15 minute off peak frequency & daytime trackwork on the core of the network

[somebody]

It has been suggested that if off peak frequency is increased on all lines, then it will become more difficult to do trackwork on the core of the network.  At present, it is possible to do this by closing the suburbans and working on the mains, and vice versa.  However, if you have:
4tph Beenleigh line-Ferny Grove
4tph Ipswich-Caboolture
4tph Richlands-Shorncliffe
4tph Cleveland/Manly-Airport
1tph Varsity Lakes-Doomben
1tph Varisty Lakes-Landsborough/Nambour

It would be achievable to run all these through Central 5 & 6.  However, the current 2-3 min dwell at Central cannot be maintained in any way I can see.  Not sure what the solution is.

[Golliwog]

When I have observed the maintenance on the core of the network, they only wait at Central if there isn't a train right behind. If there is, they stop, drop and roll on and then I would assume wait at Roma St.

As for you're proposal I would say GC needs more than 2tph. However I don't think this is needed for Brisbane-->GC connections more to promote movement within the GC and areas between Bris and there so perhaps one or two Beenleigh trains could become all stations Brisbane to GC?

[somebody]

As for you're proposal I would say GC needs more than 2tph. However I don't think this is needed for Brisbane-->GC connections more to promote movement within the GC and areas between Bris and there so perhaps one or two Beenleigh trains could become all stations Brisbane to GC?

I would disagree with the need for more than 2tph GC off peak.  And besides, it's a hypothetical argument as the infrastructure doesn't support it.  As for extending the Beenleigh trains, that won't work as the following coastie is necessarily hot on the heels of the Beenleigh train.  And vice versa northbound.  Plus I don't see the need for GC trains for intra-GC trips.  I don't have an intimate knowledge of this, but I expect that such trips really involve a bus trip at each end.  Why not just upgrade the GC bus service.

When I have observed the maintenance on the core of the network, they only wait at Central if there isn't a train right behind. If there is, they stop, drop and roll on and then I would assume wait at Roma St.

Well, if they are running late then they do not wait.  That would be the only time a train is right behind.

[Golliwog]

Or if when you mash the trains together into one pair of platforms there are some that are just scheduled to arrive at about the same time? If you look at the timetable for the inner city line there are a few cases where a train is scheduled to be arriving on platform 6 when one is at or leaving platform 3/4 and vice versa, which obviously can't happen if they are all running through platform 6.

And if we're debating hypotheticals, whats wrong with suggesting more than one thing that the infrastructure wouldn't support?

[#Metro]

The buses are being upgraded to LRT. Hopefully, and finally, the abysmal and random timetable for buses on the Gold Coast can be fixed once and for all.

I would disagree with the need for more than 2tph GC off peak.  And besides, it's a hypothetical argument as the infrastructure doesn't support it.

Not a priority for now, but I would like to see the service upgraded to every 15 minutes off peak. Perth runs trains all every 15 minutes  off peak all the way to the terminal at Mandurah (70 km from Perth CBD). Mandurah, WA is a town with 85,000 people. The Gold Coast has 402,000 people. And guess which one has the higher off peak train frequency?- Mandurah, WA! Go figure.

Brisbane should aim to have a BART-style regional metro service by upgrading its heavy rail network. This means high frequency as standard. Try it, it might actually work.

Plus I don't see the need for GC trains for intra-GC trips.  I don't have an intimate knowledge of this, but I expect that such trips really involve a bus trip at each end.

You never know. The Gold Coast is a city in itself. Someone at Helensvale might want to go to Uni at Varsity Lakes. Someone at Nerang might want to go to Gold Coast airport or Tweed Heads. I'm not sure either, but since nobody seems to have got data on this, I think it would be unwise to assume that there wasn't trips for this. They should see if there are intra-GC trips. Increased train frequency will help this anyway.

[somebody]

Or if when you mash the trains together into one pair of platforms there are some that are just scheduled to arrive at about the same time? If you look at the timetable for the inner city line there are a few cases where a train is scheduled to be arriving on platform 6 when one is at or leaving platform 3/4 and vice versa, which obviously can't happen if they are all running through platform 6.

This seems to be a bit of a problem heading south, but much less heading north.  So, if they are doing such things now, how do they do it?  Intentional late running?

And if we're debating hypotheticals, whats wrong with suggesting more than one thing that the infrastructure wouldn't support?

So long as you include upgrading that infrastructure so it does support it, then nothing at all.

[Golliwog]

A bit of both. When I was there they had someone on the PA system updating passengers about the locations of their train "The Beenleigh train is at Fortitude Valley and will arrive in 2 minutes" type things. There were also some slack point where trains did wait at Central, but I think if they couldn't then they would just go early and wait at Roma St instead. Given that they were leaving because another train had to pull in it wasn't too bad as a passenger could just catch that 2nd train and switch to the right one at Roma St.

[somebody]

Actually, leaving early is highly annoying for a half hourly service.

[Golliwog]

For a southbound train which couldn't wait at central due to a train following closely behind, what I'm assuming they were doing was having the first train leave Central slightly early but do extra waiting at Roma St so that passengers hoping to catch it from Central can catch the 2nd train which caused the first train to leave early and then just switch at Roma St.

For a northbound train you would hope they would do all the waiting at Roma St too, so that if they are different to timetabled they would at least be late not early.

[somebody]

For a southbound train which couldn't wait at central due to a train following closely behind, what I'm assuming they were doing was having the first train leave Central slightly early but do extra waiting at Roma St so that passengers hoping to catch it from Central can catch the 2nd train which caused the first train to leave early and then just switch at Roma St.

For a northbound train you would hope they would do all the waiting at Roma St too, so that if they are different to timetabled they would at least be late not early.

If both trains are passing Roma St #8 there is no opportunity to interchange.  I don't see why you'd close Central 1-4 but leave Roma St 4-7 open.

[Golliwog]

Because if they don't need to be closed for the maintenance, why would you?

[somebody]

Because if they don't need to be closed for the maintenance, why would you?

Well I am unsure about the availability of crossovers for what you are suggesting, for a start.  And Roma St 4-7 are just as in need of trackwork as Central 1-4.  And such crossovers would increase the amount of maintenance required.

[Golliwog]

But, assuming the cross overs fit without too much conflicting movements, it would be less disruptive to do each station individually. Plus, if its only track maintenance on the tracks in the stations themselves, then it doesn't matter much at all. As virtually all trains stop at Central or Roma St they obviously aren't going to be going fast enough for anything majorly bad to happen, and even if it does as we saw with the derailment at Central (last year?) all that happened was that the train stopped and they got everyone off fine.

[somebody]

But, assuming the cross overs fit

A big assumption in the tunnels!

[Golliwog]

However, equally as big an assumption as assuming they dont. Trains going to/from Central platforms 5 or 6 have plenty of platofmrs from Roma St they could come or go from.

[somebody]

However, equally as big an assumption as assuming they dont. Trains going to/from Central platforms 5 or 6 have plenty of platofmrs from Roma St they could come or go from.

I wouldn't say that.  Seems to be the most likely scenario.

[mufreight]

The accepted practice with passenger services is that they NEVER[ run early and make every effort to run to timetable.
The bunching of services that can occur when one pair of lines is shut down through the CBD can be covered by having one service run late by whatever is the block clearance time, preferably the service with the longest trip time to its destination as that service has more opportunity to recover time and thus minimise inconvenience to commuters.

[somebody]

However, equally as big an assumption as assuming they dont. Trains going to/from Central platforms 5 or 6 have plenty of platofmrs from Roma St they could come or go from.

Seems that you are, in fact, correct that there are cross overs which allow access to Central #6 from Roma St #7 and to Roma St #6 from Central #5.  These are in use on a standard weekend for every line except Airport-Gold Coast

The question is: why?  All that does is increase the number of conflicting moves.

[Golliwog]

It may increase the number of conflicting moves, but idealy they are used in a fashion to limit the conflicts (ie: as they are currently, which is rarely) but are there to allow trains to be re-routed through different platforms if some are closed for whatever reason. What if you ended up with trains broken down or something in Roma St #8,9,10? You would still have delays but at least you would stil be able to use Central #5,6. It is really unlikely that such a situation would actually occur, and this was probably not these crossovers original intended purpose, however once tracks are there they cost very little to maintain so there is very little reason to remove these.

[somebody]

Not sure you are across the arrangements at Central/Roma St.
Roma St #9 runs northbound into Central #6
Central #5 runs south/west bound normally into Roma St #8.  Apparently it can reach Roma St #6 too.
Central #3 and Roma St #6 are bi-di.
Central #1 & #2 runs southbound normally into Roma St #4 & #5.  Central #2 can reach #7 if the service is terminating, and #6 if #4 & #5 are closed.  Not sure about Central #1.

Roma St #1, #2 and #3 do not have equivalent platforms at Central, hence the numbering confusion.

The arrangements on weekends actually have heaps of unnecessary conflicting moves:
outbound Ipswich trains conflict with inbound Beenleigh and Cleveland trains as well as northbound Shorncliffe trains
northbound gold coast/Airport trains conflict with Beenleigh/Ferny Grove, Cleveland and Shorncliffe trains in both directions.
The 6:25am Saturday Nambour train ex-Roma St conflicts with outbound and inbound Ipswich trains for no apparent reason too.

And there are more around Bowen Hills.  Those are just the ones west of Central.

[Golliwog]

Yeah, I would be the first to admit I don't know much about the arrangements between Central and Roma St. But as for Central #1 and #2, don't they (like Central #3 and #4) merge into a single track between Central and Roma St, so if Central #2 can get to a Roma St platform then so can Central #1?

[somebody]

Yeah, I would be the first to admit I don't know much about the arrangements between Central and Roma St. But as for Central #1 and #2, don't they (like Central #3 and #4) merge into a single track between Central and Roma St, so if Central #2 can get to a Roma St platform then so can Central #1?

My understanding is that there are 6 tracks all the way between Central and Roma St.  But I could be wrong.

[ozbob]

See Appendix B  --> here!

[Golliwog]

Cool. Yeah, in an ideal world I think it would be 6 through tracks from Central through Roma St and over to the split between Merivale bridge and the rest of the Ipswich line with 2 tracks going over the bridge instead of merging with 2 of the 4 Ipswich line tracks.