RAIL - Back On Track Forum

It's also hard to compare our Airport line against Sydney's. Sydney's through-runs to the suburbs, and also includes stations in the very built up areas of Mascot and Green Square. Brisbane Airport line serves the Airport and not much else. To me, 4tph is perfectly acceptable for the foreseeable future so I don't think all this talk of duplication is necessary. There are much bigger fish to fry

Regarding SkyGate Station, I'd only support it if land uses around the station changed to be much denser.

However, I am a bit more interested in removing the flat junction. Yeah it'd be costly, but HTG haven't you spoken before about how the flat junction there can create serious reliability problems in the timetable? Or is that just the Doomben flat junction at EJ?

How much would grade separation cost, and what similar examples do we have?

QuoteRegarding SkyGate Station, I'd only support it if land uses around the station changed to be much denser.

The need to have huge parking will be reduced with train access. In turn, the land freed up can then be put to more intensive uses.

In Brisbane, we really only have Darra, Petrie and Bowen Hills.

It'll be a challenging job given the proximity of Toombul, Kedron Brook and adjacent properties. Looking at the run up distance of other junctions, I think you'd have to more or less abandon the first section of viaduct, and resume properties on the eastern side.

QuoteTo me, 4tph is perfectly acceptable for the foreseeable future so I don't think all this talk of duplication is necessary. There are much bigger fish to fry

I would agree.
It's a low demand line.
Only has 2 stations.
There is nowhere to extend it (The Airport line in Perth will eventually extend from High Wycombe to Kenwick, Sydney has the whole T8 line to Macarthur)
Even in peak hour when its running 4tph already, there is plenty of spare seats.

Shorncliffe gets more pax so you'd probably grade sep that first right?

Quote from: Gazza on January 18, 2024, 09:08:30 AMShorncliffe gets more pax so you'd probably grade sep that first right?

Ok so this is something I've wanted to know for sometime. Surely there isn't actually a conflicting move at Northgate right?

The left track pair takes all traffic through traffic to Virginia (platforms 3 and 4). The right track pair takes all traffic to Bindha (platforms 1 and 2). As far as I know, through services to the NCL never use platforms 1 and 2, so while there technically *is* a flat junction immediately north of Northgate station, it doesn't get used in regular service (as far as I'm aware), so grade separating Northgate junction shouldn't be necessary, right?

Someone please correct me if I'm mistaken!

Quote from: Gazza on January 18, 2024, 09:08:30 AMIn Brisbane, we really only have Darra, Petrie and Bowen Hills.

It'll be a challenging job given the proximity of Toombul, Kedron Brook and adjacent properties. Looking at the run up distance of other junctions, I think you'd have to more or less abandon the first section of viaduct, and resume properties on the eastern side.

QuoteTo me, 4tph is perfectly acceptable for the foreseeable future so I don't think all this talk of duplication is necessary. There are much bigger fish to fry

I would agree.
It's a low demand line.
Only has 2 stations.
There is nowhere to extend it (The Airport line in Perth will eventually extend from High Wycombe to Kenwick, Sydney has the whole T8 line to Macarthur)
Even in peak hour when its running 4tph already, there is plenty of spare seats.

Shorncliffe gets more pax so you'd probably grade sep that first right?

isn't that self-fulfilling. Low frequency equals "I'll just catch a cab" I catch train in Sydney because it's 100 times quicker and easier!

15 min services aren't low frequency.

Assume a 15 minute headway from 5am to 11pm 7 days a week.  If every train is carrying 500 people (ie more or less fully seated load) on entering or leaving the junction at Toombul, you would be carrying the equivalent of the entire current passenger volume of the airport each year.  The train is not going to capture every trip, and passenger density obviously won't be that even.

The main factors disincentivising use at the moment are that the trip is too expensive and the timetable is not very good - not capacity.

Quote from: Jonno on January 17, 2024, 14:49:55 PM

Quote from: OzGamer on January 17, 2024, 14:04:29 PMWhy would you spend money on duplication when the line as it is seems quite capable of supporting 4tph, which is all that is needed for a while yet I would think.

The line is already duplicated between the International and Domestic terminals.

maybe just maybe we want to match other leading cities with frequencies less than 15mins? Like Sydney?

I agree that should be the ultimate plan, but there are fifteen things I would do before that. Once services operate at least every fifteen minutes, seven days a week, until late in the evening on every line in the city you can start to think about expensive projects that improve it further. Just a question of priorities.

Just remember the idea was to use the investment in duplication as an "in" to change the Airtrain relationship.

Certainly not a priority but a way to change the dynamics with Airtrain.

Could be better than just paying Airtrain out.

Agree with Jonno. Could invest in a new station or duplication and then shorten the contract to end earlier accordingly.

Remember, if you want to buy out Airtrain, you will spend say $X million on essentially a legal change of title, with no actual improvement of infrastructure.

But in reality, the infrastructure doesn't need improvement, it's the service price and all day frequency that needs improvement. 15min service for a line that serves purely the airport is enough for many, many years to come.

Quote from: Jonno on January 18, 2024, 13:18:04 PMJust remember the idea was to use the investment in duplication as an "in" to change the Airtrain relationship.

Certainly not a priority but a way to change the dynamics with Airtrain.

Could be better than just paying Airtrain out.

I don't think Airtrain *want* duplication though. What benefit does it have for them? There's very little chance they're going to run greater than 4tph (as Surfrail pointed out), so what's the point for them?

Controversial opinion but if you wanted to bribe them with something other than cash, then the state footing the bill for SkyGate station would probably have more merit for AirTrain and BAC than duplication!

Quote from: timh on January 18, 2024, 08:06:40 AMHowever, I am a bit more interested in removing the flat junction. Yeah it'd be costly, but HTG haven't you spoken before about how the flat junction there can create serious reliability problems in the timetable? Or is that just the Doomben flat junction at EJ?

Doomben is the major bottleneck that triggers other lines. One late citybound service blocks the entire up/down sub. You can hold an outbound airport service on the spur clear of the subs. Doomben you can't so the outbound service holds at P2 until the Doomben line is clear or it gets cancelled and turns around at Zillmere/Northgate. Off peak the manly/Canon Hill service holds at Toombul as the services cross.

Quote from: timh on January 18, 2024, 10:06:52 AM

Quote from: Gazza on January 18, 2024, 09:08:30 AMShorncliffe gets more pax so you'd probably grade sep that first right?

Ok so this is something I've wanted to know for sometime. Surely there isn't actually a conflicting move at Northgate right?

The left track pair takes all traffic through traffic to Virginia (platforms 3 and 4). The right track pair takes all traffic to Bindha (platforms 1 and 2). As far as I know, through services to the NCL never use platforms 1 and 2, so while there technically *is* a flat junction immediately north of Northgate station, it doesn't get used in regular service (as far as I'm aware), so grade separating Northgate junction shouldn't be necessary, right?

Someone please correct me if I'm mistaken!

Short answer? It depends As there is quite a lot of bi-di setup various patterns are run. At various times it's not uncommon to have Cleveland on P1/Springfield P2 and at Nundah Northgate/Shorncliffe P2. Similar moves still happen in peak. Northgate terminators on the subs will dead run back to Bowen Hills via the mains. Its also not an uncommon sight to see Shorncliffe-Cleveland using P2 with an out of service train on P1 or in peak you can have a terminating train on P2 waiting for clearance to run onto the NCL while the outbound Shorncliffe service will use P1. While it's meant to be "sectorised" train control will run the network however they see fit which includes routing Shorncliffe-Cleveland services via Central P5-P6 in morning peak.

Re grade seperation at Toombul. Not pretty but you need to shut down the airport spur. Resume the houses to the east from Kedron Brook to Junction road effectively. Build new bridges for the subs to wrap around the flyover. Get funky with geo technical services for Airport Link and existing infrastructure. Rebuild the airport spur probably to Widdop street if not further. You also have issues with the shopping centre management as you are leasing part of their property for the existing line. So not a cheap exercise.

I see only 2 real solutions to the Airtrain "problem".

1. The State pays out the operator earlier, by working out a suitable NPV payment so they get their return now upfront.

2. The State pays Airtrain shadow fares and contributes to running costs for an expanded timetable, so for passenger facing purposes the service becomes part of the normal network.

Airtrain won't care about any spending on the infrastructure.  Why would they?  Their interest is in a financial return, which they only get by selling tickets or if the State underwrites things.

Couriermail --> Airtrain cost and service top priority for new Transport Minister $

QuoteTransport minister Bart Mellish has revealed he is preparing to meet with Airtrain operators amid an ongoing push to deliver more affordable and efficient public transport to the airport. ...

Hopefully, get a later finish and earlier starts, coupled together with bus services in between.

I hope Airtrain also gets a better deal out of it than it currently has too amid rumours.

Airtrain deserves it too. They took the gamble to build something not knowing the bad would happen (covid) or the good Olympics. That's the risk of business. I don't know why they are being made out to be the bad guys.

Yes it's expensive, but so it Heathrow Express and Sydney Airport trains.

Brisbane Airport is expanding its multi-level car park at about $52,941 per space.

Brisbane airport free waiting zone to make way for new car park

Cameron Atfield
By Cameron Atfield
February 23, 2024 — 9.00am

https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/queensland/brisbane-airport-free-waiting-zone-to-make-way-for-new-car-park-20240222-p5f74t.html

The Airtrain Guarantee

They've had that since they opened. See station staff who will organise you a taxi if there is a delay. Your train also has to arrive at the terminal about 2 hours before your flight departure.

Couriermail --> State edges closer to ending Airtrain's airport stranglehold $

QuoteCheaper train fares and a regular bus service to Brisbane Airport are being considered by Transport Minister Bart Mellish as a solution to break Airtrain's 35-year stranglehold on Brisbane Airport.

The state government, following advocacy by The Courier-Mail, is attempting to negotiate a solution with Airtrain to improve public transport to the airport ahead of the Brisbane 2032 Olympic Games.

Under an arrangement struck in 1998, Airtrain holds exclusive public transport access to the growing airport precinct until 2036.

Mr Mellish, appointed transport minister in December, revealed he had a positive discussion with Airtrain representatives in February about changes to the agreement.

"Airtrain have submitted a number of proposals which are currently being reviewed," he said.

"We have made it a priority to find a solution for Queenslanders to access better, more affordable public transport to the airport. ...

https://x.com/ozbob13/status/1788617776434905476

https://x.com/ozbob13/status/1788611090643026155

In addition a few extra train services  until midnight would be good and maybe starting 30 mins earlier in the morning could be beneficial as well.

Quotemaybe starting 30 mins earlier in the morning could be beneficial as well.

We've been over this haven't we though.

The first service is at 4:27am.

Having an earlier service at 3:57am is pointless because no other Translink services are operating so no connections to fill up the train, and there's a good chance overnight network maintenance is still happening anyway.

So the only passengers that could use a 3:57am service would be those around the 7 stations between Roma St and Eagle Junction right? Thats only really benefitting a small fraction of the network.

I am surprised that buses to Brisbane Airport were mentioned?

Greyhound already runs a bus there but it is infrequent.

Is this just random 'discussion' by the minister about 'possibilities' or is there some seriousness to this?

First and Last Trains
First train departing the Airport 5:04am (weekdays) and 6:04am (weekends/public holidays)
Last train departing the Airport 10:04pm


The Courier Mail has a misprint as the last train leaves at 10.05 not 11pm as stated in the article.

Source - https://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/qld-politics/state-edges-closer-to-ending-airtrains-airport-stranglehold/news-story/55e71eafdddd62aaa64bbec9f22f1364

QuoteAnd services run only every 15 minutes during peak hours and 30 minutes outside those windows, with the first service from the airport starting at 5am and the last leaving at 11pm

Yes, extra trains until 11 pm or 12 am would be ideal as well as trains starting before 5 am weekdays, especially during Daylight Saving.

Quote from: #Metro on May 10, 2024, 09:21:29 AMI am surprised that buses to Brisbane Airport were mentioned?

Greyhound already runs a bus there but it is infrequent.

Is this just random 'discussion' by the minister about 'possibilities' or is there some seriousness to this?

They can run a Gold Glider now to Skygate with a terminal connection from there within the rules and no penalty to anyone. Running a Gold Glider with an improved terminal connection run by BAC would be cheaper than buying out a contract or running more trains and subsidising tickets further by that matter.

It makes perfect sense to me to have buses running to BNE that are not going to the CBD.  I doubt Airtrain faces any meaningful competition from a bus that runs in a pretty direct manner to the terminals from say Chermside, or if the 590 went to the terminals instead of Toombul.

What doesn't make sense is underpants-on-head ideas like a Brisbane Metro route from the CBD.

Brisbanetimes --> Airtrain negotiations back on after Bailey breakdown $

QuoteOn-again, off-again discussions between the state government and Airtrain to end the private company's monopoly on public transport to Brisbane Airport are on again, with the transport minister confirming negotiations are back on the table.

Brisbane Times revealed in 2022 the state government was negotiating to bring Airtrain's 35-year exclusivity agreement, signed by the Borbidge Liberal-National Coalition government in 1998, to a premature end.

Those negotiations under former transport minister Mark Bailey broke down in November, but his successor Bart Mellish said on Friday the topic was – potentially – back on the table.
 ...

^ the BT article also points out the potential problem with the new SEQ Rail Connect network in that the breaking of the BNE/Gold Coast direct connection MIGHT be grounds for Airtrain to seek further compensation.
It really depends on what is in the contract, something the public is not privy too. 

Seems some are a little confused with the last services ex BNE.

These are the current evening timetables.

https://translink.com.au/sites/default/files/acquiadam-assets/timetables/200302-gold-coast-airport.pdf





To increase the span:

Additional services from BNE Domestic at 10:34pm (Gold Coast) starts from BNE Domestic instead of Bowen Hills, 11:04pm  and 11:34pm (Roma St), except Fridays and Saturdays would be the existing Gold Coast Services starting from BNE Domestic rather than Bowen Hills.

Quote from: ozbob on May 11, 2024, 02:51:08 AMBrisbanetimes --> Airtrain negotiations back on after Bailey breakdown $

QuoteBut network changes due to the introduction of Cross River Rail would result in the loss of one of Airtrain's selling points – a direct connection to the Gold Coast.

That link not only formed a major part of Airtrain's business case, but was also, it was understood, part of its contract with the Queensland government.

That raised the prospect of legal action against the government, which started the high-level negotiations to bring Airtrain into public hands before the contract's end date.

Release the Business Case to the public so we to determine this for ourselves.

It's not like Airtrain doesn't know what the Cross River Rail project is; they are stakeholders too. They also know the network has to change, and there's not a thing they can do about that either.

There is no legal basis for Airtrain to dictate rail network routes, as TMR/QR has with dictating plane routes. By definition AirTrain is not the public transport authority, the initial contract sets out what limits/roles each party or organisation has, to prevent stuff like this happening.

Not convinced that the GC is a "selling point" as they have too have an airport, and flights from Brisbane. If anything, it doesn't matter if its going to the Gold Coast or Springfield/Ipswich, as long as a train services the Aiport, then the contract is still fulfilled.

Can they provide data of the numbers of people that take the train from the GC to the Airport directly, and vice-versa?

If anything, this could be grounds for re-negotiation of contract. AirTrain needs to accept reality that their monopoly is coming to an end, unless they want their cash-cow to be relegated to a shuttle service from Eagle Junction station.

^  Airtrain invested a considerable amount of money under the BOOT agreement (Build, Own, Operate and then Transfer) with the understanding they would have exclusive rights to public transport services to and from the airport till transfer which is 2036.  If the State wants to vary the BOOT agreement then Airtrain would have to agree and would most certainly mean financial compensation.  The point of contention re the Gold Coast is whether that was part of the BOOT agreement. If it was then Airtrain would have a claim to compensation.

I doubt very much if the BOOT agreement would ever be made public because of the commercial in confidence cloak. 

These sorts of contracts should be public. They are in Victoria ---> https://www.tenders.vic.gov.au/contract/search

Quote from: GonzoFonzieNot convinced that the GC is a "selling point" as they have too have an airport, and flights from Brisbane. If anything, it doesn't matter if its going to the Gold Coast or Springfield/Ipswich, as long as a train services the Aiport, then the contract is still fulfilled.

Can they provide data of the numbers of people that take the train from the GC to the Airport directly, and vice-versa?

If this lands in court, does this mean that private business details of Airtrain (e.g. passenger numbers, the actual BARL deed etc) could be released by the court and become public information?

Quote from: #Metro on May 11, 2024, 12:47:42 PMThese sorts of contracts should be public. They are in Victoria ---> https://www.tenders.vic.gov.au/contract/search

Quote from: GonzoFonzieNot convinced that the GC is a "selling point" as they have too have an airport, and flights from Brisbane. If anything, it doesn't matter if its going to the Gold Coast or Springfield/Ipswich, as long as a train services the Aiport, then the contract is still fulfilled.

Can they provide data of the numbers of people that take the train from the GC to the Airport directly, and vice-versa?

If this lands in court, does this mean that private business details of Airtrain (e.g. passenger numbers, the actual BARL deed etc) could be released by the court and become public information?

If it ever did end up in court it would be on what the actual contract means, in that did Airtrain have the understanding and agreement that their services would be connected directly with the Gold Coast. Passenger numbers etc. would be irrelevant to that particular point. This contract would not be tested until the link was broken, that is, when the new rail network commences I expect. So that is still a few years away yet. A court could decide then if Airtrain had that right if Airtrain so decided to pursue the matter, I would expect. Once that was determined then Airtrain could then reasonably pursue compensation based on patronage etc. But that would be after the legal determination on the contract.

Also remember the deed was prior to translink and network changes including sectorisation. I mean that still happens every now and then for overtaking and it's still common with dead runners/out of service movements but it was quite common back then such as the peak Caboolture-Cleveland services. Back then we also had unlimited station to station passes. So a lot has changed.

It's a tricky deed that will always be hidden behind commercial confidence. As far as I am aware the basics of the original contract has always been Airport-Roma Street for trains, Airport-South Brisbane for ticketing, concessions for the rest of the network (cab vouchers/ticketing/state government/etc) which transitioned over to translink (eg glink being included in airport tickets) and deals with 3rd parties such as when they had their AirtrainConnect service (don't think that still exists now).

In saying that the network has been modified significantly since then so there will be certain concessions and amendments made to it over the years. Those being the original contract, translink integration, translink timetable modifications (Wooloowin/Albion) and the soon to be CRR integration into the network. Remember this was prior to translink. Back then Robina was the terminus and QR was in regular contact with the local bus operators over late running services so it wasn't uncommon for trains to be held for late running buses and buses held for late running trains (this also applied to Nambour services). Station staff along it also knew quite a lot about airport services along with lots of station signage/road signage for airtrain services most of which has been removed or is faded.

Thinking back more I have a suspicion I know where the wording will be around. It's going to be around state government concessions that were granted as part of Queensland Transport/Queensland Tourist and Travel Corporation (now TEQ?) and it wouldn't surprise me if line pairings were mentioned somewhere around this eg trains from Airport to Gold Coast.

^ thanks.  It is interesting to note that the Transport Minister comments were updated in the recent Couriermail article at https://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/qld-politics/state-edges-closer-to-ending-airtrains-airport-stranglehold/news-story/55e71eafdddd62aaa64bbec9f22f1364

Quote... Transport Minister Bart Mellish has conceded getting buses in and out of the airport could be "tricky" under the existing Airtrain contract as the government fights to end its stranglehold.

Buying out Airtrain's stranglehold on public transport options to Brisbane Airport is not out of the question Transport Minister Bart Mellish has said, as the state inches closer to a deal to benefit commuters.

And he's also conceded getting buses in and out of the airport could be "tricky" under the existing contract. ...

I think from the point of view of passengers the best outcome would be an outright buyout of the contract by the State. It is interesting that the Minister is now saying an outright buyout is not out of the question. Fare subsidies, limited other bus options, rail timetable improvements will all cost in terms of compensation to Airtrain and only deliver a piecemeal part-solution in the end.

Airtrain is a commercial entity, and I would think if the State offered a contract buyout at an agreed price it would proceed.

Also it is worth noting that Airtrain is not the bad guy here, they built the line under the terms of the BOOT agreement. It is no ' stranglehold ' it is jut the reality of the terms agreed to by the State to get the line built.

Reading about buying Airtrain as 'not off the table' just suggests the Qld Gov is going around in circles.

These possibilities have been looked at by ministers before and didn't go anywhere. What is different now?

Unless they want to bring fares down to Translink levels, but that too doesn't require a buyout.

It is not necessary to buy out the operator to top up the timetable with more service. Why would Airtrain refuse subsidy money for top-up trains? Or lower fares?

Unlikely but prominent suggestions like potentially/possibly/maybe buying Airtrain seem to be a part of a larger cluster of stalling / running on the spot behaviours exhibited by the Queensland Government.

In the time the Qld Gov has been thinking about doing something about Airtrain, the WA PTA put a TBM in the ground and tunneled a line to Perth Airport, put on services at roughly 2x the frequency going into BNE, and charge the TransPerth fare of $4.59.

It's not a simple do this or do that. It's going to be around contracts, concessions and wording based around times from 20 years ago that would have seen several amendments over time. Brisbane Airtrain never got into the same position that Sydney Airtrain got themselves into with the state government being able to successfully renegotiate the contract. In fact owners since have wanted to change the contract but the nsw government says no. The Queensland state government may not be in any position contractually wise to compensate for fares outside of the tourist ticketing scheme that's always been in place.

Remember the initial contract was signed prior to translink so much of it was solely based around the current restrictions that were in place back then. Back then multiple state departments had their hands in the pie especially the tourism, sporting and events departments. They got someone else to build the infrastructure for them and saved them some money at the time.

Nothing is going to be off the table but it's going to be because of bean counters and lawyers going over it with a fine tooth comb, analysing costings down the line and trying to find the money by cancelling projects to pay for it without blowback on top of multi billion dollar infrastructure that they need to commit to. Airtrain was a stakeholder in the Olympic planning so they know the figures the government are expecting which makes it harder for the government to downplay or minimise full well knowing that Airtrain knows they have the exclusive rights to any mass government subsidised service. Even if the state over hypes numbers it goes against them.