RAIL - Back On Track Forum

https://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/projects/programs/coomera-connector

Coomera Connector Stage 1 community update
7 December 2022

Consultation on the draft Public Environment Report (PER) has now closed and we thank all stakeholders who submitted their feedback.

The draft PER was available for public consultation as part of the Australian Government's assessment and decision-making process for the approval of the Coomera Connector Stage 1 project under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.

The statutory process requires the Department of Transport and Main Roads (TMR) to review and consider all comments and establish whether a change to the draft PER is required.

TMR received 84 comments, which were carefully considered to see if any changes to the draft report were necessary and as a result, only very minor changes were made.

As an important part of the environmental approval process for the project, the Australian Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water will now review TMR's responses and decide whether to grant approval or request changes. Once approval is received, construction on the Coomera Connector Stage 1 North package can commence.

Read the updated Public Environment Report and the public comments response report (Appendix 17).

You can also view the updated PER and public comments response report at the following locations until 31 January 2023:
City of Gold Coast Library – Upper Coomera BranchCity of Gold Coast Library – Helensvale BranchTMR's South Coast Region Office – 36-38 Cotton Street, Nerang QLD 4211.
Contact the project team on the details below if you have any questions.

Kind regards

Coomera Connector project team
South Coast Region | Program Delivery and Operations
Infrastructure Management and Delivery | Department of Transport and Main Roads

Just skimmed through the feedback given on the Coomera connector - about 140 pages, almost entirely against the connector and giving lots of detailed critique. TMR response is exactly what you'd expect, also known as nothing meaningful 

Wayne has a bee in his bonnet about light rail so take what he says with a grain of salt.

Gold Coast Bulletin --> Coomera Connector plans show no room allocated for possible additional rail tracks $

Quote... No mention of preserving land for a possible third or fourth line to facilitate potential faster rail or express services is made in publicly available Coomera Connector planning documents released to date, while project drawings for a number of sections appear to show space would not be available for additional tracks. ...

...Mr Bailey added that it was not believed further track duplication would be necessary in coming years.

"There is not currently an identified need for track duplication south of Beenleigh in the next 20 years," he said. ...

  Fukwits!  Not much hope left for this sh%thole of a state mate ...

https://twitter.com/ozbob13/status/1631301240356233216

Even if there isn't an identified need for triplication or quadruplication within the next 20 years (which I seriously doubt), surely it makes sense to preserve the corridor now for future use?

Lunatics running the asylum.

^ indeed achiruel. Corridor preservation is essential.  They are hopeless sadly.

Roads roads roads roads roads roads !!

This is one of the less concerning things to me.  If the times comes when we need to run more than 20 or so Gold Coast trains an hour it's time to build HSR, and that would not necessarily be following the same alignment.

QuoteThe $2.1-billion highway is designed for 57,000 vehicle trips a day, which would reduce traffic on the M1 by 10 per cent

Some observations.

Recently I've noticed systematic omissions in Car Rapid Transport (CRT) projects information material.

This project is primarily being built to relieve peak congestion. But they have avoided quoting the peak hour pphd/lane figure.

I would guess that's because it cannot be above 1800 vehicles/hour/lane or 2160 pphd, which is EXTREMELY LOW added capacity.

And if you quoted figures like that, it would be really bad optics.

You will also see that a reduction in traffic of 10% is quoted as well. But what we should care about it total traffic carried. The total amount of traffic is going to be the SUM of the Old Road + New Road, and I think that total figure is going to be a lot more than just if we kept the Old Road and did something else instead of building the new one.

Buying four trains and adding them to peak hour would give near equivalent capacity and for a fraction of the cost of this project. There could be other options as well.

But as usual, they haven't published a mode neutral assessment. I suppose that is a longstanding cultural tradition, that if the minister decides "its a road" then no further mode analysis is done. Am I right?

In the next post I'll attempt to construct a reasonable estimate of the public cost per additional peak hour user. 

Constructing an Estimate for the Additional Cost Per Peak Hour User Added (CRT) (Undiscounted)

One way to compare what mode should be used is to figure out what is more expensive - adding additional users to new PT service or adding users to new roads. During peak hour PT journey times and car journey times tend to be brought into balance.

Jonno has given examples of high cost roads, but only for the general case. Here I construct an approach for estimates relevant to a specific case. What the figures suggest is that the subsidy per additional peak hour user is high as well.

Any errors, please advise and I will try to adjust.

Volume of Peak Hour Vehicles and People

Basic info - 57,000 vehicles/day – 2 lanes each direction, total of 4 lanes on the road.

1-hour (3600 seconds) / 2 second car frequency => 1800 vehicles/hour

Assume 2-hour peak volume – 1800 vehicles/hour x 2 lanes

=> 3600 vehicles/hour x 2 peaks/day = 7200 peak hour vehicles/day

Now, convert vehicle flow to people flow:

7200 peak hour vehicles x 1.2 passengers/vehicle

=> 8640 peak hour passengers/day

Infrastructure life – 40 years

40 years x 52 weeks x 5 days/week = 10,400 days

10,400 days x 8640 peak hour passengers/day

= 89,856,000 peak hour trips over the life of the infrastructure

Also

7200 peak hour vehicles/day x 10,400 days
= 74,880,000 vehicle trips

Calculate cost per additional peak hour user:

Project Cost (Stage 1)

$2.1 billion / 89.8 million peak hour trips
and
$2.1 billion / 74.8 million peak hour vehicle trips

= $23.37 public expense per additional peak hour road user
= $28.04 public expense per additional peak hour vehicle

All figures are undiscounted.

Quote from: SurfRail on March 03, 2023, 14:56:14 PMThis is one of the less concerning things to me.  If the times comes when we need to run more than 20 or so Gold Coast trains an hour it's time to build HSR, and that would not necessarily be following the same alignment.

There is zero chance of a new alignment with the  general rapid development underway.  It is now or never.

Even proper future proofing station layouts to allow expresses to run through while all stoppers are at the station would be better than nothing. Gold Coast commuters are in for a big let down when CRR opens. Their journey times are not going to quicker at all. Interesting to read the spin from Government in the article, babbling on about  the ' Gold Coast Faster Rail project ' which has nothing much to do with the lack of corridor preservation on the Goldie.

No, complete lack of vision and forward thought sadly in my view. Apathy and incompetence rules. 

Sent to all outlets:

Public transport is in serious trouble on the Gold Coast, and elsewhere.

4th March 2023

Good Morning,

The constant failure of the bus network to deliver timetable services continues.

There were 211 reported bus service disruptions for Queensland on the 3rd March 2023 (see > https://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=15050.0 for the ongoing record).

Disgruntled Gold Coast residents have been forced to start some Queensland Parliament E- Petitions to express their concerns with the failure to deliver promised bus services on the Gold Coast ( https://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/Work-of-the-Assembly/Petitions/Petition-Details?id=3873 and https://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/Work-of-the-Assembly/Petitions/Petition-Details?id=3874 ). This is no surprise to us, as we predicated the promised services would not be able to be delivered.

We now observe that the Coomera Connector proposed road corridor makes no allowance for a future upgrade (track amplification) of the Gold Coast railway. ( Gold Coast Bulletin --> Coomera Connector plans show no room allocated for possible additional rail tracks https://www.goldcoastbulletin.com.au/news/gold-coast/coomera-connector-plans-show-no-room-allocated-for-possible-additional-rail-tracks/news-story/3b5fe4ed04131d17831535b93510b77a  ).  There is zero chance of a new alignment with the  general rapid development underway.  It is now or never.

Even proper future proofing station layouts to allow expresses to run through while all stoppers are at the station would be better than nothing. Gold Coast commuters are in for a big let down when CRR opens. Their journey times are not going to be quicker at all. Interesting to read the spin from Government in the above article, babbling on about  the ' Gold Coast Faster Rail project ' which has nothing much to do with the lack of corridor preservation on the Goldie.

No, complete lack of vision and forward thought sadly in my view. Apathy, lack of vision and incompetence rules.

The Queensland State Government is way out of its depth now.  They should have moved years ago to establish a proper public transport authority, and moved rail planning out of the roads obsessed DTMR.  All that his happening now is the propagation of failure due to poor rail planning, not only on the Gold Coast but also the Sunshine Coast.

Sad hey ...

Best wishes,
Robert

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

Facebook ...

Quote from: ozbob on March 03, 2023, 23:29:31 PMEven proper future proofing station layouts to allow expresses to run through while all stoppers are at the station would be better than nothing. Gold Coast commuters are in for a big let down when CRR opens. Their journey times are not going to quicker at all.

I personally don't think a quad track on the GC line is necessary, nor will it be necessary for quite a long time. Quadding stations is good enough to run expresses I reckon. I could never see it necessary to run 24 express AND 24 local trains per hour. 12 each should be fine surely.

You're right Bob that the station layouts could have been thought through a bit better to make them quaddable, but at present that seems near impossible. The only ones I could see as maybe possible are Merrimac, Ormeau and Hope Island.

Realistically what would an express stopping pattern on GC line look like anyway? Run express from Coolangatta to City, stopping only at Robina, Helensvale, Coomera (?), Beenleigh etc.??

Yes indeed Tim.  Not hard to make the provision for a quad layout when needed. Looking at the maps etc. they are locking in a very inflexible dual track.  As the line becomes longer this need for station quadding, at least, will become very important for express running.



Crossings are useful to run around a problem etc.  Both tracks bi-directional.

As I've already said I'm not sure this is something worth the ammo.  Where are all these express services going to fit anyway? 

The bigger issue is the road is being built at all, regardless of where it is going.

Another variation (from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passing_loop )

Both 1 and 2 are used on systems such as fast and high speed rail to provide operational flexibility.

There is going to be pressure to run express services between Varsity Lakes and Beenleigh as trains are slowed to service the new stations.  I can see the day when there will be local all stoppers between Beenleigh and Varsity Lakes mixed with expresses. Hope Island could be set up for passing.

Beenleigh

Ormeau

Pimpama

Coomera

Hope Island

Helensvale

Nerang

Merrimac

Robina

Varsity Lakes

With further extension of the line there are potentially even more stations.

QuoteThere is going to be pressure to run express services between Varsity Lakes and Beenleigh as trains are slowed to service the new stations.  I can see the day when there will be local all stoppers between Beenleigh and Varsity Lakes mixed with expresses. Hope Island could be set up for passing.

If the objective is to save time, it is worth asking how much?

On a track that is fairly fast and straight the time savings from skipping stations are not much, say 30-45 seconds per station skipped.

To gain a ~ 5 minute time saving, one would have to skip about 10 stations. Which is almost all the stations on the GC line that exist currently.

More time would be saved simply by boosting base and peak frequencies.

A different approach would yield faster speeds across the line, and that would be to focus on the Beenleigh-CBD section of the line.

That bit is the slowest section, the speed limited track section of the line.

Now I know I have mentioned this before, but we should think about cutting our losses on this section of the track and consider placing the GC line into a new high-speed alignment in the median of the M1 (previously called the R1 proposal).

Just like Perth.

This would allow trains (assuming new rollingstock) to reach 130-140 km/hr on this stretch and possibly higher.

You would need a tunnel portal to allow rail to exit the M1 and join up to a point just after PA hospital to allow rail to enter the CRR tunnel. Beenleigh line trains, Flagstone and Cleveland trains would proceed into the CBD via Southbank & Merivale Bridge. GC trains would use CRR.

If you could get full separation of the Beenleigh and GC lines this way, you could potentially do 20-30 trains per hour, or 20,000 - 30,000 pphd and cut the journey time down substantially as well.

45 seconds ?  Rubbish.  The trains need to slow, stop. Detrain and entrain pax. Then speed up.  Looking at around 2 to 3 minutes loss of time per station. Trains run faster on the Gold Coast line than the rest of the network, so station stops are more significant time wise relative to express. There are potentially 15 stations that will be on the Gold Coast line from Beenleigh to Gold Coast. 

There will be pressure to run express services, already talk about it from the locals. It would have been very prudent to set up some passing lanes at key stations.  But you know, this is Queensland.

As far as a new alignment for fast rail for the Gold Coast, forget it.  This state has no intention of doing fast rail properly and never has.  What you have is what you have.  It makes the failure to future proof properly even more poignant.

https://twitter.com/railbotforum/status/1632076477146738688

Quote from: SurfRail on March 04, 2023, 13:21:27 PMAs I've already said I'm not sure this is something worth the ammo.  Where are all these express services going to fit anyway? 

The bigger issue is the road is being built at all, regardless of where it is going.

Plenty of room with the quad in from Beenleigh if it is ever built  ...

There does seem to be significant opposition to the road, I think the whole damn thing needs a full reassessment.

I don't really see the need for a quad. You can easily get away with selected sections being set up as a third or quad but realistically 9 car trains are the preferred option over frequency. If anything you could have it timed with all stoppers ie hold at Beenleigh. 9 car express departs followed by the 6 car all stopper a couple minutes later. If set up for same platform transfers you can apply a similar principal for selected stops.

Nine car trains are not going to happen for many many years is my guess. It will require a lot of expenditure to sort out stations, and reconfigure the trains etc.

" You can easily get away with selected sections being set up as a third or quad "

Exactly, they need to get a lot smarter than they are at present.

Indeed 9 car trains are well away but so to is saturating the existing infrastructure with frequency and multiple stopping patterns that would require additional tracks.

But in saying that moving to 9 car infrastructure is not hard on the Caboolture/Sunshine Coast-Gold Coast corridor post CRR. Big problems start to come from every other line and via Central services which is why they won't get them. Sure there are some hurdles here and there but in terms of costs for 9 car mods vs a triple/quad would by far be a lot less until you get or even have that problem. Stations can be extended on the cheap. Eagle Junction will be dropped from the stopping patterns but most stations can handle simple platform extensions and some can already accept them. Signalling isn't a major one especially as ETCS comes online for the tricky core stuff. Sunshine Coast-Gold Coast via CRR will be exclusively NGR1/NGR2 and they both have provisions for rollingstock expansions by adding 3 additional cars in the middle (NGR1 has been ruled out for this with obvious reasons but they do have that option). Should there be a major network failure NGR1/NGR2 do have provisions to lock off carriages at the gangway very easily.

The CRR stations (165m) do have sufficient cavern space (220m) to extend to nine car platforms.

But I cannot see that happening for many a day, particularly as the costs will be very high with the PSDs etc. then add the rest of the required station upgrades etc. 

There will be a lot of pressure on the Gold Coast line in the years to come.  It makes no sense to lock out any track amplifications by restricting that opportunity by the placement of the Coomera Connector road.  Fantasy fast rail lines are not going to happen, the State simply doesn't support it. This outfit cannot even upgrade the Sunshine Coast line in a timely manner.

I have zero confidence.

Posted by Jonno

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-03-03/federal-government-considers-review-of-coomera-connector/102043332

QuoteCoomera Connector review considered amid concerns for koalas

A proposed second highway aimed at easing congestion between the Gold Coast and Brisbane could be further delayed amid concern over its potential environmental impacts.

Key points:

The 16km stage 1 of the Coomera Connector highway is yet to be granted final approval from the federal government
The $2.1-billion highway is designed for 57,000 vehicle trips a day, which would reduce traffic on the M1 by 10 per cent
Concerns have been raised over the impact it will have on koala populations, but the state government says it is confident in its conservation measures
The federal environment department has begun public consultation after it was asked to reconsider the construction of the multi-billion dollar Coomera Connector over concerns for endangered koala populations.

The request from a small group of Gold Coast residents was received by Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek under provisions in the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (APBC) last month.

Under federal environmental laws a request can be made to reconsider a project if new information or circumstances have emerged about its potential environmental impact.

The group argued that "substantial new information about the impacts of the proposed action" and a "substantial change in circumstances that was not foreseen at the time of the decision" warranted a reconsideration of the project.

The document states that koalas being moved due to the construction of stage 1 will be relocated within 500 metres of the proposed future stage, restricting their access to suitable habitat.

The business case for the state government-led 16-kilometre stage 1 was approved in 2022 and design and construction contracts have been awarded to several firms.

The remaining 28km stretch, which would provide an alternative route between the Gold Coast and southern Brisbane, is yet to get state or federal approvals.



The left map shows the stage 1 route of Coomera Connector. The other shows koala habitats identified in 2017.(Supplied: Transport and Main Roads/City of Gold Coast)
Stewart Brooker, speaking on behalf of the resident group behind the request, said the project should be assessed by the federal government in its entirety rather than by individual stages.

"Issues that may seem little individually turn into big issues when you put it all together," he said.

"We seem to planning on the Gold Coast in bits and pieces but we're not looking at the overall plan."

A spokesperson for the environment department said the request met the "procedural requirements" for consideration but that "no decision has been made about the substance of the request".

"Following the public comment period, the department will consider information provided in the request," they said.

Connector 'ready to go'

Mr Brooker, who ran as an independent for the federal seat of Fadden in 2022, said the decision to move forward with stage 1 in 2020 was made before koalas were declared endangered by the federal government last year.

The state government's SEQ Koala Strategy, which details the need to "stabilise koala populations in [south-east Queensland] and achieve a net gain in total core koala habitat area" was also released after the approval of stage 1.

The state government's environment report into stage 1 of the Coomera Connector has outlined "extensive environmental investigations" with plans to mitigate impacts on flora and fauna.

Queensland Transport and Roads Minister Mark Bailey said stage 1 was "absolutely ready to go".

He said "a final federal approval" through the EPBC was yet to be granted.

"In our planning for this project environmental protection has been at the forefront," Mr Bailey said.

"There are some very fragmented and at-risk koala populations that are very likely not to be sustainable."

The state government has announced a 400-hectare site in Pimpama where koalas impacted by stage 1 will be relocated to.

"We want a positive outcome for koalas and other fauna, but particularly koalas in this area, where their habitat just getting eaten away by urban development all the time," Mr Bailey said.

The environment report forecasts minimum speeds during peak hours along the M1 will fall below 19 kilometres per hour in some areas by 2041 without the Coomera Connector.

At least $126 million has already been spent on the Coomera Connector and land has been resumed along much the route.

Stage 1 is expected to be completed by 2027.

Conservationists welcome review

Coomera Conservation Group spokesperson Karina Waterman said the connector intersected "two important koala populations".

"If you think of it like a pie, take out one piece of pie, it's not too bad, take out another piece, not too bad," she said.

"Each piece of pie is looked at on its own but when you turn around, half of its gone."

She said conservation efforts should "be looked at holistically in terms of all the things that are happening in this landscape".

"There's a large number of koalas who've been, for all intents and purposes, cut off from other habitat and have sought refuge within the Coomera Connector itself," Ms Waterman said.

The request for a reconsideration of the project is open for public consultation until March 10.

For Gold Coast Coomera Connector - discussion on rail implications

see > https://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=15075.0

Quote from: ozbob on March 05, 2023, 07:12:02 AM45 seconds ?  Rubbish.  The trains need to slow, stop. Detrain and entrain pax. Then speed up.  Looking at around 2 to 3 minutes loss of time per station.

Out of interest I compared the times of an all-stations service to Darra and an express to Ipswich, and the times are 26 minutes all stations and 18 stopping only at Milton, Indooroopilly, and Darra itself. That's 8 stations and 8 minutes saved, so exactly 1 minute per station. Assuming you were skipping more stations and the route speed itself was higher, I can maybe see 2 minutes per station, but it's a lot lower than I assumed

Time Savings

I'm more than happy to be wrong, provided the evidence/proof is presented. 

From the timetable, a Beenleigh train leaves Park Road at 10:17 and arrives Beenleigh at 11:11 am (Weekend timetable). The all stops trip thus takes 54 minutes to cover all 23 stations (inclusive).

From the timetable, a Gold Coast train leaves Park Road at 10:12 and arrives at Beenleigh at 10:50 am (Weekend timetable). The express train trip thus takes 38 minutes to cover 4 stations.

The total number of stations skipped is thus (23 station - 4 stations) = 19 stations
The total time saved is thus (54 min - 38 min) = 16 minutes

The average time saved per station is thus = 16 min / 19 stations
Which is 0.8421 minutes, or 50.5 seconds saved per station.

This is close to the 45 seconds that I suggested. 

Alternative - Reasonable range for R1 alignment time savings

In express mode, a train takes 38 minutes to travel between Park Road and Beenleigh Station.
The distance is 35 km. This gives the average speed as just 55.26 km/hour for the Gold Coast "express" train along this stretch.

I would humbly suggest to members that if we could sort out the track between Beenleigh and Park Road to be closer to 100 km/hr or even 130 km/hr average speed, significant time savings could be achieved. Think about it.

If rail were to have an average speed of 100 km/hr, similar to free-flow freeway traffic on the M1, the new journey time would be given by:

35 km x (60 min/100 km) = 21 minutes journey time between Park Road and Beenleigh

which would mean a reduction of (38 min - 21 minutes) = 17 minutes.

We would expect at least 17 minutes time saving from the R1 alignment.

If we had high-speed rollingstock capable of doing 160 km/hr along this stretch:

35 km x (60 min/160 km) = 13.13 minutes.

A reduction of (38 min - 13.13 minutes) = 24.7 minutes

Conclusion

We could reasonably expect a 20 minute time saving to the Gold Coast with an R1 alignment. Assuming a 5 minute time saving from the Gold Coast-Logan Faster Rail project, an R1 alignment would give about 4 times the time savings that would be released by GCLFR Project using existing rollingstock.

Just so you know Metro your calculation is based on a flawed timetable that has a large amount of fat added to slow the trains down and have crosses to minimise level crossing downtime. South of Beenleigh your time also increases due to the speed.

I'll use the Darra example. Green track running Darra-Roma Street is 14min30sec. Express stopping at Milton and Indoorpilly is 18min and 26min for the all stopper. The only reason express trains stop at Milton is to even the flow of trains arriving into Roma street along with the terminators from the north.

From memory Gold Coast trains are 8 minutes slower than the original timetable. Yes they ran express South Brisbane to Beenleigh but there also wasn't a triple to Kuraby and a double south of Beenleigh.

Quote from: HappyTrainGuy on March 06, 2023, 21:27:19 PMThe only reason express trains stop at Milton is to even the flow of trains arriving into Roma street along with the terminators from the north.

I'm happy to defend expresses stopping at Milton on policy grounds. There's a lot more offices there than say 20 years ago!

Quote from: aldonius on March 06, 2023, 22:21:13 PM

Quote from: HappyTrainGuy on March 06, 2023, 21:27:19 PMThe only reason express trains stop at Milton is to even the flow of trains arriving into Roma street along with the terminators from the north.

I'm happy to defend expresses stopping at Milton on policy grounds. There's a lot more offices there than say 20 years ago!

Agreed. Even counter peak they get solid loadings enough that you could justify sending more trains that way. Which in itself has its own issues due to how trains are run ie using Tennyson to move trains between sectors and dead running for peak. Still amuses me with the sectorisation this and sectorisation that meanwhile trains are frequently flip flopping between mains, subs and other lines commonly.

Quote from: HappyTrainGuy on March 06, 2023, 21:27:19 PMSouth of Beenleigh your time also increases due to the speed.

Bob already said this above. I don't know the speeds of the network very well, so someone correct me if I'm wrong. But I'm fairly certain a lot of the GC line is limited to 140kph while most of Ipswich line is 90kph at best. That's gonna create a huge time difference if you can blast through like 8 stations at full speed instead of accelerating/decelerating. Even with the current alignment!

I'm open to suggestions but I really think an express pattern (assuming the line completed to Cooly) should be Cooly, Robina, Helensvale, Coomera, Beenleigh, etc.

With that stopping pattern, between Cooly and Beenleigh you're skipping 9 stations. Minimum 10 minute time saving (at least) I reckon

Yes Tim, Ipswich line is slow compared to Goldie.  A lot of restrictions and up to 90 to 100 km/h in places but most of it is less than that. Goldie 140 km/h.

On the Gold Coast line the station stops add more time than on the comparison to the general suburban situation.  It is around 2 minutes, longer as dwells increase.  I have looked at this previously and on systems such as the NY subway a station stop adds about 1.1 minutes. Similar to our slower speed suburban lines.  As the speed increases (there are complex formula) the impact becomes greater. On the Goldie it will be in the order or 2 to 3 minutes as I first suggested.
This is why the times for the Gold Coast trains between Varsity Lakes and Beenleigh will be longer when the new three stations open, and this will negate any time savings in from Beenleigh, overall the trips not the great time saving some hope.

Quote... With that stopping pattern, between Cooly and Beenleigh you're skipping 9 stations. Minimum 10 minute time saving (at least) I reckon ...

Yes, 15 to 20 minutes I reckon Tim.  This is quite significant and is why I suggest that express pattern will be operating on the Goldie (Beenleigh - Cooly) eventually. Which gets back to my earlier point, some future proofing for lane passing would be in order now. Another point to consider, as the stations density increase the time at high speed running decreases, this also adds to the overall journey time relative to expresses. 

Good work AOB, 1 minute is about correct on general suburban from my understanding. On the Ippy speeds are a lot slower than the Goldie.  My comment was in relation to the Goldie which is interurban, much higher speeds, stations stops have a much greater time impact..

As a point of interest for you, the trains have slowed considerably over the years.  In the 1980s or thereabouts I an remember the peak Darra flyers.  Expresses between Darra and Roma St, these used to run to and from Darra in around 12 to 14 minutes.

Quote from: AOB on March 06, 2023, 18:58:37 PM

Quote from: ozbob on March 05, 2023, 07:12:02 AM45 seconds ?  Rubbish.  The trains need to slow, stop. Detrain and entrain pax. Then speed up.  Looking at around 2 to 3 minutes loss of time per station.

Out of interest I compared the times of an all-stations service to Darra and an express to Ipswich, and the times are 26 minutes all stations and 18 stopping only at Milton, Indooroopilly, and Darra itself. That's 8 stations and 8 minutes saved, so exactly 1 minute per station. Assuming you were skipping more stations and the route speed itself was higher, I can maybe see 2 minutes per station, but it's a lot lower than I assumed

All good work #Metro. As HTG has pointed out the timetables are not really the best for this sort of stuff.  You really need rail timetabling software, which we don't have. On suburban data I have seen suggests around 1 minute for each station added relative to an express.  But this is a lot slower than the higher speed on the Goldie.  On that line stations will add around 2 minutes, possibly longer depending on time of day and dwells. And as station density increases the loss of time relative to an express will actually be compounded due to less time at the high speed.

My point is this.  We need to factor in the need for express running on the Goldie and some awareness of this in the placement of the Coomera Connector would be in order. It will be expensive to comeback and setup stations for lane passing. 

Quote from: #Metro on March 06, 2023, 19:53:01 PMTime Savings

I'm more than happy to be wrong, provided the evidence/proof is presented. 

From the timetable, a Beenleigh train leaves Park Road at 10:17 and arrives Beenleigh at 11:11 am (Weekend timetable). The all stops trip thus takes 54 minutes to cover all 23 stations (inclusive).

From the timetable, a Gold Coast train leaves Park Road at 10:12 and arrives at Beenleigh at 10:50 am (Weekend timetable). The express train trip thus takes 38 minutes to cover 4 stations.

The total number of stations skipped is thus (23 station - 4 stations) = 19 stations
The total time saved is thus (54 min - 38 min) = 16 minutes

The average time saved per station is thus = 16 min / 19 stations
Which is 0.8421 minutes, or 50.5 seconds saved per station.

This is close to the 45 seconds that I suggested. 

Alternative - Reasonable range for R1 alignment time savings

In express mode, a train takes 38 minutes to travel between Park Road and Beenleigh Station.
The distance is 35 km. This gives the average speed as just 55.26 km/hour for the Gold Coast "express" train along this stretch.

I would humbly suggest to members that if we could sort out the track between Beenleigh and Park Road to be closer to 100 km/hr or even 130 km/hr average speed, significant time savings could be achieved. Think about it.

If rail were to have an average speed of 100 km/hr, similar to free-flow freeway traffic on the M1, the new journey time would be given by:

35 km x (60 min/100 km) = 21 minutes journey time between Park Road and Beenleigh

which would mean a reduction of (38 min - 21 minutes) = 17 minutes.

We would expect at least 17 minutes time saving from the R1 alignment.

If we had high-speed rollingstock capable of doing 160 km/hr along this stretch:

35 km x (60 min/160 km) = 13.13 minutes.

A reduction of (38 min - 13.13 minutes) = 24.7 minutes

Conclusion

We could reasonably expect a 20 minute time saving to the Gold Coast with an R1 alignment. Assuming a 5 minute time saving from the Gold Coast-Logan Faster Rail project, an R1 alignment would give about 4 times the time savings that would be released by GCLFR Project using existing rollingstock.

Quote from: timh on March 06, 2023, 23:23:48 PM

Quote from: HappyTrainGuy on March 06, 2023, 21:27:19 PMSouth of Beenleigh your time also increases due to the speed.

Bob already said this above. I don't know the speeds of the network very well, so someone correct me if I'm wrong. But I'm fairly certain a lot of the GC line is limited to 140kph while most of Ipswich line is 90kph at best. That's gonna create a huge time difference if you can blast through like 8 stations at full speed instead of accelerating/decelerating. Even with the current alignment!

I'm open to suggestions but I really think an express pattern (assuming the line completed to Cooly) should be Cooly, Robina, Helensvale, Coomera, Beenleigh, etc.

With that stopping pattern, between Cooly and Beenleigh you're skipping 9 stations. Minimum 10 minute time saving (at least) I reckon

I know I was just expanding a little on the time differences between public reliability timetables on a much slower section of track vs true express speed on the same section of track. Darra-City is mostly 50-70kph with some slower sections here and there with 100 sections between Taringa-Toowong and the Brisbane River-Sherwood. 2 extra stops on sections of track that trains are already slowing for along with no fat for any delay is close to 4 minutes.

As Bob said without access to proper rail network planning software to account for the whole network it's pointless speculating. And you also start to run into issues with 160kph running in that it doesn't give you the time savings you actually expect along with ride comfort and additional rollingstock expenses. Sure you can get rollingstock that can do it easily and quietly but that costs more. Even the 160/260 had issues during acceptance testing which had to be detuned as a result (also have a nice side to side sway at speed) and the NGR's are prone to rattling fittings at speed. Do you get the bigger more powerful traction motors or do you cheap out on them. Do you pay more for better comfy seats for long distance or do you cheap out on them. Do you spend more on soundproofing. Component wear and tear - outright cost and the service/inspection interval side of things. Yes it's only 20kph but you would be surprised what a few extra km would do especially when you have someone with no railway knowledge in another government department in accounting going over costings. Should have seen the cost and problems for the HS220's.