Manly-Cannon Hill third track

[somebody]

I am questioning why this was ever proposed (in the Inner City Rail Capacity Study)?  Wouldn't it be significantly cheaper to just electrify the freight track and use that?  Those freight trains aren't going anywhere in the peak with the Gold Coast trains running up and down the dual guage.

http://www.transport.qld.gov.au/resources/file/eba5394985ce278/Pdf_icrc_pre_feasibility_report_section_6.pdf

[longboi]

^^
They will be if the 4th track Fairfield-Banoon and grade separation at Yeerongpilly goes ahead.

[mufreight]

Sorry Somebody, at the present time the Dual gauge line sees quite a bit of use be coal trains on the NG and intermodal services on the SG which was the main purpose of the dual gauge, the use by NG pasenger services is still constricted by the number of train paths over the South Brisbane - Roma Street section and through the CBD.
Nice to have all of these pie in the sky aspirations but reality is until such time as additional capacity is provided both cross river and through the CBD there is little room for increase in the numbers of services that can be operated.

[somebody]

Sorry Somebody, at the present time the Dual gauge line sees quite a bit of use be coal trains on the NG and intermodal services on the SG which was the main purpose of the dual gauge, the use by NG pasenger services is still constricted by the number of train paths over the South Brisbane - Roma Street section and through the CBD.
Nice to have all of these pie in the sky aspirations but reality is until such time as additional capacity is provided both cross river and through the CBD there is little room for increase in the numbers of services that can be operated.

But does this happen in peak hour?  How could it.  That would be the only time you'd need to do these overtaking moves.

^^
They will be if the 4th track Fairfield-Banoon and grade separation at Yeerongpilly goes ahead.

How are you going to get between Fairfield and the Park Rd flyover?  Or will it be quad tracks as far north as that?

[mufreight]

A little bit of reality, what is the point of additional tracks to the Park Road if there is not the track capacity to enable all of these additional services to operate to or through the CBD, the additional infrastructure is needed to resolve these problems BEFORE not after total gridlock of the rail system so the proposals that you make can be implemented   

[somebody]

Mate,
Are we allowed to talk about something other than the cross river rail project?  Did I say that we don't need the Cross River Rail project?

A third track on the Cleveland Line isn't really to increase the capacity of the line, but to allow express trains without taking a capacity hit on the line.

[ozbob]

Excellent ideas being posted.   Some rationalistation of train patterns eg. do away with express services on the Ferny Grove line, standardise express patterns on the Ipswich line, utilise assets already in place will give more capacity.  There has been discussion at Special Community Reference Group meetings as well exploring some of these ideas. 

All points of view valid! 

I recall coming inbound on the freight line on a steam trip from Thornside a few years ago,  and we went over the daul gauge flyover at Park Road, all very impressive.

[somebody]

^^
They will be if the 4th track Fairfield-Banoon and grade separation at Yeerongpilly goes ahead.

I see what you are saying now.  The 3rd & 4th track will go underground at Fairfield to the cross river link.  But if we have capacity to throw at slow freight trains, what do we need the fourth track for?  I don't see the need for it, unless it's to improve frequency in the counter peak direction.  Is there a need to do that?

Excellent ideas being posted.   Some rationalistation of train patterns eg. do away with express services on the Ferny Grove line, standardise express patterns on the Ipswich line, utilise assets already in place will give more capacity.  There has been discussion at Special Community Reference Group meetings as well exploring some of these ideas. 

I personally am not in love with the idea of abolishing expresses on the Ferny Grove line.  It's already slow enough to get to the busiest suburban station on the network (Ferny Grove), and we're going to make it worse?

[mufreight]

The slow freight services that you feel are occuping train paths and that you indicate should be abandoned so that there would be more capacity for passenger services actualy were the reason for the dual gauge line and provide the revenue that in turn pays for the provision of passenger services.
Should as you indicate these services be removed then the freight would by necesicity have to be moved by road increasing transport costs which indirectly you would pay for, there is also the point that the road system could not cope with the increased traffic as a consequence, the coal traffic would based on ten trains per day see 480 return B Double movements alone, current coal traffic alone is believed to be something like 14 trains per day at present add on two or possibly three grain trains which would increase the road movements by another 100 to 150 and then the intermodal traffic of another two or more trains and the practical reality might start to dawn.
Upgrading the road infrastructure to meet that demand without considering the increased consequent transport cost would cost more than the cost of rail infrastructure to meet the commuter demand.
Next suggestion please.

[somebody]

The slow freight services that you feel are occuping train paths and that you indicate should be abandoned so that there would be more capacity for passenger services actualy were the reason for the dual gauge line and provide the revenue that in turn pays for the provision of passenger services.
Should as you indicate these services be removed then the freight would by necesicity have to be moved by road increasing transport costs which indirectly you would pay for, there is also the point that the road system could not cope with the increased traffic as a consequence, the coal traffic would based on ten trains per day see 480 return B Double movements alone, current coal traffic alone is believed to be something like 14 trains per day at present add on two or possibly three grain trains which would increase the road movements by another 100 to 150 and then the intermodal traffic of another two or more trains and the practical reality might start to dawn.
Upgrading the road infrastructure to meet that demand without considering the increased consequent transport cost would cost more than the cost of rail infrastructure to meet the commuter demand.
Next suggestion please.

Come on, I didn't say that freight trains should be abandonned for road freight.  What I was trying to say was that I don't think there is much, if any, need to run freight trains on the dual guage during the commuter peaks.  It couldn't be being done now on that part of the network and the sky isn't falling in.  Coal & Grain could certainly wait, but intermodal might be different.  Doubt it though.

[ozbob]

This in an interesting thread IMHO.   There is a real sensitivity to the impact of a passenger ramp up on freight.

This study is an indication of this --> http://www.systemwide.com.au/coal-capacity-study.php

My own view is that the sooner the freight can be separated out from the passenger urban rail network the better. This won't happen for a long time so I guess we will continue to see the conflict for paths.   I have noted a number of coal trains (and cattle) particularly running through on the Ipswich line at peak periods. 

Cheers!

[somebody]

This in an interesting thread IMHO.   There is a real sensitivity to the impact of a passenger ramp up on freight.

I think I might have touched one of mufreight's sore points here!  Look at his/her username and it's not a surprise.

My own view is that the sooner the freight can be separated out from the passenger urban rail network the better. This won't happen for a long time so I guess we will continue to see the conflict for paths.

There's two ways of looking at this:
(1) By having freight use the left overs of the commuter network and only paying for the wear that you cause, you should have much cheaper rail access in the city
(2) By having freight pay for it's own segregated corridors, you optimise the investment outside of the cities

In the US, (2) applies big time, but my personal gut feeling is that (1) is the correct approach at the moment for QLD.  I'm open to counter arguments though.

I have noted a number of coal trains (and cattle) particularly running through on the Ipswich line at peak periods. 

I suspect that these coal trains would be needing to wait somewhere along the Tennyson loop.  Not sure where cattle trains actually go to, but they could have to wait too.  Unless you are talking about outbound trains.

[Jon Bryant]

As a regular Cleveland line traveller I can advise that we see coal trains running in peak hour morning and night almost every day if not everyday.

I think there needs to be a freight only line to the port using the Gateway easement so it does not run through residential areas nor conflict with the commuter traffic. No sutre how it connects to Acacia Ridge but ther must be a way.

I also think this group's ideas should not be restricted by budget constraints as there seems to be enough money for freeway/tunnel building when we know the stupidy of these investments.

[O_128]

As a regular Cleveland line traveller I can advise that we see coal trains running in peak hour morning and night almost every day if not everyday.

I think there needs to be a freight only line to the port using the Gateway easement so it does not run through residential areas nor conflict with the commuter traffic. No sutre how it connects to Acacia Ridge but ther must be a way.

I also think this group's ideas should not be restricted by budget constraints as there seems to be enough money for freeway/tunnel building when we know the stupidy of these investments.

i agree if anything another freight line will probably eventually be neede

[somebody]

As a regular Cleveland line traveller I can advise that we see coal trains running in peak hour morning and night almost every day if not everyday.

Is that in both directions in both peaks?  Or does the AM peak have a direction and the PM peak have a direction.

I'm not sure how they are getting between Park Rd and Yeerongpilly.

EDIT:
So is the 4th track between Fairfield & Banoon needed mostly for freight then?  If so, is that the best way to improve capacity?  I would have thought a passing loop, probably around Lindum would be more effective.

[ozbob]

mufreight is cool, he is just annoyed as most I think about the lack of proactive investment.

Re coalies,  regularly see a down coalie (full) coming through Oxley around 5pm, often up empty around the same time.  Varies a little but more often than not.  The outbound obviously does a mad sprint out past Rosewood.  The inbound might well sit on the Tennyson loop line for a while I suspect.  There has been problems in the past with a coalie failing in the middle of the peak.  Less than desirable but with the considerable number being operated (plans for more too  )  they push them through. 

[somebody]

mufreight is cool, he is just annoyed as most I think about the lack of proactive investment.

Re coalies,  regularly see a down coalie (full) coming through Oxley around 5pm, often up empty around the same time.  Varies a little but more often than not.  The outbound obviously does a mad sprint out past Rosewood.  The inbound might well sit on the Tennyson loop line for a while I suspect.  There has been problems in the past with a coalie failing in the middle of the peak.  Less than desirable but with the considerable number being operated (plans for more too  )  they push them through. 

Down at Oxley?  Doesn't that mean westbound.  Why would coalies be heading up the hill at Toowoomba?

[mufreight]

Yes the Down direction between Brisbane and Ipswich is westbound and the empty coal traffic operating to mines on the downs such as Oakey for loading and return to the Port of Brisbane so they have no choice but to operate these services in both directions 24/7
Sorry made a fluff up on this one the up direction is westbound between Brisbane and Ipswich, got too used to the up direction being into the the city and the reverse direction between Brisbane and Ipswich is a carry over from when Ipswich was the originating point for trains on the western line which ran from Ipswich to Biggs Camp (Grandchester)

[ozbob]

The down is inbound (east), outbound is up at Oxley (west)     confusing I know ..  often get it mixed up.

Up and Down directions in Queensland are NOT related to Roma Street,
Ipswich or any particular station.
Generally, trains heading south or west are UP. There are some lines
that don't comply with this but it is generally correct.

http://www.railpage.org.au/ausrail/97july/0020.html  


Also see this Metropolitan System Information Pack - Issue 2 - Sept 2007

Page 19

Between Roma Street and Corinda, the maximum grade (not compensated for horizontal alignment) that a westbound (Up) train will encounter is 1 in 65 (Sherwood) whilst for an eastbound (Down) train the maximum grade is 1 in 68 (Indooroopilly) with existing minimum nominal horizontal curve radii are as follows :-
running line
266 m (Taringa)
Between Corinda and Rosewood, the maximum grade (not compensated for horizontal alignment) that a westbound (Up) train will encounter is 1 in 70 (Riverview) whilst for an eastbound (Down) train the maximum grade is 1 in 67 (Darra) with existing minimum nominal horizontal curve radii are as follows :-
running line
331 m (Goodna)

[somebody]

So, posts in this thread seem to imply that the peak Gold Coast trains don't use the DG anymore.  Is that why the triplication was extended to Kuraby?  Or am I barking up the wrong tree.

[stephenk]

I personally am not in love with the idea of abolishing expresses on the Ferny Grove line.  It's already slow enough to get to the busiest suburban station on the network (Ferny Grove), and we're going to make it worse?

The expresses are approx 3-5mins faster than the all stations services. Yet running an express service creates an approx 10 mins extra wait for those whose stations are not served by the expresses, who have to endure service gaps up to 23mins. Thus taking into account the overall journey times (including average waiting times) for all Ferny Grove Line users, there is no benefit in running express services.

[somebody]

I personally am not in love with the idea of abolishing expresses on the Ferny Grove line.  It's already slow enough to get to the busiest suburban station on the network (Ferny Grove), and we're going to make it worse?

The expresses are approx 3-5mins faster than the all stations services. Yet running an express service creates an approx 10 mins extra wait for those whose stations are not served by the expresses, who have to endure service gaps up to 23mins. Thus taking into account the overall journey times (including average waiting times) for all Ferny Grove Line users, there is no benefit in running express services.

The trade off doesn't need to be quite that extreme.  If you alternate "All stations to Mitchelton" and express services (not completely sure of best pattern), most stations get equivalent frequency (say 4tph for each pattern).  The main problem with doing so is inner city rail capacity.

[somebody]

for all Ferny Grove Line users, there is no benefit in running express services.

Thinking some more about this, it depends on frequency, mostly.  At 6tph overall line capacity, I agree with your critique.  At 8tph it's a bit marginal with Mitchelton terminators, but I don't think I can defend it except on cost saving grounds.  The sweet spot for Mitchelton terminators/FG exp's is probably 10tph.  More than that and expresses are catching up to the stoppers.  So a turn up and go pax's average wait is increased by 3 mins, but on the outer part of the line you are saving 5 mins in travel time.  Still requires a couple of arguments to counter the inconveniences to the inner part of the line: these are:
1) Improved fleet/crew utilisation
2) There are some pax who can read a timetable, and they are much better off on the outer part than outlined above.
3) No need to duplicate Keperra-FG


There is another alternative and that's a skip-stop pattern, but again it doesn't work out at 6tph.  I think it would at 8tph, but you still need the duplication Keperra-FG then.

[stephenk]

The trade off doesn't need to be quite that extreme.  If you alternate "All stations to Mitchelton" and express services (not completely sure of best pattern), most stations get equivalent frequency (say 4tph for each pattern).  The main problem with doing so is inner city rail capacity.

This idea was suggested in the Inner City Rail Capacity Study (ICRCS). 4tph Ferny Grove express (exp Enoggera to Bowen Hills), and 4tph Mitchelton all stations. This would provide a 15min frequency to all stations, which would be acceptable. A 15min repeating timetable would also fit in with the current am peak Gold Coast and Beenleigh timetables. The ICRCS timetabled these trains 7.5mins apart. In reality, with 20tph running on the core section, the headways would probably be alternating 6 and 9 mins. There could be issues with reversing times at Mitchelton, as QR seem to like at least 8 mins to reverse a train. QR may need to reduce this figure for Mitchelton reversals. (Metro de Santiago reverse at non-terminus stations by similar methods and manage a 25 sec reversing time, fitting into 105sec frequency service, but it does have better signalling).

However, the ICRCS also stated that even with this timetable, there would be overcrowded services. So the duplication from Keperra to Ferny Grove is definately needed. Once this is completed, then the Ferny Grove line can have a frequent all stations service, providing a metro like service.

[somebody]

However, the ICRCS also stated that even with this timetable, there would be overcrowded services. So the duplication from Keperra to Ferny Grove is definately needed. Once this is completed, then the Ferny Grove line can have a frequent all stations service, providing a metro like service.

Hmm, how would the duplication help overcrowding, if the same number of trains overall were being run?  The only way would be if one of the patterns was crowded and the other wasn't.  That could be balanced by varying the number of stations the express stopped at.  Looking at the passenger load survey, slightly over 50% of pax on the Ferny Grove line board between Mitchelton & FG (inclusive).  Therefore, to prevent overcrowding, the expresses may need to miss Enogerra &/or Gaythorne, depending on how many of the Mitchelton pax get on the all stopper.  That means an express can't follow an all stopper 6mins later.  Needs to be 9 or 12.

[mufreight]

Skip stop operating paterns are a pain from the operating viewpoint, a far more reliable service can be operated by removing all express services off a short haul line such as FG and the loading paterns tend to even out and additional services are easier to add to cope with increasing commuter numbers and operate reliably if all services operate to a common running time, the all stations services would encounter less loading delays making them more reliable and possibly quicker than they are at present due to less overcrowding.

[somebody]

mufreight,
The easiest way isn't always the best.

If we don't have the Keperra-FG duplication, we can't do 8tph without squeezing margins ridicilously tight.  Given then, that we need the Mitchelton terminators, at least for now, why not make the FG trains run express?  If you don't, they would be too crowded unless you did silly timetabling like having the Mitchelton train leave 3 mins before the FG train. Where would the advantage of that be over express trains?

[stephenk]

Hmm, how would the duplication help overcrowding, if the same number of trains overall were being run?

I never said that the same number of trains would be run. Given that there are still approx 6 slots per hour from the North on the suburbans, then there is still track capacity to allow an increase in services on the FG line once the duplication is completed.

Even if the same number of trains were to be run, a post-duplication all stations 8tph with operating margin is considerably better than running a no-duplication 8tph split between 4tph FG expresses and 4tph Mitchelton all stations with limited operating margin. A delay caused by the single track section can cause knock on effects to all other lines. Thus 8tph with a duplication is far far better for the whole CityTrain network than running a split 8tph without a duplication. There is no question that Ferny Grove-Keperra does not need a duplication, and this is why the project is going ahead!

Once the duplication is complete, and thus Ferny Grove can handle approx 11tph, there will be absolutely no need for express services. Many metro systems have lines with termini further from their CBD stations than Ferny Grove, and they don't have the need to run express services!

That means an express can't follow an all stopper 6mins later.  Needs to be 9 or 12.

I mentioned that the services would have to be alternating 6 and 9 mins. If the express ran 9 mins after the all stations, then it would not catch up the all stations. Whether this pattern allows for Mitchelton trains to reverse, I haven't had chance to work out. There is no reason why two ex-FG line trains cannot run onto the suburban lines consecutively.

Looking at the passenger load survey, slightly over 50% of pax on the Ferny Grove line board between Mitchelton & FG (inclusive).  Therefore, to prevent overcrowding, the expresses may need to miss Enogerra &/or Gaythorne, depending on how many of the Mitchelton pax get on the all stopper.

I'm sure the QR timetablers used this theory in the mediocre March 2008 timetable to remove expresses from Enoggera and Gaythorne. Unfortunately the result is that the pm peak services that follow the expresses are usually more overcrowded than the express. It is really annoying when there are spare seats available on the express, to then have to wait another 10mins for a train to Enoggera which is standing room only.

unless you did silly timetabling like having the Mitchelton train leave 3 mins before the FG train. Where would the advantage of that be over express trains?

If this service pattern allows for more operating margin than other service patterns then it may not be a bad idea.

[somebody]

Even if the same number of trains were to be run, a post-duplication all stations 8tph with operating margin is considerably better than running a no-duplication 8tph split between 4tph FG expresses and 4tph Mitchelton all stations with limited operating margin. A delay caused by the single track section can cause knock on effects to all other lines. Thus 8tph with a duplication is far far better for the whole CityTrain network than running a split 8tph without a duplication. There is no question that Ferny Grove-Keperra does not need a duplication, and this is why the project is going ahead!

Once the duplication is complete, and thus Ferny Grove can handle approx 11tph, there will be absolutely no need for express services. Many metro systems have lines with termini further from their CBD stations than Ferny Grove, and they don't have the need to run express services!

Only 11tph?  Why?  Are they not building a double crossover?

This comparison is unfair.  You are comparing express services with less infrastructure to no express services with more infrastructure.

Do those metro services you mention have the bias towards two really busy stations near and at the terminus?  M & FG handle something like 40% of the pax on the line.  They also could be unable to run express services as they do reduce capacity.

I'm sure the QR timetablers used this theory in the mediocre March 2008 timetable to remove expresses from Enoggera and Gaythorne. Unfortunately the result is that the pm peak services that follow the expresses are usually more overcrowded than the express. It is really annoying when there are spare seats available on the express, to then have to wait another 10mins for a train to Enoggera which is standing room only.

Not having access to that timetable, I can't comment.  But based on the current timetable, yes there is no point in bothering.  Express trains need to be regular and also you need to provide adequate frequency for the stations missed. At 6tph you can't do the latter.  This point I have already agreed with.

unless you did silly timetabling like having the Mitchelton train leave 3 mins before the FG train. Where would the advantage of that be over express trains?

If this service pattern allows for more operating margin than other service patterns then it may not be a bad idea.

I was joking when I said this.  Average waiting times are worse on the inner portion with 8tph as compared to running 6tph all the way to FG.

[stephenk]

Only 11tph?  Why?  Are they not building a double crossover?

That is assuming QR allowing 8 mins dwell time , which seems to be their current policy. 8mins dwell + 3mins platform re-occupation time = 11mins. 11mins / 2 platforms = 5.5mins = 11tph.

Of course, if QR could cope with a faster dwell time, then the frequency would be higher. London Underground allow 4 mins for a driver to change end - this would result in 17tph.

This comparison is unfair.  You are comparing express services with less infrastructure to no express services with more infrastructure.

The point I'm trying to make is that we need more infrastructure, which thankfully will happen.

Do those metro services you mention have the bias towards two really busy stations near and at the terminus?  M & FG handle something like 40% of the pax on the line.  They also could be unable to run express services as they do reduce capacity.

Most metro systems and many suburban rail systems do not run expresses because:-
1) The length of the line does not justify expresses.
2) The frequency prevents the use of expresses.
3) A high frequency all stations service is more attractive than a lower frequency mixed all stations/express service or skip-stop service.
Many metro systems just like the FG line, do have some stations which are exceptionally busier than others, often the terminus, or stations with many bus connections. Many metro systems use short-reversers to increase the capacity nearer to the CBD.

Examples:
Singapore North-South Line - 44km, terminus in CBD. 2.1min peak frequency, no expresses, short-reversers.
Singapore North-East Line - 20km, terminus in CBD. 4min peak frequency, no expresses.
Shanghai Line 1 - Terminus approx 25km from CBD), 2.75min frequency, no expresses, short-reversers.
Vancouver Expo Line - 26.8km, terminus in CBD. 2-5 min peak frequency, no expresses, shares track with another line.
BART Pittsburg/Bay Point Line - 44km to Oakland CBD. 15min frequency, no expresses.
BART Freemont - 44km to Oakland. 7.5mins peak frequency, no expresses
Berlin S-Bahn S7 (Pottsdam) - terminus approx 25-30km to CBD, 10mins frequency, no expresses.

This is just a small selection of metro's and suburban rail systems with lines considerably longer than the Ferny Grove Line's 16km that do not require expresses.

Some metro and suburban rail systems do run expresses, but they usually have 3-4 tracks to allow overtaking, as opposed to Ferny Grove's 1-2 tracks.

A few metro and suburban rail systems run skip-stop services, but the time saved by running the service barely makes up for the decrease in frequency, especially for inner stations. Skip stop services can make journeys difficult for those not travelling to the CBD.

[O_128]

what we really need is a signallying upgrade to do these kind of frequencies!!!

[stephenk]

what we really need is a signallying upgrade to do these kind of frequencies!!!

What we really need a new line through the CBD!

[somebody]

I was intrigued by a couple of your points here:

That is assuming QR allowing 8 mins dwell time , which seems to be their current policy.

FWIW, CityRail does it with about 6 mins, and their trains are longer and so take longer to walk from one end to the other.  More importantly, they do without any make up time in the CBD.

The wierd thing about the current FG timetable is that there is a 23 min dwell at FG.  This is long enough that the inbound train only just clears the single track in time!

Examples:
BART Pittsburg/Bay Point Line - 44km to Oakland CBD. 15min frequency, no expresses.

I looked up the timetable here: It's 15 mins off peak.  In the peak times it runs at more like 4-6 mins frequencies on the inner part.  I was never advocating expresses off peak for FG.

There seems to be two lines running to Freemont, each with 15min frequency all day, but I assume that it's two tracks on the outer part.  Seems more or less equivalent to 8tph to FG.

[somebody]

Allow me to propose a skip stop timetable, assuming 8tph:
Pattern 1: All to Mitchelton, express to FG
9mins later:
Pattern 2: express Windsor to Alderley and Enogerra to Mitchelton, all to FG.

The basis of the above is stations with less than 600 AM peak inbound boardings get a skip.

The same 6/9 minute spacing with trains stopping all stations has an average wait of 3.9mins.  For the skipped stations that is pushed up to 7.5mins. Oxford Park, Grovely, and Keperra might be having to wait an additional 3.6mins, but they are saving 2-3mins in transit. But FG commuters are saving around 2-3mins, Mitchelton 1.5-2mins on average and Enogerra commuters probably about 1mins.

The only notable losers of such a pattern are people trying to get between stations skipped on one pattern and one skipped on the other and Gaythorne, Newmarket and Wilston.  The latter get no travel time benefit, but have to wait an additional 3.6mins. The length of a moderately long song.  Diddems, given that they account for around 20% of the line's users.  I would think that the advantages to a bit over 50% of the users (while fairly slight) outweigh that.

I can't see that operating margins aren't quite wide here either.

[stephenk]

Allow me to propose a skip stop timetable, assuming 8tph:
Pattern 1: All to Mitchelton, express to FG
9mins later:
Pattern 2: express Windsor to Alderley and Enogerra to Mitchelton, all to FG.

The basis of the above is stations with less than 600 AM peak inbound boardings get a skip.

The same 6/9 minute spacing with trains stopping all stations has an average wait of 3.9mins.  For the skipped stations that is pushed up to 7.5mins. Oxford Park, Grovely, and Keperra might be having to wait an additional 3.6mins, but they are saving 2-3mins in transit. But FG commuters are saving around 2-3mins, Mitchelton 1.5-2mins on average and Enogerra commuters probably about 1mins.

The only notable losers of such a pattern are people trying to get between stations skipped on one pattern and one skipped on the other and Gaythorne, Newmarket and Wilston.  The latter get no travel time benefit, but have to wait an additional 3.6mins. The length of a moderately long song.  Diddems, given that they account for around 20% of the line's users.  I would think that the advantages to a bit over 50% of the users (while fairly slight) outweigh that.

I can't see that operating margins aren't quite wide here either.

Is this idea pre or post duplication?

Pre duplication it would be impossible as the single track section restricts headways to approx 9-10mins.

Post duplication, why not just run all stations trains every 6/9 mins? The improvement in average waiting time would make the service attractive to ALL users. Do you see London Underground or Paris Metro skipping quiet stops so save a few minutes journey time? No. Frequency is the key to making public transport more attractive. All stations trains would also result in a more robust timetable - delays or cancellations would have less impact as the following train will still serve all stations. All stations services also benefit school children who travel from suburban to suburban stations often on the same line. The above service pattern would also confuse the hell out of infrequent users.

There is also an issue with selecting stations with less than 600 users for having reduced service. Have you considered that a more frequent train service will improve and redistribute passenger figures? Have you considered that many passengers drive to stations and vote with their cars. When most expresses were dropped to Enoggera, guess what, the number of people using Enoggera decreased. When Ferny Grove car park had space issues, and Grovely opened a larger car park, the number of users of Grovely increased massively.

I see little argument for not running all FG line trains all stations once the line is fully duplicated.

[somebody]

Is this idea pre or post duplication?

Post.  Pre wouldn't work for the reason you point out.

I see little argument for not running all FG line trains all stations once the line is fully duplicated.

At least you see some then.  There was one other point that I forgot to make: Fleet utilisation.  Mitchelton terminators & FG expresses finish their revenue service faster than FG all stoppers and can return to form a new service quicker.  This is a much more important restriction at the moment than track capacity as I understand it.

You may not see the London Underground or Paris metro running skip stops, but you certainly see CityRail doing so (although the Epping-Chatswood link will have reduced some of this), also New York & Philadelphia according to wiki.

[mufreight]

Sorry Somebody but must support Stephenk on this one, and add that service on the FG line as it exists at present would be improved in terms of load distribution by removing all express services on that line with the potential result that an aditional service would be required each hour as a more passemger friendly and convenient service, (improved service frequency) will attract more passengers.

[O_128]

back on topic. Manly to cannon hill triplication with possible stabiling at murrarrie? can it be done?

[stephenk]

back on topic. Manly to cannon hill triplication with possible stabiling at murrarrie? can it be done?

Not currently necessary, and Murarrie would not be the best place for stabling. Third platform at Manly, stabling at Thorneside, and partial duplications between Manly and Cleveland are what the Cleveland Line needs.

[O_128]

back on topic. Manly to cannon hill triplication with possible stabiling at murrarrie? can it be done?

Not currently necessary, and Murarrie would not be the best place for stabling. Third platform at Manly, stabling at Thorneside, and partial duplications between Manly and Cleveland are what the Cleveland Line needs.

the main reason i said murrarrie is that there is a lot of room there and it is also a  industrial. With the manly cleveland duplication we may aswell do the whole thing and not a half asses partial attempt.