New timetable - Ferny Grove line

[ozbob]

Your suggestions please.

[ozbob]

Here is an interesting summary of Ferny Grove line timetables compiled by a member (thanks).

It highlights rather dramatically the not so great ramp up of frequency over the years ...

[stephenk]

Off-peak there should be trains every 15mins between the peaks, peak shoulders, and daytime at Weekends.
At all other times there should be trains at least every 30mins (no more late night and Sunday am hour gaps).

During peak hours there needs to be train at least every 15mins for all stations. This applies for all major lines where possible. TransLink's peak service requirements of a train every 20mins are not good enough, and make public transport unattractive. QR's scheduling exceeds this figure, with inner suburban peak gaps of up to 23mins on the Ferny Grove, Beenleigh, and Cleveland Lines. This needs serious attention!

Unfortunately the Ferny Grove Line's single track section makes scheduling difficult. When more than the current 7tph are required, a solution may be to run alternate Ferny Grove to City every 15mins, and Mitchelton (or maybe Keperra) to City every 15min services for a 8tph combined service. Due to higher loadings on the Ferny Grove service, it may need to partially run express. The express service pattern should be dictated by projected loadings rather than journey times. This would allow as many stations as realistically possible to receive the full 8tph service.

Once the single track section has been duplicated, frequent all stations only services to Ferny Grove should be run. This would allow all stations to have a frequent "metro like" peak service.

[ozbob]

Any value in a tunnel Windsor to Roma St for the FG?

[stephenk]

Any value in a tunnel Windsor to Roma St for the FG?

No.

The ICRCS/Cross River Rail seems to be the most sensible plan for Brisbane's suburban rail network.

[Derwan]

No.

I agree.  Any expenditure of that magnitude requires maximum flexibility.  Restricting movement to a single (short) line limits its usefulness.  The tunnel entering/exiting around woolloowin allows servicing of the Caboolture/Nambour, Shorncliffe, Airport and Doomben lines.  Even if timetabled services go to/from just one of these, others can be routed through the tunnel if there are major disruptions on the surface line - or future timetables can adjust the line(s) using the tunnel as required.

[ozbob]

A tunnel from Windsor to Roma St (Exhibition Loop) has been suggested before as a separate addition to the Cross River Rail Project.  Just interested in what folks thought.

Clearly the broad concept of tunnel Park Road, Gabba, QUT GP, Eagle St, Bowen Hills is the crux of the Cross River rail, but they are looking at other options eg.  more tracks Park Road Roma St, and another tunnel between Roma St and Bowen Hills.

[stephenk]

but they are looking at other options eg.  more tracks Park Road Roma St, and another tunnel between Roma St and Bowen Hills.

These ideas were not feasible according to the ICRCS.

[ozbob]

These ideas were not feasible according to the ICRCS.

Yes I know.  That won't stop them looking at all options again to confirm the right way forward.

The tunnel underneath the Gabba is to me the best way forward, although there may be some complications/variations as a result of the Clem7 tunnel. 

[somebody]

Any value in a tunnel Windsor to Roma St for the FG?

Not nearly as good as what I once suggested: Cannon Hill-(maybe) Hawthorne-New Farm-Central-QUT KG-Newmarket.  Bustitute Wilston & close Windsor (already served by a BUZ)

<stirring the pot>
If the 390 was made a BUZ and put in KGSBS, and extended to Ferny Grove and perhaps Upper Kedron after that, that would go near Newmarket and to every station after.  Windsor has the 333, so the only station not served by a BUZ would be Wilston.  Would that be as good as a 15 minute off peak frequency on the line?

[stephenk]

<stirring the pot>
If the 390 was made a BUZ and put in KGSBS, and extended to Ferny Grove and perhaps Upper Kedron after that, that would go near Newmarket and to every station after.  Windsor has the 333, so the only station not served by a BUZ would be Wilston.  Would that be as good as a 15 minute off peak frequency on the line?

[ozbob]

The bulk capacity of the Ferny Grove line rail is needed, and will only increase with the increase in facilities at FG.  As train frequency increases so will patronage.  Some of the worst overloads I have seen on the suburban system have been on the FG line.  Ok, they are short overloads but impressive none the less.  The bus is also needed as a further options but not as a mirror image of the line.  Problem is fitting the buses into the traffic etc.  Isn't KGSBS already straining?  We need more 'training' ...

[somebody]

<serious hat back on>

The bulk capacity of the Ferny Grove line rail is needed, and will only increase with the increase in facilities at FG.  As train frequency increases so will patronage.  Some of the worst overloads I have seen on the suburban system have been on the FG line.  Ok, they are short overloads but impressive none the less.  The bus is also needed as a further options but not as a mirror image of the line.  Problem is fitting the buses into the traffic etc.  Isn't KGSBS already straining?  We need more 'training' ...

The capacity is definitely needed in peak.  I don't have figures on off peak patronage, I don't think they even exist.

I'm a little confused about the need for both the bus and the train.  The only reasons I can see why we need the 390 is to increase frequency on the FG line at a lower cost than rail, and also it's faster between Alderley.  The 345 serves the same stops as the 390 inbound from Alderley, and the FG line serves the same stops as the 390 outbound after Alderley.

But regarding the KGSBS straining: No.  There's one fully unused stop in both directions, in what way is it straining?

Perhaps a BUZ 390 is needed as a temporary measure to bolster public transport use.  Once implemented, PT usage in the area should grow which would make improved off peak rail frequency improvements easier to justify.  Then the 390 could be canned, except for the N390

I'm not sure how you'd justify improved FG off peak service outranking improved service on the Caboolture line, unless it was something like: bang for buck (cheaper), doesn't interfere with freight services etc.

[ozbob]

I don't think anyone is justifying increased off peak frequency on the FG necessarily over the Caboolture line.  I think there is a need for a general increase in frequency on all lines - at least 60 minutes to 30 minutes, 30 minutes to 15 minutes (probably not generally achievable but I would be happy with 20 minutes).  Frequency is the key to encouraging use.  We are stuck with frequency presently which in many cases is a downright disincentive, and changed little in 30 years outside peaks. Compounds the problems with bus/rail integration as well of course.   If public transport is to be attractive it has to be frequent - rail and bus.

KGSBS is mentioned as often approaching congestion at ATDB for example.  I don't think there is unlimited capacity for more and more buses and when the Northern Busway ramps up will be interesting for sure.  Running bus directly parallel to rail is not necessary agreed, no one has said that either.  What was implied that complementary bus to rail is needed to cross suburbs, loops and feed rail.  The 468 from Oxley to Indooroopilly is a good example.  Provides further options other than just rail Oxley to Indooroopilly.  Similar dynamic on the FG.

All good!

[somebody]

I don't think anyone is justifying increased off peak frequency on the FG necessarily over the Caboolture line.  I think there is a need for a general increase in frequency on all lines - at least 60 minutes to 30 minutes, 30 minutes to 15 minutes (probably not generally achievable but I would be happy with 20 minutes). 

The problem is that some are demanding the impossible objective of instantly going to increased frequency across the board.  Where would the crews come from?

I don't know about the 20 minute frequency though.  On the suburbans, definitely not as the Gold Coasties running at 20 minute frequency would catch the Beenleigh trains, and it would be virtually impossible on the Cleveland line too, with the single track sections.  Perhaps if Caboolture/Ipswich/Richlands/Shorncliffe went to 20 minute weekday (or even 7 day) frequency as a group, that would be doable crews permitting.  It would mean 10 minute frequency Darra-Northgate!   

Even cooler would be 20 minute weekend/evening on the mains, with 15 minute weekday for 7.5 minute frequency Darra-Northgate, or Caboolture and/or Ipswich expresses off peak

If public transport is to be attractive it has to be frequent - rail and bus.

Of course.

KGSBS is mentioned as often approaching congestion at ATDB for example.  I don't think there is unlimited capacity for more and more buses and when the Northern Busway ramps up will be interesting for sure. 

I actually haven't seen that there.  I have heard people whinging about the capacity of the SE busway though.

Obviously, I didn't mean capacity was unlimited, but there is room for more.

Running bus directly parallel to rail is not necessary agreed, no one has said that either. 

So when you said "the bus is also needed as a further options but not as a mirror image of the line", you meant buses generally not the 390?  Ok.

Besides Translink obviously see a need for a bus service which runs along the train line, as they continue to fund it.

The 468 from Oxley to Indooroopilly is a good example.  Provides further options other than just rail Oxley to Indooroopilly.  Similar dynamic on the FG.

Oxley & Darra will receive much improved service once the Richlands branch opens.  It's the absolute freight priority mentality which is the problem, as I see it.  Yes, we need freight services, but we need pax services too.

Back on the point, the 468 is a bit silly in that it doesn't go on to the train station or Lambert Rd at Indro.  Why not?

The express service pattern should be dictated by projected loadings rather than journey times.

Wouldn't that mean expressing through Enoggera and Gaythorne?  Have you had a change of heart?

[ozbob]

Back on the point, the 468 is a bit silly in that it doesn't go on to the train station or Lambert Rd at Indro.  Why not?

Too right!  Indooroopilly is worth a thread all on its own! 

[longboi]

The 390 isn't exactly a mirror of the Ferny Grove line; Very few people use it to do the whole Mitchelton-City trip. Generally most people will be travelling between Mitchelton-Newmarket/Kelvin Grove or Newmarket/Kelvin Grove - City.

[stephenk]

I'm a little confused about the need for both the bus and the train.  The only reasons I can see why we need the 390 is to increase frequency on the FG line at a lower cost than rail, and also it's faster between Alderley.  The 345 serves the same stops as the 390 inbound from Alderley, and the FG line serves the same stops as the 390 outbound after Alderley.

Perhaps a BUZ 390 is needed as a temporary measure to bolster public transport use.  Once implemented, PT usage in the area should grow which would make improved off peak rail frequency improvements easier to justify.  Then the 390 could be canned, except for the N390

As a frequent user of both the 390 and Ferny Grove Line, your suggestions make it look like you are needlessly stirring the pot again - hence the above troll emoticon. I take it you don't use either services?

The Ferny Grove Line can justify a 15min off-peak timetable - it can be standing room only on mid-morning weekday and weekend am services.

The 390 serves places the Ferny Grove Line does not, such as QUT Kelvin Grove and Normanby. Likewise the Ferny Grove Line serves places the 390 does not, such as Newmarket, Wilston, Windsor, Bowen Hills (with onward connections), Fortitude Valley, South Bank area. Both the Ferny Grove Line and 390 compliment each other, rather than rival each other.

The 390 is an all stops service, the 345 which parallels parts of it route is a limited stops service. Thus, the 390 and 345 compliment each other rather than rival each other on their shared section.

Wouldn't that mean expressing through Enoggera and Gaythorne?  Have you had a change of heart?

Current demand would allow expresses to serve both Enoggera and Gaythorne.

[somebody]

I take it you don't use either services?

I'll concede that one.

The Ferny Grove Line can justify a 15min off-peak timetable - it can be standing room only on mid-morning weekday and weekend am services.

And the Ipswich line can justify better evening and weekend services.  As can Caboolture justify better services.  The question then becomes: Which is the first priority?

The 390 serves places the Ferny Grove Line does not, such as QUT Kelvin Grove and Normanby. Likewise the Ferny Grove Line serves places the 390 does not, such as Newmarket, Wilston, Windsor, Bowen Hills (with onward connections), Fortitude Valley, South Bank area. Both the Ferny Grove Line and 390 compliment each other, rather than rival each other.

The 390 is an all stops service, the 345 which parallels parts of it route is a limited stops service. Thus, the 390 and 345 compliment each other rather than rival each other on their shared section.

I still don't get the idea that Mitchelton/Enoggera/Gaythorne deserve a direct service to Kelvin Grove Rd, but Grovely/Oxford Park/Keperra/Ferny Grove don't.

I take your point about servicing all stops to some degree, but it usually isn't too much to ask to walk to where the limited stops service would stop.  Certainly on the Indooroopilly-city corridor I wonder why they bother with the all stops service.

I'm going to leave it at that, unless you want to continue the discussion.

Wouldn't that mean expressing through Enoggera and Gaythorne?  Have you had a change of heart?

Current demand would allow expresses to serve both Enoggera and Gaythorne.

When I looked at the graphics in the ICRS on this point, they showed that Mitchelton all stoppers would be significantly less loaded than Enoggera-Bowen Hills expresses.  Perhaps you'd prefer a congestion imbalance to a frequency reduction.

[somebody]

KGSBS is mentioned as often approaching congestion at ATDB for example.  

I think I remember the arguments you are referring to now.  That was mostly some consternation at what had been excluded from the KGSBS.  It seems perfectly clear to me that all Kelvin Grove Rd services should be in the KGSBS if possible.  It's obvious that more of them could be, the present arrangements aren't logical.

Isn't KGSBS already straining?  We need more 'training' ...

Hate to say it, but that's like saying that: The Merivale bridge is near capacity, therefore we shouldn't use rail.

Rail and buses both have their place.  The former is better for longer distance and higher capacities, the latter is much easier to provide higher frequencies and direct services with.

[ozbob]

Hate to say it, but that's like saying that: The Merivale bridge is near capacity, therefore we shouldn't use rail.

Not at all IMO.  For a start you need to read it context.  It is just simply stating there is a capacity limit and we need more rail.

I have always been a strong supporter of mode fit for purpose, buses are buses, trains are trains.

The good thing now is we are at long last starting to see some rail expansion.  Exciting times ahead.

[#Metro]

The problem is that some are demanding the impossible objective of instantly going to increased frequency across the board.  Where would the crews come from?

Why is this impossible? Other cities on Earth seem to be able to expand capacity.
Maybe they are more advanced? Perth, for example.

It doesn't have to be instant in the sense of "just add crews".
We would like to see an improvement, we have been promised one (301 000 new seats) and we have been billed for it (price rises) now we are waiting for the delivery...

[somebody]

The problem is that some are demanding the impossible objective of instantly going to increased frequency across the board.  Where would the crews come from?

Why is this impossible? Other cities on Earth seem to be able to expand capacity.
Maybe they are more advanced? Perth, for example.

It doesn't have to be instant in the sense of "just add crews".
We would like to see an improvement, we have been promised one (301 000 new seats) and we have been billed for it (price rises) now we are waiting for the delivery...

Why impossible?  I think you need to understand the word "instantly".

Really, I can't see how it could be done in a all lines at once cut over, even with 3 years preparation.  You need to train the crews, then put them to work, train some more, give them work and so on.  What would be something like a 30% increase in the numbers of crews is not a task that could be done without a phase in, IMO.

[longboi]

The problem is that some are demanding the impossible objective of instantly going to increased frequency across the board.  Where would the crews come from?

Why is this impossible? Other cities on Earth seem to be able to expand capacity.
Maybe they are more advanced? Perth, for example.

It doesn't have to be instant in the sense of "just add crews".
We would like to see an improvement, we have been promised one (301 000 new seats) and we have been billed for it (price rises) now we are waiting for the delivery...

Why impossible?  I think you need to understand the word "instantly".

Really, I can't see how it could be done in a all lines at once cut over, even with 3 years preparation.  You need to train the crews, then put them to work, train some more, give them work and so on.  What would be something like a 30% increase in the numbers of crews is not a task that could be done without a phase in, IMO.

Yep exactly. The numbers of traincrew are definately increasing but you can't do it all at once - that's just stupid.

[stephenk]

Personally I think the move the 15mins off-peak inner suburban frequencies needs to be made in as few steps as possible, along with a large advertising campaign about the improvements. This should theoretically attract a lot more people to public transport.

I would expect that the % increase in the number of traincrew required to run 15mins off-peak frequencies will be considerably less than the % increase in frequency. Don't forget that far more crew are required for peak services, and running more off-peak services may even make more efficient use of crew hours.

If Perth can build a brand new line, and supply enough train crew for 5min peak frequencies, Brisbane should be able to muster up a 15min off-peak!

[#Metro]

Really, I can't see how it could be done in a all lines at once cut over, even with 3 years preparation.  You need to train the crews, then put them to work, train some more, give them work and so on.  What would be something like a 30% increase in the numbers of crews is not a task that could be done without a phase in, IMO.

Maybe time to think about automation or phasing out guards. Or advertising in WA newpapers.

[mufreight]

To move to driver only operation would require the raising of every platform to carriage floor height to enable disability access.
TV monitoring systems such as are fitted in Perth to enable the drivers to observe the loading/unloading of passengers yet here we are still building low level platforms and new rollingstock is neither fitted for external TV monitoring of trains or is provision made for its installation.
Again it all comes back to money and the political will

[somebody]

In the short term I think the best/fairest thing would be a move to all 6 car set operation, like Caboolture-Ipswich.  Has that been done yet?  At least that should reduce overcrowding.  I really can't see how FG should rank ahead of Caboolture in receiving a 15 minute service, except that it might be easier to achieve.

[stephenk]

In the short term I think the best/fairest thing would be a move to all 6 car set operation, like Caboolture-Ipswich.  Has that been done yet?  At least that should reduce overcrowding.  I really can't see how FG should rank ahead of Caboolture in receiving a 15 minute service, except that it might be easier to achieve.

I don't think off-peak overcrowding is the issue - off-peak overcrowding is very rare on all lines. It's about making the service more attractive by running more frequent services. 

[somebody]

I don't think off-peak overcrowding is the issue - off-peak overcrowding is very rare on all lines. It's about making the service more attractive by running more frequent services. 

If I can't get a seat on an off peak service, I am NOT HAPPY.  It sometimes happens on the Ipswich line, usually after 10pm Mon-Thu, often with the back 3 cars locked.

[somebody]

If we went to 15 minute off peak service on this line, how would it be done with the single track section? 
(a) Double headed train Keperra-FG
(b) squeezed (<8min) changover
(c) utilizing 2 platforms at FG with no real reduction in the set's dwell times

I'm favouring (c)