GC/Beenleigh timetable post CRR implementation

[kram0]

Hi All

Like many I am super excited about cross river rail, but at the same time think the Beenleigh line needs to be upgraded to quad track to really get the full benefits, especially in the off peak where you only have one track in each direction due to freight/coal trains. Let's hope in the next 5 years this is announced.

In the meantime this got me looking into the maximum capacity of the current track infrastructure once upgrades are completed to signaling. While my mock timetable requires station upgrades for turn backs, it seems you can only have 8 trains per hour (up and down) off peak with only 1 track in each direction. Do you agree or is there another way they can get more capacity once all infrastructure is up and running particularly taking into consideration the high number of express services they plan to run.

Mock timetable off peak.

From GC running express Beenleigh to Boggo Rd stopping only at Loganlea and Kuraby. (Instead of Altandi).

Dep Beenleigh 8:59 arrive Kuraby 9:16, Arr Boggo Rd 9:36 (via CRR)
Dep Beenleigh 9:29 arrive Kuraby 9:46, Arr Boggo Rd 10:06 (via CRR)

From Beenleigh stopping all stations to Kuraby and then express to Park Rd.

Dep Beenleigh 9:06, 9:30 Kuraby, arrive Dutton Park 9:50 (via Sth Brisbane)
Dep Beenleigh 9:36, 10:00 Kuraby, arrive Dutton Park 10:20 (via Sth Brisbane)

From Kuraby stopping all stations to Boggo Rd.

Dep Kuraby: 9:03 Arr Boggo Rd 9:32 (via CRR)
             Dep 9:18 Arr Boggo Rd 9:47 (via CRR)
             Dep 9:33 Arr Boggo Rd 10:02 (via CRR)
             Dep 9:48 Arr Boggo Rd 10:17 (via CRR)

The above seems to give good coverage (every 15 mn) to the inner city stations off peak, while also speeding up the journey from the outer stations closer to Beenleigh and avoiding conflict between express and all station services.

This would also give 6 trains per hour through Albert St (off peak), but not all clearly spaced out. Obviously I have not done an outbound off peak timetable but the numbers would still work the same I assume?

Interested to hear your thoughts.

[Cazza]

I do like the idea, quad tracks to Kuraby (and Beenleigh even) should definitely be a priority in the next 5 years or so (say completion by 2025).

One little thing is (I feel most would oppose) that I believe the connection with buses at Altandi is crucial. It may add an extra couple minutes in the trip for the GC and Beenleigh expresses but I feel it would benefit greatly.

I also think the Beenleigh express should stop at one more stop between Altandi and Park Rd (not sure where, somewhere that connects well with buses preferable).

I like the Inner Beenleigh Line 15 min frequency though.

[BrizCommuter]

Based on the current timetable, quad tracks would only really be required around Altandi +/- a station on each side to allow for 4tph/15 min off-peak/counter peak services on both the Beenleigh and Gold Coast Lines.

In the peak direction, an additional track would be required between Holmview and Kuraby to allow for more than 8tph Gold Coast in the peak direction overtaking 4tph or more Beenleigh services in the peak direction.

[James]

I recall there being numerous threads soon after the Salisbury-to-Kuraby triplication about the potential for 4tph to Beenleigh/Gold Coast. I think it is possible with the current arrangement, but only just, and has the potential to be quite unreliable. QR being the organisation it is, would shoot down any such proposal in a heartbeat.

The issue with the express trains is that they "hunt down" the all-stops trains. This is why there is so much fat in the outbound Gold Coast trains, without it they'd be riding reds into Beenleigh. Any mock-up timetable, or proposal, needs to consider this above any other factors (rolling stock etc.). A three-tier express system (all to Kuraby, express to Kuraby all to Beenleigh, and express to Beenleigh all to Varsity Lakes) would be able to sustain 4tph under the existing arrangement as the slower train gets out of the way before the express "hunts it down".

Of course, we wouldn't have this problem if the corridor had been re-aligned and quadruplicated, like it should have been in the first place. Half-baked projects have long term consequences...

[kram0]

I would be happy with quad track with the current alignment to be honest.

[tazzer9]

They desperately need to realign and quad altandi to banoon at the minimum desperately.  The kuraby triplication was another half arsed effort.  Much like the corinda-darra quad and the northgate - lawnton triplication.

[Cazza]

They desperately need to realign and quad altandi to banoon at the minimum desperately.  The kuraby triplication was another half arsed effort.  Much like the corinda-darra quad and the northgate - lawnton triplication.

Only in QLD...

[#Metro]

There is a real need to think things through.


If the Gold Coast line will continue to 'piggyback' off the Beenleigh line, then it may make sense to quad the tracks, possibly all the way

to Beenleigh (note, track duplications are not my specialty here, so don't shoot me).


On the other hand, if the idea gets up that the Gold Coast line will be separated from the Beenleigh line and placed into a new alignment

beside the M1, at some point in the future, it might not make sense to perform track amplifications.


Regional Rapid Rail Concept Map http://tiny.cc/SEQHSR

[tazzer9]

They desperately need to realign and quad altandi to banoon at the minimum desperately.  The kuraby triplication was another half arsed effort.  Much like the corinda-darra quad and the northgate - lawnton triplication.

Only in QLD...

We need to make a list of half arsed projects from the rest of australia vs qld. 
The only one from sydney I can think of is the clearways projects, only one from victoria is the regional rapid rail project and regional rail link, adelaide is the lack of full electrification.

[ozbob]

For your interest and despair folks here is a thread  ' Half-Baked infrastructure projects ' that was kicked off in 2010 ..

> http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=4701.0