New timetable - Shorncliffe line

[ozbob]

Your suggestions please.

[Derwan]

The Shorncliffe Line is fairly short (compared to others) and doesn't see the same level of patronage as the Ferny Grove Line.  That said, we haven't received a timetable improvement for many years despite new estates going up around Boondall and Taigum.

There has been a suggestion that the car park at Boondall will be redeveloped to encourage long-distance driving commuters to park their cars there rather than Northgate or closer to the city.  This won't work unless we have more frequent services.  (Northgate is another 5 minutes down the road and has all the services from the Caboolture/Nambour line.)

There are a few services that run express between Northgate and Bowen Hills (stopping only at Eagle Junction).  While these services are handy (non-express services in the morning seem to take so long now), I'd personally be happy to forego the express services in favour of more frequent services.

Speaking more generally, if we're not going to see 15-minute off-peak services on all lines, the "peak" period needs to be adjusted to not only cater for the current usage pattern - but to further encourage people to stagger their start times.  One reason why people may not want to start earlier/later could be that if they miss their regular train, they have up to a 30-minute wait.  They would probably prefer to travel when they know there will be another service in 15 minutes if they miss their regular one.  (This is one reason why I catch the 7:17 from Boondall.  The next one is only 14 minutes later if I miss it.) 

Frequent services (no more than 15 minutes apart for each line) need to arrive in the city between 7am and 10am - and leave the city between 3pm and 7pm.

While some suggestions (e.g. 15-minute off-peak) might be a bit of a stretch, increasing the period considered "peak" is something that I believe is achievable.

[mufreight]

Unfortunately all of these wonderful additional services (in the peaks) will need train paths through the CBD
To provide these needed train paths requires infrastructure that presently does not exist and which the present Government does not seem to be inclined to provide at this time unless someone else pays for it.
Reality and practicality are unfortunately fact, the money wasted on Translink's bureaucracy would be better expended on infrastructure.

[somebody]

Not sure I agree, mufreight.  Current usage from the north is something like: 9tph from Caboolture/Petrie, 2tph from Nambour, 4tph from the Airport, 3tph from Shorncliffe, 2tph from Doomben and 7tph from Ferny Grove.  Capacity is 19+23tph or similar.  That leaves 15 free paths for additional services.  While a few of these paths may be a figment of the theoretical calculations imagination (mostly because too many moves to Mayne via Roma St #7 causes problems), most of them are real.

I agree with removing express services from Shorncliffe and increasing frequency, while having the Caboolture/Petrie/Nambour trains express from Northgate.  Seems to be a win/win.  The Shorncliffe line gets a better frequency and the Caboolture line gets a quicker journey without loads from south of Northgate.

[Derwan]

Unfortunately all of these wonderful additional services (in the peaks) will need train paths through the CBD

True.  I guess the suggestion would be to maximise frequency given current infrastructure constraints - but to still increase the "peak" timeframe as suggested, which would not require additional infrastructure.

[brad C]

Given that TRANSLINK's definition of 'peak' is from the first AM service until 9:00am and from 3:30 until 7:00pm (peak ticket pricing), it is time that the general travelling public expected increased frequencies during these time widths to make it an attractive option for flexible working arrangements (now mandated under new IR Laws).
Instead, the public receive a 1970s style timetable that still caters for the 8/9 to 5ers and back to off peak frequecies after 8am and 6 pm (unless you are on the Ferny Grove line of course where 15 minute frequencies still prevail to 7:00pm).
It is even discriminatory that there are almost no express services on the longer haul lines post 5:30pm.
Time to re-think the definition of 'peak'.

[somebody]

Adding patronage at Nundah, Toombul, Albion and Woolowin to the Shorncliffe line puts it in the same ball park as the Ferny Grove/Cleveland/Beenleigh lines IIRC.  So why should this line get such a bad service?  Why should Caboolture line services be slowed by serving those stations?  The other lines get 7-9tph, Shorncliffe, 3tph.  Not enough.

[Derwan]

Hence the trade-off.  More patronage provided we get more services. 

[Emmie]

A good trade-off, I'd happily go with that, too.

My other plea is for some, at least, of the morning peak hour trains to go beyond Roma St.  There are no through trains from Sandgate between 6.20 and 8.45am, which means for people going to Milton, Auchenflower (for Wesley), Toowong (for UQ) or other stops to Corinda, we have to add an extra 15m. before connecting with the Caboolture train.

Similarly, there are no through trains from Ipswich/Corinda after 7 pm.

[stephenk]

Unfortunately all of these wonderful additional services (in the peaks) will need train paths through the CBD
To provide these needed train paths requires infrastructure that presently does not exist and which the present Government does not seem to be inclined to provide at this time unless someone else pays for it.
Reality and practicality are unfortunately fact, the money wasted on Translink's bureaucracy would be better expended on infrastructure.

There is in fact currently approx 6tph spare capacity on the suburbans from the North in the am peak. I suggest that a more frequent peak service should be provided to/from Shorncliffe/Sandgate that serves all stations. This would allow Caboolture and North Coast Lines to run more services express from Northgate to Bowen Hills (some calling at Eagle Junction).

[somebody]

This would allow Caboolture and North Coast Lines to run more services express from Northgate to Bowen Hills (some calling at Eagle Junction).

I'd prefer that they all stop at Eagle Junction.  I think that's a significantly more important interchange station than Northgate, mostly due to the Aiport line.  Arguably, they could miss Northgate, but I really prefer that they stop at both stations.  It doesn't take that long, and super expresses like CityRail's Redfern-Parramatta-Blacktown (then to Penrith) probably aren't really for CityTrain until frequency increases some more.

I also prefer that they all do the same thing.  Varying the pattern in what should really be considered part of the core section of the network for the mains (as far as Northgate) reduces capacity and therefore reliability.  Not to mention needlessly increasing complexity.

Note: That CityRail example misses two interchange stations: Strathfield & Granville which the Penrith trains normally stop at, and a third (Lidcombe) which the Penrith trains don't normally stop at.  In those cases the next train for those stations on the same track is normally 7 minutes away, with trains also on other tracks.

My other plea is for some, at least, of the morning peak hour trains to go beyond Roma St.  There are no through trains from Sandgate between 6.20 and 8.45am, which means for people going to Milton, Auchenflower (for Wesley), Toowong (for UQ) or other stops to Corinda, we have to add an extra 15m. before connecting with the Caboolture train.

Similarly, there are no through trains from Ipswich/Corinda after 7 pm.

Yes, I support that too.  One possibility is for those trains to stop Milton, Toowong, Indooroopilly and Corinda*; then turn around.  That's nearly as fast as running empty to Corinda to do a new service.  Of course, it requires them to use the mains, but they should be doing that anyway, swapping to the immediate north of Bowen Hills.  There has to be a conflicting move somewhere.

* I am assuming this could be done before Richlands opens.

It's a real shame they removed those yards at Corinda, IMHO.  They could have helped out enormously with reducing (but not eliminating) conflicts.

If there really isn't justification for running through trains Corinda/Shorncliffe after 7pm, what would help would be to do as per the weekend, and run Shorncliffe/South Bank.  At least that makes UQ/Shorncliffe commutes pretty easy.  But this confuses things more than needs to be done.  Why can't they just pay a little bit more and get a lot of advantage by making 4tph until 9:30pm, then 2tph after that?

[Emmie]

If there really isn't justification for running through trains Corinda/Shorncliffe after 7pm, what would help would be to do as per the weekend, and run Shorncliffe/South Bank.  At least that makes UQ/Shorncliffe commutes pretty easy.  But this confuses things more than needs to be done.  Why can't they just pay a little bit more and get a lot of advantage by making 4tph until 9:30pm, then 2tph after that?

That would be a reasonable compromise, and I don't think it is any more confusing than stopping dead at Roma St - but it adds extra trains to the already overloaded Merivale Bridge, which could be a problem.

The other alternative to improve transfers to UQ would be - what we've all been banging on about for ages with no response from TL! - linking buses 66 and 109, and running them through the busway at Roma St.

[somebody]

That would be a reasonable compromise, and I don't think it is any more confusing than stopping dead at Roma St - but it adds extra trains to the already overloaded Merivale Bridge, which could be a problem.

I meant confusing as compared to making the Shorncliffe trains run through to Corinda later in the evening.  Swinging around to South Bank means pax must remember what time the Shorncliffe trains stop servicing Toowong.

I don't think that the Merivale Bridge is a problem capacity wise after 7pm.  The only thing might be another train running over the bridge at that time, but I can't think why that should be happening the Shorncliffe trains happily run over the bridge on the weekends.  I hope that sentence made sense.

Regarding 66+109, I don't think that servicing Roma St is the main reason for that.  I would question: if the 109 did service Roma St would that be more attractive than changing at Toowong on weekdays and South Bank on weekends?

[Emmie]

Regarding 66+109, I don't think that servicing Roma St is the main reason for that.  I would question: if the 109 did service Roma St would that be more attractive than changing at Toowong on weekdays and South Bank on weekends?

Changing at Roma St. if definitely preferable to Toowong.  Changing from bus to train there's a busy road to cross, and a steady stream of people dodging traffic against the lights - it's less of a problem in the other direction, as buses are more frequent than trains, and there's only a minor street to cross.  

The 109 is faster and more reliable than the 402/411/412, as it's on the busway and less subject to traffic snarls.

I don't think there's much difference between changing at Southbank and at Roma St - though Roma St has the minor advantage that it's under cover.

[somebody]

Regarding 66+109, I don't think that servicing Roma St is the main reason for that.  I would question: if the 109 did service Roma St would that be more attractive than changing at Toowong on weekdays and South Bank on weekends?

Changing at Roma St. if definitely preferable to Toowong.  Changing from bus to train there's a busy road to cross, and a steady stream of people dodging traffic against the lights - it's less of a problem in the other direction, as buses are more frequent than trains, and there's only a minor street to cross.  

The 109 is faster and more reliable than the 402/411/412, as it's on the busway and less subject to traffic snarls.

I don't think there's much difference between changing at Southbank and at Roma St - though Roma St has the minor advantage that it's under cover.

Interesting.  I would have thought that Chancellors Pl at UQ was a significantly more convenient stop than UQ Lakes, and that would probably swing it the other way.  In the wet you would be already soaked by the time you got on the bus, so I agree that Roma St's cover is a very minor advantage.

[Emmie]

would have thought that Chancellors Pl at UQ was a significantly more convenient stop than UQ Lakes, and that would probably swing it the other way.  In the wet you would be already soaked by the time you got on the bus, so I agree that Roma St's cover is a very minor advantage.

Depends entirely on what side of UQ you work, Somebody.  I prefer Chancellor's Place because there's a Wifi spot nearby - 

It is also better lit and safer to reach in the evenings.