Roma St - Park Rd service

[somebody]

Especially given the elimination of the Tennyson service bringing on the expectation that people will travel via Roma St, isn't it about time that something was done to improve this service?

Currently, on a weekday daytime there is a 16 minute gap between the :04 and :20 minute trains, repeated every half an hour.  Given the popularity of South Bank as a destination, I say it is time that something be done to improve this.

In peak hour, there is a gap at Roma St from 8:30am to 8:51am.  In the PM peak at Park Rd, there are gaps from 16:26 to 16:43 and 17:02 to 17:21.

While not as bad as the gaps on outer lines, I am of the opinion that the core part of the network should see better service than this.

I am very negative about much being improved in the Phase 2 timetables.  Look at the IPS-CAB timetable which didn't see much counter peak improvement at all.  I'm also negative about Libs being any better, and likely worse.  Witness Scott Emerson's representations so far!

Can anything be done?

[david]

Would it be as simple to extend some Roma St terminators during AM peak to Park Road and beyond? This would reduce flat junction conflicts at Roma St when trains terminate at Platform 7.

And vice versa in PM peak? Start trains at Park Road/beyond rather than Roma St?

I think the question here is the logistics. Can these trains actually terminate/begin at Park Road and if not, where do they dead-run to/from?

Clapham stabling would be wonderful to sort this out.

[somebody]

There would still be issues with getting the Gold Coast trains through - you may need to have the preceeding trains head along the Cleveland line.  Park Rd would be an unsuitable place to clear trains out of service, at least at near 20tph, so most of these would need to proceed to Yeerongpilly

[O_128]

Out of curiosity, where will peak trains that go through CRR terminate, Clapham??

[Golliwog]

Just out of interest, I've noticed a lot more use of platforms 2 and 3 and Roma St to hold and turn back trains in the morning peak. How many still cross the mains?

[somebody]

Just out of interest, I've noticed a lot more use of platforms 2 and 3 and Roma St to hold and turn back trains in the morning peak. How many still cross the mains?

Lots, last I noticed.

Out of curiosity, where will peak trains that go through CRR terminate, Clapham??

Clapham isn't a station.  It would likely be Yeerongpilly.

[O_128]

Just out of interest, I've noticed a lot more use of platforms 2 and 3 and Roma St to hold and turn back trains in the morning peak. How many still cross the mains?

Lots, last I noticed.

Out of curiosity, where will peak trains that go through CRR terminate, Clapham??

Clapham isn't a station.  It would likely be Yeerongpilly.

sorry I meant as in stabling.

[Emmie]

The Shorncliffe line has been largely decoupled from the Ipswich line. As a result, they seem to be bringing the Shorncliffe trains into #3 and reversing them there. I sat on a train there for 20+ minutes, last week, waiting for the train to leave - warmer than out on the platform, but it does seem rather a waste of platform space. plus I've lost my through trains to Toowong.

[somebody]

The Shorncliffe line has been largely decoupled from the Ipswich line. As a result, they seem to be bringing the Shorncliffe trains into #3 and reversing them there. I sat on a train there for 20+ minutes, last week, waiting for the train to leave - warmer than out on the platform, but it does seem rather a waste of platform space. plus I've lost my through trains to Toowong.

I presume you mean platform #3 at South Bank.  I'm annoyed by the separation of Richlands and Shorncliffe.  If it was Richlands-Petrie, that would be one thing, but I hate the concept that the Shorncliffe trains now don't really go anywhere.  If it was Shorncliffe-Manly, you could also use the 139/169/209 from UQ Lakes to interchange at Park Rd, but ATM you have to use the 109 only to reach South Bank.  Just plain nasty.

And all because they didn't have the will to remove the inconsistent weekend South Bank service of the Shorncliffe trains, apparently.  Could be another reason, although I doubt it.

And I think the decoupling is complete isn't it?

EDIT: Also, it means that the inner Ipswich line has the worst possible interchange experience with the Shorncliffe line - they must get the train 15 minutes before, or they will almost certainly miss the Shorncliffe train.

[Emmie]

No, I mean Roma St. During the week, they now terminate at Roma St, they don't cross the river to South Bank, as they do at weekends. And yes, I'm annoyed too. It means that I now have to change twice to get from Sandgate to UQ - either to an Ipswich/Richlands train to Toowong, then bus, OR to a train that goes through Park Rd, then 109/139/169 to UQ Lakes.

I'm not sure if the decoupling is complete, a few afternoon services go to Rchlands but that's of no use anyway.

[somebody]

Roma St #3 is an odd place to reverse.  I'm not sure why it is ever used as #4 is the other side of the same track.  It also means a conflicting move on the returning journey which would be unneeded if #6 was used instead.

There is the option of the 412 to North Quay stop 106 and a train from there for the UQ to Sandgate trip with a single change, but that doesn't work in the other direction.

[HappyTrainGuy]

No, I mean Roma St. During the week, they now terminate at Roma St, they don't cross the river to South Bank, as they do at weekends.

It has slightly to do with the NCL/Ipswich/Richlands timetable changes putting the stationary train at Southbank in the middle of an assigned freight/service/crossing path from the south.

[BrizCommuter]

The Shorncliffe line has been largely decoupled from the Ipswich line. As a result, they seem to be bringing the Shorncliffe trains into #3 and reversing them there. I sat on a train there for 20+ minutes, last week, waiting for the train to leave - warmer than out on the platform, but it does seem rather a waste of platform space. plus I've lost my through trains to Toowong.

I presume you mean platform #3 at South Bank.  I'm annoyed by the separation of Richlands and Shorncliffe.  If it was Richlands-Petrie, that would be one thing, but I hate the concept that the Shorncliffe trains now don't really go anywhere.  If it was Shorncliffe-Manly, you could also use the 139/169/209 from UQ Lakes to interchange at Park Rd, but ATM you have to use the 109 only to reach South Bank.  Just plain nasty.

And all because they didn't have the will to remove the inconsistent weekend South Bank service of the Shorncliffe trains, apparently.  Could be another reason, although I doubt it.

And I think the decoupling is complete isn't it?

EDIT: Also, it means that the inner Ipswich line has the worst possible interchange experience with the Shorncliffe line - they must get the train 15 minutes before, or they will almost certainly miss the Shorncliffe train.

Have you considered that the segregation of mains and suburbans services (and thus the Shorncliffe services terminating at Roma St), may be to prepare for line paring changes next year as part of the phase two timetables, and to allow Bowen Hills terminators on the mains to run to Petrie or Kippa-Ring in the future?

Whilst the curtailing of the Shorncliffe Line at Roma Street may be inconvenient for a few, it may only be temporary issue.

[skippy]

Especially given the elimination of the Tennyson service bringing on the expectation that people will travel via Roma St, isn't it about time that something was done to improve this service?

Currently, on a weekday daytime there is a 16 minute gap between the :04 and :20 minute trains, repeated every half an hour.  Given the popularity of South Bank as a destination, I say it is time that something be done to improve this.

In peak hour, there is a gap at Roma St from 8:30am to 8:51am.  In the PM peak at Park Rd, there are gaps from 16:26 to 16:43 and 17:02 to 17:21.

While not as bad as the gaps on outer lines, I am of the opinion that the core part of the network should see better service than this.

I am very negative about much being improved in the Phase 2 timetables.  Look at the IPS-CAB timetable which didn't see much counter peak improvement at all.  I'm also negative about Libs being any better, and likely worse.  Witness Scott Emerson's representations so far!

Can anything be done?

There are capacity issues on the Beenleigh / Gold Coast corridor, however I believe a 15  min off peak to Roma St to Manly is possible with the current infrastructure. This would give 8 tph between Roma St and Boggo Junction.

[somebody]

Especially given the elimination of the Tennyson service bringing on the expectation that people will travel via Roma St, isn't it about time that something was done to improve this service?

Currently, on a weekday daytime there is a 16 minute gap between the :04 and :20 minute trains, repeated every half an hour.  Given the popularity of South Bank as a destination, I say it is time that something be done to improve this.

In peak hour, there is a gap at Roma St from 8:30am to 8:51am.  In the PM peak at Park Rd, there are gaps from 16:26 to 16:43 and 17:02 to 17:21.

While not as bad as the gaps on outer lines, I am of the opinion that the core part of the network should see better service than this.

I am very negative about much being improved in the Phase 2 timetables.  Look at the IPS-CAB timetable which didn't see much counter peak improvement at all.  I'm also negative about Libs being any better, and likely worse.  Witness Scott Emerson's representations so far!

Can anything be done?

There are capacity issues on the Beenleigh / Gold Coast corridor, however I believe a 15  min off peak to Roma St to Manly is possible with the current infrastructure. This would give 8 tph between Roma St and Boggo Junction.

Yes, there are many technical solutions, but there is an unwillingness to implement them.

The Shorncliffe line has been largely decoupled from the Ipswich line. As a result, they seem to be bringing the Shorncliffe trains into #3 and reversing them there. I sat on a train there for 20+ minutes, last week, waiting for the train to leave - warmer than out on the platform, but it does seem rather a waste of platform space. plus I've lost my through trains to Toowong.

I presume you mean platform #3 at South Bank.  I'm annoyed by the separation of Richlands and Shorncliffe.  If it was Richlands-Petrie, that would be one thing, but I hate the concept that the Shorncliffe trains now don't really go anywhere.  If it was Shorncliffe-Manly, you could also use the 139/169/209 from UQ Lakes to interchange at Park Rd, but ATM you have to use the 109 only to reach South Bank.  Just plain nasty.

And all because they didn't have the will to remove the inconsistent weekend South Bank service of the Shorncliffe trains, apparently.  Could be another reason, although I doubt it.

And I think the decoupling is complete isn't it?

EDIT: Also, it means that the inner Ipswich line has the worst possible interchange experience with the Shorncliffe line - they must get the train 15 minutes before, or they will almost certainly miss the Shorncliffe train.

Have you considered that the segregation of mains and suburbans services (and thus the Shorncliffe services terminating at Roma St), may be to prepare for line paring changes next year as part of the phase two timetables, and to allow Bowen Hills terminators on the mains to run to Petrie or Kippa-Ring in the future?

Whilst the curtailing of the Shorncliffe Line at Roma Street may be inconvenient for a few, it may only be temporary issue.

The only reasonable possibility I see is that there becomes a Cleveland-Shorncliffe line pairing, and Doomben becomes Roma St terminators.  Not really an advance.

I am completely negative about the possibilities for any improvement.  Still 15 minute counter peak frequency at Milton (and Toowong)?  That is a joke and an insult.  30 minute counter peak frequency at Ipswich is even worse.

Anyway, I may be lucky and get my redundancy package shortly and leave this hell hole!  Although I doubt it.

[Arnz]

The only reasonable possibility I see is that there becomes a Cleveland-Shorncliffe line pairing, and Doomben becomes Roma St terminators.  Not really an advance.

I'm thinking the Shorncliffe-Roma Street all-stops may be a interim solution. 

There could be the chance that Doomben trains may turn-back at Roma Street #2/#3 whilst having the Cleveland trains connect up with Shorncliffe full-time in the upcoming "suburbans" timetable rewrite.   Assuming TL decides to keep Doomben at it's mediocre 1tph.

[SurfRail]

I am completely negative about the possibilities for any improvement.  Still 15 minute counter peak frequency at Milton (and Toowong)?  That is a joke and an insult.  30 minute counter peak frequency at Ipswich is even worse.

That's OK - you can talk to your employer and see about leaving earlier so you don't have to wait 30 minutes.  (Official Approved TransLink Solution.  )

[somebody]

I am completely negative about the possibilities for any improvement.  Still 15 minute counter peak frequency at Milton (and Toowong)?  That is a joke and an insult.  30 minute counter peak frequency at Ipswich is even worse.

That's OK - you can talk to your employer and see about leaving earlier so you don't have to wait 30 minutes.  (Official Approved TransLink Solution.  )

Indeed it is!  8:10 to go in the media file.

Did he seriously say that?  Did no one else pick up on it?  It's a shame no one mentioned the numerous empties which return and the possibility of a 15 minute frequency (express) service

[Golliwog]

Whats wrong with suggesting talking to your employer about finishing a few minutes earlier? I know its not always going to work (not every job has that option) but I think for many jobs it is possible. Its not like you're asking your boss about finishing an hour or 2 early, this is something like 5 minutes.

[somebody]

Whats wrong with suggesting talking to your employer about finishing a few minutes earlier? I know its not always going to work (not every job has that option) but I think for many jobs it is possible. Its not like you're asking your boss about finishing an hour or 2 early, this is something like 5 minutes.

It shouldn't be necessary. 30 minute frequency at Ipswich isn't really acceptable at any time, but it is especially not acceptable counter peak!  These are trips which should be encouraged to get on PT.  Given that the empties are running anyway, why can't they try to promote PT use by putting them into service.

I am sure he would not think it was acceptable for him to use it!

[somebody]

I am completely negative about the possibilities for any improvement.  Still 15 minute counter peak frequency at Milton (and Toowong)?  That is a joke and an insult.  30 minute counter peak frequency at Ipswich is even worse.

That's OK - you can talk to your employer and see about leaving earlier so you don't have to wait 30 minutes.  (Official Approved TransLink Solution.  )

Starts 3:20 into the broadcast, runs to 4:50 or so.

ozbob, can we say something about this one?  Stuff we've already said, of course, but why won't they do anything about it??? 

[ozbob]

Stuff we've already said, of course, but why won't they do anything about it???

Assume it is a resourcing issue?  Funding??  No harm in raising it again but maybe via CRG as well.   We put this out http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=6086.0  might be time to revisit with an update.

The negative feedback from Ipswich from the new timetable was mainly related to poor counter peak frequency and timing.  I think sometimes there is a mindset that prevails ' we know best and that is that ..'   the notion of real effective feedback and consideration is but an exercise in name and little real action ..

[#Metro]

That's OK - you can talk to your employer and see about leaving earlier so you don't have to wait 30 minutes.  (Official Approved TransLink Solution.

I think what TL CEO Peter Strachan was trying to say is that there are 170 000 people who ride trains every weekday on the rail network and it isn't possible to have the train turn up exactly when people want it (due to the way the network interacts with other lines). This is why I like simplicity in train systems and am not a fan of branching or non-grade separated crossings... it is cheaper to build but it impact the network over time and makes it very complicated to run and timetable, and that's a lasting effect.

I agree with TL on this one, but also agree that things should be looked at to see if anything can be tweaked.

[SurfRail]

I agree with TL on this one, but also agree that things should be looked at to see if anything can be tweaked.

What, you agree that a fifteen minute frequency should not be provided in the peak away from what is supposed to be a major employment centre of increasing importance, just because the train happens to be heading inbound to Brisbane in the PM?

[#Metro]

What, you agree that a fifteen minute frequency should not be provided in the peak away from what is supposed to be a major employment centre of increasing importance, just because the train happens to be heading inbound to Brisbane in the PM?

Do people just want to hear what they want to hear or do they actually want to drop the anti-TransLink crusade fantasy and try and understand what Peter Strachan was on about? http://blogs.abc.net.au/queensland/2011/06/translink-ceo-on-day-two-of-new-trainbus-timetables.html

Douglas from Brookfield finishes at 5pm out at Ipswich and have to get to the train 3 minutes early at 5:07, next train at one at 5:37. Peter Strachan said that it is a balancing act because TL is running a NETWORK, the QR train system is more than one station, and indeed more than this ONE person!!!

TL should look at what can be done with regards to counter peak frequency--- Peter said that some tweaking may be possible.

[somebody]

No one really raised the issue of the 30 minute frequency in the ABC interview, although Spencer Howson sort of aluded to it.  This needs to be raised far more than it was.

[SurfRail]

What, you agree that a fifteen minute frequency should not be provided in the peak away from what is supposed to be a major employment centre of increasing importance, just because the train happens to be heading inbound to Brisbane in the PM?

Do people just want to hear what they want to hear or do they actually want to drop the anti-TransLink crusade fantasy and try and understand what Peter Strachan was on about? http://blogs.abc.net.au/queensland/2011/06/translink-ceo-on-day-two-of-new-trainbus-timetables.html

Rubbish.  15 minute counter-peak frequencies can be provided NOW on most lines.  I have never accepted QR or TransLink excuses on the subject, particularly their excuses about pre-positioning their entire fleet for something like 6-8 hours before the PM peak.

Peter's point was entirely valid, but against the context of the awful service provided before and after the 6 June changes outside of the peak flow, it is something of a slap in the face to everybody, not just one guy put out by a 3 minute variation.  And as pointed out above, I doubt he would accept his own solution if offer to him as anything other than a rebuke.

[ozbob]

Folks out at Ipswich have not had good run on many respects.  We have long battled for better timetable outcomes.

For example how would you like a peak gap of 1h 13 minutes?

See --> http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=2704.0 and http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=3573.0

This was finally addressed after a lot of effort --> http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=3748.msg25649#msg25649

Then the bus issues.  Probably less said the better ...

There is a lot of sensitivity out in Ipswich.  There are limited counter peak services and the timing of limited services do need to be at a time that suits the majority.  I don't think any one is on an anti-TransLink crusade as such, just highlighting the need to be a little more sensitive to the communities needs.

[#Metro]

Rubbish.  15 minute counter-peak frequencies can be provided NOW on most lines.  I have never accepted QR or TransLink excuses on the subject, particularly their excuses about pre-positioning their entire fleet for something like 6-8 hours before the PM peak.

Peter's point was entirely valid, but against the context of the awful service provided before and after the 6 June changes outside of the peak flow, it is something of a slap in the face to everybody, not just one guy put out by a 3 minute variation.  And as pointed out above, I doubt he would accept his own solution if offer to him as anything other than a rebuke.

Very well. Show us where your Ips. counter peak trains fit into the timetable then...
If it can be done... show us how.

[somebody]

Rubbish.  15 minute counter-peak frequencies can be provided NOW on most lines.  I have never accepted QR or TransLink excuses on the subject, particularly their excuses about pre-positioning their entire fleet for something like 6-8 hours before the PM peak.

Peter's point was entirely valid, but against the context of the awful service provided before and after the 6 June changes outside of the peak flow, it is something of a slap in the face to everybody, not just one guy put out by a 3 minute variation.  And as pointed out above, I doubt he would accept his own solution if offer to him as anything other than a rebuke.

Very well. Show us where your Ips. counter peak trains fit into the timetable then...
If it can be done... show us how.

Are you serious?

Trains arrive at Ipswich from the city at 15:26 (#1), 15:44 (#2), 16:02 (#1), 16:20 (#4), 16:38 (#1), 16:56 (#1), 17:06 (Thru), 17:18 (#3), 17:30 (#1), 17:42 (#1), 17:54 (#4), 18:08 (Thru)
And from Rosewood at: 15:26 (#2), 15:37 (#3), 16:11 (#2), 16:26 (#3), 17:26 (#2), 18:26 (#2), 19:26 (#2)

And depart for Rosewood at: 15:20 (#2), 15:35 (#2), 16:35 (#3), 17:07 (Thru), 17:35 (#2), 18:07 (Thru), 18:35 (#3), 19:35 (#2)

Resolving the Rosewood trains:
15:20 is formed by: unknown
15:35 is formed by the 15:26 arrival from Rosewood
16:35 is formed by the 15:37 arrival from Rosewood
17:35 is formed by the 17:26 arrival from Rosewood
18:35 is formed by the 17:18 arrival from city !!! a 1 hour 17 minute wait
19:35 is formed by the 19:26 arrival from Rosewood

16:11, 16:26 and 18:26 arrivals from Rosewood seems to go to the yard

Anyway, the Ipswich-City trains:
The 15:26 arrival leaves at 15:37
The 15:44 arrival departs at 16:07
The 16:02 arrival could leave at 16:22 (seems to go to the yard)
The 16:20 arrival leaves at 16:37
The 16:38 arrival could leave at 16:52 (seems to go to the yard)
The 16:56 arrival leaves at 17:07
The 17:18 arrival goes to the yard
The 17:30 arrival may sequeeze the turnaround to depart at 17:37
The 17:42 arrival could leave at 17:52

The 16:11 arrival could fill in the gap at 17:22

Is that enough?  I am assuming that Richlands trains can merely depart 3 minutes later, with additional gap fillers, which would also allow the Ipswich trains to run express.

Anyway I'm getting bored, and the professional planners ought to be able to do a better job than the minimum change suggestion I have above.

[#Metro]

Are you serious?

Dead serious I am.

Trains arrive at Ipswich from the city at 15:26 (#1), 15:44 (#2), 16:02 (#1), 16:20 (#4), 16:38 (#1), 16:56 (#1), 17:06 (Thru), 17:18 (#3), 17:30 (#1), 17:42 (#1), 17:54 (#4), 18:08 (Thru)
And from Rosewood at: 15:26 (#2), 15:37 (#3), 16:11 (#2), 16:26 (#3), 17:26 (#2), 18:26 (#2), 19:26 (#2)

And depart for Rosewood at: 15:20 (#2), 15:35 (#2), 16:35 (#3), 17:07 (Thru), 17:35 (#2), 18:07 (Thru), 18:35 (#3), 19:35 (#2)

Resolving the Rosewood trains:
15:20 is formed by: unknown
15:35 is formed by the 15:26 arrival from Rosewood
16:35 is formed by the 15:37 arrival from Rosewood
17:35 is formed by the 17:26 arrival from Rosewood
18:35 is formed by the 17:18 arrival from city !!! a 1 hour 17 minute wait
19:35 is formed by the 19:26 arrival from Rosewood

16:11, 16:26 and 18:26 arrivals from Rosewood seems to go to the yard

Anyway, the Ipswich-City trains:
The 15:26 arrival leaves at 15:37
The 15:44 arrival departs at 16:07
The 16:02 arrival could leave at 16:22 (seems to go to the yard)
The 16:20 arrival leaves at 16:37
The 16:38 arrival could leave at 16:52 (seems to go to the yard)
The 16:56 arrival leaves at 17:07
The 17:18 arrival goes to the yard
The 17:30 arrival may sequeeze the turnaround to depart at 17:37
The 17:42 arrival could leave at 17:52

The 16:11 arrival could fill in the gap at 17:22

Is that enough?  I am assuming that Richlands trains can merely depart 3 minutes later, with additional gap fillers, which would also allow the Ipswich trains to run express.

Ozbob, can this issue be raised in the next PTAG? Potential solution to tender across maybe? Peter Strachan said they are open to tweaks... so let's see if TL will put their money where their mouth is...

[ozbob]

Ozbob, can this issue be raised in the next PTAG?

Sure can, frequency off peak and counter peak is getting to be a standing issue ...  but why wait?

It is possible that some of the services terminating are stabled for early services in AM.  So there may be other considerations than just times per se.  Nonetheless there needs to be decent counter peaks, to match the decentralisation rhetoric and to actually meet the need and encourage further utilisation.  One issue you are up against counter peak is the roads generally flow a bit better counter peak.  Counter peak fare discounts is another aspect that could be a driver in part, and further encouragement for decentralisation.  I am sure workers who are  employed in say CBD would not necessarily be impressed with moving out to say Ipswich and paying peak fares.

[SurfRail]

I am sure workers who are  employed in say CBD would not necessarily be impressed with moving out to say Ipswich and paying peak fares.

Exactly.  They need to walk the walk, especially when they are plonking so many of their own staff out there.

[somebody]

Here's Translink's response to an issue I raised about this included:
"In regards to the rail services and timetabling, when allocating the available transport resources, Queensland Rail has many criteria to consider, one of which is the customer loading.  Customer demand for outbound morning or inbound afternoon train services, at this stage, is not high enough to warrant an increase in frequency given the limitations of transport resources.
"

Not acceptable.

[Golliwog]

I would deem it acceptable if the trains weren't already going the same way out of service. But the general concensus is they are.

[somebody]

The 8:30am-8:51am gap ex-Roma St is my particular favourite. However there are many others which fail the turn up and go test, considered to be 10 minute frequency AT WORST by myself and others.