LNP Cabinet Announcement - 12.30pm 30 March 2012

[#Metro]

All trains extending south of Coopers Plains should use CRR.  Not to do so would be insanity!

I think ALL Beenleigh Trains and ALL Gold Coast trains should use CRR. This will cut time off the Beenleigh line which already is ridiculously slow.
Trains can be sent to Yeerongpilly and then west to terminate at Corinda for a Cross-Town connection to the Ipswich line. This inner short service should be run at BUZ frequency. Skip Tennyson if need be.

[somebody]

All trains extending south of Coopers Plains should use CRR.  Not to do so would be insanity!

I think ALL Beenleigh Trains and ALL Gold Coast trains should use CRR. This will cut time off the Beenleigh line which already is ridiculously slow.
Trains can be sent to Yeerongpilly and then west to terminate at Corinda for a Cross-Town connection to the Ipswich line. This inner short service should be run at BUZ frequency. Skip Tennyson if need be.

Not sure why you would connect Moorooka and Corinda though?

I want 4tph Springfield via South Brisbane in peak!  Terminating at Corinda doesn't allow easy connections to Ipswich trains, and requires a connection to reach Oxley and Darra.  It would require 4tph short runners to Corinda and an extra conflicting move in the AM, but deal with it.

[#Metro]

Not sure why you would connect Moorooka and Corinda though?

Say what?

Yeerongpilly & Corinda Line
Central
Roma Street (interchange to Busways)
South Brisbane
Park Road (interchange to E.Busway)
Dutton Park
Fairfield
Yeronga
Yeerongpilly (interchange for Gold Coast and Beenleigh Lines)
(Skip Tennyson?)
Corinda (interchange for Springfield & Ipswich Lines)

[Golliwog]

http://translink.com.au/resources/about-translink/reporting-and-publications/2011-q3-passenger-load-survey.pdf has Y'pilly to Dutton Park carrying 1440 pax in the AM peak, with Y'pilly taking (403), Yeronga (494) and Fairfield (431). The only individual stations on the rest of the Beenleigh line that have higher (or inbetween) patronage are Coopers Plains (490), Sunnybank (434), Loganlea (584) and Beenleigh (748).

Now I'm fairly confident in saying that Beenleigh are higher as they are served by the GC trains, Coopers Plains is served by the Beenleigh line expresses which would make it more desirable for pax which semi explains its higher patronage. Sunnybank and Loganlea are the only ones I can't see easily why they are so high. My point being however, these 3 inner Beenleigh line stations rank 3rd, 6th and 7th highest patronage on the Beenleigh line, and the only thing that is clearly going for them is that they have more trains than further out on the line. Currently, from 8.03 onwards, there is a train serving Yeronga at the following intervals (in minutes) 13-9-6-3-7-5-8 with that last service being the 8.54am service. I can't see how you can say that the frequency has nothing to do with it.

[Gazza]

Corinda (interchange for Springfield & Ipswich Lines)

So Ipswich trains would make an extra stop at Corinda?

[#Metro]

Only if you want them to. Ideally, yes. Alternatively we could consider ideas like Springfield via South Brisbane, or just making the Ips services stop there and Darra.

[somebody]

Say what?

Sorry, must have misread what you wrote.

http://translink.com.au/resources/about-translink/reporting-and-publications/2011-q3-passenger-load-survey.pdf has Y'pilly to Dutton Park carrying 1440 pax in the AM peak, with Y'pilly taking (403), Yeronga (494) and Fairfield (431). The only individual stations on the rest of the Beenleigh line that have higher (or inbetween) patronage are Coopers Plains (490), Sunnybank (434), Loganlea (584) and Beenleigh (748).

+570 for Moorooka, Rocklea and Salisbury.

That is only around 70% of the Shorncliffe line's patronage which only sees about 3tph.  A 4tph timetable could probably meet demand with 3 car trains.

Now I'm fairly confident in saying that Beenleigh are higher as they are served by the GC trains, Coopers Plains is served by the Beenleigh line expresses which would make it more desirable for pax which semi explains its higher patronage. Sunnybank and Loganlea are the only ones I can't see easily why they are so high. My point being however, these 3 inner Beenleigh line stations rank 3rd, 6th and 7th highest patronage on the Beenleigh line, and the only thing that is clearly going for them is that they have more trains than further out on the line. Currently, from 8.03 onwards, there is a train serving Yeronga at the following intervals (in minutes) 13-9-6-3-7-5-8 with that last service being the 8.54am service. I can't see how you can say that the frequency has nothing to do with it.

Peak GC trains do not serve Coopers Plains, and only one in the AM serves Loganlea.

I'd think after 8:03am at Yeronga, the peak of the peak has passed.  Before 8:03, the gaps are 18-13-15-5-13.  I guess not too bad.  But a 15 minute frequency is appreciably different from a timetable with 13 minute gaps (ignoring the one 18 min gap)?  Neither is to the BUZ standard.

[Golliwog]

I did think Coopers Plains was served by the GC expresses but thats only out of peak. But the expresses I refer to are 2 Beenleigh starters, at 7.14am and 7.29am. With respect to when the 'peak of the peak' is, I'd assume there must be something decent that occurs after 8am through Yeronga to justify the number of services going through. Though the 2 Y'pilly starters used to be via Tennyson services didn't they? I could accept that school kids could have used to have the big driver for having those. I don't speak from experience though, I'm just looking at a timetable and the patronage data. I'm just connecting the dots between the decent patronage those stations get and the number of services that go through. I mean, the FG line goes back to 2tph @ 8.30 leaving FG (so even later further in on the line) but the Beenleigh line is having 'peak' service right up to the 8.52am Kuraby starter. My logic is that these are there for a reason and that there must be some demand for them. I'd assume the non-public version of the passenger load report would probably go into detail of how many pax get on each service at each station, rather than just aggregate data though.

[SurfRail]

The Ipswich line can easily support 20 trains per hour using the mains.  In the 2-hour peak period, if 40 trains is not enough for the entire western corridor (train from Roma Street every 3 minutes consistently for 2 hours), then the other lines would likely be experiencing similar issues.  The same 20tph figure needs to serve the Cleveland line (possibly with 2 stopping patterns) and inner Beenleigh line.  Assuming the ressurection of some kind of Tennyson service (why I don't know, the closure of the line has clearly not caused any kind of huge ruckus which was a surprise even to me), we would be cutting it very fine for how many extras can go this way from the west.

I think making the network easier to use and more resilient is an important goal.  That means keeping all stopping patterns consistent in and out of peak, and using the same platforms all the time, even if that results in some inefficiency (same reason we have clockface timetables instead of irregular timetables optimised by the scheduling system - the system needs to be oriented on customers, not the infrastructure).  This is achievable even now with a small amount of effort, and I dislike any attempts to push things backwards by mixing sectors, resurrecting extinguished conflicting moves and the like.

(All of this assumes Cross River Rail or something like it happen.  If not, the question is functionally irrelevant and the question actually becomes whether we can run other services via the mains!)

[somebody]

I'm completely convinced that 20tph IPS+Springfield won't be adequate one day.  The ICRCS thought so to, but it's solution to this problem was poor IMO.

[HappyTrainGuy]

Just go to 4 car sets with the NGR rollingstock or upgrade to 9 car sets during peak. The only mods needed would be platform lengths and signal mods for the ones close to the platforms. 1500 people per train should be enough before whipping up a third peak direction exp track similar to the Northside.

[Arnz]

I'd personally only support 4 car sets for thin runs.  ICE style seating, but in the 2x2 layout and 2 wheel chair slots in both end carriages, as well as toilets at both ends.

A 4-car ICE fits 180 seated in a 2x1 layout.  A NGR 4-car set with 2x2 layout would fit more people seated with more room (no galleys, and the seating is 2x2), and would be the ideal ICE replacement on the Gympie Runs, as well as being used on the Rosewood shuttles (and perhaps scheduled on some off-peak Doomben runs - in-between Gympie North services).   It would free up 2x 3-car EMU/SMUs for use on busier parts of the suburban network.

They would also be fitted with the similar door locking technology fitted on some Cityrail rollingstock for stopping at stations with Short Platforms (3-cars only at Eudlo, 1-car only at Traveston, and all platforms between Ipswich and Rosewood).

[somebody]

Just go to 4 car sets

Say what?  So 7 or 8 car trains?

or upgrade to 9 car sets during peak. The only mods needed would be platform lengths and signal mods

Only?  That's a pretty big "only" there.

[HappyTrainGuy]

Just go to 4 car sets

Say what?  So 7 or 8 car trains?

I doubt they would be combined to EMU/SMU/IMUs. 4 car sets have its benefits. More passengers per operating set, better for spur lines, better utilisation on weekends/off peak. They also have downsides. In saying that I'd rather have multiple 3 car sets to form a 9 car unit instead of 2 4 car sets to keep everything uniformed such as platform doors, disability access points and maintainence facilities.

or upgrade to 9 car sets during peak. The only mods needed would be platform lengths and signal mods

Only?  That's a pretty big "only" there.

Sure beats going through the trouble of land acquisitions, bridge modifications, major station modifications to every station etc to allow for an extra track. Central/Roma Street might have problems with extensions but if CRR goes up just route some via Tennyson in peak direction only.

I have a question.
Often when people talk about the Ipswich line, people say 'from four tracks to two tracks near milton'. What are they talking about, I went across there last week on a train and I saw four tracks all the way. Are they talking about the GC line conflicts?

TT, the Suburban lines that runs from the cross overs mid way between Roma St and Milton are rarely used, a few services (well was as of a few years back) for peak only and Westie. Go there on a Sunday after a weekend of light rain and you will see both lines with a nice layer of rust. There is also a cross over to suburbans from mains just past the Bridge junction on west side that usually has a nice rust layer as well.

The small section was also used for stowing trains for short periods prior to peak afternoon services ie The old Rosewood shuttle ran express out of service to Milton and was then held outside Roma Street on the subs from 5-20 minutes. Once the okay was given it was sent into Roma Street #P6 at the same time an Airport/Shorncliffe service came from Normanby into #P7.

[Gazza]

Can't Tennyson just be a permanent 3 car shuttle, looping back as far as Darra if need be?
Don't really see the need for a full time CBD service via that corridoor.

[HappyTrainGuy]

What about feeding express Ipswich services via CRR then feeding into Trouts road to Caboolture? Richlands can take up the slack Corinda-City. There's some conflicts but nothing a junction/flyover can't fix.

[Arnz]

Trouts Road should be kept for Caboolture/Nambour (both expresses)/Trouts Line Locals/Freights/Traveltrain.  Provided it's build with 3 or 4 tracks (preferably 4 with 2 tracks for the locals and the other 2 for the expresses) 

Local services can use the existing alignment to Strathpine.

[somebody]

Sure beats going through the trouble of land acquisitions, bridge modifications, major station modifications to every station etc to allow for an extra track. Central/Roma Street might have problems with extensions but if CRR goes up just route some via Tennyson in peak direction only.

I think those problems are show stoppers, particularly Central.

If CRR is built for 9 car trains as proposed, then things might be different with other platform extensions

Beenleigh, GC, CL what ever should be bridge or CRR, not both. Springfield should be western line, tunnel, or bridge, not a combination. The network even with the wish list expansions will not need to be that complicated for many many years to come and most networks I think are trying to move away from this.

This is the point which was missed by the entire 2026 tunnel plan.  Conflicting moves are a whole lot better than that awful plan.