RAIL - Back On Track Forum

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).

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, although better if it was duplicated of course.

Government Statement

https://statements.qld.gov.au/statements/101448

Next step towards accessible future for historic Shorncliffe station

24th September 2024

It's back to the future for the historic Shorncliffe station with a major upgrade to honour its significant heritage while making it easier for everyone to catch the train for years to come.

Tenders are out to refurbish the almost 130-year-old station with works to get underway in 2025.

The renovation will include:

. raising 90m of platform to include boarding points,
. refurbished heritage building,
. a new kiss 'n' ride,
. additional accessible parking,
. accessible ticket windows and bathrooms,
. improved customer comfort,
. hearing augmentation loops,
. improved lighting and CCTV,
. customer information screens.

There will also be space for 36 bicycles in a new, secure bike enclosure – complementing the suburb's substantial bike path network and promoting easy active transport.

Shorncliffe station, originally called Sandgate, was designed by famed Queensland Railways Architect Henrik Hansen.

The heritage charm will be protected and enhanced during the upgrade with the 1940s air raid shelter retained and the building returned to its 1914 footprint.

The station is a historic treasure trove with more than 400 objects of heritage significance discovered in the subfloor of the old station building during early works, including train tickets, clothing, newspapers, and bottles.

The artefacts – some dating back to the 1890s – have been meticulously preserved and catalogued.

A 1940s sailor's cap, unearthed in the dig, was even reunited with its owner's family seven-decades later – just one example of the delicate care, precision and attention Queensland Rail has been giving to this historic upgrade.   

Since 2022, Shorncliffe locals have provided input into the project through community consultation, feedback and engagement sessions.

The Queensland Government remains committed to enhancing our rich rail history while delivering safer, modern and more accessible public transport for all customers.

Shorncliffe's tender process follows the recent reopening of Burpengary station with five more full station upgrades under construction at Bundamba, Morningside, Lindum, Banyo and Buranda. Cross River Rail's upgraded Dutton Park station will also reopen in coming months.

More --> https://statements.qld.gov.au/statements/101448

Quoteraising 90m of platform to include boarding points,

So we're back to this partial raising BS again by the looks 🙄
Given at Shorncliffe is dead straight there should be zero impediment to doing a full length raise of this platform.

It's different to the 10 metres or so they used to do in the middle but still falls short of the full length of the platform.

Yes, it is exasperating the bumble and bungle!

If there was a second platform at Shorncliffe, 15 minute frequency and even better at peak will be enabled even with the single section to and from Sandgate.

Not raising the extant platform full height full length just adds more dwell time and fall risks.

The focus with railways seems to be do  anything and everything except add train service. 

The last upgrade of off-peak 15 min train service was what 2014? Can anyone recall?

1.3 km duplication should be simple.

Metro, I've explained why train services haven't been improved due to CRR. They could operate higher frequencies tomorrow but it means reducing services when CRR opens which they don't want to do. It also means hiring additional psa so the fleet can have a better reliability instead of cancelling services because a NGR is available (which is what currently happens where Ferny Grove and Beenleigh services are cancelled instead of running an available NGR). This applies to whatever government is in power. Also over the years rollingstock has been an issue. Because of the foot dragging with QTMP to keep costs down and faster refurbs work is being undertaken locally, at Maryborough or not at all. Also includes not replacing scratched windows or even washing the bodies.

Remember all EMUs were to be retired a number of years ago and the second NGR order was to be received and completed by now except the second order was cancelled and we still have EMUs running.

All it really boils down to is a failure to buy enough trains. 

Bumping the QTMP order up by another 25 would fix this and enable retirement of all EMUs along with fleet growth.  That would leave us with the following when the extended QTMP order is complete:

• SMUs - 39 x 6-car set equivalents (12 x 3-car SMU 200s, 30 x 3-car SMU 220s, 36 x 3-car SMU260s)
• IMUs - 21 x 6-car set equivalents (10 x 3-car IMU100s, 4 x 3-car IMU120s, 14 x 3 car IMU160s)
• NGRs - 75 x indivisible 6-car sets
• QTMPs - 90 x indivisible 6-car sets (65 committed, 25 further)

This is 225 x 6 car train equivalents, compared to the current fleet strength of somewhere around 150 x 6 car train equivalents depending on how many EMUs are actually still running.  Substantially less (or zero) services need for any 3 car trains at this point as all trains are now fully bulked up and except for the oldest trains cannot be divided anyway.  It should be a trivial job to extend the platforms between Rosewood and Ipswich and at Eudlo, which would mean every single platform face in SEQ can take a 6-car train except Traveston (for which selective door operation would continue to be fine).

After the QTMP order is complete, you would be looking to replace the remaining 60 x 6-car equivalent trains which predate the NGRs with a single larger order comparable to the size of the NGR and QTMP orders, and would probably set up Mayne as the dedicated maintenance centre for these.  Then you would have 3 classes of train in use at any given time (with limited exception probably about 1 class per operating sector) and would be procuring the replacement for the oldest of the 3 classes with the same number or more to accommodate growth in the network.

Quoteexcept Traveston (for which selective door operation would continue to be fine).

Just have all services run express through Traveston.

Cooran is 4km away, just have people drive there.
There's a longer gap between Ormeau and Beenleigh! Or between Elimbah and Caboolture!

Quote from: SurfRail on September 25, 2024, 10:31:25 AMAll it really boils down to is a failure to buy enough trains. 

Bumping the QTMP order up by another 25 would fix this and enable retirement of all EMUs along with fleet growth.  That would leave us with the following when the extended QTMP order is complete:

• SMUs - 39 x 6-car set equivalents (12 x 3-car SMU 200s, 30 x 3-car SMU 220s, 36 x 3-car SMU260s)
• IMUs - 21 x 6-car set equivalents (10 x 3-car IMU100s, 4 x 3-car IMU120s, 14 x 3 car IMU160s)
• NGRs - 75 x indivisible 6-car sets
• QTMPs - 90 x indivisible 6-car sets (65 committed, 25 further)

This is 225 x 6 car train equivalents, compared to the current fleet strength of somewhere around 150 x 6 car train equivalents depending on how many EMUs are actually still running.  Substantially less (or zero) services need for any 3 car trains at this point as all trains are now fully bulked up and except for the oldest trains cannot be divided anyway.  It should be a trivial job to extend the platforms between Rosewood and Ipswich and at Eudlo, which would mean every single platform face in SEQ can take a 6-car train except Traveston (for which selective door operation would continue to be fine).

After the QTMP order is complete, you would be looking to replace the remaining 60 x 6-car equivalent trains which predate the NGRs with a single larger order comparable to the size of the NGR and QTMP orders, and would probably set up Mayne as the dedicated maintenance centre for these.  Then you would have 3 classes of train in use at any given time (with limited exception probably about 1 class per operating sector) and would be procuring the replacement for the oldest of the 3 classes with the same number or more to accommodate growth in the network.

Great insight.  Off track but what worries me beyond the fact that Government isn't keen to add to the current order to get to 90, is even if the time frame for the 90 is acceptable (we surely need them by the opening of CRR) is where is the capacity to add additional regional trains to the fleet if they must be built in Queensland? going to come from.  The backlog is just way way too big.

At the outset there just need to be enough sets to cover retirement of the EMUs - the first 15 of 65 will be comfortably enough.

Beyond that I think you are dealing with bulking up all 3 car services to 6 car, then adding new services, then starting to draw down the SMU200s and IMU100s / IMU120s (13 x 6 car equivalents combined).

^if the SMU220s are due for retirement, surely the IMU120s must be, too? They're only about 1 year newer.

SMU220 will be around for quite a while. They'll be having their refurbs ~2028-2032. SMU200 on the other hand but you can say the same for IMU100/120 if you start diving into the parts and spares.

The issue with the 120s is going to be that there are only 4 of them, which is a trivial number to keep going and especially where they can't be used on CRR to GC/SC services for which (absent CRR) they would be most suited.  My guess is they might finish their lives doing local shuttles from Beerwah to Nambour and beyond while NGRs are used on Brisbane to DSCL and (peak) Nambour or further north trains.

There are 15 6-car sets' worth of 220s which is non-trivial, especially once they are the oldest trains left.

Standardising the fleet down to 3 types only (with a dedicated maintenance centre for each) wipes out a lot of issues.

Don't the IMU120/SMU220s have a fair few common components, though? Or, am I misguided?

Quote from: achiruel on September 26, 2024, 17:02:19 PMDon't the IMU120/SMU220s have a fair few common components, though? Or, am I misguided?

Nope. Quite a lot of differences between them. For a shorter list you are better off naming things they have in common than the differences between them.