Reported service disruptions rail - no longer in use

[ozbob]

Hopefully the down wires at Moolabin are fixed or Tennyson is out.

[ozbob]

https://www.facebook.com/QueenslandRail/posts/894817253869969

Queensland Rail

Update 6: Our crews have worked hard through the evening to restore our network following severe storm damage and flash flooding, yesterday afternoon.

We are pleased to confirm that all lines, except for part of the Ipswich line, have been recovered and services will run with minor impacts, this morning.

Thirteen buses will replace trains from Roma Street to Corinda, on the Ipswich line. Customers can expect delays of up to 15 minutes from Springfield and Ipswich stations to Roma Street station. There will be minor delays across the network in general.

Last night multiple issues affected our network. The network suffered significant damage, including fallen overhead power lines and debris, trees and roofs across the tracks and extensive flooding. Some stations and train carriages were also damaged by hail.

A large scale task was undertaken last night to restore power to the network for this morning's peak.

We understand that our customers were heavily impacted last night, due to these extreme weather events. We thank our customers for their patience and understanding, as we worked as quickly and safely as possible to transport them home.

[ozbob]

http://translink.com.au/travel-information/service-notices/29536/details

Buses replacing trains between Roma St and Corinda stations

Last updated: 5.32am Friday 28 November 2014

Due to yesterday's severe weather in South East Queensland affecting Queensland Rails train network, buses will be replacing trains in both directions between Roma Street and Corinda stations.

Affected stations:

    Roma Street
    Milton
    Auchenflower
    Toowong
    Indooroopilly
    Chelmer
    Graceville
    Sherwood
    Corinda

Customers wishing to travel from Taringa Station will need to either board an Brisbane City Bus or travel to either Toowong or Indooroopilly station to board the rail bus.

[ozbob]

Twitter

Robert Dow ‏@Robert_Dow now

. @scottemerson on @NewsTalk4BC Has just said Corinda - Roma St has just reopened. Well done @QueenslandRail ... thanks! #qldpol

[ozbob]

https://www.facebook.com/QueenslandRail/posts/894848343866860

Queensland Rail

Update 7: Our crews have worked hard through the evening to restore our network following severe storm damage and flash flooding, yesterday afternoon.

We are pleased to confirm that all lines have now been recovered and services will run with minor impacts, this morning.

Trains have commenced running from our most impacted locations – Roma Street station and Corinda station – in both directions. As only two of the four platforms are operational, buses will still support train services along this section.

There are no buses at Taringa station due to limited road access.

Customers can expect delays of up to 15 minutes from Springfield and Ipswich stations to Roma Street station. Some stations, including Toowong, Taringa and Oxley will not be equipped to issue tickets due to damage. Customers will still be able to board trains.

Last night multiple issues affected our network. The network suffered significant damage, including fallen overhead power lines and debris, trees and roofs across the tracks and extensive flooding. Some stations and train carriages were also damaged by hail.

A large scale task was undertaken last night to restore power to the network for this morning's peak.

We understand that our customers were heavily impacted last night due to these extreme weather events. We thank our customers for their patience and understanding, as we worked as quickly and safely as possible to transport them home.

[ozbob]

Twitter

TransLink SEQ ‏@TransLinkSEQ 1 minute ago

Beenleigh line trains are delayed up to 15 minutes in both directions due to a points fault at Yeerongpilly station. #qr...

[techblitz]

There are no buses at Taringa station due to limited road access.

I remember being stuck there a few years ago and taxis were organised from this station..station master was helpfully directing people to the taxis....

[darthcaligula666]

after the track fault at yeerongpilly earlier made me need to walk from dutton park to yeronga, the damage along fairfield road was phenomenal.

in case it is useful to anyone, there are half hour delays on the ipswich line thanks to a fault at east ipswich. 

[ozbob]

Tks

^

http://translink.com.au/travel-information/service-notices/29621/details

Trains resumed Ipswich-Bundamba stations

Last updated: 1.04pm Friday 28 November 2014

Ipswich line trains have resumed in both directions between Ipswich and Bundamba stations following a track fault near East Ipswich station. Customers can expect residual delays of up to 15 minutes.

[ozbob]

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=895021007182927

Queensland Rail

Update 9: We will be undertaking an emergency track closure from Roma St to Corinda from 10.30pm tonight until last service to completely repair the network in the Taringa area.

Trains between Ipswich and Springfield will travel express between Roma St and Corinda, via South Brisbane.

Buses will replace trains between Roma St and Corinda from approximately 10:30pm tonight until last service.

We thank everyone for your patience while we work to safely restore the remainder of the network. http://ow.ly/F0W8J

[BrizCommuter]

None of the comments I've heard so far changes the basic underlying geometry or economics. If you insist on direct service then you will have lower frequency/other parts of the city miss out. This is true, irrespective of whatever the purpose or intention is.

There still need to be a bus route with half-decent frequency from the CBD to Mitchelton, in fact the TransLink review had 2 (390 and a new hi frequency route via Ashgrove,Wardell St,Samford Rd), so it is strange that your bus network has none.

Please explain how anyone from Samford Rd corridor could have got home last night (yet again) without the 390, 35x, 36x buses making up for lack of rail?

[#Metro]

There still need to be a bus route with half-decent frequency from the CBD to Mitchelton, in fact the TransLink review had 2 (390 and a new hi frequency route via Ashgrove,Wardell St,Samford Rd), so it is strange that your bus network has none.

Please explain how anyone from Samford Rd corridor could have got home last night (yet again) without the 390, 35x, 36x buses making up for lack of rail?

Yes, and the TransLink network also had buses driving over creeks where no bridges/road connection existed and areas where pax were expected to walk up 30% gradients.

I would be happy to explain how things could work in a rail service interupption scenario with significant delays:

The new network proposal is a shared work as many people here have commented and contributed to it. Like all large changes everyone needs to carry their fair share of the changes, and it will not be possible to please everyone. The current BCC/BT network displeases many. Now I did put it to people that 390 might stay, but that was not supported by the majority. While I disagreed, that is what ultimately was decided on, and that disagreement is respected. People can comment on the network in the survey.

The new network proposal is available at http://tiny.cc/newnetwork and survey is here http://tiny.cc/busreform

Now I don't know what street you live in, but from the map of the new network, most of BCC 390 is covered by RBOT 345 (and at a higher frequency during the day). In a scenario such as last night one could have caught RBOT Hi 380  to Key Interchange point at Ashgrove and change to a RBOT 911 CityConnector. This would take one all the way to Brookside and Mitchelton. Now I agree that this isn't a direct bus to the CBD, but it will get you home. Both Enoggera and Mitchelton interchanges are serviced by RBOT 911 CityConnector. RBOT 352 Aspley via Enoggera Interchange (Direct service) also passes in that area, and during peak this would be more frequent as well.

There is a city direct peak service RBOT 351 Enoggera Interchange bus as well. One could have caught that and changed to 350 etc at Enoggera Interchange which is well covered and sheltered.

So in short:

RBOT 345 for pax on Kelvin Grove/Enoggera Rd
RBOT 380 then change to 911 CityConnector
RBOT 352 Aspley via Enoggera Interchange (Direct service)
RBOT P351 Enoggera Interchange (Direct Service, Peak only) (onward connections to 350 etc at Enoggera etc) (thin blue line, so best seen in Google Earth)

If you are suggesting BCC 390 be reinstated, then may I ask which part of the network would you like to see cut to fund that?

Perhaps James may elaborate further on this topic.

[techblitz]

The 911 CityConnector would run at half hourly frequencies in this case, with a half hourly 411 terminating at Toowong in this scenario. This would give 4 buses/hour to Toowong on the Hawken Drive section; and 4 buses/hour on Wardell St with 2 buses/hour supplementary.

^
this

screw the 411...even it out....

Also saw an empty 411 inbound leave Toowong at 9:50pm.

[#Metro]

this

screw the 411...even it out....

Suggestion withdrawn as now The Gap residents would not be able to access UQ from Ashgrove under this hypotheical idea.

[James]

Yes, and the TransLink network also had buses driving over creeks where no bridges/road connection existed and areas where pax were expected to walk up 30% gradients.

I would be happy to explain how things could work in a rail service interupption scenario with significant delays:

The new network proposal is a shared work as many people here have commented and contributed to it. Like all large changes everyone needs to carry their fair share of the changes, and it will not be possible to please everyone. The current BCC/BT network displeases many. Now I did put it to people that 390 might stay, but that was not supported by the majority. While I disagreed, that is what ultimately was decided on, and that disagreement is respected. People can comment on the network in the survey.

The new network proposal is available at http://tiny.cc/newnetwork and survey is here http://tiny.cc/busreform

Now I don't know what street you live in, but from the map of the new network, most of BCC 390 is covered by RBOT 345 (and at a higher frequency during the day). In a scenario such as last night one could have caught RBOT Hi 380  to Key Interchange point at Ashgrove and change to a RBOT 911 CityConnector. This would take one all the way to Brookside and Mitchelton. Now I agree that this isn't a direct bus to the CBD, but it will get you home. Both Enoggera and Mitchelton interchanges are serviced by RBOT 911 CityConnector. RBOT 352 Aspley via Enoggera Interchange (Direct service) also passes in that area, and during peak this would be more frequent as well.

There is a city direct peak service RBOT 351 Enoggera Interchange bus as well. One could have caught that and changed to 350 etc at Enoggera Interchange which is well covered and sheltered.

So in short:

RBOT 345 for pax on Kelvin Grove/Enoggera Rd
RBOT 380 then change to 911 CityConnector
RBOT 352 Aspley via Enoggera Interchange (Direct service)
RBOT P351 Enoggera Interchange (Direct Service, Peak only) (onward connections to 350 etc at Enoggera etc) (thin blue line, so best seen in Google Earth)

If you are suggesting BCC 390 be reinstated, then may I ask which part of the network would you like to see cut to fund that?

Perhaps James may elaborate further on this topic.

Designing the network for a few days of rain is akin to buying a $1000-2000 generator (with a 5 year useful life) to run power through your house on the odd occasion the power goes out. Sure, you'll be a smug little s*** when everybody else's lights are off, but otherwise it is a drain and the financial resources could be used elsewhere.

Going on BrizCommuter's current logic that we need "rail back-ups", we should oppose every kind of feeder bus which is connecting to a railway station without a bus to the CBD on the off chance the rail network goes kaput. As long as there are reasonable back-up bus access options (345 + 901, 380 + 911), I don't see this as an issue.

A friend of mine (who is PT illiterate) tried catching the train home on the Wednesday the network fell over. He waited there for an hour, then waited another hour and a half for a bus to Toowong somewhere in the CBD. Totally clueless to the other three stop locations (412 vs. 444 vs. 4xx expresses vs. 4xx all-stops) going to Toowong, and totally clueless to the idea of using a CityCycle to get home (which for all its yuckyness in the wet, I find is preferable to walking or waiting 2.5 hours to get home!). Sometimes the network turns to poo, people just need to deal with that. With all due respect, unless you are a bus geek, most people have no idea about alternative methods to get home.

[#Metro]

A friend of mine (who is PT illiterate) tried catching the train home on the Wednesday the network fell over. He waited there for an hour, then waited another hour and a half for a bus to Toowong somewhere in the CBD. Totally clueless to the other three stop locations (412 vs. 444 vs. 4xx expresses vs. 4xx all-stops) going to Toowong, and totally clueless to the idea of using a CityCycle to get home (which for all its yuckyness in the wet, I find is preferable to walking or waiting 2.5 hours to get home!). Sometimes the network turns to poo, people just need to deal with that. With all due respect, unless you are a bus geek, most people have no idea about alternative methods to get home.

The reason why is that there is no actual NETWORK SYSTEM MAP that one can look at. Only the Journey planner and our network map. Anybody could have instantly seen what bus alternatives were in the area had such a map existed. But no, the intransigence at the top continues. It is so simple to do and we did it ourselves for FREE using Google Maps, no reason why TL cannot do it.

[James]

The reason why is that there is no actual NETWORK SYSTEM MAP that one can look at. Only the Journey planner and our network map. Anybody could have instantly seen what bus alternatives were in the area had such a map existed. But no, the intransigence at the top continues. It is so simple to do and we did it ourselves for FREE using Google Maps, no reason why TL cannot do it.

This would be great if there were actually enough different colours to deal with the BT network along Coronation Drive. 411, 412, 415, 416, 417, 425, 430, 433, 435, 444, 445, 453, 454, 460. Probably one issue with our network map - on bus spaghetti roads, you still can't find where you want to go (which is why urgent simplification is required down Coro Drive - even if it is just terminating half of the routes at Indro/Toowong).

Identical things could be said about Old Cleveland Road, Kelvin Grove Rd, Musgrave Rd, Gympie Rd, Mains Rd, the list goes on.

[techblitz]

A friend of mine (who is PT illiterate) tried catching the train home on the Wednesday the network fell over. He waited there for an hour, then waited another hour and a half for a bus to Toowong somewhere in the CBD. Totally clueless to the other three stop locations (412 vs. 444 vs. 4xx expresses vs. 4xx all-stops) going to Toowong, and totally clueless to the idea of using a CityCycle to get home (which for all its yuckyness in the wet, I find is preferable to walking or waiting 2.5 hours to get home!). Sometimes the network turns to poo, people just need to deal with that. With all due respect, unless you are a bus geek, most people have no idea about alternative methods to get home.

The reason why is that there is no actual NETWORK SYSTEM MAP that one can look at. Only the Journey planner and our network map. Anybody could have instantly seen what bus alternatives were in the area had such a map existed. But no, the intransigence at the top continues. It is so simple to do and we did it ourselves for FREE using Google Maps, no reason why TL cannot do it.

once again i will re-iterate...whats the point when translink cant get thier act together with thier website?
translink needs to hammer it home that people need to download the map to view offline.....
OR......some other way to make backup maps available in situations via some other method..

if you walk into banks or other government departments (eg: mygov office near kgs) ...you will notice that they are embracing the ipad as a form of interaction with thier customers......this is perhaps an avenue that QR and translink could look into...this would be a start....it would definitely reduce the number of requests to the website...

[HappyTrainGuy]

Going on BrizCommuter's current logic that we need "rail back-ups", we should oppose every kind of feeder bus which is connecting to a railway station without a bus to the CBD on the off chance the rail network goes kaput. As long as there are reasonable back-up bus access options (345 + 901, 380 + 911), I don't see this as an issue.

That's what I really liked about translinks northside review. You had the feeders that connected to local hubs such as interchanges and railway stations that then went on to other hubs. So if you lived at Bracken Ridge there were many ways to get there by going to Sandgate, Chermside or Strathpine. Say you lived and used Carseldine station. You could catch a train to Boondall or a HF route to Taigum, Chermside and Aspley and transfer to the same loop route or the Chermside to Strathpine via Zillmere Station/Carseldine Station/Bracken Ridge service. Strathpine was either train to Sandgate and then bus over to Strathpine or HF to Chermside and then board any of the Strathpine buses. If trains were terminating at Carseldine then jump on the Strathpine bus. The same for Zillmere station. Bracken Ridge HF or HF to Chermside + the same above Chermside-Strathpine via Bracken Ridge service. Geebung had the Taigum HF route + northside loop route. I didn't agree about the cutting of the 77 but if there were big delays in the city then jump on a 77 to bypass it all and then use the Chermside hub or busway services to extend your journey (remember there were now a lot more east-west routes). If caboolture trains were terminating at Northgate just transfer to a Shorncliffe service. With that northside loop route all you needed was a way to get on that loop route and the whole array of alternative transport options opened right up. It might have taken a bit longer but you got there which is the important thing when it comes to big delays.

[techblitz]

I didn't agree about the cutting of the 77 but if there were big delays in the city then jump on a 77 to bypass it all and then use the Chermside hub or busway services to extend your journey (remember there were now a lot more east-west routes).

ooh no not the 77 again  :conf

you and james supporting the 77 is just well contradictory to say the least....doesnt matter if you have a fandangled new route alignment for it or not..........if you dont support routes like the current 390 then why the hell are you supporting the 77?......does the 77 not duplicate the 111-333?  or say 555-340?...and does the 390 not also save time just like the 77 and save the day in emergencies?
Consistency is the key here james and htg....by supporting the current 77... it just confuses others in your views on network waste...i would suggest distancing yourself from supporting statements on this route....no matter how useful you find it etc   

[#Metro]

Route 77 in the new network proposal is taken out of the tunnel. Cars don't use the tunnel so why expect PT pax to somehow like it. It is fast but it is not frequent, so overall not that useful. Same issue will arise with the Legacy Way tunnel, only useful in peak. Why? Most demand generators are on the surface.

The new RBOT 77 is a surface route.

[HappyTrainGuy]

ooh no not the 77 again  :conf

you and james supporting the 77 is just well contradictory to say the least....doesnt matter if you have a fandangled new route alignment for it or not..........if you dont support routes like the current 390 then why the hell are you supporting the 77?......does the 77 not duplicate the 111-333?  or say 555-340?...and does the 390 not also save time just like the 77 and save the day in emergencies?
Consistency is the key here james and htg....by supporting the current 77... it just confuses others in your views on network waste...i would suggest distancing yourself from supporting statements on this route....no matter how useful you find it etc   

They are two different routes. Ones a cross town route and the other is a 100m bus stop overflow service. The 390 has no time saving compared to other routes at any time. Its useful in emergencies where there are big delays but as a normal route it has nothing. Depending on the time of day the 77 can be 20 minutes faster than a 330+130/140 from Chermside to Griffith (used as an example of the fastest express services).

390 only really has peak hour advantages especially in that 2-5pm bracket when workers knock off, tafe/uni students head home and school knock off. Keep it at 15 mins during peak but cut to 30 mins off peak at the minimum. I frequently see it running before Alderley/Newmarket with just no one or a couple onboard just like the 340 before Chermside. It should also go via King George Square to improve the stopping locations from the city. Do I wait in KGS or do I wait above? Off peak its a waste on the current network. If anything I'd go back and make new/aligned stops for the 325, 345, 359, 360, 390 on the existing network. 359 can also have more stops added off peak as it too struggles for patronage especially with that long express route from Kelvin Grove to Enoggera with one stop at Newmarket. In my eyes that sector is the same as the 370 on the Gympie Road sector. Complete overkill with too many services with too many stopping patterns. It needs to be simplified.

The 77 has its advantages. It has no ideal place in our current network as an all day route but if it was a lot more integrated it has its place. The only advantage it has on our current network is time savings. I'd also have it use the interchange to speed things up even more especially for outbound trips. In the time it takes the 330 to do Chermside-CCBS the 77 has already departed Griffith. I agree with the off peak hours being scaled back and city transfers during the day as bus services and traffic are faster and lighter. I have the same position on many routes like the 336/337 in that it should be run more frequently during peak hour only.

I can't be bothered searching for the trip but from memory it took 36-37 minutes including transfer to go from Chermside to Sunnybank Plaza during morning peak hour (scheduled time of ~40 mins peak and still ~7 mins faster than off peak/15-25+ mins faster than peak hour travel times using the 330/333/340 + 111/555/130/140 IIRC). Most of the times the drivers don't bother running to timetable once they leave the clem 7 stop next to the PA so you might be lucky to leap frog on to even earlier services. But even so to go from Chermside to Sunnybank in under 40 minutes on Brisbane PT during peak hour... the time savings are there and this is where translink need to promote the route (and many others for that fact). They did initially in all the hype of the 77 and 88 routes but after that all the posters/promotion vanished. This is the downfall of not having proper network maps or proper explanation of cross town travel. The 369 fell into the same boat and having other routes duplicate certain areas didn't help it.
07:00 AM    'Chermside (Hamilton Road)' Hamilton Road    07:26 AM    Griffith University Station

[BrizCommuter]

If you are suggesting BCC 390 be reinstated, then may I ask which part of the network would you like to see cut to fund that?

TransLink managed to retain the 390, and add a high frequency route to Mitchelton in their review, so I fail to see your logic!

I didn't agree about the cutting of the 77 but if there were big delays in the city then jump on a 77 to bypass it all and then use the Chermside hub or busway services to extend your journey (remember there were now a lot more east-west routes).

ooh no not the 77 again  :conf

you and james supporting the 77 is just well contradictory to say the least....doesnt matter if you have a fandangled new route alignment for it or not..........if you dont support routes like the current 390 then why the hell are you supporting the 77?......does the 77 not duplicate the 111-333?  or say 555-340?...and does the 390 not also save time just like the 77 and save the day in emergencies?
Consistency is the key here james and htg....by supporting the current 77... it just confuses others in your views on network waste...i would suggest distancing yourself from supporting statements on this route....no matter how useful you find it etc   

+1. The route 77 is one of the worst value for money bus routes in Brisbane.

[#Metro]

TransLink managed to retain the 390, and add a high frequency route to Mitchelton in their review, so I fail to see your logic!

Yes, but we've retained the 120 and 100 as BUZ and they did not. We also have a full service 15-min frequent BulimbaGlider while they have a 30 min cycle in Bulimba. So back to the question, which service gets cut?

The route 77 is one of the worst value for money bus routes in Brisbane.

This is agreed. There are structural reasons why it is not a good service and this is unlikely to change, namely the frequency is too low, an interchange system provides a comparative journey, and there are no demand generators in the tunnels. Send it via UQ, Valley and RBWH and you will have a different story. Low Capacity Utilisation = Air Parcel Service



http://web.archive.org/web/20130420013350/http://translink.com.au/resources/travel-information/service-updates/seq-bus-network-review/Route-77.png

[pandmaster]

I was a frequent user of the 77 for a year or so and, apart from reliability issues, it was a great service. It was definitely quicker to wait fifteen minutes (when operating to that frequency) for the next 77 than get a bus to the City and transfer. It was not promoted very well and the poor frequency off-peak hardly helps drive patronage. Every passenger on a 77 was one less in the City (particularly the Cultural Centre), which was a positive benefit for other routes. The route could always be truncated on O'Keefe Street (or elsewhere nearby) outside Buranda Station to cut out the duplication on the SEB.

[#Metro]

IMHO 77 would be good only in peak. Remember the funds that run that bus could be used elsewhere, that too would be a benefit.

[James]

I've explained what affects the 77's patronage before, so I'll just put this here:

Remember, the direct services network also further erodes the 77's success because in terms of transfer penalties, 375+66 requires less changes than 375+77+UQ service. If you moved to a connected network (a la bus review), 369+333+66 would be slower than 369+77+UQ service, and a lot slower than 369+79 (again, if the 77/79 was timed such that it was appropriate for class start times).

Outside of peak, the 77 may not have much use, but in peak it is a brilliant route. I believe that if properly supported by a connective network (and running less air down the SE Busway/Gympie Road), it could do really well. Well-timed 77s could act as a relief valve for Chermside-Windsor, Gympie Rd-SEB and Buranda - 8MP traffic, instead of forcing these people on to already full 111s/333s.

In the current network, I believe the 77 should be scrapped - the benefits for passengers are limited to those who live directly along these corridors. In a connective network, the 77 would become a lot more competitive.

This is agreed. There are structural reasons why it is not a good service and this is unlikely to change, namely the frequency is too low, an interchange system provides a comparative journey, and there are no demand generators in the tunnels. Send it via UQ, Valley and RBWH and you will have a different story. Low Capacity Utilisation = Air Parcel Service

Send it via UQ, Valley and RBWH and it will get stuck in traffic and I doubt even northside UQ passengers will use it. As it is in peak it would take 10 minutes easily to travel Wooloongabba - Ann Street. Add another 10 on Ann Street - RBWH and passengers might as well just use a 66.

With respect to the 390 - comparing 'waste' is a bit of a moot point. But if you insist on making the comparison, the 390 is almost completely duplicated in terms of routing by the 345/Ferny Grove line, while the 77 is not duplicated. 390 also provides time savings to few people (Samford Rd corridor), while the 77 provides huge time savings to many corridors (anybody on Gympie Rd/SE Busway, some of the busiest roads in Brisbane)

[HappyTrainGuy]

IMHO 77 would be good only in peak. Remember the funds that run that bus could be used elsewhere, that too would be a benefit.

Which is what a lot of us and especially me and james keep saying over and over. Run it frequently during peak hour where the time savings are at their greatest as you miss the peak hour congestion into and out of CCBS and congestion on the streets. There are times where you could miss a bus and get on the next one and still arrive at the other side of town faster than if you went to the city. Cross town routes really need to be make known with proper network maps showing the time savings.

[SurfRail]

The 77 is a luxury, not a need.  When peak hour is so rubbish for so many other parts of town this should be a high priority for cancellation.

[HappyTrainGuy]

And yet air parcels like the 340, 341, 343, 346 continue to thrive.



With the 330, 331, 332, 333, 340, 341, 370, 375, 379 kicking up its usual fun.






And interchange bays aren't used to store buses






This 346 very slowly cruised past looking for passengers to pick up because it couldn't stop at its intended bay because a empty bus was in it.


What are you doing at stop D P332?


At least chermside made some bays to park empty buses



Until buses start getting blocked in


Yeah like the 77 is bleeding so much money from this perfect and highly efficient Brisbane network. Oh look it's midday and yet another bus blocking the chermside interchange. I wonder why.

[SurfRail]

^ Good, plenty more waste to can IN ADDITION TO the 77.

Some people seem to have loss aversion up the wazoo and yet are happy to unload on other people for the same thing...

[James]

^ Good, plenty more waste to can IN ADDITION TO the 77.

Some people seem to have loss aversion up the wazoo and yet are happy to unload on other people for the same thing...

For the record, I've only used the 77 once and could have easily used 66 + 333/340 for my trip (and would have probably taken a similar amount of time given the time I was travelling).

Cut the low-hanging fruit (i.e. every bus running to the CBD along the Gympie Road corridor) then start cutting the higher-hanging fruit. The 77 provides a useful function, while sending every single 4xx bus to the CBD does not.

[HappyTrainGuy]

Like James I personally want to see the major corridors fixed up first. There is massive... just massive amounts of waste happening there to the point where a few of us had an entire page of a thread dedicated to the BT conga lines across the northern, western and eastern network.

Quick question. Have you ever used the 77 at different times and then the same trip via the CBD SR? Peak hour particularly.

[BrizCommuter]

TransLink managed to retain the 390, and add a high frequency route to Mitchelton in their review, so I fail to see your logic!

Yes, but we've retained the 120 and 100 as BUZ and they did not. We also have a full service 15-min frequent BulimbaGlider while they have a 30 min cycle in Bulimba. So back to the question, which service gets cut?

Going by your and James network design principles, shouldn't the Bulimba glider be a rail feeder into Morningside?

[#Metro]

Going by your and James network design principles, shouldn't the Bulimba glider be a rail feeder into Morningside?

As a general comment: I am happy to take suggestions but there needs to be fair exchange. If something increases costs there needs to be a decrease somewhere else.

230 BulimbaGlider is a rail feeder, feeding rail at both ends. The Thynne Rd portion of the 230 BulimbaGlider is sent to Morningside Key Interchange Point.

http://tiny.cc/newnetwork

[James]

Going by your and James network design principles, shouldn't the Bulimba glider be a rail feeder into Morningside?

A frequent service needs to be provided along Wynnum Road and East Brisbane, and with the Bulimba high-frequency route already being high-frequency, there is no reason why the Hi 230 should not fulfil that function.

[ozbob]

http://translink.com.au/travel-information/service-notices/29846/details

Nambour to Palmwoods trains replaced by rail buses

Last updated: 3.47am Tuesday 2 December 2014

Due to an operational issue buses are replacing trains between Nambour - Palmwoods for the following services:

The 4.34am Nambour to Roma Street .

The 5.07am Nambour to Roma Street .

The 5.25am Nambour to Roma Street .

The 5.50am Nambour to Roma Street.

Please allow extra time for travel.

[SurfRail]

Like James I personally want to see the major corridors fixed up first. There is massive... just massive amounts of waste happening there to the point where a few of us had an entire page of a thread dedicated to the BT conga lines across the northern, western and eastern network.

Quick question. Have you ever used the 77 at different times and then the same trip via the CBD SR? Peak hour particularly.

No, but that is hardly relevant.  If you kill the 77, which is already a marginal service, you have buses immediately available to run more 230s, or 359s, or whatever.  Loss aversion for this service would be negligible, and there is not a single stop on the route which is not already served by multiple frequent services on existing other routes.  Like I said, it is a luxury and it baffles me why people are fighting for it when there are so many other better uses for the resources.

[#Metro]

No, but that is hardly relevant.  If you kill the 77, which is already a marginal service, you have buses immediately available to run more 230s, or 359s, or whatever. Loss aversion for this service would be negligible, and there is not a single stop on the route which is not already served by multiple frequent services on existing other routes.  Like I said, it is a luxury and it baffles me why people are fighting for it when there are so many other better uses for the resources.

Exactly. Bang On.

You'd have enough buses to start running anti-loss aversion side-by side substitution services in peak hour, and then could do this on a rotating/rolling basis across the city for 'hard cases' of reform.

[ozbob]

http://translink.com.au/travel-information/service-notices/29946/details

Multiple trains delayed due to earlier track fault

Last updated: 2.33pm Tuesday 2 December 2014

The following trains are delayed due to an earlier track fault:

    The 1.59pm Varsity Lakes station to Domestic Airport station train is delayed 8 minutes. This train is now due to arrive at Domestic Airport station at 3.30pm.
    The 1.47pm Shorncliffe station to Cleveland station train is delayed 8 minutes. This train is now due to arrive at Cleveland station at 2.58pm.
    The 2.04pm Ferny Grove to Beenleigh station train is delayed 7 minutes.  This train is now due to arrive at Beenleigh station at 3.18pm.
    The 2.11pm Beenleigh station to Ferny Grove station train is delayed 6 minutes.  This train is now due to arrive at Ferny Grove station at 2.48pm