301,000 new services

[STB]

It's an agreement between the train crew's union RTBU and QR as part of their working conditions.  As I understand it, it's been in place for quite some time.  Train crew are actually quite powerful within QR, all it takes is a threat to stand down and it can bring QR to it's knees, as has been proven in the past.

[dwb]

How long is the average route?
If it is a driver-reviver then I think its a good idea... CityRail may well work under different constraints!

Altho.... new technology in future will presumably allow changes to this... perhaps even driverless operation? (rhetorical!)

[STB]

Indeed.  Each city has it's own rules on turnbacks, although as a general rule it does need to be at least 5 minutes minimum for a safe turnback IMO.

[somebody]

How long is the average route?
If it is a driver-reviver then I think its a good idea... CityRail may well work under different constraints!

Altho.... new technology in future will presumably allow changes to this... perhaps even driverless operation? (rhetorical!)

I think only Ipswich-Caboolture is longer.  Probably the shortest route (post Clearways) would be Homebush-Lidcombe via the city circle and Bankstown, 1h40m.  Currently the Bankstown line trains largely run in a big circle, with a dwell at Bankstown only.  Hornsby-Epping via Macquarie Park and the City is 1h36m, so I guess that beats it.  And the shortest route is a ridiculous one: Hornsby-Chatswood via Macquarie Park, 33mins, without going via the city.  This only operates at certain times of day, but I think there's no point bothering.  There are no dwells in the city for CityRail. 

[mufreight]

I would thik that were you to be the person sitting up front working under the conditions of required levels of concentration and under the stress you would very quickly change your mind about turnaround times for train drivers.
Shorter turnaround times do nothing for either reliability or your safety.

[stephenk]

Altho.... new technology in future will presumably allow changes to this... perhaps even driverless operation? (rhetorical!)

Driverless operation is highly unlikely to happen on non-segregated suburban rail systems such as QR CityTrain.

Indeed.  Each city has it's own rules on turnbacks, although as a general rule it does need to be at least 5 minutes minimum for a safe turnback IMO.

A far as I'm aware the minimum turnback time is 4 mins for the crew to change ends, but 4 more mins are added as operating margin.

Many metro systems have crews "step back" or "double-end" trains at termini.

In "stepping back", the arriving crew leave the train, and the departing crew take over that train simultaneously. This allows trains to reverse in approx. 2 minutes. The arriving crew may then step back 1,2, or more trains depending on break requirements. "Stepping back" is used on London Underground and NYC Subway.

"Double-ending" usually only occurs when trains reverse in sidings. When the train arrives at the terminus the departing driver enters the rear cab of the train. The train is then driven into the siding. The arriving driver shuts down their cab which will become the rear of the train. The departing driver switches on their cab, which is now the front of the train. The departing driver then drives into the platform where the arriving driver exits the rear cab. This is done on many metros including Moscow where trains are run every 95secs!

Some metro systems such as Paris, Madrid, and Hong Kong MTR are now reversing trains automatically (driverless, or with driver in one cab) in sidings, which avoids double ending. As mentioned above, this is unlikely to occur on non-segregated suburban rail systems such as QR CityTrain.

[STB]

Indeed.  Each city has it's own rules on turnbacks, although as a general rule it does need to be at least 5 minutes minimum for a safe turnback IMO.

A far as I'm aware the minimum turnback time is 4 mins for the crew to change ends, but 4 more mins are added as operating margin.

Many metro systems have crews "step back" or "double-end" trains at termini.

In "stepping back", the arriving crew leave the train, and the departing crew take over that train simultaneously. This allows trains to reverse in approx. 2 minutes. The arriving crew may then step back 1,2, or more trains depending on break requirements. "Stepping back" is used on London Underground and NYC Subway.

That is used by QR, although it's rare for timetabled services, there is one service on the Cleveland line which uses a turnback crew, the train arrives at :49 and departs at :52.  Like I said earlier it's used more often for special services, mostly extra services for football matches.

[Derwan]

A turnback "crew" would really only need an extra driver, right?  The guard could just swap between units for a 6-car train or start the train from the driver section for 3-car trains and walk through the train.  This is of course provided the guard is able to take required breaks at other points.

For "comfort" though, you really need a few minutes in case a toilet break is required.  Sitting in my office here, I have the luxury of being able to go to the toilet at any time without having to wait for scheduled breaks.

[mufreight]

Turnbacks are a regular practice at Ipswich thus enabling most trains to depart on their return journey on time even if the arriving train is behind time.

[STB]

A turnback "crew" would really only need an extra driver, right?  The guard could just swap between units for a 6-car train or start the train from the driver section for 3-car trains and walk through the train.  This is of course provided the guard is able to take required breaks at other points.

For "comfort" though, you really need a few minutes in case a toilet break is required.  Sitting in my office here, I have the luxury of being able to go to the toilet at any time without having to wait for scheduled breaks.

Negative, a turnback crew consists of a driver and a guard.  Every driver must have a guard with him if he's going to do another run.

[Jon Bryant]

If we had more frequent services (say 5-10 mins) could it not be possible to have the crew that just arrived jump out and a crew that arrived with the last train jump in and head off.  The crew that just arrived then waits for the next train and the cycle repeats itself?  I am no crew scheduler but would that work?  Not sure how the process stops at the end of the day. Last rain the crew just rides back on the train.

[somebody]

If we had more frequent services (say 5-10 mins) could it not be possible to have the crew that just arrived jump out and a crew that arrived with the last train jump in and head off.  The crew that just arrived then waits for the next train and the cycle repeats itself?  I am no crew scheduler but would that work?  Not sure how the process stops at the end of the day. Last rain the crew just rides back on the train.

This would be easy to justify at Bondi Junction in the peak.  But I'm not sure where on the CityTrain network it could apply.  Ferny Grove would be the only possibility but you are assuming duplication and 8tph for this to apply.

[Jon Bryant]

Funny you reference Bondi Junction as this has an amasing turn around times but it may even have a loop. I thought I saw the switch I proposed happen there...but I was buying a coffee at the time. 

I was assuming the duplication and 8tph or higher. Could the system not have a number of these break points where crews change over or have a break.  We need the frequency of services to just meet demand so this seems like a good approach.

[somebody]

Funny you reference Bondi Junction as this has an amasing turn around times but it may even have a loop. I thought I saw the switch I proposed happen there...but I was buying a coffee at the time. 

I was assuming the duplication and 8tph or higher. Could the system not have a number of these break points where crews change over or have a break.  We need the frequency of services to just meet demand so this seems like a good approach.

Up until a few years ago there was a peak regime, and an off peak regime.  In the peak regime, the train would arrive on Platform A, do a shuffle through tracks on the eastern side of the platform and go to platform B and then depart.  Off peak, trains would arrive and depart using Platform A.  This was mostly due to the lack of a crossover to allow trains to arrive on platform B.  This has now been fixed.  So peak trains now arrive and depart from both platforms, and I'm presume that the shuffle has been completely abolished.

[stephenk]

The "shuffle", also known as reversing in sidings/headshunt/turnback would have been made faster by simply double ending the train. Paris and Moscow metros can reverse in a single siding and maintain 95sec headways. Yet Sydney CityRail can't even manage 4mins.

Funny you reference Bondi Junction as this has an amasing turn around times but it may even have a loop.

No loop. Just a scissors crossover before the platform.
There are considerably more impressive turnaround times elsewhere in the world.

[ozbob]

A TransLink tweet in response to a tweeters response to the fare price rises ..

@rean0n any additional funds from fare increase will be put back into more services & infrastructure. Extra 301 000 seats on PT per week.

[somebody]

Yet Sydney CityRail can't even manage 4mins.

Um, you're paying out on CityRail for not being able to do 4 mins, but CityTrain can't do 6 mins.  If they didn't double end the train, that does sound a little dumb.

There are considerably more impressive turnaround times elsewhere in the world.

I don't doubt that.  But that would mostly require double ending and/or recovery time at other points in the network.

[stephenk]

Yet Sydney CityRail can't even manage 4mins.

Um, you're paying out on CityRail for not being able to do 4 mins, but CityTrain can't do 6 mins.  If they didn't double end the train, that does sound a little dumb.

I'd be interested to know if double-ending was looked into before millions were spent on building a new crossover tunnel.

There are considerably more impressive turnaround times elsewhere in the world.

I don't doubt that.  But that would mostly require double ending and/or recovery time at other points in the network.[/quote]
True. However, Bondi Junction's design can cause issues if trains arrive late. A late running train arriving may delay the next outbound train due to a conflicting move across the crossover. Also if there is no stepping back, then dwell times cannot shortened  to increase capacity or make up late running. If you are stepping back, then you might as well be reversing using a double-ended train in a siding anyway.

[somebody]

True. However, Bondi Junction's design can cause issues if trains arrive late. A late running train arriving may delay the next outbound train due to a conflicting move across the crossover. Also if there is no stepping back, then dwell times cannot shortened  to increase capacity or make up late running. If you are stepping back, then you might as well be reversing using a double-ended train in a siding anyway.

Yep, there is a conflicting move, but only when a train is leaving from the down platform which conflicts with a train arriving on the up platform.  I understand that the on time train would have priority over the late running train, which would probably be delayed by another minute in the worst case.

With the Ferny Grove 3 platform set up, don't you make the conflicting move problem even worse?

[mufreight]

In a perfect world maybe, but obviously none of those making so much comment have never operated a train.
This is the bigest failing of the current crop of transport planners and schedulers, unfortunately they are still operating a 1970's system and attempting to overlay a 2010 system of operating it, a recipe bound to fail.
Keep the ideas and discussion comming they provoke thought which is a useful factor.   

[stephenk]

With the Ferny Grove 3 platform set up, don't you make the conflicting move problem even worse?

It depends on the crossover layout. With an optimum crossover layout only 33% moves are conflicting with 3 platforms, as opposed to 50% with 2 platforms. This is assuming trains are timetabled in the correct sequence. A photo of a well designed 3 platform terminus in London is below:-
<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/stephenk1977/87518427/" title="Jubilee Line &quot;Olympic&quot; 96TS at Stratford by stephenk1977, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm1.static.flickr.com/38/87518427_7abe706a55_m.jpg" width="240" height="180" alt="Jubilee Line &quot;Olympic&quot; 96TS at Stratford" /></a>

However having the optimum crossover layout at Ferny Grove isn't really a major issue, as the Ferny Grove is unlikely to require frequencies anywhere near a 3 track terminus' maximum theoretical capacity anyway (13tph/4.5mins freq. is the forecast for 2026).  Having a level crossing next to, or in the middle of the crossover will make the signalling interesting!

[somebody]

I'll believe you.

The point is though, that 2 platforms with a double crossover is sufficient for CityRail for the turnback capacity to equal the plain track capacity. i.e. 20tph.  I think LU run tighter headways and so maybe other tricks are required.

[mufreight]

For Ferny Grove the solution is not three platforms but the extension of the line north to a new terminus at the end of Lanita Road, this new station would draw off many of those commuters who currently use Ferny Grove station thus relieving the parking problems at Ferny Grove.
Duplicate to Ferny Grove with a single track extension to Lanita Road, this then removes the need for the third platform at Ferny Grove and the space that the third platform would occupy then remains avaliable for commuter parking.
For the rapid turn around (turnback) an extra crew placed at the terminus with the incoming crew steping off ond the outgoing crew steping in gives a potential turn round time of two minutes per train with a sectionalrunning time of three minutes gives an effective operating frequency of a train every 8 minutes or 7 trains per hour.
On a 10 minute frequency express services on the Ferny Grove line become redundant due to the length of the line.

[stephenk]

I'll believe you.

The point is though, that 2 platforms with a double crossover is sufficient for CityRail for the turnback capacity to equal the plain track capacity. i.e. 20tph.  I think LU run tighter headways and so maybe other tricks are required.

You are pretty much right there. Heading further off topic....

Most of London Underground's 3 platform termini have difficulty turning more than around 20tph due to slow approach speeds into dead end platforms. Morden which has through tracks currently handles 27tph in 3 platforms. The highest capacity terminus is Brixton which has 2 platforms, overruns for fast approaches, and high speed crossovers. This terminus currently turns 28.5tph and is at max capacity until the line upgrade is complete. Most London Underground Lines have multiple reversing points at each end of the line.

For Ferny Grove the solution is not three platforms but the extension of the line north to a new terminus at the end of Lanita Road, this new station would draw off many of those commuters who currently use Ferny Grove station thus relieving the parking problems at Ferny Grove.
Duplicate to Ferny Grove with a single track extension to Lanita Road, this then removes the need for the third platform at Ferny Grove and the space that the third platform would occupy then remains avaliable for commuter parking.
For the rapid turn around (turnback) an extra crew placed at the terminus with the incoming crew steping off ond the outgoing crew steping in gives a potential turn round time of two minutes per train with a sectionalrunning time of three minutes gives an effective operating frequency of a train every 8 minutes or 7 trains per hour.
On a 10 minute frequency express services on the Ferny Grove line become redundant due to the length of the line.

Slight problem, the line currently runs 7tph. Thus there would be no scope for capacity increase in the future. This required capacity increase is the reason for the duplication to FG in the first place!

[Derwan]

Having a level crossing next to, or in the middle of the crossover will make the signalling interesting!

As this belongs in the Infrastructure forum, I've put a post in there that's inspired by this and some previous comments:  http://backontrack.org/mbs/index.php?topic=3083.msg17429#msg17429

[mufreight]

At the present time with an 8 minute turnround time and a three minute sectional runnung time, that comes out with a minimum 14 minute occupancy of the existing single line section so I would be most interested as to how a 7 trains per hour frequency is possible, unless fleeting of trains occours through the single track section and the turnback times are reduced by change over crews. 

[dwb]

I've got another unrelated question to this post, but broadly related to train throughput.

When I was in Rio, and I think perhaps also Santiago or Barcelona?? I noticed that some of their very busy boarding/disembarking stations had two platforms per single track with the train stopping, doors opening on one side (to allow passengers off) followed about 15seconds later with doors on the other side opening (to allow passengers on).  It seemed to really simplify getting on and off the train and also made it much faster... presumably this would add a fair cost to an underground station?  What is this style operation called and where are some other examples of where it is employed (metros)?

[somebody]

At the present time with an 8 minute turnround time and a three minute sectional runnung time, that comes out with a minimum 14 minute occupancy of the existing single line section so I would be most interested as to how a 7 trains per hour frequency is possible, unless fleeting of trains occours through the single track section and the turnback times are reduced by change over crews. 

Good question.  Of the 7tph, 2tph don't go beyond Mitchelton.  Peak FG departures are: 7:16am, 7:26am, 7:43am, 7:55am, 8:07am, 8:20am and 8:30am.  Seems like pretty good use is made of the 2 platforms, with a second train arriving during the 8 minute turn around time.

[stephenk]

At the present time with an 8 minute turnround time and a three minute sectional runnung time, that comes out with a minimum 14 minute occupancy of the existing single line section so I would be most interested as to how a 7 trains per hour frequency is possible, unless fleeting of trains occours through the single track section and the turnback times are reduced by change over crews. 

Simple. Ferny Grove has two platforms, which eliminates the turnaround time from the equation.

[Derwan]

Simple. Ferny Grove has two platforms, which eliminates the turnaround time from the equation.

Didn't you say a while ago that there was an issue with the level crossing there?  If I recall correctly, there was a necessary delay between a train arriving and one being able to leave.

[Jon Bryant]

So to have tpa up around the 15 to 20 and beyond there needs to be overruns for fast approaches, high speed crossovers and a crew swap system.

[stephenk]

Simple. Ferny Grove has two platforms, which eliminates the turnaround time from the equation.

Didn't you say a while ago that there was an issue with the level crossing there?  If I recall correctly, there was a necessary delay between a train arriving and one being able to leave.

There is an issue (according to QR's timetablers) with releasing the single track section, which results in a departing train having to wait for 2 mins after an arriving train.

Keperra to FG is approx 3.5 mins. FG to Keperra is approx 3 mins. The level crossing/signalling/QR excuse delay is 2 mins. 3.5+3+2=8.5mins. This time is excluding operating margin, which is why services tend to be timetabled at least 10mins apart.

[mufreight]

based on those times even with a turnback crew change over the minimum times to clear a train Keperra - Ferny Grove - Keperra would be 11 + minutes allowing for release times for the signals and point interlocking so without fleeting of trains you are stuck with a maximum 5 tph frequency hence the need for the duplication.

[ozbob]

But 83,400 seats means approx 177 six car train services.

Yes, one thing I have noticed about the spin is when they say seats they mean it.  Assume 500 seats per six car set (IMUs slighly less) then 83,400 does indeed mean around 170 extra weekly train services, or 34 extra daily 6 car services (Mon to Fri).  Running frequent 3 car services would mean more services?

[stephenk]

But 83,400 seats means approx 177 six car train services.

Yes, one thing I have noticed about the spin is when they say seats they mean it.  Assume 500 seats per six car set (IMUs slighly less) then 83,400 does indeed mean around 170 extra weekly train services, or 34 extra daily 6 car services (Mon to Fri).  Running frequent 3 car services would mean more services?

This is a good point and is something that hasn't come up in any calculations in this thread. If they really do mean seats (the first press release said "places" IIRC), and/or some new off-peak services used 3-car units, then it could result in a larger increase in new services.

[dwb]

Most press releases use the comfortable passenger rating of 750 for a six car train (seated + standing).  A recent exception was the "seats" number for the two new Gold Coast services for the opening of Varsity... but this presumably was to counter the "Bombay express" bollocks in the newspapers. 868 seats is more relevant on this line because it is intercity. On Ferny Grove, or others its not so important - if you can't stand for 18mins then you've got problems!

[#Metro]

Bombay Express...
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,22858869-3102,00.html

[Arnz]

Bombay Express...
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,22858869-3102,00.html

That was from 2 years ago.

Extra services has since been introduced and it's not Bombay Express anymore. Current services are only running to operational capacity with only a handful of standees per 3-car unit.

Hardly Bombay Express since the extra services began isnt it?

[#Metro]

It was just for historical reference, sorry I didn't make that clear, LOL  

[ozbob]

A correspondent has reported that he received a letter from TransLink, that states in part ...

" fare increases will mean 3777 new bus services  and 319 new train services each week ..."