Poll: What's more important to lobby for? Off peak frequency or CRR Phase 1.

[somebody]

Here's a poll I'm unsure what the answer is going to be.  I have my own opinion, which I will try to justify later.

[ozbob]

It is not a matter of what is more important for me, it is the consideration of what is more likely to be achieved at a grass roots level.  The CRR is in the domain of experts largely, 15 minute train frequency is more in the domain of every day commuters.  That doesn't mean you don't support both, or work towards (lobby for) both, but frequency increases is something that directly impacts on all.  CRR will facilitate further frequency increases and offer opportunities for some train path variation.  Both related.

[somebody]

We can certainly walk and chew gum at the same time.

Perhaps swear at Al Gore for coining that as well.

[longboi]

I'd be interested to know how you plan on achieving 15min frquencies BEFORE CRR1.
All the study documents are clear that the Merivale bridge will be at capacity by 2016.

[#Metro]

I'd be interested to know how you plan on achieving 15min frquencies BEFORE CRR1.
All the study documents are clear that the Merivale bridge will be at capacity by 2016.

I caught a train today. Had to wait 30 minutes for it. I spent my time looking at the new LCD screens, new logos, new train livery, new refurbished interior et cetera.

Still 30 minutes wait. 

[ButFli]

I'd be interested to know how you plan on achieving 15min frquencies BEFORE CRR1.
All the study documents are clear that the Merivale bridge will be at capacity by 2016.

Um..? Are there any lines that don't sustain 15min or better frequencies during peak? Doomben maybe? The outer part of the Cleveland line? The point is the capacity is there both in the network and availability of rolling stock to provide 15min frequency to a lot more stations for a lot longer.

Almost everywhere CAN handle 15 minute services, it's just that QR CHOOSES not to provide it. You don't need to build a new tunnel to provide 24hr, 15min frequency to the majority of stations.

[Jonno]

It is not that QR don't want to provide it. It is that our transport planning still assumes only 20% of trips will be by public transport so all the money is being spent in an endless attempt to cater for the more important 80%.   Failure to plan properly is planning for failure.

[Derwan]

Almost everywhere CAN handle 15 minute services, it's just that QR CHOOSES not to provide it.

Whoa!! You mean the QLD Government CHOOSES not to fund it!  QR does the best they can with the funds provided.

Oh - and I believe the Shorncliffe line can't handle a 15-minute off-peak frequency due to the single track section and single platform at Shorncliffe.

There's no reason why we can't lobby for both.  As others have pointed out, they're two different things. CRR is a huge infrastructure investment required to handle peak frequency requirements into the future.  15-minute off-peak frequencies (on lines that can handle it) require an ongoing injection of funds from the QLD Government.  For lines that can't handle it, the infrastructure requirements come into play.

[somebody]

Almost everywhere CAN handle 15 minute services, it's just that QR CHOOSES not to provide it.

Whoa!! You mean the QLD Government CHOOSES not to fund it!  QR does the best they can with the funds provided.

Oh - and I believe the Shorncliffe line can't handle a 15-minute off-peak frequency due to the single track section and single platform at Shorncliffe.

There's no reason why we can't lobby for both.  As others have pointed out, they're two different things. CRR is a huge infrastructure investment required to handle peak frequency requirements into the future.  15-minute off-peak frequencies (on lines that can handle it) require an ongoing injection of funds from the QLD Government.  For lines that can't handle it, the infrastructure requirements come into play.

Regarding the Shorncliffe line, I believe that it is possible, but with almost no operating margin.  Sandgate-Shorncliffe-Sandgate is a 4 minute run + 8 minutes dwell at Shorncliffe.  Then it needs to clear Sandgate due to the safeworking problem there before the next arriving train.  I would support this safeworking problem being solved at Sandgate, which I learned about at the online meeting.

To be honest, I think the blame for the lack of a 15 minute frequency needs to be levelled at both QR and the politicians.  What's the reason for the Corinda terminus?  To make it easier for freight, I would suggest.  For basically the same money (and probably effectively less due to increased fares), they could have had a Darra terminus and take in the 6th & 9th busiest stations on the network.  Very, very lazy.  Ferny Grove could have been done easily, as for Manly, Sandgate and Petrie.

It is not that QR don't want to provide it. It is that our transport planning still assumes only 20% of trips will be by public transport so all the money is being spent in an endless attempt to cater for the more important 80%.   Failure to plan properly is planning for failure.

Many would suggest that it is because they don't want to provide it.

I'd be interested to know how you plan on achieving 15min frquencies BEFORE CRR1.
All the study documents are clear that the Merivale bridge will be at capacity by 2016.

As others have said.  Not sure if you still want an answer to this.

[#Metro]

To be honest, I think the blame for the lack of a 15 minute frequency needs to be levelled at both QR and the govt.

They are one and the same if you ask me.

[#Metro]

Oh - and I believe the Shorncliffe line can't handle a 15-minute off-peak frequency due to the single track section and single platform at Shorncliffe.

It's such a shame that almost every line has some form of incapacitation or critical bottleneck. Maybe we need something like Sydney Clearways to go through every single line and find out where all these niggly bottlenecks are and get rid of them. Single track is a common bottleneck!

Maybe a list of all of these bottlenecks are...

[mufreight]

While everyone focuses on the track capacity issue of the Roma Street - South Brisbane section reaching capacity in 2016 it seems that what is selectively overlooked is that capacity issue relates to the peak not the off peak and it would be possible to operate a 15 minute off peak service without the CRR, the limiting factor is the capacity of the single track section of the Clevland line.
Likewise by terminating every second Shorncliffe service at Sandgate that line could provide a 15 minute off peak from Sandgate to the CBD, not the optimum answer but better than nothing and if there was a need for the 15 minute frequency between Sandgate and Shorncliffe then with the numbers of commuters involved the gap could be filled with a local bus service until such time as the missing link is duplicated again the additional platform is not needed for the off peak services but to enable the operation of additional peak services.

[somebody]

To be honest, I think the blame for the lack of a 15 minute frequency needs to be levelled at both QR and the govt.

They are one and the same if you ask me.

Allow me to re-phrase: QR & the politicians.

Maybe a list of all of these bottlenecks are...

Alright. 
Single track north of Beerburrum
Single track past Sandgate & Kepperra - although these don't really count as bottlenecks IMO as they can be worked around.
Single track past Manly
triple track to Kuraby - can't upgrade off peak frequency for GC or outer Beenleigh
single track Coomera-Helensvale & double track past Kuraby - can't upgrade peak GC frequency.
short platforms on the Rosewood line.
single track and indirect route for Doomben.
No access to Mayne at Roma St without conflicting moves
Bowen Hills starters on main tracks conflict with northbound trains on mains
Nortbound Airport and & Doomben trains conflict with southbound trains on suburbans
No access northbound to middle road at Northgate from mains without a conflicting move
Possible conflicting moves at Darra/Milton
PM peak conflicting move at South Brisbane & Kuraby
inbound Cleveland line trains conflict with outbound Beenleigh trains.
Beenleigh starters conlict with outbound GC trains

It's all the conflicting moves listed above the a plan like the clearways would reduce.  That plan still leaves quite a few in place though.

Did I leave anything out?

[#Metro]

Decided to have a look. Not sure if I could embed google maps on the forum, but here is a link:

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Shornecliffe+station&sll=-27.634754,153.144756&sspn=0.014828,0.033345&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Shorncliffe+Station,+Queensland,+Australia&ll=-27.327007,153.079993&spn=0.000929,0.003106&t=h&z=19

This is just embarrassing. Shornciffe should get a proper platform! A second one or an island one.
I can't believe stations like this are on the network.

Likewise by terminating every second Shorncliffe service at Sandgate that line could provide a 15 minute off peak from Sandgate to the CBD, not the optimum answer but better than nothing and if there was a need for the 15 minute frequency between Sandgate and Shorncliffe then with the numbers of commuters involved the gap could be filled with a local bus service until such time as the missing link is duplicated again the additional platform is not needed for the off peak services but to enable the operation of additional peak services.

Agreed, as a stop-gap measure. Shorncliffe station needs a major upgrade! Just don't over do it, cheap and simple. Does it need a bus stop/interchange too?

[#Metro]

To be honest, I think the blame for the lack of a 15 minute frequency needs to be levelled at both QR and the govt.  What's the reason for the Corinda terminus?  To make it easier for freight, I would suggest.  For basically the same money (and probably effectively less due to increased fares), they could have had a Darra terminus and take in the 6th & 9th busiest stations on the network.  Very, very lazy.  Ferny Grove could have been done easily, as for Manly, Sandgate and Petrie.

Why do I think we will hear the very sorry, self-fulfilling prophetic "there is not much demand" argument trotted out again to ward off all suggestion of upgrades?

IMHO a proper timed local bus feeder system, meeting each and every train to most stations will be needed to increase the catchment of people who are able to access trains.

[somebody]

I don't see any problem with Shorncliffe remaining as is.  It's really just the hard to use second platform at Sandgate which is a problem.

[Derwan]

I don't see any problem with Shorncliffe remaining as is.  It's really just the hard to use second platform at Sandgate which is a problem.

There are currently two services less than 20 minutes after a previous service in the morning.  I believe this is achieved by empties running past the platform at Shorncliffe for the turnback.

To have a reliable 15-minute frequency, even in PEAK, we need the duplication and second platform at Shorncliffe.

As tramtrain alluded to, Shorncliffe Station is old and decrepit.  The first time I saw it, I found it hard to believe that a terminating station could look like this.  Even the line between Sandgate and Shorncliffe has been neglected - with one level crossing only recently having boom gates installed.  (That's right, there was a level crossing without boom gates!!)

I believe the boom gates were only installed because of the zero harm policy of the newer management at QR.

How much longer will this line be neglected?  How many more cars would be taken off the Gateway Motorway and Sandgate Road if this line had a decent frequency!

Shorncliffe Station doesn't need a bus interchange as Sandgate handles that.  Sandgate is actually closer to Brighton and Redcliffe as the line curves around and almost doubles back - and Shorncliffe is a fairly confined area where everything is within walking distance.

[somebody]

I don't see any problem with Shorncliffe remaining as is.  It's really just the hard to use second platform at Sandgate which is a problem.

There are currently two services less than 20 minutes after a previous service in the morning.  I believe this is achieved by empties running past the platform at Shorncliffe for the turnback.

To have a reliable 15-minute frequency, even in PEAK, we need the duplication and second platform at Shorncliffe.

But if you removed the constraint that made it hard to use the second platform at Sandgate you should be able to make it reasonably reliable, shouldn't you?  I remember reading somewhere in one of the ICRCS documents that the duplication was required to raise the frequency above 6tph.  I'm not quite sure what they are thinking.  A crew swap at Shorncliffe would allow far more frequency than that without the crew swap.  Perhaps 3 car trains and 6 minute dwells with no crew swap or operating margin and fixing Sandgate.

Surely fixing up Sandgate's safeworking would be more important than tarting up Shorncliffe.

[#Metro]

As tramtrain alluded to, Shorncliffe Station is old and decrepit.  The first time I saw it, I found it hard to believe that a terminating station could look like this.  Even the line between Sandgate and Shorncliffe has been neglected - with one level crossing only recently having boom gates installed.  (That's right, there was a level crossing without boom gates!!)

I believe the boom gates were only installed because of the zero harm policy of the newer management at QR.

How much longer will this line be neglected?

It's an embarrassment! Yes, Sandgate should get fixed up too, as should lots of other places on the rail network.
As a basic standard, stations should have 2 platforms or 1 island with 2 sides. You'll never find a busway station with 1 platform!

We should not settle for quick-fix band-aid solutions.

[somebody]

As tramtrain alluded to, Shorncliffe Station is old and decrepit.  The first time I saw it, I found it hard to believe that a terminating station could look like this.  Even the line between Sandgate and Shorncliffe has been neglected - with one level crossing only recently having boom gates installed.  (That's right, there was a level crossing without boom gates!!)

I believe the boom gates were only installed because of the zero harm policy of the newer management at QR.

How much longer will this line be neglected?

It's an embarrassment! Yes, Sandgate should get fixed up too, as should lots of other places on the rail network.
As a basic standard, stations should have 2 platforms or 1 island with 2 sides. You'll never find a busway station with 1 platform!

I don't care about how many !@#$ platforms a station has!  Is this a p%ssing contest?  My Dad could beat up your Dad? etc.

[#Metro]

 Huh

[somebody]

Not sure what to add.

We don't need more platforms at Shorncliffe.  We need more trains in service.

[Stinktown]

Would it be feasible to have trains commencing from Eagle Junction or Northgate (and 3-car units) ?
(Given the emptiness of Doomben and a lot of airport services)
Or is it too much to ask people to change services?

[somebody]

Would it be feasible to have trains commencing from Eagle Junction or Northgate (and 3-car units) ?
(Given the emptiness of Doomben and a lot of airport services)
Or is it too much to ask people to change services?

Don't see much reason to do so.  It's not like the trains EJ-city are too frequent or anything.  There's also nowhere for the trains to turn around at those stations, so they need to stand on running lines, and reversing has its own limitations.

[Derwan]

Would it be feasible to have trains commencing from Eagle Junction or Northgate (and 3-car units) ?

In the past I've suggested Northgate starters.  The track set-up at Northgate is such that they could do the turnback on platform 1 or 2, with other services routed around as necessary.  At worst they could electrify part of the siding towards Golden Circle Cannery to effect the turnback.

Then stephenk suggested that if you're gonna do that, why not run a bit further to Shorncliffe, effectively increasing the frequency there, without having any express services between Northgate and Bowen Hills.  I said I'd gladly give up the express services for more frequent ones!

Of course with the discussion we've just been having, I'm not sure how frequent the services to Shorncliffe can actually be.

[somebody]

Longer term, I see a need for a third platform at one of the intermediate stations, let's say Nudgee.  Should be a centre turnback, none of this side stuff with conflicting moves that is so prevalent in QLD.  Doing it that way, you can have peak hour all stoppers starting here at 4tph with 4tph running from Shorncliffe express from Nudgee, but with stops at N & EJ then BH. (Sorry, I can't abide the way express trains are announced in QLD.)  Or something like that.  Nundah, Toombul, Albion and Wooloowin need to be removed from the Caboolture line.

BTW, there's no percentage in 3 car units, especially in peak.  Witness CityRail going towards non-divisible 8 car units.

[#Metro]

Longer term, I see a need for a third platform at one of the intermediate stations, let's say Nudgee.  Should be a centre turnback, none of this side stuff with conflicting moves that is so prevalent in QLD.  Doing it that way, you can have peak hour all stoppers starting here at 4tph with 4tph running from Shorncliffe express from Nudgee, but with stops at N & EJ then BH. (Sorry, I can't abide the way express trains are announced in QLD.)  Or something like that.  Nundah, Toombul, Albion and Wooloowin need to be removed from the Caboolture line.

Can't quite see it. Are you suggesting a short service that ends at Nundah?
Not sure if express on Shorncliffe, being a shorter line, is a good thing either.

[somebody]

Can't quite see it. Are you suggesting a short service that ends at Nundah?

Not Nundah, Nudgee.  So serve Albion, Wooloowin, Nundah and Toombul, Bindha, Banyo and Nudgee.  Possibly one other non-express station in there. Can't remember OTOH.

Not sure if express on Shorncliffe, being a shorter line, is a good thing either.

My thinking is that as soon as traffic requirements reach 8tph in peak, it is time to start adding express patterns and short workings.  Otherwise you are under-utilising your rolling stock while also providing a less attractive service.

[Derwan]

Longer term, I see a need for a third platform at one of the intermediate stations, let's say Nudgee.

Is this before or after the duplication of Sandgate-Shorncliffe and the second platform at Shorncliffe?

[somebody]

Longer term, I see a need for a third platform at one of the intermediate stations, let's say Nudgee.

Is this before or after the duplication of Sandgate-Shorncliffe and the second platform at Shorncliffe?

Before.

[Derwan]

Before.

Okay - let's think logically here.  Sandgate is the busiest station on this short line.  Boondall, North Boondall and Deagon are also very busy stations.  You're suggesting a major upgrade at Nudgee - including building an extra section of track and an extra platform, while leaving many of the busiest stations on the line with infrastructure that cannot adequately support an appropriate peak frequency?

Would you please explain the logic in providing this infrastructure before the duplication and 2nd platform at Shorncliffe?

Secondly, the Shorncliffe line is a short line.  There really is not much point in terminating a train half way along the line.

[somebody]

I'm sorry.  Weren't you advocating an even shorter service terminating at Northgate before?

Besides, the argument that a single platform at Shorncliffe couldn't support a 15 minute service is false.  Still a 3 minute margin, although that is made tight by the safeworking problem.

Looking at the loading survey, yes I agree that Nudgee wouldn't be the best place.  Albion + Woollowin + Nundah + Toombul + Bindha = 3001 AM Inbound boardings in 2009.  Add in a share of EJ + N + Banyo and growth in the long term, and I would say those stations will eventually support a 4tph peak service on their own.  So maybe a Banyo 3rd platform would be better.  Banyo-Shorncliffe pax would still use the 4tph from Shorncliffe which could run express through Bindha, Nun, T, A, W.  These would at least get a far better service quality than at present (not difficult).

[Derwan]

I'm sorry.  Weren't you advocating an even shorter service terminating at Northgate before?

That wouldn't require additional infrastructure.  And as mentioned, in the end I would be more inclined to recommend additional services to Shorncliffe instead.

Besides, the argument that a single platform at Shorncliffe couldn't support a 15 minute service is false.  Still a 3 minute margin, although that is made tight by the safeworking problem.

I was talking peak frequency - which should ideally be more frequent than 15 minutes during the busiest times - especially to attract the people along the line who currently drive to Northgate for more frequent services.

maybe a Banyo 3rd platform would be better.

Banyo station is between 2 roads, so that wouldn't be possible anyway.

Again, it's a short line.  The only infrastructure requirements at this stage are the duplication between Sandgate and Shorncliffe - and the second platform at Shorncliffe.  This will allow the increased frequency required to adequately cater for the entire line and assist at the intermediate stations between Northgate and Nundah without further burdening services on the Caboolture line.

[#Metro]

I'm all for new services etc etc.
I just think Shorncliffe Station should get a second platform because it is an abomination to have something like that on the network on a line like Shorncliffe. I can understand that there are a handful on the Doomben line as well.

They should just get a 2nd platform for having to put up with (the lack of) infrastructure like that.

You'll never see a busway with 1 platform!

Edit: Is this a marginal seat too? Maybe as an election sweetener? 

[somebody]

You'll never see a busway with 1 platform!

That's because buses only have doors on one side.

I think you should just get over it.

I'm sorry.  Weren't you advocating an even shorter service terminating at Northgate before?

That wouldn't require additional infrastructure.  And as mentioned, in the end I would be more inclined to recommend additional services to Shorncliffe instead.

Besides, the argument that a single platform at Shorncliffe couldn't support a 15 minute service is false.  Still a 3 minute margin, although that is made tight by the safeworking problem.

I was talking peak frequency - which should ideally be more frequent than 15 minutes during the busiest times - especially to attract the people along the line who currently drive to Northgate for more frequent services.

maybe a Banyo 3rd platform would be better.

Banyo station is between 2 roads, so that wouldn't be possible anyway.

Again, it's a short line.  The only infrastructure requirements at this stage are the duplication between Sandgate and Shorncliffe - and the second platform at Shorncliffe.  This will allow the increased frequency required to adequately cater for the entire line and assist at the intermediate stations between Northgate and Nundah without further burdening services on the Caboolture line.

Actually, the Northgate terminators you are referring to would require additional infrastructure AIUI.  Don't you need to at least electrify a siding here.  Surely you aren't planning to block a running line in peak hour?  Perhaps it is possible to depart from platform 2 at Northgate, which you sort of implied above, but that still causes unpleasant timetabling constraints.  Even then, I don't think you can arrive on platform 1 in the PM peak.  So I am pretty dubious about it being doable in the AM and more in the PM.

Peak frequency doesn't really need to be better than 15 minutes.

Regarding Banyo being between 2 roads, I doesn't look like it.

[#Metro]

Separate topic, separate thread, obviously Shorncliffe line needs looking at.

http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=4190.0

Edit: Fixed link to new Shorncliffe thread.  (Also fixed spelling errors.  )

[longboi]

As others have said.  Not sure if you still want an answer to this.

I'm not against it but as I've stated in the past, it should be done in conjunction with a complete timetable overhaul. And not before QR have enough rollingstock to do it comfortably.

[somebody]

And not before QR have enough rollingstock to do it comfortably.

They already do don't they?

[ClintonL94]

With over 200+ 3 car trains(100+ 6 car trains) I believe QueenslandRail can support 15 minute off peak services for both directions.

[colinw]

Put me down as another vote for full-time 15 minute service frequency (or 20 minute if that is more achievable without junction conflicts).

The whole point of rail is to be a high capacity, frequent, convenient mode that performs the core linehaul function of the public transport system.

If you schedule it at 30 minute frequency then it will never do any better than a particularly well serviced bus route for patronage.  At that poor frequency it will never come anywhere near close to justifying its existence due to the high fixed cost of the infrastructure.  This is reflected in the relative per passenger subsidies for bus vs. rail (misleading as they are due to differences in average journey length). The rail system comes off the worse because it costs a lot to run such an infrequent service of 6 car trains which often run around half empty because the service simply isn't convenient enough to attract people outside of their daily commute.

It is no coincidence that the sections of line that see a lot of use for discretionary travel in the offpeak are the lines that have 15 minute offpeak.  You just have to ride a mid morning Beenleigh service, then a mid morning inner Ipswich service to see the difference.

Perth shows the way in this respect IMHO.  Shorter trains, more often.  Admittedly a very different network with far fewer junction conflicts and near complete freight segregation.

cheers,
Colin