RAIL - Back On Track Forum

What is stopping the Government from doing this? It's a very short distance, land is already there, and would improve reliability/capacity of Shorncliffe branch.

Ideally, give sufficient staff and rolling stock, Shorncliffe could do 8tph during peak and do away with Northgate terminators.

Could the line handle:

8tph Shorncliffe
4tph Airport
2tph Doomben
10tph Ferny Grove?

Total of 24tph.

That should be possible, right?

Quote from: achiruel on March 23, 2018, 16:07:00 PM
What is stopping the Government from doing this? It's a very short distance, land is already there, and would improve reliability/capacity of Shorncliffe branch.

Ideally, give sufficient staff and rolling stock, Shorncliffe could do 8tph during peak and do away with Northgate terminators.

Could the line handle:

8tph Shorncliffe
4tph Airport
2tph Doomben
10tph Ferny Grove?

Total of 24tph.

That should be possible, right?

24tph would not be reliable until after ETCS-L2. 10tph on FG Line is not realistic, can't see it improving beyond 8tph/7.5 min am peak service for decades (though some busier services could be full within within a decade). Extra services could only be added in the 2tph free slots. Shorncliffe duplication would be fairly low cost but is also fairly low priority. Associated infrastructure to take advantage of CRR are higher priority.

Lack of drivers and lack of trains is the real reason for only 4tph on the Shorncliffe line. You could do 8tph to Sandgate with every second train to Shorncliffe just fine, which covers most of the demand.

Quote from: James on March 24, 2018, 13:18:00 PM
Lack of drivers and lack of trains is the real reason for only 4tph on the Shorncliffe line. You could do 8tph to Sandgate with every second train to Shorncliffe just fine, which covers most of the demand.

Or just terminate all trains at Sandgate and get them to catch the 314 across

I found this short clip in Trove ( https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/173082777 ). 

To fully understand it you need to know the chronology and names of the stations we now know as Sandgate and Shorncliffe.

The railway opened in 1882 to the then terminal station Sandgate.

In 1897 single line extension from Sandgate was opened to the Shorncliffe area, but the new terminal station was named Sandgate, and the original Sandgate station re-named Sandgate Central.  In 1938 Sandgate was officially renamed Shorncliffe and Sandgate Central reverted back to Sandgate.

In 1899 it was obvious that the single line extension should be duplicated. Here we are now, 123 years later and it is still a single line.  What a cluster-fuk!!!

" ... the height of folly ... "

https://twitter.com/ozbob13/status/1568814657582018560

Trove link > https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/173082777

A succession of Queensland Governments need to hang their heads in shame.

A failure to duplicate both the Shorncliffe and Cleveland lines makes the Cross River Rail massive expenditure look somewhat stranded.



Lurkers, please take that message to your overlords !!!

How important is that duplication really if the line can already support 4 tph in both directions, as it does for several hours a day already? Is that not sufficient for the demand?

Cleveland definitely needs to be done urgently.

Shorncliffe already supports 4tph (Much like the Airport line with its single track)

You could further improve operations if you were happy to decommission the Wye and build a 2nd platform over the top.
It's a terminus station, and the platform is only at ground level so no need for any sort of lift.

It would be about as elaborate as the Cooran/Pomona/Eumundi station platforms, so we are talking $2m or so.

If you want to keep the wye in operatation, that involves realigning the wye, building lifts etc, so then it becomes a $20m job.

How badly do we want to keep the wye?

4 trains per hour is its max.  Extending the duplication will allow improved frequency at peak and more reliable operation around the clock for all stations Northgate <> Shorncliffe.  That was obvious in 1899, nothing has changed since then,  It is time all lines were of proper standard.

There has been problems on the Shorncliffe line particularly at peak.  Long waits if a service is cancelled or stations skipped.  They have been able to limp along with the pairing with Cleveland but it is now a different situation with the changed line pairs in the new network. It is time to upgrade the rail services on all lines.  To sit back and pontificate on the present mediocre frequencies being acceptable is not where I am at. 

There is no real reason to keep the wye AFAIK, other than turning steam locos, but QR seems very disinterested in continuing such operations.

Quote from: Gazza on September 12, 2022, 11:14:04 AMCleveland definitely needs to be done urgently.

Shorncliffe already supports 4tph (Much like the Airport line with its single track)

You could further improve operations if you were happy to decommission the Wye and build a 2nd platform over the top.
It's a terminus station, and the platform is only at ground level so no need for any sort of lift.

It would be about as elaborate as the Cooran/Pomona/Eumundi station platforms, so we are talking $2m or so.

If you want to keep the wye in operatation, that involves realigning the wye, building lifts etc, so then it becomes a $20m job.

How badly do we want to keep the wye?

Locomotives are no longer permitted to lead long end. Also limits where special trains can run such as steam locomotives.

Quote from: ozbob on September 12, 2022, 12:11:59 PMThere is no real reason to keep the wye AFAIK, other than turning steam locos, but QR seems very disinterested in continuing such operations.

When I was last at Shorncliffe they were storing track maintenance equipment at and around the wye, and I get the impression that it's used as a staging/storage area for this kind of stuff. Combined with no long end leading, it's probably important to keep it just to provide some flexibility

Quote from: ozbob on September 12, 2022, 12:11:59 PMIt is time to upgrade the rail services on all lines.  To sit back and pontificate on the present mediocre frequencies being acceptable is not where I am at. 

I think we all agree that 4 services per hour is the minimum we should accept as frequent service, but I'm not sure that getting more than that is a high priority investment if that is all that is required to meet demand. We could aim for 4tph from Shorncliffe and then more from Northgate, for example, if that was warranted.

I would not support duplicating Sandgate-Shorncliffe at the expense of extending the Springfield or Gold Coast lines, for example.

Track amplification needs to take place to allow 10-minute frequency during peak hours.

The amount of new track required is minimal (~1.3 km) so it will be a quick win. If TMR/QR cannot build this, then they cannot build anything!   

4 trains/hour is minimum off-peak frequency, more is required for peak

 

Quote from: OzGamer on September 12, 2022, 15:19:01 PM

Quote from: ozbob on September 12, 2022, 12:11:59 PMIt is time to upgrade the rail services on all lines.  To sit back and pontificate on the present mediocre frequencies being acceptable is not where I am at. 

I think we all agree that 4 services per hour is the minimum we should accept as frequent service, but I'm not sure that getting more than that is a high priority investment if that is all that is required to meet demand. We could aim for 4tph from Shorncliffe and then more from Northgate, for example, if that was warranted.

I would not support duplicating Sandgate-Shorncliffe at the expense of extending the Springfield or Gold Coast lines, for example.

The cost of duplicating Sandgate to Shorncliffe is trivial compared to those projects.  When the network changes in 2025 Northgate to Shorncliffe will be a choke on the system.  It needs to be fixed.  As does Cleveland line, but that is another topic.  There has been constant feedback to QR for years about the problem of poor frequency at peak on the Shorncliffe line.  Hope it gets sorted. Off peak, it is ratsh%t as for most lines outside the inner network.

I think it should be sorted and with priority.  You don't have to agree.

Quote from: #Metro on September 12, 2022, 15:42:23 PMTrack amplification needs to take place to allow 10-minute frequency during peak hours.

The amount of new track required is minimal (~1.3 km) so it will be a quick win. If TMR/QR cannot build this, then they cannot build anything!   

4 trains/hour is minimum off-peak frequency, more is required for peak

 

^ +1

Enough new track has been put in place in the north and south yards at Wacol over the last 12 months or so, that be more than enough to triplicate the line between Sandgate and Shorncliffe!   

So how many TPH could you manage with just a 2nd platform?

Fixing Shorncliffe and Cleveland should be priorities given that the timetabling constraints the single track bits create will no longer be limited to trains that mostly go between these 2 locations.

I suspect Airport and Doomben are less problematic but could be wrong.

(North of Beerwah will also continue to be an issue.)

So take home message is, successive Queensland State Governments have been useless for well over a hundred years at planning and executing infrastructure projects. And we think we can run a successful Olympics?

FML.   

Quote from: Gazza on September 12, 2022, 17:06:11 PMSo how many TPH could you manage with just a 2nd platform?

For Shorncliffe? Presumably at least 8tph peak direction, that's what Ferny Grove does.


It'd be probably better from a passenger-experience perspective if it were an island rather than two sides though...

Do we really care that much at such a minor terminus to change the platforms?

Quote from: ozbob on September 12, 2022, 12:11:59 PMThey have been able to limp along with the pairing with Cleveland but it is now a different situation with the changed line pairs in the new network. It is time to upgrade the rail services on all lines.

Never thought about the line pairing that way. Joint the two weakest lines (ignoring Brisbane Airport and Doomben) to avoid impacting the rest of the network.

Ideally I would want to remove the LXs along the stretch at the same time, but yes I agree Shorncliffe duplication is essential for a more modern reliable network at peak. It's not even difficult to do, the corridor is nice and wide

Quote from: kram0 on September 12, 2022, 18:04:32 PMSo take home message is, successive Queensland State Governments have been useless for well over a hundred years at planning and executing infrastructure projects. And we think we can run a successful Olympics?

FML.   

I share your concerns ... 

If they wye at Shorncliffe needs to be kept and it's too much trouble rearranging it, would it work well enough having the line duplicated, connecting to the current siding track, but keeping just the single platform? Still not perfect, but would it be good enough?

I think the turnback capacity is the main issue here, not necessarily the single track itself (however, not disregarding the issues with single track sections).

Quote from: Cazza on September 13, 2022, 14:55:54 PMI think the turnback capacity is the main issue here, not necessarily the single track itself (however, not disregarding the issues with single track sections).

Yes, I have had some discussions with those who know about rail planning in detail.  An additional platform would facilitate turnback would allow 5 minute frequency (line is upgraded to ETCS-L2).  The Shorncliffe station is considered heritage and recently under went an upgrade. An additional side platform with an accessible path and crossing could be achieved with change from $10M. This could then balance Springfield with high frequency and improved reliability.  Not hard is it?

I am going to Shorncliffe next week for a look.  I think it might be possible to preserve the wye and put in place the additional platform.

Going to Shorncliffe on Tuesday, 20th September.

Nice little seafood place near Sandgate station (500m) be good for lunch.

[ http://www.dougsseafoodcafe.com.au ]

https://twitter.com/ozbob13/status/1572029289457127424

https://twitter.com/ozbob13/status/1572041212848410625

Shorncliffe










Sandgate



That image is A12 class #246 at Sandgate (original name for Shorncliffe) c.1905.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/queenslandstatearchives/51292542382



Photographs R Dow 20th September 2022

Photograph R Dow 20th September 2022

Shorncliffe station building which dates from 1912 is presently being restored.  There is a temporary office.

There was no activity at the original station building.

https://www.queenslandrail.com.au/inthecommunity/projects/shorncliffe-station-precinct-heritage-restoration

Shorncliffe station precinct heritage restoration

QuoteQueensland Rail is undertaking a restoration of the iconic Shorncliffe station. The project involves repairs to the station building's foundations and walls, replacing the roof, cleaning and painting surfaces, restoring the air raid shelter and constructing a new staff operations facility.

Queensland Rail is prioritising heritage considerations as the project progresses through design and implementation stages, reflecting community feedback received during the consultation phase.

Investigations and design works

In 2018, Queensland Rail completed the new staff operations facility for train crew and established temporary ticket facilities and platform access at the station. The project team then began investigations into the structure of the original building to help inform the scope of works for the major heritage restoration.

During these first stages of the project, hundreds of objects were uncovered in the subfloor of Shorncliffe train station. Initial assessment of the heritage items – including train tickets, clothing, newspapers and bottles – suggest the items date back to the 1950s.

Independent heritage assessors Niche Environment and Heritage were engaged to assist Queensland Rail to safely remove the items from the subfloor, catalogue them and ensure all activities met best practice heritage investigation processes.

Construction timeframe

While undertaking the initial investigative works, Queensland Rail also detected structural issues with the station building, which will need to be addressed through bracing and staged works as part of the restoration project.

The impact of the heritage discoveries and structural issues have meant Queensland Rail is reassessing the project timeframes to include these changes to scope. While these extra works will affect the project timelines, it's extremely important that we get this project right and treat this 1912 building – and piece of our local history – with respect.

Our team will undertake further excavations following the removal of heritage items and once this work is complete, Queensland Rail will provide a detailed update for the community.

Detailed design will follow this activity and Queensland Rail will share the designs for community feedback.

Temporary ticket office and platform access

The temporary ticket office and new platform access to the west of the station building will remain in place while the station's restoration works continue.

One approach would be to buffer stop platform 1 (existing platform).
Add in another side platform (2) facing to the loop line.
At grade DDA compliant ramp access to platform 2 - could also incorporate a wheel chair lift - weather protected.

A terminating train with loco runs into 2. Loco detaches goes forward and reverses around the wye.

If it wasn't for the heritage building etc. a simple island platform would work well.

What about a Cronulla-type solution?

https://www.google.com/maps/@-34.0558568,151.1513672,113m/data=!3m1!1e3

That looks like an Asbestos Roof? 

Quote from: #Metro on September 20, 2022, 16:52:26 PMThat looks like an Asbestos Roof? 

Yo, the thought occurred to me.  I do wonder why everything has ground to a halt.  Last project update was over two years ago now.

Maybe QR might have to close the station for a while.  Trains can turnback at Sandgate by running onto to the single line and then coming back to the up platform.

If they do close for a while, be a good opportunity to do the extra platform.

Quote from: Cazza on September 20, 2022, 16:48:50 PMWhat about a Cronulla-type solution?

https://www.google.com/maps/@-34.0558568,151.1513672,113m/data=!3m1!1e3

Thanks Cazza, will have a closer look later today.  It has terminal platforms with access all raised?

My initial thoughts could be similar, although I think the wye will need to be kept.

https://twitter.com/ozbob13/status/1572246854536146953

I have emailed communityengagement@qr.com.au seeking information on progress.

I've also emailed QR, twice in the last few years, asking for updates on Shorncliffe, and have received virtually the same reply both times, adding nothing new to the already available info in the QR webpage. The station building is a disgrace in its current condition, and does nothing to enhance QR's reputation in the community.

Should duplication of the line to Shorncliffe ever proceed, I think the easiest option for a second platform could be to shift the loop line in closer to the platform road - 4m, current duplication track centres, and put a new 160m side platform on the southern side of the loop. The current distance between the loop and platform road, based on a rough Google Earth measure, is about 7.5m, not enough width to put an island platform between the tracks, and not enough space to put a side platform on the southern side of the loop between the legs of the forkline. This idea would obviously need a closer examination to confirm its viability.

The Cronulla example is an interesting idea, having been there by train myself some years ago, but I don't think it would work at Shorncliffe. To place a second standard 160m platform, tandem style, at the western end of the current platform, with a crossover in the middle from the new Up road to the existing platform road (assuming 1 in 8.25 turnouts - 25km/h) results in a total length of platform of 365m, thus extending from the Palm Ave OLC to beyond the eastern end of the current platform. Passengers, oops, customers, arriving or departing by the second train would face a lengthy walk to or from the entry/exit and car park at the far eastern end, a particular concern for the elderly. The station building entry and exit at Cronulla is more centrally placed.

In any case, I suspect the lack of progress at Shorncliffe means something more substantial is in the wind!
Finally, OzBob, good choice of a lunch venue, been there many time myself, always a good seafood meal at reasonable prices!

Yes, we can only hope.  Agreed, not a great situation out there at present.

Thanks for your suggestions Derailed2, certainly able to be upgraded if the desire is there.

Rippa joint that Doug's Seafood Cafe, excellent feeds 

Quote from: ozbob on September 20, 2022, 16:15:27 PMOne approach would be to buffer stop platform 1 (existing platform).
Add in another side platform (2) facing to the loop line.
At grade DDA compliant ramp access to platform 2 - could also incorporate a wheel chair lift - weather protected.

A terminating train with loco runs into 2. Loco detaches goes forward and reverses around the wye.

If it wasn't for the heritage building etc. a simple island platform would work well.

What about, in a similar vein as thus, but an island platform between the two? Demolish the current platform (remove the heritage building during demolition, replace on the new island platform), slew the current platform track outwards to allow a nice wide island platform with minimal changes to the wye trackage etc, buffer stops on P1 track with easy access from that end on to the platform.