half an hour on every train service. Over the course of a day, that is quite a lot of idle time.

I think this idea is assuming a minimum 15 minute frequency.  I think a 15 minute frequency can be done without it.  The point I would make here though, is that it is acceptable to have exceedingly long dwells at Varsity Lakes, Domestic Airport and Ferny Grove even though the infrastructure doesn't really make it impossible to be better.

The idea of changeover crews makes a lot of sense to get an improved peak frequency.

[Derwan]

Another issue is crew breaks.  The longer turnback times on the longer lines allow for the crews to take required breaks.

[somebody]

Another issue is crew breaks.  The longer turnback times on the longer lines allow for the crews to take required breaks.

Lunch breaks should really be done with crew swaps.  I suppose it's the shorter breaks which do need to be done which may be able to be done in other ways.  In any event, a 15 minute frequency means less time is lost due to crews needing breaks at Shorncliffe

[Derwan]

It's not just lunch breaks.  As you can imagine, driving trains full of people is a huge responsibility.  There is only a certain amount of time someone can drive a train until they're required to take a break.  I don't know what the rules are... I just know it's not as simple as the standard smoko and lunch breaks.

[somebody]

For the record, I never voted in this poll, because there wasn't "Increase frequency on current infrastructure" or "Increase frequency + fix Sandgate safeworking" options.

I think my point of view was plain though.

[somebody]

How is stabling for the first/last services handled here?  From the timetable, if a service runs past the platform and the last service remains on the platform at Shorncliffe, that would handle the the inbound trains the next morning until the first revenue service arrives.  If this is done with empty moves to/from Mayne, I do not see any real advantage for Shorncliffe residents.

Could the bit of track beyond Shorncliffe be duplicated for increased stabling?  That should make Shorncliffe useful to stable 3 trains like Manly.

I'm guessing the residents of Shorncliffe would be up in arms at this suggestion.

[STB]

It's not just lunch breaks.  As you can imagine, driving trains full of people is a huge responsibility.  There is only a certain amount of time someone can drive a train until they're required to take a break.  I don't know what the rules are... I just know it's not as simple as the standard smoko and lunch breaks.

If memory serves me right, crews must meal after the 3rd and be finished 5th hour and be at least 60 minutes.  The working hours include stabling (10 minutes IIRC), driving, checking the train before heading out, walking to the units (varies depending on stabling location - Mayne is 40mins IIRC - walk, test) etc.  There are also designated locations where crews are allowed to meal.

[somebody]

The rest of this thread talked about off peak operations.  I'm thinking that in peak the Shorncliffe line needs to attach to the suburbans in both directions.  This is really the only way that conflicting moves can be prevented.  Trains accessing the middle road in the PM would still need to conflict at Northgate, but it may be the best trade off, unless Petrie trains use the suburbans also.  Actually this could be fixed easily by providing a crossover from the outbound track to the middle road.  Best done as near as possible to a station, of course.

This should also allow a better than 15 minute frequency for all stations from Shorncliffe to Albion, with a crew swap at Shorncliffe.  9-10 minute frequency should be quite easy to achieve actually without any more infrastructure