Gladstone to Rockhampton Daytime Service

[achiruel]

I recently became aware that it's not possible to travel from Gladstone to Rockhampton return by public transport in one day. Apparently, it's common for Gladstone residents to need to attend hospital appointments in Rockhampton, which is difficulty for those who can't drive.

The Tilt stubs arrives in Rocky at 6:45 pm, and departs 7:10 r following morning, meaning that people needing to attend an appointment in Rockhampton must stay two nights.

Greyhound arrives at either 12:10am, 2:45am, or 5:15pm. Departures are at 12:45am, 9am, or 6:15pm (about the only useful one of the lot).

Should the Qld Government provide a daytime return service from Gladstone to Rocky, and what form should it take? When SEQ gets some more rolling stock, would there be any sense in sending a couple of IMUs up there to run shuttles?

[Ari 🚋]

Considering the line is already electrified, IMUs would be perfect. Sure, they're getting old but they're also free (as in we already have them) and we know they work well. The diesel tilt seems to be able to do the trip in 1 hour 10 minutes, so could easily do it in 2 hours with an IMU. Send 2 of them up, and that's a train each way every 2 hours which provides a pretty solid base for building a better regional transport network.

[HappyTrainGuy]

Not going to happen. No provisions up there for mtce, spares or recovery of the IMU's. Stowing is also an issue. Aurizon have priority. It's also aurizon's network so access charges are already steep for the ett's.

[RowBro]

Not going to happen. No provisions up there for mtce, spares or recovery of the IMU's. Stowing is also an issue. Aurizon have priority. It's also aurizon's network so access charges are already steep for the ett's.

No provisions currently but that doesn't mean it can't happen. I'm gonna be brutally honest. I think some people are getting a little sick of the sly comments from you as of late saying something is foam or not gonna happen. The whole point of the forum is discussing active transport solutions to issues we identify. Obviously, some of it won't happen but that's for the politicians to decide, not you. The point of the matter is Achiruel has identified a serious lacking in the current public transport solutions up North and we are simply discussing potential solutions which are plausible to implement by the Government. No one said anything about being able to implement it tomorrow.

[OzGamer]

I wonder whether it wouldn't make more sense just to have an improved bus service. I can't imagine the demand is huge and establishing the infrastructure for a new passenger rail service would have a substantial cost for a handful of services. The only way I could see it make sense if it was essentially short runs of the tilt trains.

[achiruel]

It probably would, I was just trying to think of alternatives to having yet more traffic on the Bruce Hwy.

Would TransLink even fund a bus service where Greyhound already runs though (albeit at terribly inconvenient hours)?

[HappyTrainGuy]

Not going to happen. No provisions up there for mtce, spares or recovery of the IMU's. Stowing is also an issue. Aurizon have priority. It's also aurizon's network so access charges are already steep for the ett's.

No provisions currently but that doesn't mean it can't happen. I'm gonna be brutally honest. I think some people are getting a little sick of the sly comments from you as of late saying something is foam or not gonna happen. The whole point of the forum is discussing active transport solutions to issues we identify. Obviously, some of it won't happen but that's for the politicians to decide, not you. The point of the matter is Achiruel has identified a serious lacking in the current public transport solutions up North and we are simply discussing potential solutions which are plausible to implement by the Government. No one said anything about being able to implement it tomorrow.

Sorry but when people say stuff like Sherwood station should be sunk without acknowledging or ignoring other issues like freight access, junction access, existing road underpasses, traffic flow, signalling, electrical works (which by the way I don't think they have even acknowledged yet) and cost as a means of "progress" or Skygate station interchange via airport access roads then I'm going to call it out for what it is. Foam.

I'm just calling it for what it is. QR originally wanted to provide such a service but the tilt train and ncl realignment works never progressed any further. Any regular passenger service outside of the traveltrain network set sail when QR was privatised.

And as I said it's unlikely to happen in terms of heavy rail. Which I was addressing in the op's comment.

When SEQ gets some more rolling stock, would there be any sense in sending a couple of IMUs up there to run shuttles?

Just to clear things up for you so it's not sly these are some not all but some of the problems that need to be overcome. Cost is your biggest problem. And then there is the timeline. The IMU100's are limited in their life span and they are far from fault free. They do not have atp which means you need a 3 man crew minimum or retrofit the rollingstock with them. Either way except high running costs or high retrofit costs. There's a reason why the IMU100 ATP install project was scrapped those few years ago. Same if you threw up some 160IMUs. Mtce facilities do not exist so this cost has to be factored in aswell and that's not cheap either unless you shuttle them to and from brisbane which negates the point. Aurizon has actively removed a large percentage of ohle at Gladstone and Rockhampton yards which limits your electric operations. Yards that were used to stow electrics are no longer wired. Track is not owned by QR so you have aurizon charging you for track access, then again for ohle access and finally again for stowing. QR could potentially buy land back from aurizon but would also have to pay a nice dollar to reinstall ohle and other track provisions. Was that better or was it still a little sly.

Say you do all that. How much did that all cost? Now how much does a ticket then cost because the rails aren't run as a public service but as a business now? Now how does that apply to contracting out the service to a bus operator? Which is what tmr do elsewhere. And finally the demand.

Pollies will have the say but just look how difficult it is to get funding for the Cleveland line and shorncliffe line duplication let alone dropping a hefty amount on just providing some services between Rocky and Gladstone. Just go back to the original plan of more tilts and more infill running ie they don't go all the way to brisbane ie Rocky-Gympie which was the original plan all those years ago.

[HappyTrainGuy]

It probably would, I was just trying to think of alternatives to having yet more traffic on the Bruce Hwy.

Would TransLink even fund a bus service where Greyhound already runs though (albeit at terribly inconvenient hours)?

Translink does fund greyhound services.

[Gazza]

TBH the Queensland Goverment should have exempted passenger services from access charges in the same way that buses dont have to pay tolls.

[HappyTrainGuy]

TBH the Queensland Goverment should have exempted passenger services from access charges in the same way that buses dont have to pay tolls.

Pretty sure it's not legislation but deals done with the state government for funding. BCC also has some bonuses when it comes to BCC registered vehicles using Airport Link. AFAIK it's only emergency vehicles that have full exemption.

[Jonno]

Why we don't have regional rail (and infrastructure to allow it) running hourly up and down the NCL is beyond me! It's not a cost thing as each trip by car is 6x the tax payer subsidy

[RowBro]

Just to clear things up for you so it's not sly these are some not all but some of the problems that need to be overcome. Cost is your biggest problem. And then there is the timeline. The IMU100's are limited in their life span and they are far from fault free. They do not have atp which means you need a 3 man crew minimum or retrofit the rollingstock with them. Either way except high running costs or high retrofit costs. There's a reason why the IMU100 ATP install project was scrapped those few years ago. Same if you threw up some 160IMUs. Mtce facilities do not exist so this cost has to be factored in aswell and that's not cheap either unless you shuttle them to and from brisbane which negates the point. Aurizon has actively removed a large percentage of ohle at Gladstone and Rockhampton yards which limits your electric operations. Yards that were used to stow electrics are no longer wired. Track is not owned by QR so you have aurizon charging you for track access, then again for ohle access and finally again for stowing. QR could potentially buy land back from aurizon but would also have to pay a nice dollar to reinstall ohle and other track provisions. Was that better or was it still a little sly.

Say you do all that. How much did that all cost? Now how much does a ticket then cost because the rails aren't run as a public service but as a business now? Now how does that apply to contracting out the service to a bus operator? Which is what tmr do elsewhere. And finally the demand.

Pollies will have the say but just look how difficult it is to get funding for the Cleveland line and shorncliffe line duplication let alone dropping a hefty amount on just providing some services between Rocky and Gladstone. Just go back to the original plan of more tilts and more infill running ie they don't go all the way to brisbane ie Rocky-Gympie which was the original plan all those years ago.

Thanks for the response. The reason I commented about it is because saying it's foam and nothing else isn't really beneficial to the discussion. It's better to state your opinion and provide clear reasoning as you did in this message. That way everyone benefits, and the discussion can move forward. As for what you said. We understand that the infrastructure and other costs will be large, but that's to be expected with any substantial increase in service. Sure, it is unlikely to happen anytime soon but that doesn't diminish the fact that it's good to talk about possible solutions, regardless of the cost.

[#Metro]

Thanks for the response. The reason I commented about it is because saying it's foam and nothing else isn't really beneficial to the discussion. It's better to state your opinion and provide clear reasoning as you did in this message. That way everyone benefits, and the discussion can move forward. As for what you said. We understand that the infrastructure and other costs will be large, but that's to be expected with any substantial increase in service. Sure, it is unlikely to happen anytime soon but that doesn't diminish the fact that it's good to talk about possible solutions, regardless of the cost.

Agree with you there RowBro. 

[achiruel]

It probably would, I was just trying to think of alternatives to having yet more traffic on the Bruce Hwy.

Would TransLink even fund a bus service where Greyhound already runs though (albeit at terribly inconvenient hours)?

Translink does fund greyhound services.

They do? I thought Translink only looked after urban bus. Are they responsible for long distance coach as well? What about subsidised air services and TI ferries? Are they Translink too?

Back to the original topic, what's the chances of TMR/Translink (whoever's responsible) running a couple of daily bus services from Gladstone to Rockhampton at times that are useful to Gladstone residents?

[HappyTrainGuy]

Just to clear things up for you so it's not sly these are some not all but some of the problems that need to be overcome. Cost is your biggest problem. And then there is the timeline. The IMU100's are limited in their life span and they are far from fault free. They do not have atp which means you need a 3 man crew minimum or retrofit the rollingstock with them. Either way except high running costs or high retrofit costs. There's a reason why the IMU100 ATP install project was scrapped those few years ago. Same if you threw up some 160IMUs. Mtce facilities do not exist so this cost has to be factored in aswell and that's not cheap either unless you shuttle them to and from brisbane which negates the point. Aurizon has actively removed a large percentage of ohle at Gladstone and Rockhampton yards which limits your electric operations. Yards that were used to stow electrics are no longer wired. Track is not owned by QR so you have aurizon charging you for track access, then again for ohle access and finally again for stowing. QR could potentially buy land back from aurizon but would also have to pay a nice dollar to reinstall ohle and other track provisions. Was that better or was it still a little sly.

Say you do all that. How much did that all cost? Now how much does a ticket then cost because the rails aren't run as a public service but as a business now? Now how does that apply to contracting out the service to a bus operator? Which is what tmr do elsewhere. And finally the demand.

Pollies will have the say but just look how difficult it is to get funding for the Cleveland line and shorncliffe line duplication let alone dropping a hefty amount on just providing some services between Rocky and Gladstone. Just go back to the original plan of more tilts and more infill running ie they don't go all the way to brisbane ie Rocky-Gympie which was the original plan all those years ago.

Thanks for the response. The reason I commented about it is because saying it's foam and nothing else isn't really beneficial to the discussion. It's better to state your opinion and provide clear reasoning as you did in this message. That way everyone benefits, and the discussion can move forward. As for what you said. We understand that the infrastructure and other costs will be large, but that's to be expected with any substantial increase in service. Sure, it is unlikely to happen anytime soon but that doesn't diminish the fact that it's good to talk about possible solutions, regardless of the cost.

Expecting access for a public bus service using airport access roads will always be a foam. You don't need me to call that out. Then you have the same poster saying Skygate is "likely on the cards 5 years away". There's been a lot of chat about a Skygate station. And there's been a lot of chat about why it's not going to happen. And then there is the conflicting information people manage to dredge up. Like Metro and the BAC master plan. They would like a station there but they don't want to pay for it as it's not their infrastructure. We see this all the time with master plans. Lots of unrealistic pictures and paragraphs to make everyone feel good. Also when the same poster ignores others comments about issues such as pre-existing underpasses at Sherwood and then gets stroppy because I raise other problems such as freight usage, gradients and electrical work they don't care because it's a lack of progress.

It's also still a cost. A cost that does not have many good benefits when compared to other options such as a bus service. It's a lot of required infrastructure and costs to get it up and running. The only real chance of seeing services is with a new rollingstock program and even then that has its own issues which need to be addressed. It's a long costly rabbit hole to go down. Being brutally honest and realistic a bus service is the best option. Yes the railway line is there but until there is such a demand needed any railway service will just be a costly waste of money that could be better served elsewhere.

It probably would, I was just trying to think of alternatives to having yet more traffic on the Bruce Hwy.

Would TransLink even fund a bus service where Greyhound already runs though (albeit at terribly inconvenient hours)?

Translink does fund greyhound services.

They do? I thought Translink only looked after urban bus. Are they responsible for long distance coach as well? What about subsidised air services and TI ferries? Are they Translink too?

Back to the original topic, what's the chances of TMR/Translink (whoever's responsible) running a couple of daily bus services from Gladstone to Rockhampton at times that are useful to Gladstone residents?

Technically it was qconnect at the time but many of these areas have since transitioned to Translink. Basically it was to allow some short and long distance trips for those in regional areas. Biloela-Maryborough and Townsville-Mt Isa via Charters Towers are some of the many routes that qconnect/Translink now subsidise.

Just depends on demand and if they can get any operators or councils to take it on. Take North Burnett Council and their Monto to Bundy/Maryborough services which are also subsidised by Translink.

[AnonymouslyBad]

I think we should just run another Tilt all the way.

No, it's probably not going to happen, because ETT rollingstock is expensive. But it's frustrating just how close the ETT is to a decent service. Could it be faster, yes, but it would be serviceable for most trips if they had just one (1) extra train and grew a pair on the timetabling. Gladstone to Rockhampton is a bit of an awkward one, but it would be better than now, and so would a lot of other trips.

Even if IMUs did get ferried up there, there wouldn't be much point if they were timetabled with the same "guidelines" as the ETT: avoid night running, avoid conflicts with seemingly everything, etc.