Cross River Rail Project

[somebody]

They did say that they were talking to QR about relaxing the max grade requirement and the implications for rolling stock (I think they said currently working with max 2% grade?). This would allow a shorter tunnel and earlier daylighting (perhaps onto the Exhibition loop).

I did see that in the ICRS.  I wondered what Systemwide were thinking when they mentioned that.  I've calculated before that an SMU can maintain about 60km/h up a 1 in 20 grade, and I don't think there should be any issues with making the tunnel unsuitable for EMUs (they can keep them off the GC line, why not here?).  The main thing would be preventing a steep climb immediately after a station.  Steep descent after a station (or steep ascent before) is a positive.

[paulg]

I looked up the tech specs of the Epping to Chatswood link, it has an extended section (~4km) at a grade of 2.9%.
There was some controversy over this, since it does limit the rollingstock they can use on the line.
I think the plan is for the Cross River Rail link to take the Airport-Gold Coast service, so they will be using the newer trains.

Cheers

[somebody]

I looked up the tech specs of the Epping to Chatswood link, it has an extended section (~4km) at a grade of 2.9%.
There was some controversy over this, since it does limit the rollingstock they can use on the line.
I think the plan is for the Cross River Rail link to take the Airport-Gold Coast service, so they will be using the newer trains.

It's even steeper heading north from Wynyard toward to the Harbour Bridge 1 in 30 (or 3.3%) IIRC, but that section is shorter.  And this is with heavier trains with only 1.5kV DC power, only power to half the axles (rather than 2/3 for all but the earliest EMUs) and worse power/weight.  I think an M set just edges out an 8 motor/3 car EMU for power/weight unladen.

2% limiting grades do seem to be a ridiculous and unreasonable requirement.

[ozbob]

Premier and Minister for the Arts
The Honourable Anna Bligh
19/11/2009

Underground is the future for Brisbane transport network

The State Government has unveiled sweeping plans to modernise Brisbane's public transport network - including an underground rail network to be built under the city over the next two decades - to help the south-east corner cope with unprecedented inner-city population growth.

Speaking at today's Leadership Queensland conference in Brisbane, Premier Anna Bligh said it was essential plans were fast-tracked to rethink the state capital's transport network as Queensland geared up for massive growth, including a doubling of the population over the next 50 years.

Ms Bligh said those plans included an international-standard underground metro rail network similar to the London tube and the Paris Metro.

She said the critical short term step in the new public transport plan was delivering the first, $8 billion stage of Brisbane's Cross Cross River Rail, a vital piece of infrastructure for the whole region that will unlock suburban heavy rail expansion.

"It's a simple formula - more people means more cars on the road," Ms Bligh said.

"Every hour of every day 12 more people call Queensland home.

"Every day there are 920 000 trips to the inner city - in 20 years, that will spike to more than two million trips a day and if you consider that today 80 per cent of all travel is by car, these are figures we cannot ignore.

"By 2016 our passenger rail network will be at capacity.

"Every single train from Brisbane's south must cross the Merivale Bridge to enter the city. Without a second river crossing, not a single extra service from Beenleigh, the Gold Coast, Cleveland or future cities like Springfield will be able to enter the city.

"Cross River Rail is about increasing capacity at the heart of the network to break what will be a bottleneck. The feasibility study into Cross River Rail is well underway. Next year, we will release the proposed route for consultation and an Environmental Impact Statement.

"If we want to build a modern Queensland, this is a must do."

Ms Bligh said over the next 25 years, the population in the inner ring - the five kilometre area surrounding the CBD - will grow by about 50 per cent or an extra 90 000 residents.

At the same time, the number of workers who will need to enter the city each day will double from 200,000 to 400 000.

"It's almost impossible to build more road capacity into the CBD, so we must look at other options.

"I realise there have been discussions about a return of trams and light rail to our city streets, but outside of our Busways, which were designed to accommodate light rail if needed, the time for trams in the CBD is over.

"That means we need to look outside the square and under the earth - the future of rail planning for the centre of the city is underground.

"That's why along with plans to boost to heavy rail capacity, we also need to start planning for an underground metro system, linking Toowong, West End, the City, Newstead, Bowen Hills, Bulimba and Hamilton North Shore.

"When you're staring down the barrel of strong and persistent growth, the forecasts contain information we simply cannot ignore.

"By 2030, the south-east's population will hit almost 4.5 million. That's bigger than Copenhagen, Montreal, Munich and Singapore - and they all have metros.

"And, if we want the first metro train to leave the station by 2030, we have to begin work on a business case and fund that in the next budget period which includes forward estimates to 2015.

"Major transport infrastructure projects take time to plan and construct. 13 years ago we committed to our Busway network. Today we've made great progress.

"The south-east Busway is done. The Northern Busway is almost half complete and three-quarters of the Eastern Busway is still to come.

"So, if rapid metro is to part of our transport future, the time to talk about it is now."

==============================================================

[Jon Bryant]

All the right words but needs to be followed up with a halt to freeway construction and redirection of all this funding towards the plans mentioned above.  Trans in the CBD may be over but on the major roads across the city it is not.

[O_128]

i saw this on skyscraper city and think it is a great route/

[#Metro]

I like the above proposed route.
I would just add a spur for Red Hill/Paddington/Bardon. Hilly though.

BCC's version
http://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/bccwr/about_council/documents/sept07_glossary_brisbane_mass_transit_investigation_lmt.pdf

[stephenk]

The above ideas don't solve the issue with more passengers travelling into the CBD from the suburbs. The existing rail lines need more capacity through the CBD running a metro like service, rather than an inner city only metro.

[somebody]

In addition to stephenk's point, these ideas seem to assume that river crossings are free.

[#Metro]

The more I think about it, the more it seems like a bad case of back-to-the future.
In 1925 BCC had a river crossing commission, which recommended a Bulimba-Tenneriffe link.
I guess the same could be said for many other links on that map.

1960's Wilbur Smith Plan is alive and well. A bridge where the Go Betweens Bridge is now, features in the plan.

We had a nice tram system which could have been converted over to LRT if it were still around.
Now we are talking about "the future" hype, and what do you know? LRT and Trams are on the menu...
QLD Gov wants to put a rail line through W'gabba (in a tunnel however). Funny that, they ripped the 'Gabba one up in the 60s or 70s IIRC.

This time around we have technology and computers to reduce the engineering complexity and cost involved.
Any ideas for Anna's Metro will have to account for potential flooding...

[somebody]

I want to play devil's advocate here:
Currently, patronage over the Merivale bridge is a bit more than the Ipswich and Caboolture lines (each).  Therefore, is this project really the top priority for our rail system?  Surely the priority for the peak is increased service on the Ipswich, Caboolture lines, Shorncliffe and Ferny Grove lines in THAT order.  None of those lines need the Merivale bridge, even though it is nearing capacity.

Before I don my flame proof suit, I want to point out that I didn't say that the tunnel isn't required.

[stephenk]

I want to play devil's advocate here:
Currently, patronage over the Merivale bridge is a bit more than the Ipswich and Caboolture lines (each).  Therefore, is this project really the top priority for our rail system?  Surely the priority for the peak is increased service on the Ipswich, Caboolture lines, Shorncliffe and Ferny Grove lines in THAT order.  None of those lines need the Merivale bridge, even though it is nearing capacity.

Before I don my flame proof suit, I want to point out that I didn't say that the tunnel isn't required.

Whilst the tunnel is definitely required, in the mean time more efficient use needs to made of all of the track slots across the Merivale Bridge. The Beenleigh and Cleveland Lines both run some 3-car services. The Gold Coast services have plenty of standing space arriving in the CBD. More effective use needs to be made of track slots by running 6-car units, and (dare I say it) stopping the Gold Coast services at one or two stations within QRs 20min standing rule (which I think needs to be increased) close to the City to pick up more standing passengers (maybe stop at Yerongpilly again?).

The South Brisbane to Roma Street section on the suburbans is nearer to capacity than any other point on the network. Thus it makes sense that this section needs to be relieved first. Ipswich, Caboolture Lines may be the busiest lines, but they have more spare track capacity up their sleeve. It should be remembered that the tunnel will take many services off the mains through the CBD - notably Richlands, Petrie, and Shorncliffe services. This will allow for more Ipswich - Caboolture services. Building the 2nd new corridor first would not have as much benefit to the whole network.

[somebody]

Whilst the tunnel is definitely required, in the mean time more efficient use needs to made of all of the track slots across the Merivale Bridge. The Beenleigh and Cleveland Lines both run some 3-car services. The Gold Coast services have plenty of standing space arriving in the CBD. More effective use needs to be made of track slots by running 6-car units, and (dare I say it) stopping the Gold Coast services at one or two stations within QRs 20min standing rule (which I think needs to be increased) close to the City to pick up more standing passengers (maybe stop at Yerongpilly again?).

There's still 3-car services in the peak?  That's really wierd.  Haven't they gotten all these extra trains?  It does only re-inforce the basis of my argument in that while most of the slots are used, the pax/slot is lower than the pax/train on other lines.

EDIT: They can't stop at Yeerongpilly due to the lack of a platform on the DG.  They could do Coopers Plains again which is 21mins from Central.  Is that where the 20mins is measured from?  Perhaps stop at Coopers Plains and trim 1 minute off the timetable.

It should be remembered that the tunnel will take many services off the mains through the CBD - notably Richlands, Petrie, and Shorncliffe services. This will allow for more Ipswich - Caboolture services. Building the 2nd new corridor first would not have as much benefit to the whole network.

Umm, I'm confused here.  Are you talking about the stage 1 (Fairfield-Eagle Junction) tunnel.  How will that help Richlands services?  Are you saying they will run via Tennyson?  Also Petrie services especially would be still using the mains wouldn't they?  For full sectorisation, you would need to do some works between Northgate & Virginia.

Still hate the proposals for the 2nd corridor.  Taking load off of Merivale bridge would (possibly) allow Ipswich line services to use the suburbans in the distant future.

[stephenk]

Umm, I'm confused here.  Are you talking about the stage 1 (Fairfield-Eagle Junction) tunnel.  How will that help Richlands services?  Are you saying they will run via Tennyson?  Also Petrie services especially would be still using the mains wouldn't they?  For full sectorisation, you would need to do some works between Northgate & Virginia.

Richlands and Petrie services will use the suburban tracks from Darra to Northgate. (They will not run via Tennyson - the Ipswich Line has suburban and main tracks from Roma St to Corinda/Darra). This will free up track capacity on the mains between Darra and Northgate*. The suburbans will be shared between Roma Street and Bowen Hills with Ferny Grove and Cleveland services.

*Things get a bit complicated between Bowen Hills and Northgate where there will be 5 tracks.

Thus through the CBD:-
Mains - Rosewood/Ipswich-Caboolture/Nambour
Suburbans - Richlands/Cleveland-Ferny Grove/Petrie (with resulting junction conflict at Roma Street)
New Tunnel - Gold Coast/Beenleigh-Airport/Doomben/Shorncliffe

[somebody]

Richlands and Petrie services will use the suburban tracks from Darra to Northgate. (They will not run via Tennyson - the Ipswich Line has suburban and main tracks from Roma St to Corinda/Darra). This will free up track capacity on the mains between Darra and Northgate*. The suburbans will be shared between Roma Street and Bowen Hills with Ferny Grove and Cleveland services.

*Things get a bit complicated between Bowen Hills and Northgate where there will be 5 tracks.

Thus through the CBD:-
Mains - Rosewood/Ipswich-Caboolture/Nambour
Suburbans - Richlands/Cleveland-Ferny Grove/Petrie (with resulting junction conflict at Roma Street)
New Tunnel - Gold Coast/Beenleigh-Airport/Doomben/Shorncliffe

I see what you are foreseeing, I think.  So the 5 tracks north of Bowen Hills only applies after the new tunnel connects up? I suppose that makes some sense.  I would have thought that all the Ipswich/Richlands trains could stick to the mains for a while rather than having the conflict at Roma St.

[Gingerbeer]

The fatal floor with the current CRRP is that is doesnt pick up the bottom of West End, West End will be a real high volume high growth area as population grows more and more dinks etc will be looking to locate to this area. A resonable train service is vital and from my view 2 new underground train stations have gotta get in there. As  industry move out the population will be crazy in West End. I also think suburbs like Bulimba Hawthorn in the East need 2 Stations and St Lucia. What would be ideal is a ring service that continually runs.

[Gingerbeer]

i saw this on skyscraper city and think it is a great route/

I like it alot....... its gotta happen 4.5 million people in 2030.....

[somebody]

The fatal floor with the current CRRP is that is doesnt pick up the bottom of West End, West End will be a real high volume high growth area as population grows more and more dinks etc will be looking to locate to this area. A resonable train service is vital and from my view 2 new underground train stations have gotta get in there. As  industry move out the population will be crazy in West End. I also think suburbs like Bulimba Hawthorn in the East need 2 Stations and St Lucia. What would be ideal is a ring service that continually runs.

Huh?  The 2026 tunnel does service West End.  IMO this is a lower priority than New Farm.  West End is only really served by the 199 bus route.  For the 196/197, you might as well use the Busway stations for the part that they run through West End as they are quite close.  But New Farm has the 195/196/197/199 routes running through it.

And you don't need a tunnel through West end for capacity reasons on the Ipswich line: It's quad tracked from Corinda, as you would know.  The only problem is that using the suburban track reduces capacity over the Merivale bridge.

[#Metro]

I *really* like the proposal o_128 has put on the forum.

My proposals (don't mind either way, the one up already is pretty good)

- Bulimba - Hamilton line to be replaced with a Bulimba-Cleveland line track.
  Potential two-tier timetable for the Cleveland line.

I've proposed this as there will be CityGlider as of mid 2010 in this area, there is the CityCat and there is a possibility that the NorthShore Hamilton development may need an extension of the Doomben line to this location.

[somebody]

I've just had a bit more of a look at the ICRS, Rail Operations Review Stage 3 from Sep 2008.

It claims 19tph would be required from the Gold Coast by 2026.  If true, how come they didn't suggest 9 car or even 12 car trains for this corridor?

Given that the CBD stations are to be new builds, all that would be required is platform extensions at Coopers Plains, Loganlea, Beenleigh and the ones further south, and probably at the Airport.

In fact, longer trains do seem attractive on many lines, although not cheap for other lines which have many stations.  With 9 car trains, the driver could probably perform the Guard function for the first 3 cars, with wheelchair access at the 6th or 7th car.

[#Metro]

Does the project have to be constructed all in one go? Breaking it down into pieces means we can get something while we wait.

Surely, once a general alignment is settled, the city tunneling for stations etc could be done to link it up with the existing line (train in to CBD 2, etc) and made operational while the tunneling from under Fairfield began

[Derwan]

It claims 19tph would be required from the Gold Coast by 2026.  If true, how come they didn't suggest 9 car or even 12 car trains for this corridor?

Given that the CBD stations are to be new builds, all that would be required is platform extensions at Coopers Plains, Loganlea, Beenleigh and the ones further south, and probably at the Airport.

In fact, longer trains do seem attractive on many lines, although not cheap for other lines which have many stations.  With 9 car trains, the driver could probably perform the Guard function for the first 3 cars, with wheelchair access at the 6th or 7th car.

I have to say I agree with you on this one.  New stations could be built for 9-car trains (not sure about 12-car, that might be a bit harder).  When possible, existing stations could be upgraded - starting with the most popular ones.  The new CBD stations can be built for 9-car trains.  Existing CBD stations could be upgraded (although that might be hard).

Once there are enough stations that can handle 9-car trains, they could run express through other stations.

I'm not sure all of this would warrant the extra expense, but imagine carrying 50% more passengers on a single service!

[Emmie]

I'm not sure all of this would warrant the extra expense, but imagine carrying 50% more passengers on a single service!

The trouble with 50% more pax per service is that it reduces the demand for frequent services.  And it is frequency of service that converts people from cars to trains.  So no, I don't think this is nearly as good an idea as it sounds at first.  The good metro services elsewhere in the world - London, Hong Kong, Germany, NYC - don't have longer trains, they have MORE trains.

[Derwan]

Fair point Emmie.  I was thinking for additional peak capacity only.  But knowing this Government, they'd use it as an excuse to have less frequent services as a cost-cutting measure.

[mufreight]

Have to agree with Emmie, for rail to attract more commuters out of their cars increased service frequency is needed and higher frequencies provide more capacity without the costs of a total revamp of stations and the signaling system to cater for longer trains.
The costs of increasing the number of services operated by the QR standard of 6 car sets is affordable when compared with the costs of extending platforms for the operation of 9 or 12 car sets which would create an operating nightmare due to their lack of flexibility from an operational point of view as well as effectively slowing down the station dwell times.
If more money is to be spent on station infrastructure to improve service levels it would be better spent on raising platforms to carriage floor height which would improve passenger ccess / egress from trains meet the needs of disability access and pave the way for the operation of driver only trains thus reducing the staff levels needed to operate the increased frequencies, the increased frequencies would ensure no staff losses and safety both for staff and commuters would be improved.

[somebody]

The trouble with 50% more pax per service is that it reduces the demand for frequent services.  And it is frequency of service that converts people from cars to trains.  So no, I don't think this is nearly as good an idea as it sounds at first.  The good metro services elsewhere in the world - London, Hong Kong, Germany, NYC - don't have longer trains, they have MORE trains.

I think the difference in demand generation by 19tph and 10tph is negligible.  And if even 10tph were operating in peak, one would expect at least 3tph off peak.  Even the current 2tph off peak service is in my opinion excellent for the Gold Coast given the length of the line.  

EDIT: Look at equivalent lines such as Nambour, Newcastle, Blue Mountains, Woollongong, and ones I'm not familiar with like Geelong, Ballarat, Bendigo etc.

But looking at long distance lines, the Eurostar has very long trains.  I think it might be over 20 double deck cars per train.  Of course, that needs to travel a significantly further distance

EDIT 2: The ICRS claims that by 2026 the Beenleigh peak trains will need to loop around via Tennyson even with the two new tunnels.  Obviously, this apocalyptic scenario is one that should be avoided at all costs.

slowing down the station dwell times.

The chance that there is a car which takes longer at a station is increased if there are more cars, but I'd think this effect would be slight.

[Derwan]

slowing down the station dwell times.

The chance that there is a car which takes longer at a station is increased if there are more cars, but I'd think this effect would be slight.

On a 9-car train, there is less chance of overcrowding so the portion of the dwell time that is the train stopped at the station loading/unloading may in fact be reduced.  (It's quicker to get on/off a train that is less overcrowded.)

The increased dwell time would be due to increased start/stop times and longer signal blocks.  A 9-car train (I guess) would be slower to accelerate and brake - and has to travel further before the next train can enter the platform due to the increased length of the signal block.

As mufreight said, signalling is also a factor that would increase the cost if you were to introduce 9-car trains to existing inner-city routes.

I don't know what would be more expensive.  Constantly upgrading the infrastructure (think tunnels) to allow for increased peak frequency - or upgrading infrastructure to allow for larger trains at the current or slightly improved (peak) frequency.  Could there be a mix of both that's cost-effective?  Staff costs for 9-car trains would be reduced by 33%, which must be a big factor.

I can see both sides of the argument and without knowledge of costs required, I can't say what I think would be better.  It's good to throw some ideas around though.

[somebody]

A 9-car train (I guess) would be slower to accelerate and brake - and has to travel further before the next train can enter the platform due to the increased length of the signal block.

Not sure why it would be slower to accelerate and brake.  The extra cars would all have motors and brakes.  Yes, signalling headway could be reduced if we are still sticking with block signalling.  If the bifuricated platforms recommendation from the ICRS is implemented, then even that wouldn't be too much of a factor, I would think.

I don't think there's too much doubt at a 19tph 6 car train demand level that 9 cars would be better.  It depends on the demand though.


In fact, I would suggest that the ICRS's proposal for Beenleigh via Tennyson is one which shouldn't have been put forward.  I does add to my concern that a new CBD link for the Ipswich line is not the way to go.

[stephenk]

The trouble with 50% more pax per service is that it reduces the demand for frequent services.  And it is frequency of service that converts people from cars to trains.  So no, I don't think this is nearly as good an idea as it sounds at first.  The good metro services elsewhere in the world - London, Hong Kong, Germany, NYC - don't have longer trains, they have MORE trains.

Moving to 9 cars would not be cost effective until frequencies were nearing maximum possible anyway. So I don't frequency reduction would really be an issue.

The cost of moving to 9-cars would be huge - platform extensions, signalling modifications, and new rollingstock. But it may be needed one day. 

By the way, your train length comments are not quite correct. Hong Kong MTR metro lines have 182m 8-car trains, with approx 270m 12-car trains on MTR East Rail. New York has approx 180m trains on some subway lines, and I think LIRR has much longer trains. Tokyo's Yamanote line has 220m trains, and runs 26tph! Brisbane has approx 144m trains.

EDIT: Look at equivalent lines such as Nambour, Newcastle, Blue Mountains, Woollongong, and ones I'm not familiar with like Geelong, Ballarat, Bendigo etc.

If you look at other counties such as the UK, then you would have a higher frequency service on lines between population centres of equivalent sizes to Brisbane and Gold Coast.

But looking at long distance lines, the Eurostar has very long trains.  I think it might be over 20 double deck cars per train.  Of course, that needs to travel a significantly further distance

The Eurostar trains are 394m long, and single deck. You cannot really compare high speed rail, with suburban rail. In fact the Eurostar trains are so long they could fit between 3 London Underground stations in some locations.

EDIT 2: The ICRS claims that by 2026 the Beenleigh peak trains will need to loop around via Tennyson even with the two new tunnels.  Obviously, this apocalyptic scenario is one that should be avoided at all costs.

Why is this apocalyptic? Whilst it has some issues, isn't is making the best use of available track capacity at the time? I'm sure Tennyson residents wouldn't think it's apocalyptic.

The increased dwell time would be due to increased start/stop times and longer signal blocks.  A 9-car train (I guess) would be slower to accelerate and brake - and has to travel further before the next train can enter the platform due to the increased length of the signal block.

Assuming it has the same motor power/car and sufficient power supply, a 9-car train would have the same acceleration and deceleration as a 6-car train.

However, platform re-occupation time would be increased, as well as junction occupation times.

[somebody]

If you look at other counties such as the UK, then you would have a higher frequency service on lines between population centres of equivalent sizes to Brisbane and Gold Coast.

Where are you thinking of?  What sort of corridor length?

I really think that the percentage is low in increasing the frequency on the Gold Coast Line; you wouldn't stimulate that much demand.  In spite of the 140km/h running, it's still noticably slower than driving, and that's even more true if you increase beyond 4tph.

EDIT 2: The ICRS claims that by 2026 the Beenleigh peak trains will need to loop around via Tennyson even with the two new tunnels.  Obviously, this apocalyptic scenario is one that should be avoided at all costs.

Why is this apocalyptic? Whilst it has some issues, isn't is making the best use of available track capacity at the time? I'm sure Tennyson residents wouldn't think it's apocalyptic.

I suppose I got a little carried away there.  Still, I don't think it's an acceptable solution.

[Derwan]

I guess the question is, should the new city stations be designed for 9-car trains (or to allow easy expansion at a later date) - just in case we want to move to 9-car trains at some stage in the future?  Should other new stations (e.g. Springfield line) and major upgrades allow for longer platforms?

If we started moving towards it, the future cost of implementation will be less.

Or do we assume that we will never introduce 9-car trains and build everything to cater only for 6-car trains?

[mufreight]

Being realistic about this the six car module is a good workable size, at this time there are still a number of stations in the citytrain network area that only cater for three car sets and in some cases not even three cars.
The provision of platforms to cater for 9 car sets has definite merit as part of any new construction, perhaps even only if provision is made for future extension of the platforms, of more use at the present time would be the raising of platform heights to carriage floor level as a progressive roll out.

[O_128]

Im sure we have had this discussion before. Passengers would rather highly frequent services with 6 cars than les frequent 9 car trains

[Arnz]

Being realistic about this the six car module is a good workable size, at this time there are still a number of stations in the citytrain network area that only cater for three car sets and in some cases not even three cars.
The provision of platforms to cater for 9 car sets has definite merit as part of any new construction, perhaps even only if provision is made for future extension of the platforms, of more use at the present time would be the raising of platform heights to carriage floor level as a progressive roll out.

Tennyson, Thomas Street - Thagoona (5 stations on Rosewood Line) and Traveston Station are the short platforms.  

Thats 7 stations on the network that has short platforms.  Traveston is the only station that can fit one-car. 

Also, Suburban units passing through Tennyson and west of Ipswich are under the "Zero Harm" policy of locking the back cars up.

[stephenk]

If you look at other counties such as the UK, then you would have a higher frequency service on lines between population centres of equivalent sizes to Brisbane and Gold Coast.

Where are you thinking of?  What sort of corridor length?

Glasgow to Edinburgh - 4tph (of which intermediate stations have at least 2tph)
Edinburgh pop 446,000
Glasgow pop 635,000
Travel time approx. 50mins.
Distance approx. 80km.

Liverpool to Manchester - 6tph (different service patterns, two routes)
Liverpool pop 442,000
Manchester pop 464,200
Travel time approx 45mins
Distance approx 56km

and in less detail (as I don't have all day),
Leeds to Sheffield - 5tph (different service patterns, two routes)
Leeds to Manchester Piccadilly - 4tph
West Coastway Line (west of Brighton) - 5tph

next instalment - Japan!

[somebody]

Im sure we have had this discussion before. Passengers would rather highly frequent services with 6 cars than les frequent 9 car trains

I didn't say otherwise.  But would by how much if it were a 4tph 9 car off peak service vs a 6tph 6 car off peak service.  No way would the extra pax go near being worthwhile on that scenario.

Ok, yes those UK examples may be moderately comparable but have faster commutes.  We may eventually get to requiring a better GC service, but I would say it's something like a decade off.  There are far more important priorities.

[stephenk]

Im sure we have had this discussion before. Passengers would rather highly frequent services with 6 cars than les frequent 9 car trains

I mentioned earlier that 9-cars would probably not be justified until the network is at near capacity anyway. So I doubt that moving to 9-cars would result in a frequency reduction

[O_128]

Im sure we have had this discussion before. Passengers would rather highly frequent services with 6 cars than les frequent 9 car trains

I mentioned earlier that 9-cars would probably not be justified until the network is at near capacity anyway. So I doubt that moving to 9-cars would result in a frequency reduction

Yes what i mean also is that people would rather a ramp up in frequency than capacity for exisiting trains

[mufreight]

Im sure we have had this discussion before. Passengers would rather highly frequent services with 6 cars than les frequent 9 car trains

I mentioned earlier that 9-cars would probably not be justified until the network is at near capacity anyway. So I doubt that moving to 9-cars would result in a frequency reduction

You have to be joking, the beancounters work on capacity and to save staffing costs would reduce frequency even further off peak to cut costs arguing that they are providing more capacity.
Such a move would drive off even more commuters while the convenience of increased frequency operating six car sets using present infrastructure would cost less than the reconstruction of the entire cityrail network infrastructure to accomodate nine car sets and would attract higher levels of use.

[somebody]

Im sure we have had this discussion before. Passengers would rather highly frequent services with 6 cars than les frequent 9 car trains

I mentioned earlier that 9-cars would probably not be justified until the network is at near capacity anyway. So I doubt that moving to 9-cars would result in a frequency reduction

You have to be joking, the beancounters work on capacity and to save staffing costs would reduce frequency even further off peak to cut costs arguing that they are providing more capacity.
Such a move would drive off even more commuters while the convenience of increased frequency operating six car sets using present infrastructure would cost less than the reconstruction of the entire cityrail network infrastructure to accomodate nine car sets and would attract higher levels of use.

My original point was that if 19tph would be required from the Gold Coast in peak by 2026, then wouldn't it be better to run 9 car sets to/from the Gold Coast?  Then we should be building the 2016 tunnel with 9 car platforms, which would allow at least some of the Beenleigh/Kuraby trains into that tunnel rather than having many of them looping around via Tennyson.

So can we agree that if those 19tph forecasts are correct then the 2016 tunnel should have 9 car platforms?