Clapham stabling

[somebody]

Clapham stabling is one infrastructure upgrade I am strongly supportive of.  It is needed to remove the need to access Mayne via Roma St platform 7.  Also, the conflicting move in the PM peak with the Mayne-Roma St starters is still a less severe negative.

Does anyone have any comments?

[BrizCommuter]

BrizCommuter also supports Clapham stabling. However, any construction needs to allow for the simple addition of CRR track infrastructure in the future. The implications of additional trains passing through Park Road junction also need to be considered.

[somebody]

BrizCommuter also supports Clapham stabling. However, any construction needs to allow for the simple addition of CRR track infrastructure in the future. The implications of additional trains passing through Park Road junction also need to be considered.

Good points.  I think Park Rd junction can be managed through timetabling.  When a Cleveland line train is heading inbound, head outbound to that line, even if you would turn around.  Although if 24tph are passing here, it would not have any real margin to recover quickly when something goes wrong.

Certainly it should be done such that it doesn't need to be changed post CRR, although I am not sure how that would apply: so are you thinking of anything specific here?

[somebody]

Do you think it would be helpful to allow Park Rd #2 to be useful for southbound Beenleigh line trains?  Inbound Beenleigh line trains use platform #3, so it only conflicts with the inbound Cleveland line trains.

[ClintonL94]

BrizCommuter also supports Clapham stabling. However, any construction needs to allow for the simple addition of CRR track infrastructure in the future. The implications of additional trains passing through Park Road junction also need to be considered.

Trains can run via the Tennyson line to the City as well from Clapham. Clapham being a depot will be great for Kuraby and perhaps some Richlands/Corinda starters and trains starting at Yeerongpilly when CRR is completed - more space at Mayne for future trains..

[ozbob]

Media release 4 April 2011

SEQ: Clapham stabling required now

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 said that the proposed implementation of train stabling in Clapham yards needs to be done now.

Robert Dow, Spokesman for RAIL Back On Track said:

"The Inner City Rail Capacity Study (1) recommended Clapham stabling to be implemented by 2015.  However, it is the opinion of RAIL Back On Track members that it should be implemented now (2).  This is because it is the only real solution to the conflicts caused by trains from the Ferny Grove, Doomben, Airport and Shorncliffe line which need to return to Mayne yard via Roma St platform number 7.  These conflicts reduce capacity over the Merivale bridge, and reduce capacity and/or reliability for most trains."

"It really isn't possible to draft a decent peak hour timetable while restricting the AM peak capacity through Bowen Hills platform number 1 to 3 minute headways.  Clapham stabling is the only hard infrastructure needed to allow 2.5 minute headways.  The other move which could be needed is to move the crew changeovers on Bowen Hills platforms 1 and 2 to Central 1-4 or Roma St."

"An other point is that the stabling would be of assistance in increasing counter peak rail frequency to South Brisbane, South Bank and Park Rd.  This is important as the current system gives significant incentive to use less efficient bus services to the Ecosciences Precinct, South Bank and a larger part of the trip to UQ.  The busway system is already approaching capacity with serious bus congestion issues."

"Clapham stabling may well be achievable in the term of the current government and yield the benefits of higher peak capacity and reliability before the election. Construction needs to allow for the simple addition of Cross River Rail track infrastructure in the future."

References:

1. Inner City Rail Capacity Study, Rail Operations Review, Stage 3, September 2008, p125

2. http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=5727.0

Contact:

Robert Dow
Administration
admin@backontrack.org

[mufreight]

Clapham is a less than optimal location for a stabling facility, for the same reasons that Redbank is flawed as a location, the saving grace for Redbank rather than Wulkaraka is its proxmity to the Redbank workshops.
Any stabling facility should be beyond a key point of terminating services which in the case of the Beenleigh / Gold Coast line would mean in the Holmview/Beenleigh/Ormeau area just as on the Ipswich line Wulkuraka is an ideal location meeting the critera of close proximity to a terminating point for services, on the northern line logic would call for a major stabling facility at Petrie where Petrie is a terminating point for srevices and it could also serve the needs of the line to Kippa Ring although due to the nature of the existing and proposed services on the north such a major stabling facility could be equaly justified immediately north of Caboolture.

[Golliwog]

But more than just dead running needs to be considered for the location of stabling. While Mayne is good in that its close for services terminating at Roma St/Bowen Hills, it causes some issues with conflicting movements given how well traffic-ed the lines there are.

I would also consider there to be an argument for extending Roma St terminators that run on the suburbans to at least Park Rd, which would work with Clapham, but not Mayne.

[BrizCommuter]

Clapham is a less than optimal location for a stabling facility, for the same reasons that Redbank is flawed as a location, the saving grace for Redbank rather than Wulkaraka is its proxmity to the Redbank workshops.
Any stabling facility should be beyond a key point of terminating services which in the case of the Beenleigh / Gold Coast line would mean in the Holmview/Beenleigh/Ormeau area just as on the Ipswich line Wulkuraka is an ideal location meeting the critera of close proximity to a terminating point for services, on the northern line logic would call for a major stabling facility at Petrie where Petrie is a terminating point for srevices and it could also serve the needs of the line to Kippa Ring although due to the nature of the existing and proposed services on the north such a major stabling facility could be equaly justified immediately north of Caboolture.

Whilst stabling at the end of lines is generally preferable, there are situations where stabling closer to the city is required, particularly on a spread out rail system such as Brisbane's. Stabling and reversing at Clapham would reduce the number of conflicts at Roma St, and would allow for reversing, starting, and terminating of services to/from the North (reducing dead running on the Beenleigh Line, and allowing more flexibility in scheduling services to/from the North).

[somebody]

Perhaps there is an advantage for the Cleveland line also, as Clapham will be closer than Mayne.  Perhaps not massively though.

Clapham is a less than optimal location for a stabling facility, for the same reasons that Redbank is flawed as a location, the saving grace for Redbank rather than Wulkaraka is its proxmity to the Redbank workshops.

I suggest you read the arguments for it in the release.

[mufreight]

Clapham is a less than optimal location for a stabling facility, for the same reasons that Redbank is flawed as a location, the saving grace for Redbank rather than Wulkaraka is its proxmity to the Redbank workshops.
Any stabling facility should be beyond a key point of terminating services which in the case of the Beenleigh / Gold Coast line would mean in the Holmview/Beenleigh/Ormeau area just as on the Ipswich line Wulkuraka is an ideal location meeting the critera of close proximity to a terminating point for services, on the northern line logic would call for a major stabling facility at Petrie where Petrie is a terminating point for srevices and it could also serve the needs of the line to Kippa Ring although due to the nature of the existing and proposed services on the north such a major stabling facility could be equaly justified immediately north of Caboolture.

Whilst stabling at the end of lines is generally preferable, there are situations where stabling closer to the city is required, particularly on a spread out rail system such as Brisbane's. Stabling and reversing at Clapham would reduce the number of conflicts at Roma St, and would allow for reversing, starting, and terminating of services to/from the North (reducing dead running on the Beenleigh Line, and allowing more flexibility in scheduling services to/from the North).

So how do you propose to create the additional train paths between Roma Street and South Brisbane (read effectively Dutton Park) to enable this to happen?

[Golliwog]

Outbound in the morning peak across the Merivale Bridge is hardly near capacity. Same goes for inbound in the evening. How else do they have Roma St starters/terminators on the suburbans?

[somebody]

Outbound in the morning peak across the Merivale Bridge is hardly near capacity. Same goes for inbound in the evening. How else do they have Roma St starters/terminators on the suburbans?

We are proposing the abolition of the Mayne via Roma St #7.  It will certainly be at or near capacity if this occurs.

Trains would not be able to be cleared out of service at Sth Brisbane/Sth Bank or Park Rd under this scenario.  But that's a good thing, so long as it doesn't occur at Roma St instead.

[HappyTrainGuy]

If your proposing stabling there what effect would the the multiple 12 car trains that return post peak have? What about the Gympie/Nambour Runners - Reshuffle them into platform 9 from Mayne or make them start from Clapham? Maintainence issues? Would QR need an extra crew depot? More drivers/gards needed? Shunt drivers?

[Arnz]

Gympie North/Nambour runners are more suited to starting out of Redbank if they are aiming at reducing Roma Street starters.   Shorncliffe, Airport, et al (eg Suburbans) are better suited for Clapham.

Starting Gympie/Nambour out of Clapham would just cause conflict issues.

[HappyTrainGuy]

Redbank-Roma Street is a lot of dead running just for Nambour-Gympie North runners. Not to mention the possible follow on effects if there was a serious incident or track fault past Milton/Corinda. Better to work them into platform 9 somehow.

Here are a few more issues.

Do they then run dead Roma Street-Clapham Yard or do they run to Park Road/Yeerongpilly with passengers where extra staff would be needed to check the train for potential passengers still on board before it goes into stabling and so not to delay other services?
Do they run dead Clapham Stabling-Roma Street or do they start at Yeerongpilly/Park Road?
Inbound services on the Beenleigh line. Could they then be delayed as a train goes into Clapham Stabling?
Outbound peak hour Gold Coast services. Potential impact to inbound trains when they do the shuffle from Platform 1 at South Brisbane to Platform 3 at Southbank in the afternoons? (How is that any different from whats happening at Roma Street platform 7).
Impacts of/on dead runners from earlier peak services running back to make up another service (The dead arvo Cleveland-Roma Street runner to form a Roma Street-Ferny Grove service for example)?
Delayed services on other lines?

To me there are too many potential problems that now arise and because of the large amounts of dead running I don't see the real benefits of implimenting stabling just so they don't have a problem with platform 7 at Roma Street.

[mufreight]

When they build the CRR they dont have that problem so is not the priroity to build CRR then work from there, it may well be that with CRR in operation Clapham will no longer be a tenable option for a stabling facility.

[somebody]

If your proposing stabling there what effect would the the multiple 12 car trains that return post peak have? What about the Gympie/Nambour Runners - Reshuffle them into platform 9 from Mayne or make them start from Clapham? Maintainence issues? Would QR need an extra crew depot? More drivers/gards needed? Shunt drivers?

12 car trains?  What do we need them for? 

Gympie trains?  Aren't these being removed from platform 7 anyway?

Extra depot?  Of course.  Is it OK at Redbank but not at Clapham?

Seriously dude, what's your problem?  This plan was recommended in the ICRCS.  Seems that QR people are against any development.  Sorry, but it is the way I see it.

Here are a few more issues.

Do they then run dead Roma Street-Clapham Yard or do they run to Park Road/Yeerongpilly with passengers where extra staff would be needed to check the train for potential passengers still on board before it goes into stabling and so not to delay other services?
Do they run dead Clapham Stabling-Roma Street or do they start at Yeerongpilly/Park Road?
Inbound services on the Beenleigh line. Could they then be delayed as a train goes into Clapham Stabling?
Outbound peak hour Gold Coast services. Potential impact to inbound trains when they do the shuffle from Platform 1 at South Brisbane to Platform 3 at Southbank in the afternoons? (How is that any different from whats happening at Roma Street platform 7).
Impacts of/on dead runners from earlier peak services running back to make up another service (The dead arvo Cleveland-Roma Street runner to form a Roma Street-Ferny Grove service for example)?
Delayed services on other lines?

To me there are too many potential problems that now arise and because of the large amounts of dead running I don't see the real benefits of implimenting stabling just so they don't have a problem with platform 7 at Roma Street.

From the top:
- Already half answered.  You can't clear out of service at Park Rd, that means staff which do this at Roma St now need to be moved to Yeerongpilly.  There may be a need for another location on the Cleveland line (Manly/Lota?).
- No
- I'd delay the empty train.  It is a conflicting move though.
- How's it different to Roma St #7 at Sth Brisbane in the PM?  Because in the AM terminating trains need to wrong road.  This doesn't apply at Sth Brisb/Sth Bank.  Even in the PM, RS#7 starters from Mayne need to conflict with two more congested lines, but that's not really the main problem.
- Dead running needs to be reduced
- What's your point?

When they build the CRR they dont have that problem so is not the priroity to build CRR then work from there, it may well be that with CRR in operation Clapham will no longer be a tenable option for a stabling facility.

The ability to access Clapham stabling was one reason why the portal at Yeerongpilly was chosen.  The releases have said so.  I think it was a good decision.  I'm open to counter arguments.

[ozbob]

Clapham stabling is an intrinsic part of CRR project.  Getting it started (the stabling) makes sense to me ...

[ClintonL94]

Bob you might know the answer to this..

The report that Somebody has mentioned was published in 2008, and the proposal of making Clapham a Citytrain depot was when QR was one company.

Now QRN and QR are separate companies, does QRN or QR own Clapham yard?

[Arnz]

If your proposing stabling there what effect would the the multiple 12 car trains that return post peak have? What about the Gympie/Nambour Runners - Reshuffle them into platform 9 from Mayne or make them start from Clapham? Maintainence issues? Would QR need an extra crew depot? More drivers/gards needed? Shunt drivers?

12 car trains?  What do we need them for? 

Gympie trains?  Aren't these being removed from platform 7 anyway?

Gympie trains will operate on the suburbans with its own dedicated rollingstock (the ICEs), they are its own sector separate from Caboolture/Nambour.

[ozbob]

Bob you might know the answer to this..

The report that Somebody has mentioned was published in 2008, and the proposal of making Clapham a Citytrain depot was when QR was one company.

Now QRN and QR are separate companies, does QRN or QR own Clapham yard?

I would expect Queensland Rail ..

[HappyTrainGuy]

12 car trains are frequently run around the network after peak and to also to pick up trains with problems. At the terminus a dead 6 car is attached to another dead 6 car and then ran as a dead 12 car train back to other stabling. Not to mention it frees up extra paths and reduces crew costs in the process. Could they simply pull into Clapham and have multiple 12 car slots reserved or do the trains have to continue dead running back to Mayne.

By delayed I mean what would happen if a Gold Coast train or any other services were delayed to a point where it could then create a bottle neck at South Brisbane and then have a follow on effect to other services (5.31 Caboolture all stations service from Cleveland vs 5.29 Airport service; at Southbank does indeed do this alot. By that I mean the Caboolture train gets held up at Southbank, South Brisbane or sometimes even Park Road while the airport train catches up and passes if its running a couple mins late).

You also can't help but have dead running on the Cleveland line due to the single track and still expect a frequent peak service out there.

In the AM you have to cross paths on inbound trains just to get into the stabling area. Instead of holding up an Ipswich train/Airport train you could hold up a Bowen Hills/Ferny Grove train.

Could the inner city network cope with the extra rerouted trains to go to Clapham? You can't effectivly run Clapham until Redbank stabling is operational aswell.

[mufreight]

The only justification for stabling at Redbank is the proximity to the Redbank workshops, Ipswich has run out of readily accesable room to expand and be mindful that these locations currently in mind were all selected prior to the break up.
Were Wulkraka used as the location for a stabling facility now it would have the flow on effect of increasing the numbers of Ipswich services rather than have them terminate as they now do at Redbank   

[somebody]

The only justification for stabling at Redbank is the proximity to the Redbank workshops, Ipswich has run out of readily accesable room to expand and be mindful that these locations currently in mind were all selected prior to the break up.
Were Wulkraka used as the location for a stabling facility now it would have the flow on effect of increasing the numbers of Ipswich services rather than have them terminate as they now do at Redbank   

I don't know why you wouldn't have stabling nearer Rosewood than Wulkaraka, actually.

Gympie trains will operate on the suburbans with its own dedicated rollingstock (the ICEs), they are its own sector separate from Caboolture/Nambour.

Checking the timetable, heading southbound they will use the mains Bowen Hills-Roma St, but heading north they will use the suburbans.

The real problem with the Roma St #7 moves is in the southbound direction.  Northbound, while still a conflicting move and undesirable, it can be lived with much more easily.  Not really sure why they didn't get rid of it though.

12 car trains are frequently run around the network after peak and to also to pick up trains with problems. At the terminus a dead 6 car is attached to another dead 6 car and then ran as a dead 12 car train back to other stabling. Not to mention it frees up extra paths and reduces crew costs in the process. Could they simply pull into Clapham and have multiple 12 car slots reserved or do the trains have to continue dead running back to Mayne.

Regarding crew savings, it would leave an out of position crew. 

Path savings?  Why are empties running in peak directions?

Besides this is a red herring.  It has no effect on whether there should be Clapham stabling or not.

By delayed I mean what would happen if a Gold Coast train or any other services were delayed to a point where it could then create a bottle neck at South Brisbane and then have a follow on effect to other services (5.31 Caboolture all stations service from Cleveland vs 5.29 Airport service; at Southbank does indeed do this alot. By that I mean the Caboolture train gets held up at Southbank, South Brisbane or sometimes even Park Road while the airport train catches up and passes if its running a couple mins late).

You also can't help but have dead running on the Cleveland line due to the single track and still expect a frequent peak service out there.

In the AM you have to cross paths on inbound trains just to get into the stabling area. Instead of holding up an Ipswich train/Airport train you could hold up a Bowen Hills/Ferny Grove train.

Could the inner city network cope with the extra rerouted trains to go to Clapham? You can't effectivly run Clapham until Redbank stabling is operational aswell.

Regarding Cleveland dead running, you could have express Manly-Cleveland counter peak and avoid dead running that way.

Regarding inner city (I assume you mean Roma St-South Brisbane-Park Rd), it would be tight if you completely eliminated the via RS#7 move.  I think it should be eliminated, but the stabling would help to reduce it.

The ideal regarding the conflicting move at Clapham would be a flyover.  I'm not sure if this is included in the ICRCS plans.

Regarding that Cleveland-Caboolture train, that is exactly the sort of thing they need to stop doing!!

[mufreight]

I don't know why you wouldn't have stabling nearer Rosewood than Wulkaraka, actually.

That one is easily answered.
1. the amount of dead running that it would involve.
2. the majority of services originate from or terminate at Ipswich.
3. Stabling at Rosewood or in that vicinity becomes a waste of money when as it inevitably must be the electrification is extended west to Grandchester, Gatton or Helidon.

[HappyTrainGuy]

They have to run dead 12 car trains as there are no spaces left at Caboolture or Ipswich to accept any more trains and they can't run them back with passengers as they then interfer with the Nambour-Roma Street express trains or conflicting freight paths. The Gold Coast line doesn't do it as there is ample spaced for them but there is still space at Robina for future stabling (Same applies to Beenleigh).

Should have been more exact but yes. Bowen Hills-Park Road.

A flyover? Just for stabling? Someone tell him he's dreaming. Personally I'd rather see the funds be injected into other projects such as the North Coast Line where freight and passenger services are needed to be upgraded more importantly rather than see a massive fly over built just so a couple trains don't have to wait a minute or so at Marooka or Roma Street.

I haven't checked the timetable too much but I think that the morning Caboolture-Cleveland all stations service and the afternoon Cleveland-Caboolture all stations service has been removed. I'll tell you a lot of TAFE students at Southbank are going to be dissapointed if thats the case. Both for getting to and going from day and night classes.

[somebody]

I don't know why you wouldn't have stabling nearer Rosewood than Wulkaraka, actually.

That one is easily answered.
1. the amount of dead running that it would involve.
2. the majority of services originate from or terminate at Ipswich.
3. Stabling at Rosewood or in that vicinity becomes a waste of money when as it inevitably must be the electrification is extended west to Grandchester, Gatton or Helidon.

Definitely agree with the last point.

However, a stabling yard of the size of the Ipswich yard near Rosewood would be a reduction in dead running rather than an increase.  If you are thinking of a larger yard, then yes, that is a fair point.

Under the 6 June 2011 timetable, 9 services start at Rosewood up to 7:30am while 3 terminate.  First of these outbound services is almost completely a positioning move.

So, in fact, a 7 space yard near Rosewood based on the current terminus would be completely logical.

A flyover? Just for stabling? Someone tell him he's dreaming. Personally I'd rather see the funds be injected into other projects such as the North Coast Line where freight and passenger services are needed to be upgraded more importantly rather than see a massive fly over built just so a couple trains don't have to wait a minute or so at Marooka or Roma Street.

Concede that point, but I think there are such arrangements planned for CRR.

I still don't understand why you can't have 2x 6 car trains rather than 12 car trains, or why it isn't a red herring.  EDIT: I will allow it could make sense north of Caboolture.  Although stabling upgrades would remove this.

[Golliwog]

I think the flyover for CRR also has one (or both) of the CRR through tracks go through it as well so its not too bad.

The 1x12 car train VS. 2x6 car train is to do with headways. If as HTG says they conflict with Nambour expresses or freight paths then it make sense as while it may take twice as long (becuase the train is now twice as long) for the whole train to pass a point, you save time as the 2nd train no longer has to be following a safe distance behind that. Its the same logic that we use when we argue for longer freight passing loops on the NCL as if you have one longer train rather than 2 short trains you can increase capacity.

[HappyTrainGuy]

Yep. The problem that Ipswich has is also not enough stabling and some inbound freight from out west. The main problem for the Caboolture line is that it has to deal with a lot more traffic. The night Cairns TiltTrain, Nambour express, Roma Street express, Caboolture all stations, Ipswich sll stations then the inbound and outbound freight. For crew costs a crew based there might get on their job card to finish and to stable the train at the terminus while another crew has on their job card to terminate at the terminus, couple to a dead 6 car unit, return to Mayne and then sign off as opposed to having both crews run back to Mayne. At sometime in the future when Beenleigh has no more space left for stabling could it be possible for them to run a dead 12 car train back to Clapham instead of dead running to Mayne (If you run to Mayne your doing what you were trying to prevent in peak). Doing this also frees up extra paths for trains to run (passenger and freight). So you can't always rule it out.

[somebody]

Further to my previous post re: Wulkaraka vs Rosewood stabling, besides trains which connect/run through, 8 additional trains start at Ipswich in the AM peak up until 7:50AM, while 6 terminate.

Is the Wulkaraka stabling a replacement for the Ipswich facility, or is it to supplement it?

Back to topic:
I think it goes without saying that Clapham stabling would also be useful for Kuraby trains and Richlands trains. 

[mufreight]

Further to my previous post re: Wulkaraka vs Rosewood stabling, besides trains which connect/run through, 8 additional trains start at Ipswich in the AM peak up until 7:50AM, while 6 terminate.

Is the Wulkaraka stabling a replacement for the Ipswich facility, or is it to supplement it?

Back to topic:
I think it goes without saying that Clapham stabling would also be useful for Kuraby trains and Richlands trains. 

Seems that Wulkraka has been considered as a stabling facility and maintence facility for the next generation of train sets, so it would effectively eventualy replace Ipswich as a stabling facility and take some of the load off Mayne.
If/when Ripley goes ahead some of the existing corridor at Ipswich currently used for stabling would be required to access Ipswich station from the west, the old goods yard will be used in the new development and extension of the Ipswich Square precinct.

[somebody]

Further to my previous post re: Wulkaraka vs Rosewood stabling, besides trains which connect/run through, 8 additional trains start at Ipswich in the AM peak up until 7:50AM, while 6 terminate.

I think I need to retract this.  Only 1 train terminates at Ipswich until 7:50am without connecting to a Rosewood train.  Don't know what I was looking at.

Is there a limit to the number of yards CityTrain can support: we have: Mayne, Robina, Beenleigh, Manly, Caboolture, Nambour, Gympie and Ipswich, with Shorncliffe being a crew depot without any train storage.

Adding Clapham, Rosewood and Ferny Grove could spread things too thin, I guess.  Perhaps the last one shouldn't be done.  I think the Ipswich line could support two depots though.  Shorncliffe also makes little sense on current operations, but storing two trains there would bring some logic to the arrangements.

Yandina would replace Nambour and Gympie, which would be a positive.

[Arnz]

Fairly sure that Gympie North would likely remain as is.  Moving them down Yandina would just take up unnecessary train paths on the single track in the morning.

[petey3801]

Further to my previous post re: Wulkaraka vs Rosewood stabling, besides trains which connect/run through, 8 additional trains start at Ipswich in the AM peak up until 7:50AM, while 6 terminate.

I think I need to retract this.  Only 1 train terminates at Ipswich until 7:50am without connecting to a Rosewood train.  Don't know what I was looking at.

Is there a limit to the number of yards CityTrain can support: we have: Mayne, Robina, Beenleigh, Manly, Caboolture, Nambour, Gympie and Ipswich, with Shorncliffe being a crew depot without any train storage.

Adding Clapham, Rosewood and Ferny Grove could spread things too thin, I guess.  Perhaps the last one shouldn't be done.  I think the Ipswich line could support two depots though.  Shorncliffe also makes little sense on current operations, but storing two trains there would bring some logic to the arrangements.

Yandina would replace Nambour and Gympie, which would be a positive.

You forgot Petrie, which is both a depot and has yard capacity at the moment for 2x6-cars.

Redbank will (hopefully) be coming online late this year as a yard (6x6 packs by memory?) and a crew depot.

[HappyTrainGuy]

I think there is indeed a limit when it comes to the amount of stabling available as additional costs come into play with maintaining the facilities, upgrading infrastructure, staff/crew availability and security.

Don't forget Petrie even if it only has a capacity of 2x 6 car trains. Although the current stabling to the North (Where the derailment was in 01) is likely to go due to conflicting paths and space avability when the track splits off for Kippa Ring.

Also agree with Arnz. Yandina wouldn't work due to the removal of other paths for dead running trains to/from Gympie/Nambour plus additional crew loads to retreive the units for service.

[somebody]

Redbank will (hopefully) be coming online late this year as a yard (6x6 packs by memory?) and a crew depot.

That's a very odd one.

Rosewood or Wulkuraka would have been far superior.

[ozbob]

Redbank is the next target for track amplification - Darra to Redbank triplication. 

I think there is enough room to squeeze past the new substation at Goodna.  Goodna station is heritage listed I am told ( it is a swimmer ..)  not sure how they will handle that when time comes ...  ideally there should be straightening of the alignment but might be difficult if the station is to stay where it is, there is some room on the down side.

[Golliwog]

Is the whole station heritage listed, or just the station building? If the latter then while it would be costly, you could relocate the building to suit whatever necessary alignment. If you wanted to get really sentimental, if you're tearing up the old platform, you could grind up the concrete, bitumen, etc and re-use it as an aggregate or filler in the new one.

[petey3801]

Redbank will (hopefully) be coming online late this year as a yard (6x6 packs by memory?) and a crew depot.

That's a very odd one.

Rosewood or Wulkuraka would have been far superior.

Redbank will be good if(when) they resume Redbank starters/terminators. It will be quite a strategic place I think for a stabling area, especially once the third track gets out there in *insert date here*..