RAIL - Back On Track Forum

Quote from: JimmyP on September 21, 2022, 18:58:28 PM

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.

I think an island would be the best option in the end JimmyP.

But the heritage station building is going to be an issue.  I guess it depends on how serious the authorities are about doing something. 

It really only needs a second platform to improve the turnback.  With the ETCS L2 on the line the single line between Shorncliffe and Sandgate really is not a problem, only a 2 minute run. In a perfect world be best double.

But I am sure there are plans, that are not being made public.  Time will tell ...

They should be making the plans public as they have proven time and time again they f&$k most things up.

Quote from: kram0 on September 22, 2022, 11:04:02 AMThey should be making the plans public as they have proven time and time again they f&$k most things up.

There are plans for many, many, many things (some are made public like a SC 160kph quad realignment) but a lot of the time it's not up to them but treasury and now TMR budgets who don't want them to bite them in the ass (like the original SC plans for a new quad 160kph corridor instead of whatever we are getting now). QR could have an ideal plan for $50 million but TMR/Treasury will only budget $25 million and comprises have to be made (QR planned for NCL triple/NWTC/turn back provisions at Petrie but tmr at Newman gov direction removed them from L2P/MBRL projects for gold plating. Same with the signalling. QR designed and planned for a different signalling system but TMR wanted cost cuts so when trains were testing for the first time the signalling system failed and UTC had no idea of physical train locations which was also on top of the reduced capacity available at Petrie due to signalling system limitations between the two).

QuoteThere are plans for many, many, many things (some are made public like a SC 160kph quad realignment) but a lot of the time it's not up to them but treasury and now TMR budgets who don't want them to bite them in the ass (like the original SC plans for a new quad 160kph corridor instead of whatever we are getting now). QR could have an ideal plan for $50 million but TMR/Treasury will only budget $25 million and comprises have to be made (QR planned for NCL triple/NWTC/turn back provisions at Petrie but tmr at Newman gov direction removed them from L2P/MBRL projects for gold plating. Same with the signalling. QR designed and planned for a different signalling system but TMR wanted cost cuts so when trains were testing for the first time the signalling system failed and UTC had no idea of physical train locations which was also on top of the reduced capacity available at Petrie due to signalling system limitations between the two).

For a region that has very long distances (50-100km) to destination points, the mainline average train speeds are just far too slow.

SEQ has the ideal setup geographically for fast trains that outdo car travel. Higher speed is not very useful at short distances (e.g. Ferny Grove, Doomben), but over longer distances it adds up and can compete very well with car travel speeds (or in the case of Perth outdo the car).

Roads are legally limited to 110 km/hr and about 2200 pphd/lane. QR trains are capable of doing 160 km/hr and possibly higher than that. We need to have a setup where trains are running at the upper end of the speed range into Brisbane from places like Gold Coast, Sunshine Coast, Caboolture, Redcliffe etc.

Only the Tilts can do 160kph. The rest of the fleet have mechanical limitations.

Shorncliffe station renewal project and accessibility upgrade

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

Facebook ...

No duplication though? Disappointing.

https://twitter.com/railbotforum/status/1584613522159255552

Quote from: achiruel on October 25, 2022, 04:30:47 AMNo duplication though? Disappointing.

Yes duplication would be ideal, however an additional platform would improve the turnback situation.

This could be done while the original platform is being rebuilt.

With ETCS L2 in place on the line and a second platform this would probably be enough to cope with the increased frequency resulting from the pairing with the Springfield line.

We will be raising the duplication/second platform with QR and Government.

But is there a second platform being built ? I could not see any mention of it.

Quote from: kram0 on October 25, 2022, 21:17:56 PMBut is there a second platform being built ? I could not see any mention of it.

No, we need to lobby for it.

Quote from: kram0 on October 25, 2022, 21:17:56 PMBut is there a second platform being built ? I could not see any mention of it.

No. As Bob mentioned it's not in the scope of works so nothing extra will be considered.

This my thinking about a second platform at Shorncliffe.

Platform 1 (present platform) becomes a true terminal platform, with buffer stop.

Platform 2 accessed via an all weather path and compliant ramps (red line).

One problem Bob. The area is manual interlocking and any crossing would fall outside of safety zones or into the next signalling area.  Or were you thinking like a narangba setup where the island platform could access both trains? (Sorry the last two photos aren't loading for me).

^ can that be overcome?  Will ETCS on the line help?

I was thinking the second platform would be a side platform for the loop line.

Ideally an island would be best but that is not going to happen with the heritage focus on the existing platform and buildings.

They might use Sandgate for terminating/starters for some services if they don't do something at Shorncliffe is my hunch.

Why not just decommission the loop line, have two terminating roads with buffer stops?

Eliminates the need for ramps etc

Quote from: ozbob on October 27, 2022, 15:41:46 PM^ can that be overcome?  Will ETCS on the line help?

I was thinking the second platform would be a side platform for the loop line.

Ideally an island would be best but that is not going to happen with the heritage focus on the existing platform and buildings.

They might use Sandgate for terminating/starters for some services if they don't do something at Shorncliffe is my hunch.

Pictures are now showing. Ah yes. Well Bob, that all depends how much tmr would be willing to spend But also what equipment is located between the platform road and the siding road and it can be done without ETCS. Just your basic electrical signalling that's used all across the network will do. If you look to the right behind the trees in the bottom photo you can see the signal before you enter the safety area for the cross over. The block for that area is the siding and triangle. When the western points are thrown it trips a red at Sandgate and the western end of the shorncliffe platform. So any ped crossing will have to be after that at a minimum otherwise you'll be in the same signal zone as the train at the platform which is a big no no. If you look to the left you can see the manual interlocking levers for the siding and triangle. I think from memory the other levers on the western side are near the old footbridge. One possible way around that is to have the current platform road become a dock platform. Special trains can then use P2 to turn around on the triangle. Only problem with that is mtce trains. the platform road is substantially longer than the siding road. Another issue is dda clearances between the platform edge and masts. You can make an island platform work but it comes down to how much tmr are willing to spend. The only way I really see something happening is to move the signal back to the platform and maybe along it and then having a raised at grade crossing. You could have a pedestrian gate at the eastern end that activates when a train on the platform road is arriving and opens once the train has stopped. Mtce and special trains can then continue to use the triangle siding road. Services might get slowed down on P1 to ensure there's no potential overrun but I'm sure that can all be worked out.

Quote from: Gazza on October 27, 2022, 16:25:12 PMWhy not just decommission the loop line, have two terminating roads with buffer stops?

Eliminates the need for ramps etc

QR has banned all long end leading locomotive operations outside of yard shunt duties after a fatal crash. This means 2 locomotives would be required in a push pull configuration basically. You can't have 2 locos up front as you'd still need the track after shorncliffe to turn around. Heritage services still like to run out to shorncliffe as the number of turn around locations are now seriously limited. Yandina is the first turn around location on the NCL for example.

Thanks. That's what I proposed, platform 1 be turned into a dock basically.

Another possible approach at Shorncliffe suggested by a few members is something similar to Cronulla NSW.

Cronulla is unique in that it has a very long single platform that an accommodate two full length trains.  Orginally set up when the line opened in the 1930s, as a single line.  Due to the large number of passengers coming and going to the ' seaside ' a solution was found to enable an effective turnback solution.

Best appreciated by the diagrams from Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cronulla_railway_station
The line was later duplicated.


^ Cronulla station in single line days had a double length platform


^Cronulla station in double line days

^ what you think of a 'Cronulla like' solution at Shorncliffe HTG? 

Possible?

I really think they need to improve the situation at Shorncliffe.

All single line termini on the Citytrain network have two platforms except Shorncliffe.

Cleveland, BNE Domestic, but not Shorncliffe.  It will become an issue from 2025, now is the time to set it up right.

Wouldn't really work too well with mtce trains due to their length if you blocked P2 with buffers but thu running prevents that. Having this type of setup is not exactly new to QR. Doomben used to split services in peak hour for rollingstock positioning but most commonly is P10 at Roma street with the tilts arriving at the same time.



To do that the siding would need to be brought into the existing signalling world and the triangle can still be left with its manual interlocking. The only real problem would be the platform location. P2 would start after the points and be mostly on a curve. You would also need a lot of new ingress points, electrical works improved signage to tell you what platform you need to be on (I would prefer to have it something similar to P1 set down only before moving the train to  P2 for city departure only services) but nothing that can't be done. Track speeds will obviously be slower in the area for arriving trains but that's a no brainer given you are having 2 trains entering a block right next to each other. Platform doesn't need to be OT and a simple scaffolding type platform like we now see on the MBRL and Elimbah-Beerburrum will do.

Trains would be even further back than this photo.


It would work if done correctly and negates many of the safety issues with an island platform with at grade crossings.

Ok, thanks HTG.

ABC News --> Upgrades to Brisbane's Shorncliffe train station unearths over 900 historical artefacts


A collection of artefacts found at the Shorncliffe Station by Queensland Rail.(Supplied: Queensland Rail)

Quote from: ozbob on October 30, 2022, 10:11:41 AMOk, thanks HTG.

In regards to the stopping pattern. I forgot to mention it would be similar to old Exhibition services where there was one platform for exiting and the next platform for entering before continuing on with the loop.

Quote from: HappyTrainGuy on November 01, 2022, 13:30:55 PM

Quote from: ozbob on October 30, 2022, 10:11:41 AMOk, thanks HTG.

In regards to the stopping pattern. I forgot to mention it would be similar to old Exhibition services where there was one platform for exiting and the next platform for entering before continuing on with the loop.

So, something like this arrangement?

Yes. But I don't think there's space to the west for a platform. From memory it was very narrow where the footbridge was.

Quote from: HappyTrainGuy on November 01, 2022, 20:44:07 PMYes. But I don't think there's space to the west for a platform. From memory it was very narrow where the footbridge was.

The platform wouldn't be able to be put on a curve that sharp though.

Yep. Just one of the many issues. There are ways around but good to list the issues. Just trying to remember the area in detail. Thinking about it more you might be able to get a platform in but it's more towards the level crossing that it starts to widen. Have the narrow section where the bridge used to be as the link between the platforms. Not sure how that plays out with the crossovers but it's not the end of the world. There are work arounds.

I don't think the single platform at shorncliffe is the biggest issue out there. 

The duplication from sandgate is a must, but if you do need more platforms, cronulla style would work well. 

But the thing I would much rather see is a side turnback road just past Banyo (similar to epping in sydney), removal of Bindha station and extend northgate terminators to banyo.

Banyo is a very busy station and doesn't get the love it deserves. 

Quote from: tazzer9 on November 05, 2022, 17:08:08 PMI don't think the single platform at shorncliffe is the biggest issue out there. 

The duplication from sandgate is a must, but if you do need more platforms, cronulla style would work well. 

But the thing I would much rather see is a side turnback road just past Banyo (similar to epping in sydney), removal of Bindha station and extend northgate terminators to banyo.

Banyo is a very busy station and doesn't get the love it deserves. 

I think the idea is that instead of duplicating to Shorncliffe, it remains single track and instead there's 2 platforms at Shorncliffe. Presumably it would be cheaper to add a second platform than duplicate which is the idea, however ideally it should be duplicated.

What's the reasoning for some complex Cronulla style arrangement?

What's wrong with something like Cleveland, Ferny Grove or Mandurah?

All the extra track beyond Shorncliffe is redundant. Any maintenance vehicles etc should be stored at Bayno now.

Quote from: Gazza on November 07, 2022, 13:00:36 PMWhat's the reasoning for some complex Cronulla style arrangement?

What's wrong with something like Cleveland, Ferny Grove or Mandurah?

All the extra track beyond Shorncliffe is redundant. Any maintenance vehicles etc should be stored at Bayno now.

It's not about stowing. It's turning. The track beyond shorncliffe is used to turn vehicles around. Long end leading is now banned after a driver fatality. Some work can be done with 1 locomotive otherwise 2 locomotives are required for the job. Steam and special passenger trains still run the network. For example the first location a steam loco can now turn around on the NCL is now Yandina.

And the sidings triangle are manual interlocking so trackside equipment is everywhere.

So how do maintenance vehicles turn around at Ferny Grove or Cleveland?

QuoteSteam and special passenger trains still run the network. For example the first location a steam loco can now turn around on the NCL is now Yandina.

They shouldn't really be a consideration.
Designing provision for steam trains is frankly stupidity / foam . The network is not going to have the capacity to accommodate them in the future anyway.

I have to agree.  We need to design the network for passengers - not gunzels, not the operator, not in a way that favours leaving ancient manual interlockings and lever frames in place forever just because.

Long end leading being banned is a ridiculous situation caused by QR being paralysed by a culture of safety theatre.  Nobody else in Australia does it.  Even if there is some reasonable basis for it, the infrastructure can be designed to accommodate the wye, since there isn't any need to put anything else on that land.

Quote from: Gazza on November 07, 2022, 15:10:00 PMSo how do maintenance vehicles turn around at Ferny Grove or Cleveland?

QuoteSteam and special passenger trains still run the network. For example the first location a steam loco can now turn around on the NCL is now Yandina.

They shouldn't really be a consideration.
Designing provision for steam trains is frankly stupidity / foam . The network is not going to have the capacity to accommodate them in the future anyway.

Not just steam trains. As I said dead end running is now banned. This goes for steam and diesel locos. This effectively means any train movement on the network requires 2 locomotives or running via somewhere with a loop/triangle. This increases the operating cost for any special trains, mtce (usually has been 2 locos for a while now) and pretty much prevents any heritage specials from now running be it for qr or a private group. Steam and loco hauled passenger services are prevented from running on the Ferny Grove line. State government aren't in a hurry to buy dual cab end locos be it diesel or electric which makes you wonder about CRR recovery plans

For Ferny Grove it depends on the work and where. Either go push/pull config or double end and turn around via points and lots of dead running eg stop somewhere, handbrake the wagons, move forward, travel back over the points until you hit the next set, head back to the wagons, recouple, release the handbrakes and cross back over on the points and continue back to the city.

Just telling how it is from a network perspective and not my opinions on it.

So when they built Kippa Ring how come it doesn't have a Shorncliffe type situation?

The point I'm trying to make is that QR Can clearly deal with it on other lines so there is no need to keep antiquated track infrastructure

Oh it can be done but it's one of the few remaining lines that they are able to run heritage services on. Just another nail in the coffin for the QR heritage and private heritage fleet operations.

Kippa ring is the same as the Ferny grove line. Heritage fleet and diesel locos are restricted. Only the sole 1900 and 2000 railmotors have run the line. Mtce locos do the same as on other lines with dead running and points crosses.

Sent to all outlets:

QR Citytrain on-time running update - concerns

16th December 2022

Good Morning,

With the recent publication of the Citytrain on-time running (OTR) data for October we have now updated our all lines OTR profiles for the first ten months of 2022.

Full details can be reviewed here > https://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=14984.0



Of concern to RAIL Back On Track Members is the continuing very poor OTR for the Caboolture, Cleveland, Ferny Grove and and Beenleigh lines.

Ferny Grove and Cleveland lines will be paired from 2025 with the new SEQ Rail Connect network (https://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/About-us/Corporate-information/Publications/SEQ-Rail-Connect ).  The Cleveland line is a single line from Manly to Cleveland and this leads to a loss of reliability, limits frequency and capacity, and causes flow on congestion and disruption effects to wider network.  There needs to be targeted improvements on the section Manly to Cleveland to allow for more trains to run reliably. A single railway on a suburban network in this day and age is an anachronism. It belongs in the 1880s! Political promises to deliver 15 minute trains to Cleveland are nonsense unless some future proofing is done now. We have raised our concerns with the Cleveland line at the Ministerial level.

We have also raised concerns with Queensland Rail about the lack of train turn-back facilities at Shorncliffe. Shorncliffe is at the end of the single line section from Sandgate. The planned upgrade of Shorncliffe Station will still limit the ability to turn-back trains quickly to properly support the new line pair arrangement with the Springfield line and SEQ Rail Connect in 2025 ( https://www.queenslandrail.com.au/inthecommunity/projects/shorncliffe-station-renewal-project-and-accessibility-upgrade ). Shorncliffe needs a second platform in our view to improve train turn-back.

On a happier note, the Springfield line has returned the best line OTR so far for 2022. Well done.



We raise these matters in the spirit of constructive advocacy.

It would be proper and courteous to acknowledge this correspondence and provide feedback on what the planned resolutions will be.
Please do not ignore us.

Thank you.

Best wishes,
Robert

Robert Dow
Administration
admin@backontrack.org
RAIL Back On Track https://backontrack.org

====

Received a response from Community Engagement at Queensland Rail to the effect that they will respond in time with further information.

Domestic Airport single line terminal - two platforms.

Cleveland line single line terminal - two platforms.

Shorncliffe needs that second platform, that way a UP train can be ready to depart as soon as the DOWN train arrives. 
Shorncliffe is going to be paired with Springfield 2025, a real performer.  Shorncliffe has been paired with Cleveland, both low frequency lines and have got away with it up to now.

The single line section between Shorncliffe and Sandgate is only a few minutes run time, with the ETCS not really the issue.