Ipswich Line- which service pattern should we aim for now?

[colinw]

Comparison of junction arrangements:

Perth: Armadale Line & Thornlie Spur at Beckenham.  The Thornlie spur runs as double track in the centre, then goes down to single track here before diverging via a dive.  The tunnel is built to accommodate double track in future, when the line eventually extends to Canning Vale and Cockburn Central on the Mandurah Line (a cross-country connection to Fremantle is possible as well via the existing freight line).

from Perth __________________________.... to Armadale
                  \
                   \_____________________.... to/from Thornlie
                                            /
                    ______________/
                   /
to Perth   ___/______________________ ..... from Armadale

(This layout handles 8TPH to & from Perth and 4TPH to & from each of Armadale & Thornlie).  There is no freight, and a couple of Bunbury services each way per day.


Brisbane: Ipswich Line & Richlands Spur at Darra.  Similar arrangement to the Thornline spur with two tracks coming off between a pair of through lines, then crossing via a grade separated junction.  Differences - the main line is quad track the whole way (but with missing electrification at Oxley), last station before junction has four platforms, not two.  Spur is already double track the whole way.  i.e. Brisbane has much more infrastructure already, but laid out so that there are a lot more conflicting moves due to the non electrified track.

                                                                                                        [DARRA]
from Ipswich ___________________________________________________________________________________________________
                       \                                                                                                                                              /
                        \                                                                                                                                           /
                         \                                                                                                                                        /
to Ipswich    ______\___________________________________________________________________________________/________
                                 \                                                                      [DARRA]                            /
                                  \                                                                                                          /
                                    \                                                                   [DARRA]                        /
                                     \______________________________________________________________/______________________
                                            \                                             /                                   /                /
                                             \      .... from Richlands .... ____/                                   /                /
                                              \                                                                            /                /
                                               \        .... to Richlands ....____                                 /                /
                                                \                                        \                              /                /
                                                 \_________________________\_________________/__________/________________________ (not electrified)
                                                        (up sub loop)                              [DARRA]

(This layout handles 4TPH to & from Brisbane and 2TPH to & from each of Ipswich & Richlands, plus a relatively high level of freight/coal traffic and a handful of Westlander services per week.  Looks to me like coal & freight going via Tennyson will have severely conflicting moves with Richlands services in particular).


Brisbane: Approaches to Kuraby station.  The two tracks toward the top of the screen are the suburban lines.  The track toward the bottom of the screen (alongside Beenleigh Road) is used as a bidirectional relief line for Gold Coast services.  A much more complex layout, which to me appears to cause conflicts between trains terminating and through traffic.

                                                                                                    [KURABY]              
(up sub) from City     ___________________________________________________________________
                                               \                                   /                                                   \
                                                 \                                /                                                      \
(down sub) to City    ______________\__________________/____________________________________\____________ .... (up) to Beenleigh
                                                              \                        /                                           \                    /
                                                                \                     /               [KURABY]                  \                 /
(relief) to/from City   ________________________\___________/______________________________\_________/______ .... (down) from Beenleigh

(This layout handles 4TPH each way, being 2TPH Beenleigh <-> Ferny Grove & 2TPH Gold Coast <-> Airport, plus a few trains a week of livestock traffic to Holmview. Most trains terminating here reverse via the crossovers toward Beenleigh.  Very few trains use the centre platform).

cheers,
Colin

[somebody]

CityRail has been building a number of conflict-less junctions also.  Seems to be regardless of costs, in particular at Glenfield, where they could have just made all Campbelltown trains go via Revesby and all via Liverpool trains terminate or extend to the SW link when it is built.

Back to topic:
Another option that I didn't mention before is connection Ipswich to Shorncliffe and Richlands to Caboolture.  The main problem with that is that there can't be much recovery time at Shorncliffe at all.

Another point about why we should be lobbying for 8tph is that we have just put out a release about the fare strategy, in which I think we made some good points (if I do say so myself).  We should to strike while the iron is hot.

I feel quite strongly that it is *NOT* an unreasonable ask to have a proper service.  Rail services in Brisbane are among the worst in the developed world, only much smaller towns like Adelaide and Auckland are worse.  Why is this acceptable?  If anyone can put a reasonable counter argument, you could post it here.  There are few constraints which prevent this service and freight can use the up sub inbound from Darra in both directions.  It can be done for all of the the Caboolture/Shorncliffe/Ipswich/Richlands lines with few impacts on other lines.  Later, you can add an additional 2tph to Manly/Ferny Grove/Kuraby, and an additional 3tph to Doomben.  But lest just focus on the first 4 lines on the mains for now.

I'm not changing my vote from the 8tph.

[#Metro]

I feel quite strongly that it is *NOT* an unreasonable ask to have a proper service.

I actually agree. Though I think small upgrades have more chances.

Rail services in Brisbane are among the worst in the developed world, only much smaller towns like Adelaide and Auckland are worse.

I don't think Auckland is a small town, but yes, agree as well. Perth is kicking our butts.

Why is this acceptable?  If anyone can put a reasonable counter argument, you could post it here. 

It's not, but you know...

There are few constraints which prevent this service and freight can use the up sub inbound from Darra in both directions.  It can be done for all of the the Caboolture/Shorncliffe/Ipswich/Richlands lines with few impacts on other lines.  Later, you can add an additional 2tph to Manly/Ferny Grove/Kuraby, and an additional 3tph to Doomben.  But lest just focus on the first 4 lines on the mains for now.

I'm not changing my vote from the 8tph.

Fair enough.

[#Metro]

This poll has another day to go....

[somebody]

The other point is that 4tph all to Darra + express to Ipswich is a promise of the "Rail Revolution", which includes Urbanlink (4tph All to Darra), and ExpressLink (full time express to Ipswich).

Auckland is up to 1.4m, still short of Brissie 2m, and SEQ is more like 2.8m.  But I suppose not heaps smaller.

[#Metro]

Some more thoughts re: aims http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=5380.msg47304#msg47304

[Gazza]

If you want to use the whole "aim for 80% rather than 100% and get 0%' then id rather the 6 tph option done as 4tph+2tph express.

Though I reckon we could push for 8tph, with the whole angle that it could encourage people to travel off peak, lessening the peak demand that will be painful 2016-2020 till CRR is online.

I see it as a bit of an ideological thing too, if we have a quad track, then it is a waste of infrastructure not to use it for a full time express service.

[#Metro]

If you want to use the whole "aim for 80% rather than 100% and get 0%' then id rather the 6 tph option done as 4tph+2tph express.

Though I reckon we could push for 8tph, with the whole angle that it could encourage people to travel off peak, lessening the peak demand that will be painful 2016-2020 till CRR is online.

I see it as a bit of an ideological thing too, if we have a quad track, then it is a waste of infrastructure not to use it for a full time express service.

I think that's probably not a bad idea either. But rather than 4tph to somewhere like Richlands, it could be 4tph to Ipswich, and 2tph to Richlands. Ipswich just has more people.
But even 2tph to Richlands is Yucky.

There are no perfect solutions...

[Gazza]

^Yes, but Richlands is closer in, so its a candidate for a frequent all stopper ahead of Ipswich.

Plus, in CONSEQ2031 the service pattern they want to do is Urbanlink for Richlands & Springfield, and Expresslink for Ipswich, so why not push for those sound ideas to be done.

PS, if we want to knock a bit more time off the Ipswich commute, can we please close Gailes station, it's such a stupid location. Most of the catchement area is taken up by a golf Course on one side, and concrete yard on the other, and the nearest houses face a 700m walk, which is right on the edge of acceptability for walk up. No wonder its one of the quietest stations in the network....
And its not as if the park and riders cant just drive the extra 1.5km to Wacol.

[#Metro]

Plus, in CONSEQ2031 the service pattern they want to do is Urbanlink for Richlands & Springfield, and Expresslink for Ipswich, so why not push for those sound ideas to be done.

Um, I don't know, the idea is certainly attractive and one I would like too, but I will just point out anything in CON'ning SEQ 2031 is totally uncosted, impossible to fund all, even most of, and likely to evaporate at a moment's notice...

Since when did a politician actually deliver what they said they would in all totality? When you smile at a crocodile...

[somebody]

At least if the 6tph option is 4tph All to Richlands + 2tph express to Ipswich, that doesn't make it harder to improve the service later.

[#Metro]

later is not near term enough IMHO.    I tend to think ultra-short term.
What is possible within the next 6 months?

30 minute services to Ipswich off peak just has to go.
At least with richlands there is the possibility to extend a connecting bus into Darra when there isn't a train.
Ipswich has no such option.

[colinw]

Auckland is up to 1.4m, still short of Brissie 2m, and SEQ is more like 2.8m.  But I suppose not heaps smaller.

Point of order - since the recent upgrades & Onehunga line re-opening, Auckland is actually kicking our butt on their main route (Southern line to Papakura & Pukekohe).

Auckland southern line timetable:
http://www.maxx.co.nz/media/4776/t03_southern%20line_sep%202010%20web.pdf
Nice & frequent, but rather confusing to read.

Western line:
http://www.maxx.co.nz/media/7557/t04_western%20train_feb%202011%20web.pdf
Not so good, much like a Brisbane timetable.

Onehunga line (just reopened, short spur line):
http://www.maxx.co.nz/media/4786/t05_onehunga%20line_sep%202010%20web.pdf
Richlands is definitely better!  Why bother reopening a disused line for hourly service during the middle of the day.

It will improve further when the Manukau City spur opens, and with electrification they have stated that the service level is to be a train every 10 minutes.

To find a service level as bad as Brisbane across all lines you have to go to Wellington, pop 390,000.  Half hourly service on four electrified lines. Find THAT in an Aussie city of under 400,000.  It is equivalent to Newcastle or Canberra having a system like Brisbane.

Its just a shame Christchurch pulled down their wires in the 1970s, or there would still be a 3rd NZ example to compare with. (De-electrification & abandonment of a suburban rail service - what a dumb idea!)



Christchurch electrification: all gone now.   This is what happens when you run your service levels down.
But - check out the electric loco on the Lyttleton suburban service at the platform to the right of the steamer.

Enough frothing about Kiwi matters, even if it is my very favourite 3'6" system.

[#Metro]

Auckland southern line timetable:
http://www.maxx.co.nz/media/4776/t03_southern%20line_sep%202010%20web.pdf
Nice & frequent, but rather confusing to read.

Yes. Timetables must be fixed up! Passengers are overwhelmed by a "wall of numbers" when trying to read the train timetable. That must go.

[somebody]

Ok, so find a worse system in the developed world in a city with more than half a million people besides Adelaide.  Is that what you are saying?

[colinw]

Exactly. Brisbane is at "world's worst practice" for a large scale electric suburban railway in a city of approximately 2 million.  To find systems with as poor a level of service you have to drop down to the half million or less size, or the peak hour only diesel commuter railways in the USA.

The half hourly service pattern was the norm in cities of Brisbane's size back in the 1980s. In our region, thanks to electrification, Brisbane was the leader of the pack out of the cities in the 1 million population bracket.  But Perth has shown the way, and now Adelaide & Auckland are making their move.  We alone seem to be stuck in the past. (To be fair, certain parts of the Sydney system are as crap as us - Carlingford, the Northern line, but much of Sydney runs so much more frequently than we do).

Since the 1980s I can think of only two serious improvements to service frequency on Brisbane suburban lines:

- Weekend services going from hourly to half hourly in the early '90s
- Quarter hourly service on the inner bit of the Ipswich line.

Other than that, service levels are little better now than they were when the wires went up in the '80s.  I have lived in the Runcorn/Kuraby area since 1992.  My rail service today is not much different to then.

We are being left behind.  It is going to be a seriously embarrassing when Perth's rail system - a basket case just over 20 years ago - exceeds our patronage despite covering an area with half the population and having something under half our network size.

... and if Adelaide manages it after their forthcoming electrification is completed, then it will be time to move!

[mufreight]

... and if Adelaide manages it after their forthcoming electrification is completed, then it will be time to move!

Ok got the message but move to Adelaide no way, despite their growing tram system as an incentive their beer is terrible     

[colinw]

... and if Adelaide manages it after their forthcoming electrification is completed, then it will be time to move!

Ok got the message but move to Adelaide no way, despite their growing tram system as an incentive their beer is terrible    

I quite like Coopers Sparkling Ale  , but there is no way on earth I would ever drink West End or Southwark .

And I'm not supporting the Crows or the Dockers either.  Shudder.

[Gazza]

^Dockers are in Perth (Fremantle), you're probably thinking of Port Adeialde (Power).

[colinw]

Yeah, you're right.  Port Power.  D'oh!

[awotam]

The thing is, it doesn't really matter which service pattern we get, if they can't make the trains run on time anyway. Since about Sept last year, due to a new shift pattern at work, I've been catching the 09.03 service from Sherwood to Roma St every second week. (08.29 ex Ipswich to Shorncliffe). It's been on time, on average, less than once per week. Now usually, it's less than 4 mins late, so by QR/Translink standards, it's not actually late. However by passenger standards, if it's not leaving the station at the scheduled time, it IS late, and a less than 20% on time performance is pathetic. On top of that, it's very rarely announced that it's running late, we just have to wait and see when it's going to turn up. Although recently (ie both days this week) the station staffer on duty has announced that the next train on Platform 2 will be the City/Shorncliffe service which will arrive in approximately x mins. No mention of the fact that it actually should have been here by now and consequently is running x mins late!  Nor any apology for the late arrival and any inconvenience this may cause. I'm keeping a tally this week to send to Translink, to ask how they can justify the ever increasing fares for a continually abysmal service. Not that I expect any satisfactory response, but at least I'll get it off my chest. So far, "x" has been 7 mins on Monday (10 on arrival at Roma St) and 6 mins this morning. So irrespective of what new timetable we get, I fear all it will mean will be that I'll be running late on a different train. 

[somebody]

The thing is, it doesn't really matter which service pattern we get, if they can't make the trains run on time anyway. Since about Sept last year, due to a new shift pattern at work, I've been catching the 09.03 service from Sherwood to Roma St every second week. (08.29 ex Ipswich to Shorncliffe). It's been on time, on average, less than once per week. Now usually, it's less than 4 mins late, so by QR/Translink standards, it's not actually late. However by passenger standards, if it's not leaving the station at the scheduled time, it IS late, and a less than 20% on time performance is pathetic. On top of that, it's very rarely announced that it's running late, we just have to wait and see when it's going to turn up. Although recently (ie both days this week) the station staffer on duty has announced that the next train on Platform 2 will be the City/Shorncliffe service which will arrive in approximately x mins. No mention of the fact that it actually should have been here by now and consequently is running x mins late!  Nor any apology for the late arrival and any inconvenience this may cause. I'm keeping a tally this week to send to Translink, to ask how they can justify the ever increasing fares for a continually abysmal service. Not that I expect any satisfactory response, but at least I'll get it off my chest. So far, "x" has been 7 mins on Monday (10 on arrival at Roma St) and 6 mins this morning. So irrespective of what new timetable we get, I fear all it will mean will be that I'll be running late on a different train. 

Sigh.

So you would prefer a padded timetable that can be maintained even if 4 wheelchair passengers require assistance en route?  Slow timetable = delayed train EVERY day.  Be careful about what you ask for.

[awotam]

The thing is, it doesn't really matter which service pattern we get, if they can't make the trains run on time anyway. Since about Sept last year, due to a new shift pattern at work, I've been catching the 09.03 service from Sherwood to Roma St every second week. (08.29 ex Ipswich to Shorncliffe). It's been on time, on average, less than once per week. Now usually, it's less than 4 mins late, so by QR/Translink standards, it's not actually late. However by passenger standards, if it's not leaving the station at the scheduled time, it IS late, and a less than 20% on time performance is pathetic. On top of that, it's very rarely announced that it's running late, we just have to wait and see when it's going to turn up. Although recently (ie both days this week) the station staffer on duty has announced that the next train on Platform 2 will be the City/Shorncliffe service which will arrive in approximately x mins. No mention of the fact that it actually should have been here by now and consequently is running x mins late!  Nor any apology for the late arrival and any inconvenience this may cause. I'm keeping a tally this week to send to Translink, to ask how they can justify the ever increasing fares for a continually abysmal service. Not that I expect any satisfactory response, but at least I'll get it off my chest. So far, "x" has been 7 mins on Monday (10 on arrival at Roma St) and 6 mins this morning. So irrespective of what new timetable we get, I fear all it will mean will be that I'll be running late on a different train. 

Sigh.

So you would prefer a padded timetable that can be maintained even if 4 wheelchair passengers require assistance en route?  Slow timetable = delayed train EVERY day.  Be careful about what you ask for.

No, I'd prefer my train to depart from my station at the scheduled time on the timetable. Arrive at the destination at the scheduled time on the timetable. I'd prefer that I can get a seat when I get on the train, instead of having to stand squeezed into the corridor or door space with 40-50 fellow disgruntled passengers. And I'd prefer that the air conditioning worked. Is that really too much to ask from a "world class public transport system"?

[Arnz]

No, I'd prefer my train to depart from my station at the scheduled time on the timetable. Arrive at the destination at the scheduled time on the timetable. I'd prefer that I can get a seat when I get on the train, instead of having to stand squeezed into the corridor or door space with 40-50 fellow disgruntled passengers. And I'd prefer that the air conditioning worked. Is that really too much to ask from a "world class public transport system"?

All cities suffer from peak overcrowding issues.  As much as the majority of public transport planners in South East Queensland are abysmal, New trains or private seats simply cannot appear out of thin air.

[Gazza]

No, I'd prefer my train to depart from my station at the scheduled time on the timetable. Arrive at the destination at the scheduled time on the timetable.

Youre missing the point Somebody made about padding though.

Lets say they wrote a timetable that allowed for 30 seconds at each station to load passengers. Now imagine if at one station a large school group got on, and this caused the train to take more than 30 secs, and then at another station a wheelchair user had to get on, and this added more time, and then at another station further along the wheelchair user has to get off, which takes more time again, etc etc etc. All this would add up to make the train "late".

Now, imagine instead if they made the train stop for say 60 seconds instead of 30...enough of a leeway to fully absorb any delays such as those mentioned above. The train would always run "on time", but the journey would be slower due to spending extra time at the stations, and you'd have that frustrating situation where passengers are on the train and its "just sitting there for no reason", or would be driving below the speed limit between stations.

Which situation would you prefer?
A faster trip with the odd 3-4 minute variation, or a slower trip that always runs exactly to timetable.

You cant turn around and say "A faster trip which always runs on time" because that means you're trying to say that outside factors have no influence.

And lets be honest here, the train being 3 minutes "late" is pretty inconsequential, its not going to make you late for wherever you are going is it?

The bigger delays you speak of (6-10 minutes) would obviously be addressed in the new timetable.

I'd prefer that I can get a seat when I get on the train, instead of having to stand squeezed into the corridor or door space with 40-50 fellow disgruntled passengers...... Is that really too much to ask from a "world class public transport system"?

The ball is in your court for this one, but can you name me one metro rail system that never has anybody stand up during peak hour?

Lets look at some of the worlds best metro systems:
Hong Kong MTR: http://lh4.ggpht.com/_o34zbQQshnU/TXSZ1CrrPLI/AAAAAAAAAJ4/tpjJrduQd3Y/R0015073%5B5%5D.jpg?imgmax=800 People standing in the aisle!
London Underground: http://img1.photographersdirect.com/img/11227/wm/pd2006937.jpg People standing in the aisle!
Tokyo Subway: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3001/3074788709_ab489c0fa6.jpg People standing in the aisle!
Paris RER http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:RER-A.jpg People standing in the aisle!
Etc


Thing is, even if there were twice as many trains running as now, the ones arriving just before 9am, and leaving just after 5pm will always be the most popular, and will always be at capacity, no matter what you do around them'..Sure, some passengers will move to other services if they value having a seat, but at the same time other will take their old place because they just want to take the first train that comes.

[#Metro]

Gazza, I agree with you on the crowding issue.
Something would be very wrong if peak hour PT was not crowded! (Maybe Doomben line is the exception here!)

However there can be genuine capacity issues as the result of poor shoulder peak and off-peak services and also having a system that just can't cope. Brizcommuter often comments about the lack of capacity on the Northern Busway. Rail frequency ends suddenly after peak hour and drops back down to 2 trains/hour (30 minute frequency) which is just internationally worst-practice IMHO.

[Stillwater]

A 'shoulder fare' incentive might help -- a percentage off (over and above existing discounts) for those who board a train between 4pm and 5pm and between 7am and 8am.

[#Metro]

Too many discounts is going to eat into revenue. There is a limit to the effectiveness of discounting- the main problem is that TL/QR are not allowing the peak to broaden- they don't have many services in the shoulder peak. So matter what the price is, without a frequent service on the shoulders, there are always going to be problems.

I think QR should do an experiment. Extra train services at higher frequency up to 6.30 pm. Extended peak hour.

It is a bit hard to defend the 'oh, the train network is naturally peaky like this', I think this excessive peakiness is largely artificial due to a self-adjusting feedback cycle of planners trying to 'observe travel demand' by looking at when commuters travel and the commuters reacting by 'observing what the planners timetable' so you get this convergence of demand into a huge, sharp spike at peak hour.

My view I think is confirmed by previous information in newspapers suggesting that peak hour on roads is broadening and also peak hour on buses (which are frequent) are also broadening too and frequencies on that are being extended. We are talking about the same city here- there could be some doubt if we were comparing different cities, but this is the same Brisbane. Why should peak hour peakiness be so different on different modes of transport within the same city? My answer is that they shouldn't- and timetabling low frequency on the shoulders and off-peak is probably the cause.

[Stillwater]

Maybe high school should be in two shifts -- 8am to 2pm and 11am to 7pm.

[ozbob]

Shoulder, off peak and CONTRA-peak discounts are a means of increasing fare box revenue as premium space created that will no doubt fill, and getting much better out of core peak utilisation.  Enough of fare mediocrity, the time is right for a fare revolution, after all, we have a SMART card!!

[somebody]

Getting off topic, but I would wonder if shoulder peak discounts would make things unnecessarily complicated?  Counter peak is fair enough as that is simply off peak really.

[#Metro]

Shoulder, off peak and CONTRA-peak discounts are a means of increasing fare box revenue as premium space created that will no doubt fill, and getting much better out of core peak utilisation.  Enough of fare mediocrity, the time is right for a fare revolution, after all, we have a SMART card!!

I tend to agree on the Contra peak flow, but on the other hand, what is 'peak flow' along Coronation Drive? It is busy in both directions.

If that is to happen, contra peak frequency also needs to be fixed- bring it up to metro-style frequency- high frequency in both directions.
Somebody has mentioned previously that the connecting service from a train to the Ipswich line has problems in the contra-peak direction.

[Gazza]

Getting off topic, but I would wonder if shoulder peak discounts would make things unnecessarily complicated?  Counter peak is fair enough as that is simply off peak really.

Agreed, plus I think the whole notion of a percentage discount on fares is stupid anyway (Sorry, but I think it is!). I'm not going to waste half an hour or whatever of my own time travelling differently in order to save a measly dollar or so. I'm not that much of a tight*** and I doubt most CBD workers would be either.

My viewpoint still very much is that if you want people to use services, then provide them!
Somebodys/Tramtrains point about contra peak frequency to Milton and Toowong is a very pertient one and falls into this category.

[somebody]

Agreed, plus I think the whole notion of a percentage discount on fares is stupid anyway (Sorry, but I think it is!). I'm not going to waste half an hour or whatever of my own time travelling differently in order to save a measly dollar or so. I'm not that much of a tight*** and I doubt most CBD workers would be either.

So, are you against capping or the frequent user discount as well?

[Gazza]

No, daily capping isn't stupid because you have the potential to save an entire fare. Plus, its a different situation, if you are making a 'capped' trip It's often going to be something irregular (Eg going to something after work, weekend outings etc), so the question is about winning that trip on PT rather than the private car.....That whole "I might as well use it since I've paid for it" mindset.

Anyway. what I'm taking about is stuff like "Save 20%".

If you are buying something expensive like a television, then a 20% saving is a decent amount of money, but a 20% saving on a PT ticket is bugger all and not worth the effort because it only costs a few bucks to begin with. The only people you would motivate to change their travel behaviour and save the dollar or so compared to full fares are people on the breadline.

Plus if RBoT (And the greater PT using community) gets its goal of periodical passes, then shoulder peak fares will simply be unable to influence those users.

And the thing is, to provide a shoulder peak discount at a level that actually would change travel behaviour, you would be impacting upon revenue.

And if it is a choice of these two approaches.

A ) Same service, but reduced fares.
B ) Same fares, with increased services.

I'll pick B every time.

[#Metro]

DOWN WITH ROTTEN APPLES (Discounted or otherwise!!!) 

Time is the least renewable resource... once it is lost, it is irrecoverable. This time cost is never printed on the tickets, but it is a substantial cost...