New Services Tally - 2010

[stephenk]

So I assume they haven't got back to you?

They've said this: "We have noted your comments and requested advice from the responsible delivery partner. Please be assured that we will be in contact with you as soon as we receive information addressing the issues you have raised."

The response I received was similar, whilst they contact the spin doctors for an answer.

I saw in mX today that there is a new early am Gold Coast to Airport service. No info on Translink's website. So that's a pathetic 3 new services since the fare increase, of which all 3 are Airtrain services. Where are the rest of the new services Translink? Maybe services on lines that are overcrowded or have large peak gaps would be good start?

[somebody]

Since the complaint is past the 10 days old mark, I've now put in this comment:
"A response to this query is now overdue.  It has been more than 10 days and I haven't heard anything.

Honestly, I don't understand what's so hard about releasing draft copies of proposed new timetables to the public for comment, or designing a decent timetable in the first place. "

Perhaps a tad rude, but I don't think it's unjustified.

[somebody]

I saw in mX today that there is a new early am Gold Coast to Airport service. No info on Translink's website. So that's a pathetic 3 new services since the fare increase, of which all 3 are Airtrain services.

Only the Gold Coast part is a new service.  Service change info is up on the TL website now but no timetable.  A 3 month trial apparently.  But why is this service so early in the morning and not leaving Varsity Lakes at the usual :18 or :48 past the hour times?  I think the reason might be the ridiculous dwelling arrangements at Domestic, and the attempt of the first 3 services of the day to do better.  Come on Translink, you can do better than that.  Shouldn't the Airport train which now starts from Roma St at 6:22 am be moved to start at the usual time to pass Roma St, which would make it 6:05am and this service leave Varsity Lakes at 4:48am?

It's as though Translink don't want to make public transport attractive.

Isn't this service going to cause an empty move heading south?  Or is it eliminating one heading north?

[somebody]

Isn't this service going to cause an empty move heading south?  Or is it eliminating one heading north?

Perhaps no-one else is interested, but the answer based on the journey planner is that it is eliminating a northbound empty.

[awotam]

So I assume they haven't got back to you?

They've said this: "We have noted your comments and requested advice from the responsible delivery partner. Please be assured that we will be in contact with you as soon as we receive information addressing the issues you have raised."

Funny, that looks like exactly the response I got to the same question...
"Thank you for contacting TransLink regarding various Queensland Rail issues.

We have noted your comments and requested advice from the responsible delivery partner. Please be assured that we will be in contact with you as soon as we receive information addressing the issues you have raised.

Customer feedback is used by both TransLink and our delivery partners as a valuable instrument in assisting us in improving access and reliability for public transport users in South East Queensland. Thank you for taking the time to raise this matter with us.

Kind regards"
Past the 10 days with me now too (April 6th) and still nothing further.

[somebody]

Past the 10 days with me now too (April 6th) and still nothing further.

I proded them, and they said something about the overdue being noted, to which I pointed out they are supposed to negotiate a timeframe with me, and they came back with "a few days".  We'll see.

[#Metro]

It's the end of the month again...

April Services Tally

Bus:
New seats per week: 83 000 (Brisbane CityGlider)
Total new weekly seats (to end April): 121 801
% of seats promised so far: 60.5%

Ferry:
New seats per week: 0
Total new weekly seats (to end April): 3 240
% of seats promised so far: 19%

Train:
New seats per week: 4650 (new Gold Coast dep 4:34am, Varsity Lakes*, Rwd-->Ips 5:55pm and Ips-->Rwd 5:48)
Total new weekly seats (to end April): 7210
% of seats promised so far: 5.5%

Slight improvement for train commuters. Disappointment for ferry commuters...

* Notes:

Trains The original media release here states a figure of 2250 seats per week. However, and interurban multiple unit (IMU 160) has seating capacity of 2170 seats (6-car train) x 5 working days from the CityTrain fleet.

New Ipswich/Rosewood services are based on EMU capacity (252 seats * 3 car * 5 work days * 2 new services)

Bus A timetable has not been released for "new" bus route 761. It will not be added until it can be found on the TL website and it is in service (likely later this month or June).

Please post any corrections or additions. TT  

[#Metro]

Just to put the trains into perspective:

83 400 seats per week is equivalent to 35 six-car train services added to a work day. (Six car trains carrying 472 pax seated based on the new SMU 260 trains).

ONLY seats count, that was the exact wording in the media release. Standing passengers do not count as that is what the government promised- seats.

[david]

Shouldn't the new Rosewood services only count as 3-car EMU services? - i.e. the number of new seats on the Rosewood line should really be 248 seats¹ x 5 days x 2 services = 2480 seats

Don't want to give the government too much credit  

¹ Citytrain Fleet - Electric Multiple Unit http://www.citytrain.com.au/about/fleet/emu/emu.asp

[#Metro]

That's what I thought too, but since I've never caught it I just thought a normal train might do.
Aren't the new services simply 6 car Ipswich trains continuing through to Rosewood. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

If someone (anyone) can confirm that 3 car units will be exclusively used for this service, I can amend the numbers.

[ozbob]

All services to and from Rosewood are effectively 3 car for pax.  Short platforms.  Even if a 6 car, 3 are locked off.

[#Metro]

Amended.
As on end of April 2010, 5.5% of promised train services have been delivered.

[STB]

As posted on ATDB.  New route 126 (Sunnybank to Acacia Ridge) has appeared on the TL HTML timetables section with 9 trips.
http://jp.translink.com.au/TransLinkPublicTimetable.asp?RouteCode=126&RouteNameDisplay=Route+126+-+Inbound&TimetableVehicle=BTBus&TimetableKey=2667&Direction=outbound&TimetableDate=10%2F5%2F2010

Route 120 (Garden City to Brisbane City via Tarragindi) will run every 10 minutes in peak hour.
http://jp.translink.com.au/TransLinkPublicTimetable.asp?RouteCode=120&TimetableKey=2190&TimetableDate=10/5/2010&Direction=inbound&TimetableVehicle=BTBus

And route P119 (QE II Hospital to Brisbane City via Tarragindi - Prepaid) will now start and terminate at QE II Hospital instead of Garden City, and not start at Queen St Bus Station in the afternoon peak.
http://jp.translink.com.au/TransLinkPublicTimetable.asp?RouteCode=119&TimetableKey=2190&TimetableDate=10/5/2010&Direction=inbound&TimetableVehicle=BTBus

Going by it all, due to start next week (May 10).

Unsure if there are other route changes as yet.

[somebody]

How many seats from the May 10 changes?  According the C-M (http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/m-boost-to-fix-brisbane-bus-turmoil/story-e6freoof-1225861742002), 360 weekly buses.  Is it 50 seats a bus?  That makes it 18 000.  We are edging closer to the target, but time is ticking away.

[david]

From Brisbane Times -> http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/new-buses-to-take-1m-cars-off-road-20100504-u4bj.html

Brisbane commuters will have access to a new bus route and dozens of additional services as early as next Monday.

Transport Minister Rachel Nolan announced the $3.1 million package this morning, which will add more than 18,000 seats to the network.

I think we can safely assume that the official figure is 18,000 new seats

[david]

Official figure from an advertisement in mX today is 18 270 new seats

[somebody]

I proded them, and they said something about the overdue being noted, to which I pointed out they are supposed to negotiate a timeframe with me, and they came back with "a few days".  We'll see.

I harassed them again the other day with something along the lines of "a few days is now nearly 2 weeks", and I actually received a voice mail this morning.  They said something like: "We don't provide specific feedback on such matters.  As for your comment about releasing draft timetables, we won't do that until it has been signed off."

Flatly refusing to do something that they can reasonably be asked to do, without explanation is simply unnacceptable in my view.

EDIT: Going back through the thread I noticed I didn't say what I was proposing in the first place.  Anyway, I was suggesting that the 10:41pm Sunday inbound service be moved to 8:41am, since it terminates at Bowen Hills.  And similarly for the last 2 inbound Sunday services on the Beenleigh line.  I also pointed out that late night outbound services Mon-Thu are far more useful than inbound ones.

[STB]

Not exactly new services, just upgrades of three car sets to six car sets.  Also, not sure what other three car services they are talking about in the article.

More carriages for train service
20 May, 2010 03:42 PM
MEMBER for Capalaba Michael Choi has welcomed the addition of three new carriages to one peak-hour train service from Cleveland to Bowen Hills.

The 7.55am service from Cleveland is one of 102 services to receive an extra three carriages.

"The three carriages will mean 1125 seats per week on this busy morning peak service," he said.

http://www.baysidebulletin.com.au/news/local/news/general/more-carriages-for-train-service/1835913.aspx

So, I presume that's another 1125 seats plus those extra seats for the 102 services mentioned?

[Golliwog]

Well if thats true then thats another 114750 seats for rail, which would meet that target (I think). Haven't seen anything official announcing it, but knowing Translink, that won't happen until the trains are running. Still, the article makes no mention of from when these extra seats are being added.

[#Metro]

Well if thats true then thats another 114750 seats for rail, which would meet that target (I think). Haven't seen anything official announcing it, but knowing Translink, that won't happen until the trains are running. Still, the article makes no mention of from when these extra seats are being added.

Something is not quite right here... maybe double check. The numbers seem very high.

[Golliwog]

Yeah, I've put in a query with Translink asking them about these extra services and when they started or will start, and in general about the validity of the statement. But 102*1125=114750 seats.

[#Metro]

A single 3 car train contains about 500 places for pax.
So 500 pax x 102 = 51 000 seats, which would be very close to completing the target.

102 services could mean 102 services in a week- or 20 services in a week-day.
This sounds reasonable.

Maybe they are doing phantom accounting, and counting standing passengers and also the entire train as a "new service" when it is just an old 3 car train with a new 3 car train coupled to it. They specifically promised seats, not standing spaces. If you double 51 000 you get a number close to yours Golliwog.

I really hope that tacking on 3 car trains to existing 3 car services isn't the sole way of making PT increases.
Because then the frequency will be exactly the same. Still 30 mintues off peak! I doubt it, but anything is possible.

[STB]

Sometimes increasing capacity works just the same as increasing frequency.  In relation to the Cleveland line, no more trains can be added to in the peak hour, what you have now is all you are going to be able to physically put on.

From a funding perspective (TL) it's cost neutral, as there isn't another service eating up service kilometres, just increasing capacity by using existing rollingstock on an exsiting service.

[Golliwog]

Ok yeah, in the article it says by adding the extra 3 cars gives a total of 1125 seats for the whole service per week. But as for the number of services, the articles refers to the 7.55am service as one of 102 serivce to go from 3 cars to 6 cars, which to me means 102 services per day, although I didnt think there were that many services that ran as 3 cars. But its hard to tell, the timetables don't say if the service is 3 cars or 6.

[Arnz]

3-car sets in the off-peak are usually on the Roma Street-Nambour expresses and some Airport-Gold Coast services during the middle of the day.

Weekend services, well all Shorncliffe weekend services and some Cleveland/Beenleigh services are 3-car.

[stephenk]

A single 3 car train contains about 500 places for pax.
So 500 pax x 102 = 51 000 seats, which would be very close to completing the target.

You are confusing places and seats. There are approx. 500 places, but only approx. 250 seats in a 3-car unit.

[stephenk]

More carriages for train service
20 May, 2010 03:42 PM
MEMBER for Capalaba Michael Choi has welcomed the addition of three new carriages to one peak-hour train service from Cleveland to Bowen Hills.

The 7.55am service from Cleveland is one of 102 services to receive an extra three carriages.

"The three carriages will mean 1125 seats per week on this busy morning peak service," he said.

http://www.baysidebulletin.com.au/news/local/news/general/more-carriages-for-train-service/1835913.aspx

If Translink are going to achieve the 83,000 figure mainly by extending 3-car to 6-car units, I will be very annoyed!

Yes, there are some peak 3-car services (on Cleveland, Caboolture, and Beenleigh Lines) that definitely need extending to 6-cars but these would only be around 25% of the above figure. I would expect some of these "extended" services will be off-peak services which still have spare capacity and thus do not require extra units.

When there so many peak and off-peak service gaps that discourage the use of public transport, then adding 3-cars to services which do not require them would be a pathetic way by Translink to achieve their promised figures. If Translink add 3-cars to a non-overcrowded off-peak service, rather than filling in the many 20min+ peak gaps, or hourly off-peak gaps, it will show what little respect Translink have for public transport users.

Rant over!

[somebody]

More carriages for train service
20 May, 2010 03:42 PM
MEMBER for Capalaba Michael Choi has welcomed the addition of three new carriages to one peak-hour train service from Cleveland to Bowen Hills.

The 7.55am service from Cleveland is one of 102 services to receive an extra three carriages.

"The three carriages will mean 1125 seats per week on this busy morning peak service," he said.

http://www.baysidebulletin.com.au/news/local/news/general/more-carriages-for-train-service/1835913.aspx

If Translink are going to achieve the 83,000 figure mainly by extending 3-car to 6-car units, I will be very annoyed!

Yes, there are some peak 3-car services (on Cleveland, Caboolture, and Beenleigh Lines) that definitely need extending to 6-cars but these would only be around 25% of the above figure. I would expect some of these "extended" services will be off-peak services which still have spare capacity and thus do not require extra units.

When there so many peak and off-peak service gaps that discourage the use of public transport, then adding 3-cars to services which do not require them would be a pathetic way by Translink to achieve their promised figures. If Translink add 3-cars to a non-overcrowded off-peak service, rather than filling in the many 20min+ peak gaps, or hourly off-peak gaps, it will show what little respect Translink have for public transport users.

Rant over!

It seems a pretty reasonable move to extend all peak trains to 6 cars though.  Especially for Merivale Bridge trains.

[#Metro]

From a funding perspective (TL) it's cost neutral, as there isn't another service eating up service kilometres, just increasing capacity by using existing rollingstock on an exsiting service.

I don't think this is quite correct. An extra 3 car coupled train means more electricity used- which I think is the main ongoing cost of operating a train service. This can be quite substantial- I think in another thread we estimated 1 hour of train running time using power alone to be somewhere between $2000 - $3000 per hour.

When there so many peak and off-peak service gaps that discourage the use of public transport, then adding 3-cars to services which do not require them would be a pathetic way by Translink to achieve their promised figures. If Translink add 3-cars to a non-overcrowded off-peak service, rather than filling in the many 20min+ peak gaps, or hourly off-peak gaps, it will show what little respect Translink have for public transport users.

I would agree, but Somebody's comment about merivale bridge restrictions may be a factor here.

[somebody]

An extra 3 car coupled train means more electricity used- which I think is the main ongoing cost of operating a train service.

Actually I think crewing costs are much larger than the electricity cost.

[#Metro]

How much greater?
My reasoning is: If a train runs at $2000 per hour, the crew would have to earn $1000 per hour (2 people, each) for costs to even equalise with that of electricity.

The mass transit report (2007) puts train operating costs at about $60 per vehicle kilometre. I don't know what the costs would be for QR, but maybe cheaper as the trains are smaller and probably lighter?

[#Metro]

8 motors x 198 kw x 2 units x one hour of operation = 3120 kwh

3120 kwh x $0.35 = $1111.96, round up to nearest $500 to take in labour and sundry costs
is about $1500 per service ("High expensive electricity scenario").

Changes/corrections welcome..

http://www.downeredirail.com.au/Default.aspx?aCateId=998
http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=2877.msg16415;topicseen#msg16415

[somebody]

You are assuming the motors are running on a 100% duty cycle.  I could see 10% duty cycle at most.  I'm not too sure about regenerative braking (where the power is put back into the lines), but it would definitely be used if it was DC power.

[stephenk]

More carriages for train service
20 May, 2010 03:42 PM
MEMBER for Capalaba Michael Choi has welcomed the addition of three new carriages to one peak-hour train service from Cleveland to Bowen Hills.

The 7.55am service from Cleveland is one of 102 services to receive an extra three carriages.

"The three carriages will mean 1125 seats per week on this busy morning peak service," he said.

http://www.baysidebulletin.com.au/news/local/news/general/more-carriages-for-train-service/1835913.aspx

If Translink are going to achieve the 83,000 figure mainly by extending 3-car to 6-car units, I will be very annoyed!

Yes, there are some peak 3-car services (on Cleveland, Caboolture, and Beenleigh Lines) that definitely need extending to 6-cars but these would only be around 25% of the above figure. I would expect some of these "extended" services will be off-peak services which still have spare capacity and thus do not require extra units.

When there so many peak and off-peak service gaps that discourage the use of public transport, then adding 3-cars to services which do not require them would be a pathetic way by Translink to achieve their promised figures. If Translink add 3-cars to a non-overcrowded off-peak service, rather than filling in the many 20min+ peak gaps, or hourly off-peak gaps, it will show what little respect Translink have for public transport users.

Rant over!

It seems a pretty reasonable move to extend all peak trains to 6 cars though.  Especially for Merivale Bridge trains.

I've got nothing against most 3-car peak services becoming 6-car peak services. But as I mentioned this would probably only be approx 25-30% of these 100+ services/week.

However if a 3-car Sunday am hourly service is made a 6-car service, still at hourly frequency, my blood will boil!
I will also be pretty angry if I'm paying 20-30% higher fares to use the Ferny Grove Line (with it's overcrowding and mediocre timetable) and this line does not see a single extra seat this year (apart from seats made available due to people going back to driving).

Whilst moving off-peak 3-car services to 6-car services is a cheap way of adding capacity (same crew, less coupling/uncoupling in depot), it isn't addressing the most urgent requirements of when the rail network actually needs more services and seats (e.g. fill in those all too common 20min + peak gaps, fill in lengthy peak shoulder gaps such as the well known Shorncliffe and Caboolture gaps, and fill in the hourly late night and Sunday am gaps). If this is how Translink are going to meet their 83,000 seats/week promise, then I am very very disappointed. It shows a total lack of effort to actually improve the rail services required to attract more people to public transport or stop them abandoning it.

[somebody]

I've got nothing against most 3-car peak services becoming 6-car peak services. But as I mentioned this would probably only be approx 25-30% of these 100+ services/week.

That would be at most too.

However if a 3-car Sunday am hourly service is made a 6-car service, still at hourly frequency, my blood will boil!
I will also be pretty angry if I'm paying 20-30% higher fares to use the Ferny Grove Line (with it's overcrowding and mediocre timetable) and this line does not see a single extra seat this year (apart from seats made available due to people going back to driving).

100% agree with the sentiment, but I don't think a timetable re-write is on the cards here for this year.  Best you could hope for is some peak gap filling and perhaps some extra Sunday AM services as well as Mon-Thu PM.

[#Metro]

You are assuming the motors are running on a 100% duty cycle.  I could see 10% duty cycle at most.  I'm not too sure about regenerative braking (where the power is put back into the lines), but it would definitely be used if it was DC power.

I aml; Its a fair point because the train will draw more power going up a hill for instance. But 10%, how did you arrive at that? That would make a train running cost a mere $110 for an hour, if this were true, QR Citytrain should be swimming in a sea of cash so much so that no delay in new services or trains would occur...

[longboi]

You are assuming the motors are running on a 100% duty cycle.  I could see 10% duty cycle at most.  I'm not too sure about regenerative braking (where the power is put back into the lines), but it would definitely be used if it was DC power.

I aml; Its a fair point because the train will draw more power going up a hill for instance. But 10%, how did you arrive at that? That would make a train running cost a mere $110 for an hour, if this were true, QR Citytrain should be swimming in a sea of cash so much so that no delay in new services or trains would occur...

But they don't travel at full speed all the time 

[somebody]

But 10%, how did you arrive at that?

That's a guesstimation.  I haven't seen figures for CityTrain, but for CityRail electricity costs are something like 10% OTOH of total costs.  Enough that it is understandable that both organisations don't show much interest in running around short trains at off peak times to reduce costs as that would incur a labour cost in the marshalling.

[mufreight]

Energy is energy no matter how it is used or dissipated.
It requires x amount of energy to move y amount of weight against z amount of resistence.
A six car train will use twice the amount of energy of a three car train, as the loading on the train (passengers or gradient) increases the energy required to move it increases as does the amount of energy required to brake it, energy which is dissipated and lost.
I am glad that wiser heads organise the rostering of trains because it is you and I who pay the power bill and that is only part of the operating costs.

[#Metro]

There is another way to estimate this. Transperth runs similar trains and publishes all sorts of numbers in their Annual Report.
http://www.pta.wa.gov.au/Portals/0/annualreports/2009/service-and-financial-achievements/index.html

Average cost per 1000 place kilometres, IIRC, means the average cost to transport 1 person 1000km.
But it could also be interpreted as transporting 1000 people 1km, which is about the capacity a single 6 car train has.
So the average cost was $64.48 per train kilometre. This agrees well with the Mass Transit Report (2007) numbers about running a Sydney train as $60 per vehicle kilometre in 2007.

If we say that a train will travel, on average, 30 kilometres in one hour then this makes the cost about $64.48/km * 30km =  $1934.4 which is close to the ballpark estimates. So now there are two independent ways of estimating what a train might cost to run, and both are similar and both are at least 10x higher than what hourly wage rates are expected to be...

The same can be done for buses. Buses cost $82.24 per 1000 place kilometres in 2009; If we say an average bus carries 65 pax (not 1000) then 65 pax * ($82.24/1000 pax) = $5.34/km in 2009 which is close to the 2007 Mass Transit Report estimates for bus rapid transit operating costs of $4/km.


maybe these are off, but happy to hear refinements/corrections.

*Place kilometres are calculated by multiplying the average fleet capacity by the service kilometres.