15 minute frequency, we are dreaming folks ...

[somebody]

The other thing is the gold coast/airport trains will be stopping at Kingston as well, so they'll need a platform as well, no matter what track they use.

I'd argue not, but that would be academic if you can just go on to Bethania anyway, which is far more preferable as it means Loganlea is serviced, and a not too inconvenient interchange is available.

Regarding Bethania, might as well do it that way as the timings are OK with it, as long as the coasties still stop Kingston-Beenleigh. Terminating trains would use platform 3. Same deal with Kingston, it requires a conflicting move, but there are no northbound trains timetabled at the time they'll be crossing, so no conflict. No new infrastructure required really (except for active protection on the pad xing on the city end of the platform).
The entire point of this is to get more frequent services with minimal to no new infrastructure.

Doesn't this fly in the face of what is acknowledged as best practice, even reasonable practice in virtually the entire rest of the world.  Even Cityrail have finally caught up.  Conflicting moves are evil!

I don't see why the coasties would stop at Kingston if the all stoppers extend to Bethania.  I'd think even Loganlea should be done away with although this does squeeze the timetable.

[petey3801]

Doesn't this fly in the face of what is acknowledged as best practice, even reasonable practice in virtually the entire rest of the world.  Even Cityrail have finally caught up.  Conflicting moves are evil!

I don't see why the coasties would stop at Kingston if the all stoppers extend to Bethania.  I'd think even Loganlea should be done away with although this does squeeze the timetable.

Like I and STB have said, this timetable is using current infrastructure, no new works or infrastructure required.

For now, the "comflict" is a non-existant problem, because there are no trains that the terminators are conflicting with! The next timetabled train is several minutes away when the terminating train crosses over! It may not be an ideal situation, but it's something we can have with no reliability issues without spending anything on infrastructure!!!.

As for the coasties continuing to stop, it was doing my head in enough trying to get the (all stations Beenleigh - Kingston) stopping pattern timetabled correctly with the single track sections on the Airport line and the single line section Coomera - Helensvale. When I moved the stoppers to Bethania termination (which was after I finally worked out the GC-AP line), I couldn't adjust the GC/AP timings without throwing it all out and starting again, which I really didn't feel like doing (especially since I finished it off after 1am this morning after I finished work). Feel free to try it if you like, but I don't think it's possible without bringing the reliability right down. For the sake of 2 stations, I felt it could be left as is. It only adds a couple minutes extra to the Coastie, but taking those couple minutes out of the timetable means it catches up to the stopper before Bethania and then has to wait at Coomera for the inbound train to come across, so there would be no actual time saving in reality (maybe a minute if you're lucky). Then it would create conflicts on the Airport line, meaning one train has to wait for the other to come across the single line section, wasting more time.

[petey3801]

I have adjusted the timetable to have the stoppers terminating at Bethania instead of Kingston (which will remove some of the confusing parts).

I've still left the GC/AP trains stopping from/to Kingston, simply due to the single track limitations on the GC and AP lines (even moving by 2 minutes introduces conflicts for both directions at both single line sections). This gives a not-quite clockface 6tph outbound (waits of 6 min and 14min) at Kingston, Loganlea and (technically) Bethania and clockface 10min frequency at Bethania, Loganlea and Kingston inbound.

The Bethania terminator gets into Bethania 5 mins before the GC train comes through (and is in p3 8min before the Airport train arrives), leaving plenty of breathing space.
(Note: The terminator has an extra minute built in to the timetable between Loganlea and Bethania to allow for restricted signal approach and time to cross over to P3).

Version 2 timetable is here: http://www.2shared.com/file/XvGIpKPd/new_BNH_20min_v2.html

STB and I have been discussing a few issues, but this is about the best outcome with no new infrastructure. STB raised the point that people from Woodridge to Moorooka may whinge that Kingston/Loganlea/Bethania get more trains, but this is simply due to pure luck and poor infrastructure provision.

We also discussed how this could be put to the new Government to get them interested. A few ways are:
- Getting more seats/work out of the network for no new expenditure and without CRR
- Giving the hospital and TAFE at Loganlea higher frequency services, meaning they're more accessible
- Suburb rejuvination at Kingston and Bethania, with possible TOD/Higher density development
- High frequency services at Bethania to tap into the Yarrabilba(?) housing estate going in down in that area, which can be connected with cheap feeder buses (and a P&R if we must...)
- Better utilisation of trains = better return on investment
- Tapping into the off-peak patronage mine, meaning more fares being paid and less congestion, meaning less expenditure needed on roads.

[somebody]

Doesn't this fly in the face of what is acknowledged as best practice, even reasonable practice in virtually the entire rest of the world.  Even Cityrail have finally caught up.  Conflicting moves are evil!

I don't see why the coasties would stop at Kingston if the all stoppers extend to Bethania.  I'd think even Loganlea should be done away with although this does squeeze the timetable.

Like I and STB have said, this timetable is using current infrastructure, no new works or infrastructure required.

For now, the "comflict" is a non-existant problem, because there are no trains that the terminators are conflicting with! The next timetabled train is several minutes away when the terminating train crosses over! It may not be an ideal situation, but it's something we can have with no reliability issues without spending anything on infrastructure!!!.

You're assuming that trains run on time.  Trains run late all the time.

I don't agree with 20 minute frequency on present infrastructure.  That requires a double precision cross on the Cleveland line, as well as the limitations on Beenleigh line we have shown above.  I'm perfectly happy to suggest new infrastructure where it is well justified.  I have a bit of a problem with calling for track amplifications Darra-Redbank for example, though.

Perhaps we should agree to disagree.

[ozbob]

I have adjusted the timetable to have the stoppers terminating at Bethania instead of Kingston (which will remove some of the confusing parts).

I've still left the GC/AP trains stopping from/to Kingston, simply due to the single track limitations on the GC and AP lines (even moving by 2 minutes introduces conflicts for both directions at both single line sections). This gives a not-quite clockface 6tph outbound (waits of 6 min and 14min) at Kingston, Loganlea and (technically) Bethania and clockface 10min frequency at Bethania, Loganlea and Kingston inbound.

The Bethania terminator gets into Bethania 5 mins before the GC train comes through (and is in p3 8min before the Airport train arrives), leaving plenty of breathing space.
(Note: The terminator has an extra minute built in to the timetable between Loganlea and Bethania to allow for restricted signal approach and time to cross over to P3).

Version 2 timetable is here: http://www.2shared.com/file/XvGIpKPd/new_BNH_20min_v2.html

STB and I have been discussing a few issues, but this is about the best outcome with no new infrastructure. STB raised the point that people from Woodridge to Moorooka may whinge that Kingston/Loganlea/Bethania get more trains, but this is simply due to pure luck and poor infrastructure provision.

We also discussed how this could be put to the new Government to get them interested. A few ways are:
- Getting more seats/work out of the network for no new expenditure and without CRR
- Giving the hospital and TAFE at Loganlea higher frequency services, meaning they're more accessible
- Suburb rejuvination at Kingston and Bethania, with possible TOD/Higher density development
- High frequency services at Bethania to tap into the Yarrabilba(?) housing estate going in down in that area, which can be connected with cheap feeder buses (and a P&R if we must...)
- Better utilisation of trains = better return on investment
- Tapping into the off-peak patronage mine, meaning more fares being paid and less congestion, meaning less expenditure needed on roads.

Thanks petey3801.  Clearly moves to get more out of what we have will be needed.  Infrastructure upgrades will be a while coming.

[petey3801]

You're assuming that trains run on time.  Trains run late all the time.

I don't agree with 20 minute frequency on present infrastructure.  That requires a double precision cross on the Cleveland line, as well as the limitations on Beenleigh line we have shown above.  I'm perfectly happy to suggest new infrastructure where it is well justified.  I have a bit of a problem with calling for track amplifications Darra-Redbank for example, though.

Generally late running only really occurs when fairly major incidents occur (police incident/LX issue etc). Any small late running can be easily gotten around with this timetable.

As for infrastructure, suggest new infrastructure all you like, but unfortunately, it's not going to be built any time soon, so we need to work with what we have, at least until CRR is built (I doubt any useful infrastructure will be built between now and then and something like making the butter siding into the main line or Bethania P3 into the main certainly won't be built, to be honest..).

Perhaps we should agree to disagree.

[Principal Skinner] I don't agree to that!  [/Skinner].
(just in case it didnt come across properly over the net, I was just being a smart arse :-) )

We all have our own views, i'm just working on what could be achieved tomorrow (providing there are enough crews etc.).

[SurfRail]

I don't agree with 20 minute frequency on present infrastructure.  That requires a double precision cross on the Cleveland line, as well as the limitations on Beenleigh line we have shown above.  I'm perfectly happy to suggest new infrastructure where it is well justified.  I have a bit of a problem with calling for track amplifications Darra-Redbank for example, though.

It is possible to argue "in the alternative".  Infrastructure will be a while off unless we want to pass the hat around a few times.

This way everywhere gets at least 50% more carrying capacity.  Not to be sneezed at.

[STB]

Doesn't this fly in the face of what is acknowledged as best practice, even reasonable practice in virtually the entire rest of the world.  Even Cityrail have finally caught up.  Conflicting moves are evil!

I don't see why the coasties would stop at Kingston if the all stoppers extend to Bethania.  I'd think even Loganlea should be done away with although this does squeeze the timetable.

Like I and STB have said, this timetable is using current infrastructure, no new works or infrastructure required.

For now, the "comflict" is a non-existant problem, because there are no trains that the terminators are conflicting with! The next timetabled train is several minutes away when the terminating train crosses over! It may not be an ideal situation, but it's something we can have with no reliability issues without spending anything on infrastructure!!!.

You're assuming that trains run on time.  Trains run late all the time.

I don't agree with 20 minute frequency on present infrastructure.  That requires a double precision cross on the Cleveland line, as well as the limitations on Beenleigh line we have shown above.  I'm perfectly happy to suggest new infrastructure where it is well justified.  I have a bit of a problem with calling for track amplifications Darra-Redbank for example, though.

Perhaps we should agree to disagree.

So instead of being constructive as I have been in the development of these timetables with Petey3801, you are just bagging it without giving constructive advice?    Yes, there are some issues but sheesh, do you want a higher frequency or not?  This exercise is to show that a 20min frequency is POSSIBLE under the CURRENT INFRASTRUCTURE, yes there are some pinch points but lets work with those pinch points and try to come to some sort of outcome that is sellable to any Government.  Exposure of those pinch points under this sort of timetable may actually make Government move a little faster with some quick cheap upgrades (compared to CRR and CRRLite).

[BrizCommuter]

STB has done a pretty good job there. BrizCommuter did a similar exercise a few years back (unpublished) and also concluded that 20 mins is easily possible around most of the the network.

However, a 15 minute frequency is considerably more attractive than a 20 minute frequency.

[ozbob]

STB has done a pretty good job there. BrizCommuter did a similar exercise a few years back (unpublished) and also concluded that 20 mins is easily possible around most of the the network.

However, a 15 minute frequency is considerably more attractive than a 20 minute frequency.

Yes good effort all round.  I think we all would like 15 minute frequency but that is not going to happen for some time. 
Compromise is the is way forward.

[somebody]

So instead of being constructive

So if I agree with you I am being constructive, but if I don't I'm making an uneducated rant. 

[STB]

So instead of being constructive

So if I agree with you I am being constructive, but if I don't I'm making an uneducated rant. 

I can tell the difference when you are not being constructive to when you are, and in this case I can see that you weren't being constructive, but instead poking holes in what myself and Petey (two experienced transport workers - myself an ex Planner in both bus and rail for nearly 5 years who knows the ins and outs of all aspects of the train planning), came up with.

[Stillwater]

Thanks STB and Petey -- informs the debate considerably.

[Fares_Fair]

If 20 minute frequency is realistically achievable, it's a great start to what currently exists. Better that than nought.

[#Metro]

Well I think there are a number of points:

1. They promised 15 min frequency - it was an ELECTION promise, a key one at that

2. Public Transport IS a frontline service - 150 000 per day on the busway, 170 000 per day on the trains, doesn't get more frontline than that - that is a lot of people to p*ss off if that promise isn't delivered.

3. We are lagging behind PERTH on frequency, span and now patronage

4. Election period is three years, so if we don't see 15 minute frequency within this timeframe, the door will be open for the ALP to come in and promise 15 minute frequency and pull the rug out.

[Golliwog]

Well I think there are a number of points:

1. They promised 15 min frequency - it was an ELECTION promise, a key one at that

2. Public Transport IS a frontline service - 150 000 per day on the busway, 170 000 per day on the trains, doesn't get more frontline than that - that is a lot of people to p*ss off if that promise isn't delivered.

3. We are lagging behind PERTH on frequency, span and now patronage

4. Election period is three years, so if we don't see 15 minute frequency within this timeframe, the door will be open for the ALP to come in and promise 15 minute frequency and pull the rug out.

The promise was 15 minute frequency on the Ferny Grove line. The proposal above gives the Ferny Grove line a 10 minute frequency by having Beenleigh trains every 20 minutes and Y'pilly starters every 20 minutes as well. You can hardly complain if they do better than promised, though given $ constraints I can't see them going past 4tph on the FG line only for a while.

[Fares_Fair]

Well I think there are a number of points:

1. They promised 15 min frequency - it was an ELECTION promise, a key one at that

2. Public Transport IS a frontline service - 150 000 per day on the busway, 170 000 per day on the trains, doesn't get more frontline than that - that is a lot of people to p*ss off if that promise isn't delivered.

3. We are lagging behind PERTH on frequency, span and now patronage

4. Election period is three years, so if we don't see 15 minute frequency within this timeframe, the door will be open for the ALP to come in and promise 15 minute frequency and pull the rug out.

Hi TT,

We aren't talking the Ferny Grove line specifically here.
AFAIAA, it is still set to trial 15 minute frequency for 2 years, as per the election promise.
That I believe will happen.

The comment re: 20 minute frequency is for the rest of the network in general.

[somebody]

BrizCommuter did a similar exercise a few years back (unpublished) and also concluded that 20 mins is easily possible around most of the the network.

I'd have thought you'd be pretty against the double precision cross on the Cleveland line.

[ozbob]

We are I think starting to see what the impact of the FG pork barrel will be.  No funding, just do it.  Projects such as the Nambour DDA upgrade kicked into touch.  Phase 2 timetables?  HAHAHAHAHA


I think we need to start to plan for the 365 day campaign.  A 365 day campaign to highlight the mediocrity that passes for the rail network in south-east Queensland.

[somebody]

3. We are lagging behind PERTH on frequency, span and now patronage

Hmm, didn't notice that.  It seems you are correct.  I wonder about farebox recovery?

[#Metro]

The promise was 15 minute frequency on the Ferny Grove line. The proposal above gives the Ferny Grove line a 10 minute frequency by having Beenleigh trains every 20 minutes and Y'pilly starters every 20 minutes as well. You can hardly complain if they do better than promised, though given $ constraints I can't see them going past 4tph on the FG line only for a while.

Correction - promise to roll it out across the network in general pending FG trial plus "greater FREQUENCY" and oh the killer line "passenger focused government".

Now, where did those 2000 EXPRESS buses on legacy way go...

[ozbob]

Passenger Focus --> here!

[Fares_Fair]

The promise was 15 minute frequency on the Ferny Grove line. The proposal above gives the Ferny Grove line a 10 minute frequency by having Beenleigh trains every 20 minutes and Y'pilly starters every 20 minutes as well. You can hardly complain if they do better than promised, though given $ constraints I can't see them going past 4tph on the FG line only for a while.

Correction - promise to roll it out across the network in general pending FG trial plus "greater FREQUENCY" and oh the killer line "passenger focused government".

Now, where did those 2000 EXPRESS buses on legacy way go...

Hi TT,

Where do you get that assertion from?
There was no commitment to roll it out to anywhere else at 15 minute frequency.

[somebody]

Fairly sure there was a commitment to evaluate same after the trial.

[HappyTrainGuy]

There was no promise to roll it out across the network. As Simon said they'll evulate it after the FG trial.

[SurfRail]

3. We are lagging behind PERTH on frequency, span and now patronage

Hmm, didn't notice that.  It seems you are correct.  I wonder about farebox recovery?

Systemwide they are about the same as us, but with much lower fares.  Their rail system performs a lot better cost-wise than ours does, so I expect it is the bus network and the inherent limitations of Perth's ultra-low-density urban form which hamstring them.

When Springfield and Kippa-Ring open, we will probably leap-frog them after a few years if they don't start adding serious extra capacity.  (Mandurah is at 20 million pa now.)

[somebody]

I think you are being very optimistic about Qld's rail outlook.

[SurfRail]

I think you are being very optimistic about Qld's rail outlook.

Maybe so, but Perth had a massive sustained period of investment which has effectively vanished now, and there is only the flimsiest long-term strategy for adding more rail lines and rail capacity. 

Ours is still continuing, and I have a lot more confidence we will see Cross River Rail and related upgrades before we see something like light rail in Perth, or a Thornlie to Cockburn line, or an Ellenbrook line, or more extensions towards Two Rocks.

[mufreight]

Perhaps I'm missing something.  Darra-Oxley only has a pax conflict in the PM peak.  Corinda-Sherwood doesn't ever have a pax conflict.

Again a little research might be suggested here, there are a number of movements from the Tennyson loop to the Mains at Sherwood by empty pass sets and also freight movements between the mains and the Tennyson loop in both directions so using you lack of logic the trains that pay for the system should all be sidelined to remove these path conflicts.
You have to be kidding.

[somebody]

Why would you run empties via Tennyson?  To reduce conflicts coming off Merviale and also avoid going via Central?

And since research is so easy, perhaps you could care to post a link on where I should see that info.

[mufreight]

Why would you run empties via Tennyson?  To reduce conflicts coming off Merviale and also avoid going via Central?

And since research is so easy, perhaps you could care to post a link on where I should see that info.

Try sitting on Sherwood station for a couple of hours on the tail of at AM peak.   

[somebody]

Perhaps I should be at work at that time.

[Gazza]

Why would you run empties via Tennyson?  To reduce conflicts coming off Merviale and also avoid going via Central?

And since research is so easy, perhaps you could care to post a link on where I should see that info.

Try sitting on Sherwood station for a couple of hours on the tail of at AM peak.   

Not everyone is a train foamer with the spare time to do that.

[ozbob]

You don't have to be a train foamer to do that.  It is quite instructive to observe what happens.  There are a number of sub trains that do run through on the Tennyson line for positioning moves.  I have also observed when Gold Coast trains were diverted via Tennyson through Sherwood, which was rather seamless. It might be necessary to run some additional Gold Coast trains via Tennyson to get a few more paths in peak in the years to come.

[Gazza]

At Sherwood the frequency is 15 min so spending 2 hours there indicates gunzelling/foaming.

[ozbob]

At Sherwood the frequency is 15 min so spending 2 hours there indicates gunzelling/foaming.

In your opinion, people may actually be interested to see how the timetable works in effect.

[Gazza]

But people cant be critcised if they never have spent the 2h , can they?

[STB]

BrizCommuter did a similar exercise a few years back (unpublished) and also concluded that 20 mins is easily possible around most of the the network.

I'd have thought you'd be pretty against the double precision cross on the Cleveland line.

Technically there is already a double precision cross on the Cleveland line, at Thorneside and Cleveland.  The system copes just fine under normal operations.

[somebody]

Interesting argument.  The consequences of things going pear shaped at Cleveland aren't the same as the scenario you are contemplating.  Look at it Manly-Cleveland-Manly.  Presently there are 3 "crosses" one of which has a two minute wait under normal circumstances.  You are going to four crosses an removing the wait.

EDIT: Actually, WP-Cleveland-WP is a 12 minute run.  If there is an 8 minute turnaround and 20 minute frequency, there is no margin and it would be better to utilise both platforms at Cleveland, which means still crossing there.  If with 3 car sets the turnaround is reduced to 6 minutes, there is then no more margin than at present without crossing at Cleveland.

[somebody]

The current arrangements also have more contingency in the instance of a late running outbound service.  It can be held at Wellington Point so that the inbound service departing Cleveland isn't delayed and catch up to time without cascading delays, which is I think the reason for removing Wellington Point crosses outside of peak.  Similarly if an outbound service is already late by Lota it can be held there to avoid delaying the inbound service, and cross the following service at Wellington Point.

None of the above is possible if we reinstate Wellington Point crossings.