Start again?

[Markus]

Great topic - not sure where i should begin, but what immediately comes tyo mind is:
- minimum of 15 mins on at least Ferny Grove, Beenleigh, Petrie, Airport !, Shorncliffe,
Richlands/ Darra & Manly. I see 20 minute spacings as settling for 2nd best for the next 10+ yrs.

I'd be encouraging  each destination to have its own set of tracks. Late running trains would then have opportunities to catch up, ease of use for passengers, greater chances for regular running resulting in greater use by the population with their perception that catching a train is easy & quick. With Brisbanes current destination generaters I do think having trains go "through" some part of the CBD to be beneficial. So would be trains either stopping at Roma St OR some other station whereby interurban/ country trains also stop. e.g. Caboolture, Yeerongpilly . . . dont get upset at the stations guyz i just put them in as an example of suburban stations rather than "having to" board at Roma St.

At the moment/ in real life I see another River crossing as essential! in the short term prior to passengers becoming dissillusioned at future congestion.


I haven't a solution to minimize the circuitous nature & time taken with the Cleveland line. I do trust, however, that it is continually patronized well than have it become another Doomben line.


Trains going to the CBD from Ferny Grove make sense, however, I believe from Newmarket the line "gets lost" & long term Id like to see it either head south toward Spring Hill & cross the river OR head alongside the eastern side of CBD, then cross the river and maybe head toward Coorparoo. This would still capture the main destinations, but be considerably quicker.


Theres more, but this is enough for me to munch on for now.

[O_128]

The only fix for the cleveland line would be a realignment of some of the curvier parts of the line such as norman park to mornignside. and long term possilbe some sort of train that can take corners really fast

[WTN]

The only fix for the cleveland line would be a realignment of some of the curvier parts of the line such as norman park to mornignside. and long term possilbe some sort of train that can take corners really fast

I'd rather see lines straightened out.  I can only imagine what journey times could be achieved if the Beenleigh line was nearly as straight as Gold Coast section further south.  The tilt trains already have a mechanism that lets them take corners faster than regular trains, but the increase isn't a lot.  There's also the passenger discomfort factor if trains go too fast around a bend.

[somebody]

Off-peak - 15 minute inner suburban frequency, 30 minute outer suburban.
2tph Ferny Grove to Beenleigh
2tph Ferny Grove to Kuraby *
2tph Airport to Gold Coast (exp) *
2tph Airport to Roma Street (exp)
2tph Shorncliffe to Manly
2tph Doomben/Bowen Hills to Cleveland
2tph Petrie to Ipswich/Rosewood
2tph Nambour/Caboolture to Richlands
* It is actually quite tight to run a 15 min off-peak service to Kuraby, and 30 min Gold Coast expresses.
Assuming no extra infrastructure other than that mentioned by Ozbob.

I retract most of my earlier critique about this, I do see how 4tph Kuraby-City could work.  But the operating margin is almost non existant.  You shouldn't push your luck that hard off peak.  Better to accept 4tph only as far as Sunnybank IMHO, subject to reversing capacity at Sunnybank.

Also, instead of:
2tph Airport to Roma St
2tph Doomben/BH to Cleveland

why not:
2tph Cleveland to Airport
1tph Roma St to Doomben

to reduce movements to/from the Exhibition loop.

Also, 1tph to Nambour is rather challenging on the single track, unless the duplication to Landsborough is going to be available.  It would severly restrict freight (like probably totally).  

Otherwise, I agree with your proposal for off peak.

Peak services - this is quite difficult without extra capacity & infrastructure. Something along the lines of:-
Suburban tracks - 20tph from North split between:-
8tph Ferny Grove Line
4tph Shorncliffe Line
4tph Airport Line (Express)
2tph Doomben Line
2tph Bowen Hills start
Suburban tracks - 20tph from South split between:-
8tph Beenleigh Line
4tph Gold Coast Line (express)
8tph Cleveland Line

8tph on the Beenleigh & Cleveland Line is a lot.  Would there be enough sets?  Do you propose to mix in any express trains?  A little difficult on the Cleveland line, but for Beenleigh you could, at least theoretically, use the 3rd track.

Main tracks - 15tph from North split between:-
I won't even start trying to work out the Petrie, Caboolture, Nambour mix
Main tracks - 15tph from South split between:-
7.5tph Ipswich Line (express Darra to City except principle stations)
7.5tph Richlands Line (all stations)

That sounds about right for Ipswich, but I would personally prefer to have a 50/50 split between the limited stops to Ipswich trains and super-expresses running express between Roma St & Darra, and Darra & Goodna.  I doubt you would agree with that though.

For Caboolture, I would split roughly evenly between Petrie terminators and Caboolture/Nambour trains, all running express between Bowen Hills & Eagle Junction, and Eagle Junction & Northgate.  Petrie trains should stop at all stations after Northgate.  The Caboolture/Nambour trains could skip the less popular stations to Petrie, although I haven't checked into which stations.  There would be adequate capacity to run the expresses as all trains on the main tracks are running to the same pattern as far as Northgate, then you have the 3rd track north of that as far as Lawnton.

I do think, though, that the main tracks might struggle to handle all the crossing from the suburbans at Roma St though.  There could be a need for either some sort of flyover, which I'm not sure if it could even be built, or another near city stabling site.

[Arnz]

For Caboolture, I would split roughly evenly between Petrie terminators and Caboolture/Nambour trains, all running express between Bowen Hills & Eagle Junction, and Eagle Junction & Northgate.  Petrie trains should stop at all stations after Northgate.  The Caboolture/Nambour trains could skip the less popular stations to Petrie, although I haven't checked into which stations.  There would be adequate capacity to run the expresses as all trains on the main tracks are running to the same pattern as far as Northgate, then you have the 3rd track north of that as far as Lawnton.

The Caboolture expresses operate as Bowen Hills, Eagle Junction, Northgate, Petrie then all-stations to Caboolture and v.v

Nambour expresses operate as Bowen Hills, Northgate, Petrie, Caboolture then all to Nambour (standard off-peak, weekend and shoulder peak stopping pattern) and v.v

Selected peak-hour Nambour/Gympie trains operate Bowen Hills to Caboolture (non-stop) then all to Nambour/Gympie North and v.v

A number of Peak-Hour Nambour trains are already crowded as is, especially afternoon peak with longer distance commuters standing to Petrie and Caboolture (Not to mention 3-car IMU morning peak/4-car ICE afternoon peak services are still standing room north of Caboolture).  If anything, a number of Nambour peak trains need to be upgraded to 6-car, at least till the Beerburrum-Landsborough duplication is sped up.

[Fridge]

Maybe one of the more achievable goals in the short-term would be to extend the peak hour services. 

For example on the Caboolture line the last AM peak service, the last peak service leaves Caboolture around 8am and arrives in the city around 9am when the 'peak ticketing time' ends.

Extending the morning peak by at least 1 hour and the evening peak by 1 hour either side would encourage more people to travel at different times, hopefully spreading some of the loading out.

The next step would be to extend the peaks again, then after that increase all the off-peak frequencies.

[O_128]

Maybe one of the more achievable goals in the short-term would be to extend the peak hour services. 

For example on the Caboolture line the last AM peak service, the last peak service leaves Caboolture around 8am and arrives in the city around 9am when the 'peak ticketing time' ends.

Extending the morning peak by at least 1 hour and the evening peak by 1 hour either side would encourage more people to travel at different times, hopefully spreading some of the loading out.

The next step would be to extend the peaks again, then after that increase all the off-peak frequencies.

i agree peak hour should go till 7pm a the earliest or at lest 15 min frequency until 9pm, and while QR says there amy not be demand there wil be if the services are added

[somebody]

most people would be happy 2tph to manly and 2pth to cleveland. it will require antoehr platform at manly though

4tph to Manly, with 2tph of those sent onto Cleveland would not require an extra platform at Manly during the off-peak.

However if the peak frequencies are to be increased, then an extra platform at Manly would be very beneficial. An extra platform would allow a train to have it's terminus dwell without obstructing the inbound or outbound tracks. This would significantly increase the flexibility of the timetable.

I'm not in favour of a 3rd platform at Manly.  That would become a stranded investment when duplication is acheived or even improved.  For probably not much more money you could duplicate Manly-Lota and extend the 4tph to Thorneside, which currently doesn't see much more than this even in the peak.  Unless Lota and Thorneside stations are nearly deserted.  You'd also need bi-di signalling on at least one platform and preferably both at Thorneside if not already available. 

[stephenk]

8tph on the Beenleigh & Cleveland Line is a lot.  Would there be enough sets?  Do you propose to mix in any express trains?  A little difficult on the Cleveland line, but for Beenleigh you could, at least theoretically, use the 3rd track.

They Cleveland Line already runs 8tph, and the Beenleigh Line runs 9tph during the am peak.

4tph to Manly, with 2tph of those sent onto Cleveland would not require an extra platform at Manly during the off-peak.

However if the peak frequencies are to be increased, then an extra platform at Manly would be very beneficial. An extra platform would allow a train to have it's terminus dwell without obstructing the inbound or outbound tracks. This would significantly increase the flexibility of the timetable.

I'm not in favour of a 3rd platform at Manly.  That would become a stranded investment when duplication is acheived or even improved.  For probably not much more money you could duplicate Manly-Lota and extend the 4tph to Thorneside, which currently doesn't see much more than this even in the peak.  Unless Lota and Thorneside stations are nearly deserted.  You'd also need bi-di signalling on at least one platform and preferably both at Thorneside if not already available. 

Until duplication is achieved all the way to Cleveland, then an extra platform would be required at the end of the duplicated section, which is currently at Manly. This is for timetabling flexibility reasons as outlined in my previous post. As full duplication to Cleveland is looking unlikely for some time, then an extra platform at Manly would be cost effective. The ICRCS says that a 3rd platform at Manly is required by 2012, and they know what they are talking about!

[somebody]

They Cleveland Line already runs 8tph, and the Beenleigh Line runs 9tph during the am peak.

I count 7tph on the Beenleigh line, which adds up to the 19tph on the Inner City suburbans.

Until duplication is achieved all the way to Cleveland, then an extra platform would be required at the end of the duplicated section, which is currently at Manly. This is for timetabling flexibility reasons as outlined in my previous post. As full duplication to Cleveland is looking unlikely for some time, then an extra platform at Manly would be cost effective. The ICRCS says that a 3rd platform at Manly is required by 2012, and they know what they are talking about!

The extra platform is required wherever the trains are to turn around.  There's already extra platforms at Lota, Thorneside and Wellington Point.  So I'd think you could live without it, but for consistency (i.e. having all services starting at only 2 places), it would be an advantage.

A large Thorneside stabling would add more value though, IMO.

[stephenk]

They Cleveland Line already runs 8tph, and the Beenleigh Line runs 9tph during the am peak.

I count 7tph on the Beenleigh line, which adds up to the 19tph on the Inner City suburbans.

Most frequent hour for each line shown according to Feb 09 timetable:-

Central arrivals from Beenleigh Line
8:04, 8:13, 8:22, 8:28, 8:35, 8:44, 8:50, 8:54: 9:00 (9tph)
or
8:13, 8:22, 8:28, 8:35, 8:44, 8:50, 8:54, 9:00, 9:05 (9tph)

Central arrivals from Cleveland Line
7:56, 8:00, 8:11, 8:16, 8:19, 8:31, 8:39, 8:47 (8tph)
or
8:00, 8:11, 8:16, 8:19, 8:31, 8:39, 8:47, 8:56 (8tph)

Central arrivals from Gold Coast Line
7:39, 7:54, 8:09, 8:24 (4tph)
or
7:54, 8:09, 8:24, 8:41 (4tph)
but slighty later
8:09, 8:24, 8:41 (3tph - next train 9:09)

So each lines most frequent hour do not quite coincide.
Examples:

7:39-8:38
4 Gold Coast
7 Beenleigh
7 Cleveland
18 Total

7:54-8:53
4 Gold Coast
7 Beenleigh
8 Cleveland
19 Total

7:56-8:55
3 Gold Coast
8 Beenleigh
8 Cleveland
19 Total

8:00-8:59
3 Gold Coast
8 Beenleigh
8 Cleveland
19 Total

8:04-9:03
3 Gold Coast
9 Beenleigh
7 Cleveland
19 Total

8:13-9:12
3 Gold Coast
9 Beenleigh
7 Cleveland
19 Total




 

Until duplication is achieved all the way to Cleveland, then an extra platform would be required at the end of the duplicated section, which is currently at Manly. This is for timetabling flexibility reasons as outlined in my previous post. As full duplication to Cleveland is looking unlikely for some time, then an extra platform at Manly would be cost effective. The ICRCS says that a 3rd platform at Manly is required by 2012, and they know what they are talking about!

The extra platform is required wherever the trains are to turn around.  There's already extra platforms at Lota, Thorneside and Wellington Point.  So I'd think you could live without it, but for consistency (i.e. having all services starting at only 2 places), it would be an advantage.

I don't think you quite understand the point. If you are reversing a train in a platform used for through services, you are blocking that track for other services during the time it takes to reverse the train plus platform re-occupation time - typically 7-11 minutes. When combined with timetabling constraints caused by the single track sections (and the knock on effects to the rest of the network), then a 3rd platform at Manly dedicated to reversing trains, with stabling moved to Thorneside (to reduce the need for reversing stablers on the single track section or at Lota) are most definitely required. 

[somebody]

Your count of frequencies is more thorough than mine, so I'll just assume you are correct.

I think I do understand.  I think you are assuming 4tph to Manly and 2tph beyond off peak and counter peak.  Now you can get by with the 2 platforms off peak: It's if you want to turn the outbound trains at Manly in the AM peak that you require the 3rd platform.  There are other ways to skin this particular cat.  For example, you could make them continue to Lota and turn around there, so long as you don't mind using the other platform at Lota for trains in both directions.