301,000 new services

[dwb]

301,000 new seats
Every cent collected from the fare changes will be pumped back into better public transport services.
Over the next year, this equates to 301,000 new public transport seats every single week.
We will deliver:

• 201,000 seats on buses
• 83,400 seats on trains
• 17,000 seats on ferries

from "Public Transport Going Paperless" http://download.translink.com.au/ticketing/100104_fares.pdf

So presumably this means that new services will be launched some time in the new year (I'm guessing February to coincide with uni going back).

201,000 seats on buses (pax per bus ~67) equates to roughly 3000 new services per week
83,400 seats on trains (pax per 6car train ~750) equates to roughly 111 new services per week
17,000 seats on ferries (pax per citycat ~160) equates to roughly 106 new services per week

3000 new bus services per week could equate to roughly 500 services per day M-F, 250 services per day S-S
111 new train services per week could equate to 18 new services per day M-F, and 10 services per day S-S
106 new ferry services per week could equate to 15 new services every day of the week

Given the last service improvement announcements have included:
$6.8m/yr for 79,000 new pax on 4 new rail services per day (M-F) and 26 new buses (64,000 new bus seats/wk)
$1.5m/yr for 151 new weekly services at Logan, 15 services per day (M-F), 38 new services per day (S-S)
$67,000 for 7 weeks of 2 new services per day (M-F)

This must be costing them $25-30m/yr
[$5.6m for trains ($1000 per service)+ $23.4m for buses ($150 per service) + $?ferries]
to cross reference, $6.8m bought 79,000pax seats per week, so 301,000/79,000=3.8, 3.8*6.8=$25.84m

But if you assume that 300,000 daily commuters travel on average of 4 zones, and at least initially 2/3 of passengers AREN'T using Go card, then the fare raise will mean that TL will reap roughly $680k/day extra (at least to begin with).
[Workings - 4zone daily is increasing $3.40 from $7.20 to $10.60, assume 2/3 of 300,000 assumed commuters buy paper dailies/2 singles and pay an extra $3.4 per day.... 200,000x3.4=$680k/day]

If we assume the switch to Go card from paper for the remaining 200,000 daily passengers is linear over 360 days, then TL will raise roughly an extra $122.4m in 2010 ($3.4*200,000pax/2*360days). And if we assume my cost estimates are at least in the ball park, then the $30m cost for extra services will have been paid off in under 3 months.

But I guess it won't be linear, a bunch will switch before January then I'm guessing not many more will switch in January, then a lot in Feb, then by end of April 75% of trips will be go card with the remaining 25% holding out almost til end of next year.

So what happens with the extra cash once these services have been paid off... TL states in their brochure that it won't be until AFTER next year, over the next 5 years that fare increases will reduce the proportion of subsidy from 75% down to 70%.

Given that the TOPTA legislation (s44 http://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/LEGISLTN/CURRENT/T/TrantOpTLAA08.pdf) requires Translink to provide to the Minister quarterly system performance reports including revenue and expenditure reporting, then perhaps we should get on the bandwagon and try and get at the very least a high level overview of this released under Right to Information legislation?

[O_128]

could we be getting the fabled 15 min off peak services?

[somebody]

could we be getting the fabled 15 min off peak services?

Don't think so, that would be more than 111 services/week.

Indeed, the 18 services probably wouldn't even make it to cover a single line going to 15 min off peak weekday frequency.  Perhaps we are getting a handful of extra peak services on each line.

dwb,
A couple of Methodology points: The nameplate capacity of a 6 car train is about 1000, not 750.  The most popular journey is allegedly 2 zones rather than 4.  Not all of the extra seats will necessarily have bums on them.  But here's the kicker:  It's not just the extra seats which have the price rise!!

Currently there's something like 180mil trips per year.  If these are largely 2 zone, at least 90% are to be paying at least 38c more.
180mil * $0.38 * 0.90 = $61mil in extra revenue.  It seems clear that if your cost estimates are in the ball park then they are NOT spending all the extra revenue on services.

Seems someone is telling porkies, so who's to blame?  Is it the minister or translink, or perhaps our calcs are out.

[dwb]

@somebody

Currently there's something like 180mil trips per year.  If these are largely 2 zone, at least 90% are to be paying at least 38c more.
180mil * $0.38 * 0.90 = $61mil in extra revenue.  It seems clear that if your cost estimates are in the ball park then they are NOT spending all the extra revenue on services.
Seems someone is telling porkies, so who's to blame?  Is it the minister or translink, or perhaps our calcs are out.

Sort of... but not really... this is why I was frustrated when they changed Go card fares originally... they applied the weekly/ten trip discount from paper tickets to *individual* tickets on Go card singles rather than implementing a week or month product on go card. The problem with this is it makes every single Go card trip artificially low.

So now, when they're adjusting their prices it looks like Go card singles are going up (and they are, from last year's go card singles)... but on a balanced perspective it is not false for Translink to make the statement "If you use a Go card for a single journey, you will pay the same or less than two and a half years ago, and less than a paper ticket costs now [in 2010]".

Further if you consider what the 2007 paper price was, and what the 2010 go price will mostly be*, and what the price was when TL launched in 2004, and you realise that CPI between 2004 and now is something like 17%, that in fact the price you pay FOR A SINGLE using the cheapest method in 2010, WILL be cheaper than it was in 2004.

ie a 2004 one zone single cost $2, plus cpi 17% = $2.34 and the Go single in 2010 will be $2.30... ie the real price of a Go card single is cheaper than you would have paid for a single in 2004.

Now, the problems come in when you consider
a) weeklies,
b) monthlies,
c) QR tickets and
d) that as far as I can tell Go card is not up to scratch to provide for 100% of trips (slow gates, lack of tag of points, etc).

This is why I'm frustrated that they are
1) removing QR tickets before they have a weekly or monthly alternative existing on go card
2) jacking up the prices of weeklies and monthlies substantially prior to a weekly or monthly alternative existing on go card

I'm not really concerned that they are jacking up the price of paper singles... there is little reason people should be able to buy these, especially on buses!

In fact what I thought they should have done was to add a flat "levy" to paper tickets (ie singles, dailies, offpeak dailies, weeklies, monthlies). This levy could be a flat $1-2 and be added once to each product.  Ie if you purchase a weekly it would be 8 times the cost of a go card single plus $1, or if you purchased a single, it would also be the cost of a go card single plus $1.  That way weeklies wouldn't proportionally increase in cost by as much as singles... but this would only be a stop-gap until they offered a weekly and monthly style product on go card.

Unfortunately they've taken a different approach (presumably because they don't want to increase the proportion of users purchasing weeklies or monthlies rather than singles).

To start, they have taken the 2007 price for travel in one to ten zones and adjusted it downwards:
-for 11 zones by 5%*
-for 12 zones by 12%*
-for 13 or more zones by 19%*

This gives you the fare table for Go singles.

To calculate Paper singles they've then added 15% annual price rise and the 30% paper premium (ie go card singles will be at least 30% cheaper than paper).

To calculate paper weeklies they've then multiplied out the paper single ticket price by eight (this is now standard from zones 1-23, where as previously the multiplication factor was 8x (1-10), 7.5x (11), 7x (12), 6.5x (13 zones or more)).

To calculate paper monthlies they've then multiplied the weekly by 4.

The result of this is that you now have to travel 46-48x go singles to make up the cost of a paper monthly whereas before it was 32x singles.

This is especially problematic for long distance rail customers as they feel inconvenienced by the slowness of Go compared to paper, but are faced with rather large ticket increases whether on standard monthlies or on QR 3 month tickets that gave an effective 33% discount for a standard commuter.

All this could be solved if Go were
1) as reliable and convenient as they think it is and
2) offered a monthly ticket product.

A monthly is almost certainly in the mix... they just haven't announced it yet.

When they do I hope it will be a value based cap where you can pre-choose any cap value, post-pay and get a certain (increasing) discount the higher the value you choose.  But I'm afraid they'll introduce a standard preselected prepaid zonally based monthly cap that is inefficiently priced, and confusing with adjustments when you travel outside those zones requiring extra 'credit' on the card.

[O_128]

I really dont care until a 15 min off peak is announced

[somebody]

To be honest, I would be reasonably comfortable with the lack of a weekly/monthly product on the go card so long as the frequent user scheme was retained and the flag fall was reasonable.  But it's not.

[dwb]

To be honest, I would be reasonably comfortable with the lack of a weekly/monthly product on the go card so long as the frequent user scheme was retained and the flag fall was reasonable.  But it's not

If what you say is correct, and 95% trips are 2 zone, they they would savage their revenue by reducing the 1 zone fare for little gain.

The frequent user scheme only benefits commuters and in my mind this is not fair. The old monthly cost was paid after 32 journeys in a month (ie one a day), it didn't reset each week... that way casual workers and all sorts of people who on average only travel once a day could gain "value" from it... this is not so with the frequent user scheme (either when it was based on after 6 or as is currently after 10 trips per week each week, without any penalty fares.... ie every error that they have, denies you your frequent traveller discount!

[somebody]

without any penalty fares.... ie every error that they have, denies you your frequent traveller discount!

Didn't notice that part.  Hmm, I might stay with using monthlies.  Honestly, where do they get off charging you a penalty fare when you are on a bus which only runs through 2 zones.  Just charge the 2 zone fare.  Are there many buses which run through more than 4 zones?  Only the 555 OTOH.  Wouldn't it be fairer to charge just to the end of trip?

If what you say is correct, and 95% trips are 2 zone, they they would savage their revenue by reducing the 1 zone fare for little gain.

Only repeated what I heard/read.  Not vouching for it's accuracy.  I don't think I said 95%.

That's probably true.  But how many people getting really short trips aren't doing it on a multi trip ticket (and therefore not paying any extra) anyway?

The sensible long term plan is to abolish the zone system, except for paper tickets, otherwise people travelling to the otherside of town are getting a free ride.

[dwb]

@somebody
my bad, i miss read and mis-interpreted:

If these are largely 2 zone, at least 90% are to be paying at least 38c more.

in regards:

The sensible long term plan is to abolish the zone system, except for paper tickets, otherwise people travelling to the otherside of town are getting a free ride.

well yeah, i agree, system doesn't need zones if it is practicable to do distance based on GPS... and that presumably is within grasp (programming wise who knows), but it may tend to conflict with the "easy to understand" objective of fares. (NB I say 'may).

I disagree with the "freeride" concept... if a passenger travels across town (of which most wouldn't at least very far), then they're most likely going against flow and hence the marginal cost of provision of the counter peak flow section of the trip is near zero anyway... so what's the big deal throwing it in with their already paid for zones.  Also this only applies with travel through Brisbane and not the Gold Coast or Ipswich or North Coast.

[somebody]

I disagree with the "freeride" concept... if a passenger travels across town (of which most wouldn't at least very far), then they're most likely going against flow and hence the marginal cost of provision of the counter peak flow section of the trip is near zero anyway... so what's the big deal throwing it in with their already paid for zones.  Also this only applies with travel through Brisbane and not the Gold Coast or Ipswich or North Coast.

Probably the most appropriate thing is to charge off peak rates for the part of travel away from the city in the AM and towards the city in the PM.

[stephenk]

301,000 new seats
We will deliver:

• 201,000 seats on buses
• 83,400 seats on trains
• 17,000 seats on ferries

I am a bit disappointed by this - I was hoping a larger proportion of these figures would be on rail, resulting in 15 min inner suburban off-peak on the Ipswich, Cleveland, Ferny Grove, and Beenleigh Lines. Some of the 201,000 seats on buses had better be on the Northern Busway!

could we be getting the fabled 15 min off peak services?

Don't think so, that would be more than 111 services/week.

Indeed, the 18 services probably wouldn't even make it to cover a single line going to 15 min off peak weekday frequency.  Perhaps we are getting a handful of extra peak services on each line.

A 15 min off-peak service between the peaks (9am-4pm) would add approx 14 services/direction. Unfortunately 111 services / 5 days =22 services, which is 11 services/direction. Thus, I don't think we will be seeing much in the way of extra off-peak services on lines other than the Ipswich Line. I would expect that the majority of these 111 services will be related to the opening of the Richlands branch.

[dwb]

I am a bit disappointed by this - I was hoping a larger proportion of these figures would be on rail, resulting in 15 min inner suburban off-peak on the Ipswich, Cleveland, Ferny Grove, and Beenleigh Lines. Some of the 201,000 seats on buses had better be on the Northern Busway!

Yes, but these improvements are generally "congestion busting" ie commuter trips, rather than actually better PT generally. I would hope a lot of these seats would be on the Northern and Boggo Road busways!

A 15 min off-peak service between the peaks (9am-4pm) would add approx 14 services/direction. Unfortunately 111 services / 5 days =22 services, which is 11 services/direction. Thus, I don't think we will be seeing much in the way of extra off-peak services on lines other than the Ipswich Line. I would expect that the majority of these 111 services will be related to the opening of the Richlands branch.

Despite what I said above I would hope/expect that at least *some* of these extra services are on the wkend. Also morning peak is more pronounced so I wouldn't necessarily expect to halve morning and evening, especially as when they say "seats" they mean one direction, not two (ie not both inbound and outbound generally).

[somebody]

Yes, but these improvements are generally "congestion busting" ie commuter trips, rather than actually better PT generally. I would hope a lot of these seats would be on the Northern and Boggo Road busways!

Is the Boggo Rd busway a problem too?

A 15 min off-peak service between the peaks (9am-4pm) would add approx 14 services/direction. Unfortunately 111 services / 5 days =22 services, which is 11 services/direction. Thus, I don't think we will be seeing much in the way of extra off-peak services on lines other than the Ipswich Line. I would expect that the majority of these 111 services will be related to the opening of the Richlands branch.

Probably right.  Mon-Thurs that's 6 services/day 7pm-10pm + 2 services 10pm-12am.  Add 4 services Friday Night.  On Sat, 6am-1am 2tph, so 38 services.  -6 on that for Sunday
= 8*5 + 4 + 38 + (38-6) = 114 services. 

Sounds about right.

[haakon]

Are there many buses which run through more than 4 zones?  Only the 555 OTOH. 

The 281 does zones 1 - 8

[Arnz]

re there many buses which run through more than 4 zones?  Only the 555 OTOH.  Wouldn't it be fairer to charge just to the end of trip?

Route 620 operates from Zone 17 - 23 (7 zones).

[somebody]

Based on Translink Tracker (link: http://download.translink.com.au/about/0809q4_tracker.pdf ) current growth rates are:
495 weekly bus trips per day
161 weekly rail trips per day
16 weekly ferry trips per day

Therefore, the seats added will (theoretically) be used up in:
406 days for buses
518 days for trains
3 years for ferries

While some of the growth will be into seats which are now empty, they're only just keeping their heads above water.  i.e. no sizeable reduction in peak hour overcrowding, except perhaps in some localised trouble spots like (hopefully) RCH Herston

[dwb]

http://www.translink.com.au/servicechange.php?id=256

New Gold Coast line services from Varsity Lakes station Effective 14 December 2009

Two new services will increase capacity on the Gold Coast line when Varsity Lakes station opens on Monday 14 December 2009:

Morning service
departs Varsity Lakes at 6.02am - arrives Central station at 7.23am.

Evening service
departs Central station at 5.39pm - arrives Varsity Lakes at 7.03pm.

Varsity Lakes station will be serviced by all trains currently travelling to Robina:
Outbound (Gold Coast) trains will arrive at Varsity Lakes station five minutes after Robina station
Inbound (Brisbane city) trains will depart Varsity Lakes station five minutes earlier than Robina station
The first inbound service will depart Varsity Lakes at 5.18am.
Connecting buses will also service the station.

Affected timetables
Gold Coast/Robina line - effective 2 August 2009

[#Metro]

Perhaps Ipswich won't be the first line to get 15 min frequency...
LRT being installed as well. Its all Go for the Gold Coast...

[Fridge]

re there many buses which run through more than 4 zones?  Only the 555 OTOH.  Wouldn't it be fairer to charge just to the end of trip?

Route 620 operates from Zone 17 - 23 (7 zones).

the 649 Caboolture-Namboure Railbus: 8 - 17 (10 zones).

There would be many bus services in the suburbs, especially on the Coasts that would travel more than 4 zones. Plus the zones are bigger as well, as in more kms being travelled for less fare revenue and less patronage.

[somebody]

are there many buses which run through more than 4 zones?  Only the 555 OTOH.  Wouldn't it be fairer to charge just to the end of trip?

There would be many bus services in the suburbs, especially on the Coasts that would travel more than 4 zones. Plus the zones are bigger as well, as in more kms being travelled for less fare revenue and less patronage.

Yeah, yeah.  Can we get back to the point rather than focussing on the exceptions to my comment that was noted as OTOH in the first place?

Does the number of routes going more than 4 zones or so make the current system more fair than the system I have proposed, which was only a copy of what similar systems in other parts of the world do?  I still think that it almost certainly doesn't.

[dwb]

The computer surely knows what route you are on (or could presumably figure it out) and therefore be able to charge you the maximum fare applicable to that route given your direction of travel. I think this is something that should be done.... however I still think that if you've got a clear pattern of travel, it should be able to "guess" with pretty good accuracy where you actually got off!

[stephenk]

Perhaps Ipswich won't be the first line to get 15 min frequency...

It already has a 15min off-peak frequency Mon-Fri daytime to Corinda.

[somebody]

Perhaps Ipswich won't be the first line to get 15 min frequency...

It already has a 15min off-peak frequency Mon-Fri daytime to Corinda.

That doesn't count fully.  The cost is nearly the same as a 7 day 15 hour 15 minute frequency, but I'd think that the advantages are much less.  Who travels on trains during work hours?  Students, unemployed, retirees mostly.

[Jon Bryant]

On a slightly different tack.  Every day I travel to Roma Street on the Cleveland line and then to Milton on the Ipswich.  Every day I observe that 1 out of 5 services travelling through Roma Street is a Bowen Hills or Roma Street terminator and this is before 8am usually. 

The Roma Street terminators have large numbers s of people who hop off and wait for the next through train to come through.  Translink, and QR as their supplier, could massively increase services if these trains kept running up and down the lines.  Every politician tells me that our transport problem is not the CBD but those travelling through it (thus we MUST HAVE TransApex) yet our Public Transprt system does not support travel though the CBD.  It also means that our trains are not being used to their maximum utilisation. 

Sheer Madness.  Lets train more drivers so we can keep our trains running up and down the lines.!!!

[somebody]

On a slightly different tack.  Every day I travel to Roma Street on the Cleveland line and then to Milton on the Ipswich.  Every day I observe that 1 out of 5 services travelling through Roma Street is a Bowen Hills or Roma Street terminator and this is before 8am usually. 

The Roma Street terminators have large numbers s of people who hop off and wait for the next through train to come through.  Translink, and QR as their supplier, could massively increase services if these trains kept running up and down the lines.  Every politician tells me that our transport problem is not the CBD but those travelling through it (thus we MUST HAVE TransApex) yet our Public Transprt system does not support travel though the CBD.  It also means that our trains are not being used to their maximum utilisation. 

Sheer Madness.  Lets train more drivers so we can keep our trains running up and down the lines.!!!

Somewhat off topic there, but this point applies especially to Milton IMO.  Probably Toowong, Indro, South Brisbane and South Bank are up there too.

[stephenk]

That doesn't count fully.  The cost is nearly the same as a 7 day 15 hour 15 minute frequency, but I'd think that the advantages are much less.  Who travels on trains during work hours?  Students, unemployed, retirees mostly.

...shiftworkers (such as healthcare and hospitality workers), tourists, school trips.
I'm travelling off-peak to/from work in my next two work days.

[stephenk]

A 15 min off-peak service between the peaks (9am-4pm) would add approx 14 services/direction. Unfortunately 111 services / 5 days =22 services, which is 11 services/direction. Thus, I don't think we will be seeing much in the way of extra off-peak services on lines other than the Ipswich Line. I would expect that the majority of these 111 services will be related to the opening of the Richlands branch.

Probably right.  Mon-Thurs that's 6 services/day 7pm-10pm + 2 services 10pm-12am.  Add 4 services Friday Night.  On Sat, 6am-1am 2tph, so 38 services.  -6 on that for Sunday
= 8*5 + 4 + 38 + (38-6) = 114 services. 

Sounds about right.

Good calculations.

Actually, I just noticed that Richlands is expected to open in 2011. If this is the case , maybe these extra services in mid-2010 may be used somewhere else? Or maybe the extra Richlands services may just terminate at Darra until Richlands opens?

[somebody]

Good calculations.

Actually, I just noticed that Richlands is expected to open in 2011. If this is the case , maybe these extra services in mid-2010 may be used somewhere else? Or maybe the extra Richlands services may just terminate at Darra until Richlands opens?

Except that I forgot to multiply by 2 for 2 directions!  Oops.

I'd love for them to extend the Corinda terminators to Darra, but will that be possible before all the work is completed?  I don't think you could stand the train on a running line due to freight.  And I don't think much of Redbank as a turnback for the same reason.

[stephenk]

Good calculations.

Actually, I just noticed that Richlands is expected to open in 2011. If this is the case , maybe these extra services in mid-2010 may be used somewhere else? Or maybe the extra Richlands services may just terminate at Darra until Richlands opens?

Except that I forgot to multiply by 2 for 2 directions!  Oops.

I'd love for them to extend the Corinda terminators to Darra, but will that be possible before all the work is completed?  I don't think you could stand the train on a running line due to freight.  And I don't think much of Redbank as a turnback for the same reason.

Once there are 4 tracks at Darra, then it should be possible for trains to reverse in one of the new platforms, with through freight services using the other new track. However whether this is complete before Richlands is open is somewhat debatable.

Any guesses as to where these new services will be?

[somebody]

Any guesses as to where these new services will be?

Well, 10/week have already been announced for the Gold Coast line.

I'd think we'll get a couple of extra peak services on each line.  Say:
1 AM and 1 PM extra service on the Caboolture, Beenleigh and Cleveland lines per weekday,
2 AM and 2 PM extra service on the Ferny Grove, Ipswich, lines per weekday,
probably a handful of counter peak services, if we are lucky.

And perhaps pushing the hourly frequency back by an hour Mon-Thu evenings on all the above lines would more than absorb 111 services/week

But 83,400 seats means approx 177 six car train services.  So, if they were being literal it could be slightly better than listed above.

[STB]

On a slightly different tack.  Every day I travel to Roma Street on the Cleveland line and then to Milton on the Ipswich.  Every day I observe that 1 out of 5 services travelling through Roma Street is a Bowen Hills or Roma Street terminator and this is before 8am usually. 

The Roma Street terminators have large numbers s of people who hop off and wait for the next through train to come through.  Translink, and QR as their supplier, could massively increase services if these trains kept running up and down the lines.  Every politician tells me that our transport problem is not the CBD but those travelling through it (thus we MUST HAVE TransApex) yet our Public Transprt system does not support travel though the CBD.  It also means that our trains are not being used to their maximum utilisation. 

Sheer Madness.  Lets train more drivers so we can keep our trains running up and down the lines.!!!

I can see what you mean and agree with you to an extent, from a passenger perspective.  But from a planning perspective I can see the reason why they would do that as well.  Once it heads down that line it needs to turnback, the next turnback station is Corinda, with a minimum of 8 minutes to do the movement, and there may not be an available path or clear platform to do so.  Also there is probably a rostering, non-timetabled service (charter, train crew training etc) or maintenance requirement to send the train back to the yard.

I can see what you are saying though and while it's worthy of an idea, it would need to be looked in more deeply why the trains head back into the yard in the first place.

[somebody]

On a slightly different tack.  Every day I travel to Roma Street on the Cleveland line and then to Milton on the Ipswich.  Every day I observe that 1 out of 5 services travelling through Roma Street is a Bowen Hills or Roma Street terminator and this is before 8am usually. 

The Roma Street terminators have large numbers s of people who hop off and wait for the next through train to come through.  Translink, and QR as their supplier, could massively increase services if these trains kept running up and down the lines.  Every politician tells me that our transport problem is not the CBD but those travelling through it (thus we MUST HAVE TransApex) yet our Public Transprt system does not support travel though the CBD.  It also means that our trains are not being used to their maximum utilisation. 

Sheer Madness.  Lets train more drivers so we can keep our trains running up and down the lines.!!!

I can see what you mean and agree with you to an extent, from a passenger perspective.  But from a planning perspective I can see the reason why they would do that as well.  Once it heads down that line it needs to turnback, the next turnback station is Corinda, with a minimum of 8 minutes to do the movement, and there may not be an available path or clear platform to do so.  Also there is probably a rostering, non-timetabled service (charter, train crew training etc) or maintenance requirement to send the train back to the yard.

I can see what you are saying though and while it's worthy of an idea, it would need to be looked in more deeply why the trains head back into the yard in the first place.

A lot of them don't head back to the yard, in the AM peak they run out empty to do another revenue service.  It's probably these runs which would benefit most.  You could have stopping patterns like Milton, Toowong, Indro, Corinda, then terminate or the same, but Ipswich instead of Corinda.  Sounds funny, but makes perfect sense to me, as you don't need to check that no-one is on the train doing it that way.

[Jon Bryant]

My main reason for suggesting it is to encourage the cross town drivers to catch public transport.  Every delay is sjust another reason to drive the car!!

[somebody]

My main reason for suggesting it is to encourage the cross town drivers to catch public transport.  Every delay is sjust another reason to drive the car!!

Pretty sure we all understood that.

[STB]

On a slightly different tack.  Every day I travel to Roma Street on the Cleveland line and then to Milton on the Ipswich.  Every day I observe that 1 out of 5 services travelling through Roma Street is a Bowen Hills or Roma Street terminator and this is before 8am usually. 

The Roma Street terminators have large numbers s of people who hop off and wait for the next through train to come through.  Translink, and QR as their supplier, could massively increase services if these trains kept running up and down the lines.  Every politician tells me that our transport problem is not the CBD but those travelling through it (thus we MUST HAVE TransApex) yet our Public Transprt system does not support travel though the CBD.  It also means that our trains are not being used to their maximum utilisation. 

Sheer Madness.  Lets train more drivers so we can keep our trains running up and down the lines.!!!

I can see what you mean and agree with you to an extent, from a passenger perspective.  But from a planning perspective I can see the reason why they would do that as well.  Once it heads down that line it needs to turnback, the next turnback station is Corinda, with a minimum of 8 minutes to do the movement, and there may not be an available path or clear platform to do so.  Also there is probably a rostering, non-timetabled service (charter, train crew training etc) or maintenance requirement to send the train back to the yard.

I can see what you are saying though and while it's worthy of an idea, it would need to be looked in more deeply why the trains head back into the yard in the first place.

A lot of them don't head back to the yard, in the AM peak they run out empty to do another revenue service.  It's probably these runs which would benefit most.  You could have stopping patterns like Milton, Toowong, Indro, Corinda, then terminate or the same, but Ipswich instead of Corinda.  Sounds funny, but makes perfect sense to me, as you don't need to check that no-one is on the train doing it that way.

True.  Yes it may be possible for some services to be switched from empty running to live running, just need to keep in mind that emptys do run faster than live services (obviously) and one would need to have a look at the turnback time (minimum of 8 minutes) once it reaches it's destination.

[somebody]

keep in mind that emptys do run faster than live services (obviously) and one would need to have a look at the turnback time (minimum of 8 minutes) once it reaches it's destination.

Isn't that only because of station stops?  That's why I was suggesting express patterns in the counter peak direction.

Also, I'm not sure why the minimum turnaround time is 8 minutes?  Is it to allow a toilet break or something?

[STB]

The 8 minutes is the agreed time for train crew to make a turnback, this includes changing ends, changing the desto, doing a quick check through the train, among other things.

[dwb]

The 8 minutes is the agreed time for train crew to make a turnback, this includes changing ends, changing the desto, doing a quick check through the train, among other things

Does other things include a buffer for on-time running?

[STB]

Negative, the 8 minutes isn't for on-time running purposes, if a train is running late, the crew still needs that time to turnback a train, although in actual on the day running purposes they may actually do this quite quickly to try and prevent further delays to other trains in the area, then again, it's been known that some crew are stingy on the rules and will live by them by the letter.  Actually, just to clarify, it's 8 minutes for a 6 car turnback, 6 minutes for a 3 car turnback, and that's the bare minimum.  

There are times in the timetable where it's less than that, and for those quick turnbacks ie: 5 mins and less, a turnback crew is used, where a spare crew travels on the train with the crew driving the train, and when it reaches it's destination, the turnback crew are ready within a minute to turnback the train, and the original crew either get off the train for another run or they run spare back.  Or, there is crew pre-positioned at the destination station, who may have run spare on another previous train, or have signed on at that station, if it's a depot station who will board the train they need to turnback quickly as soon as the said train arrives on the platform, while the original crew who brought it down to the platform in the first place either get off the train to do another run or run spare back on the same train they brought down. This tends to happen during special events.  There's also a couple of timetabled runs that do this too.  

Ideally though you want to use only one crew, instead of doubling it to get the train out of there quickly.

[somebody]

it's been known that some crew are stingy on the rules and will live by them by the letter.  Actually, just to clarify, it's 8 minutes for a 6 car turnback, 6 minutes for a 3 car turnback, and that's the bare minimum.  

CityRail do it with 8 car trains in 6 minutes.

But are you saying that some crew will intentionally delay a train because there's some obscure rule that says that they can?  Firstly, that rule should be changed; Secondly, I think if they repeatedly do such a thing they should be subject to disciplinary proceedings.