2010 ICRCS vs SEQIPP

[stephenk]

So it's now 2010.

According to the Inner City Rail Capacity Study - Rail Operations Review, these are infrastructure requirements that are required this year:

Keperra to Ferny Grove duplication
Caboolture stabling upgrades
Birkdale to Wellington Point duplications
Ormiston to Cleveland duplications
Thorneside stabling
Park Road grade separation
Kuraby 4th platform
Kuraby to Kingston triplication
Robina stabling upgrade
3rd track Corinda to Darra


So out of thes 10 projects, only 1 is complete (Robina stabling), 1 is under construction (Corinda to Darra), 1 is under planning (Keperra to Ferny Grove), and 1 I'm not sure about (Caboolture stabling).

SEQUIPP is a long way behind!

[O_128]

Better get cracking

[somebody]

Birkdale to Wellington Point duplications
Ormiston to Cleveland duplications

I think this combination is pretty illogical.  Another duplication at the end of the line, with a single track in the middle?  And why not Birkdale-Ormiston?  At least that allows a decent margin on the crossing of trains.  More importantly, what are they going to do about Manly-Birkdale?  

East of Manly, the only stations which are that busy are Birkdale and Cleveland.  Perhaps they should think about Birkdale starters and whatever infrastructure would be required for that.

EDIT: Not one of the projects in that list is a greater priority than increased off peak frequency combined with more logical peak timetables.  Show me the troll!

[stephenk]

Birkdale to Wellington Point duplications
Ormiston to Cleveland duplications

I think this combination is pretty illogical.  Another duplication at the end of the line, with a single track in the middle?  And why not Birkdale-Ormiston?  At least that allows a decent margin on the crossing of trains.  More importantly, what are they going to do about Manly-Birkdale? 

East of Manly, the only stations which are that busy are Birkdale and Cleveland.  Perhaps they should think about Birkdale starters and whatever infrastructure would be required for that.

The above duplications are required at points where train crossings are required for 10mins peak frequency. The crossing points are dictated by available paths through the CBD.

[O_128]

If stabling is moved to thornside then duplication to thornside is a absolute must

[somebody]

The above duplications are required at points where train crossings are required for 10mins peak frequency. The crossing points are dictated by available paths through the CBD.

I don't think that requirement is valid.  Cleveland is far enough from the CBD that a 15 minute peak frequency should be perfectly acceptable, and especially if a regular express pattern is introduced.

If stabling is moved to thornside then duplication to thornside is a absolute must

That seems intuitive, but thinking about it some more, where are the trains which are coming to/from stabling for the Cleveland line going?  Nearly all to Cleveland.  Therefore, the only way that Thorneside stabling would necessitate Manly-Thorneside duplication is if there are significant stabling-Manly moves.  Which I doubt, except at the start of the AM peak and end of the PM peak.

I wonder if the two bridges would be expensive to duplicate?

[stephenk]

The above duplications are required at points where train crossings are required for 10mins peak frequency. The crossing points are dictated by available paths through the CBD.

I don't think that requirement is valid.  Cleveland is far enough from the CBD that a 15 minute peak frequency should be perfectly acceptable, and especially if a regular express pattern is introduced.

The current crossing points are not in the optimum locations for even a 15min service. This results on some counter-peak services having 9 mins increased journey times between Manly and Cleveland (or vice versa) compared to some peak services.

[somebody]

The current crossing points are not in the optimum locations for even a 15min service. This results on some counter-peak services having 9 mins increased journey times between Manly and Cleveland (or vice versa) compared to some peak services.

And, more importantly than the locations, the crossing points are single stations rather than two or three stations all connected by double track.  This is how the Cronulla line used to work, until they decided to be done with it and duplicate the whole lot.

[mufreight]

The comparison that has been made with the Sutherland - Cronulla line is an apples with oranges comparison and the duplication there has been done in stages with intermediate sections having been brought into service first so as to improve the reliability of the timetabling

[somebody]

The comparison that has been made with the Sutherland - Cronulla line is an apples with oranges comparison and the duplication there has been done in stages with intermediate sections having been brought into service first so as to improve the reliability of the timetabling

How so?  

Looking up the history, it openned in 1939 as single track with 2 platforms at Gymea and Caringbah.  These were connected with duplicated track in 1985.  Full duplication of the line is part of the Clearways plan.

EDIT: I think the present situation on the Cleveland line is like the pre-1985 situation on the Cronulla line.  Duplicating Ormiston-Cleveland and Birkdale-Wellington Point would be like duplicating Caringbah-Cronulla IMNSHO.  There would still be waits for crosses affecting most pax beyond Manly.

[mufreight]

The duplication between Gymea and Caringbah enabled trains to cross on the move minimising delays if for some reason the outbound service was off schedule enabling the inbound service to run to time and not adversly affect other services and their connections on the inbound service,
The eventual duplication for the entire line from Sutherland was needed to increase frequency as the capacity demand increased, and they run double deckers.

[somebody]

The duplication between Gymea and Caringbah enabled thrains to cross on the move minimising delays if for some reason the outbound service was off schedule enabling the inbound service to run to time and not adversly affect other services and their connections on the inbound service,
The eventual duplication for the entire line from Sutherland was needed to increase frequency as the capacity demand increased, and they run double deckers.

That's exactly the sort of reliability improving upgrade they should be trying to achieve on the Cleveland line.  Why invest, if you can't achieve much of an improvement?