Queensland UTC +10
Terms of use Privacy About us Media Contact

Links

Author Topic: SEQ Rail Network Project  (Read 3608 times)

Offline Zoiks

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 266
SEQ Rail Network Project
« on: September 08, 2010, 06:10:31 PM »
Hey guys,
Im currently doing a project on increasing the capacity of the SEQ rail network.
Basically, I thought I would post what I currently have (not much I must admit) and see if any of you can find any glaring issues with it.

Feel free to offer suggestions or criticism.

Issues: http://www.youshare.com/mrg/577f0c8a2d22133e.pdf.html
Headways: http://www.youshare.com/mrg/cecdfe50d336a5b4.pdf.html
Current network: http://www.youshare.com/mrg/3e40d11277f0d75d.pdf.html

Thanks

PS. I have already run this via Bob and he ok'd it.

Offline Golliwog

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4988
Re: SEQ Rail Network Project
« Reply #1 on: September 08, 2010, 06:38:30 PM »
Not all that knowledgable in this stuff, but one comment I have on the issues pages is that you mention and quote a SKM article from 2008 but don't give a proper in text reference (ie, the title of the article. Also given the quote a page number would probably be useful (assuming its a large article)).
There is no silver bullet… but there is silver buckshot.
Never argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

somebody

  • Guest
Re: SEQ Rail Network Project
« Reply #2 on: September 08, 2010, 06:42:19 PM »
The main problem with improved signaling and tighter headways is that it does nothing about the awful alignments of the Merivale Bridge routes.  For the mains?  Seems pretty reasonable, but you then need to abolish the Central dwell, or at least reduce it to 1min or so.

Offline Zoiks

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 266
Re: SEQ Rail Network Project
« Reply #3 on: September 08, 2010, 06:50:13 PM »
Not all that knowledgable in this stuff, but one comment I have on the issues pages is that you mention and quote a SKM article from 2008 but don't give a proper in text reference (ie, the title of the article. Also given the quote a page number would probably be useful (assuming its a large article)).

Yeah I know. I have a list of references here. I need to work on them obviously :)
Your quote in question is actually a web article and according to the referencing guide for QUT: http://www.citewrite.qut.edu.au/cite/harvard/examples/informal.jsp#webcorpauthor we dont include the title.
« Last Edit: September 08, 2010, 06:55:55 PM by Zoiks »

Offline Zoiks

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 266
Re: SEQ Rail Network Project
« Reply #4 on: September 08, 2010, 06:52:03 PM »
The main problem with improved signaling and tighter headways is that it does nothing about the awful alignments of the Merivale Bridge routes.  For the mains?  Seems pretty reasonable, but you then need to abolish the Central dwell, or at least reduce it to 1min or so.

The alignment issue will be dealt with in another section.
The dwell time issue was spoken about with a 1 minute dwell at central suggested in an example.

Offline Golliwog

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4988
Re: SEQ Rail Network Project
« Reply #5 on: September 08, 2010, 07:25:24 PM »
Ok, well I've noticed a few spelling/type errors (tp instead of to) so make sure you check those too.

Also, not sure about the scope of the assignment but do you need to discuss the feasability/timeframe of the proposed upgrades?

In the network structure section you call the Merivale bridge the Marivale bridge? Also, Figure 3 is a bit small and hard to read. Also, with this section is there any particular reason you single out the Ipswich and Ferny Grove lines as examples and also limited discussion?
There is no silver bullet… but there is silver buckshot.
Never argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Offline Zoiks

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 266
Re: SEQ Rail Network Project
« Reply #6 on: September 08, 2010, 08:02:06 PM »
Ok, well I've noticed a few spelling/type errors (tp instead of to) so make sure you check those too.

Also, not sure about the scope of the assignment but do you need to discuss the feasability/timeframe of the proposed upgrades?

In the network structure section you call the Merivale bridge the Marivale bridge? Also, Figure 3 is a bit small and hard to read. Also, with this section is there any particular reason you single out the Ipswich and Ferny Grove lines as examples and also limited discussion?

Yeah my spelling is not the best. Ill get round to fixing all that up.
That ipswich and ferny grove bit is actually from the government source listed above it.

Offline Zoiks

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 266
Re: SEQ Rail Network Project
« Reply #7 on: September 08, 2010, 08:45:07 PM »
Are there any errors in philosophy, assumptions or conclusions that I have made. Any other ideas I should include?

Offline Jonno

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1943
Re: SEQ Rail Network Project
« Reply #8 on: September 08, 2010, 09:41:29 PM »
In the Current Rail Networl you comment that the CBD is the major generator which is ture but the volume of trips around our city is significant and many are less than 5 km.  The major failing of our current PT system (particulalry rail) is that it is far too CBD centric.  The region requires a cross-town network but is being forced to use a radial network.  I am not sure it does make economic sense to make everyone travel to the centre.  This approach could be creating strain on the inner city infrastructre when it does not have to.  Observe the transfers at Park Road Rail/Buway Station to see the power of a network.  The number of peak hour services that terminate at Roma Street and Bowen Hills also makes cross city trips even harder/longer/less attractive.

http://www.humantransit.org/connections-and-transfers/




Offline Golliwog

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4988
Re: SEQ Rail Network Project
« Reply #9 on: September 08, 2010, 09:55:58 PM »
Actually, while I'm thinking about it. You describe the system as a spoke network (CBD centric) although it has the capapbility not to. This is mostly only on the southside with the Tennyson Loop and the track arrangements at Park Rd which allow trains from the Cleveland line to head south down the Beenleigh Line. The northside doesn't have anything like this yet, although the Alderley to Strathpine Line announced in the draft Connecting SEQ 2031 document could go someway to allowing for these type of trips.
There is no silver bullet… but there is silver buckshot.
Never argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Offline #Metro

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19681
  • DON'T SIGN! DON'T RENEW!!
Re: SEQ Rail Network Project
« Reply #10 on: September 08, 2010, 10:38:27 PM »
It might be useful to look at other networks and how they have increased capacity and why.

Sydney's network is a bit different to ours, it is a cross between a metro and urban rail system. Sydney also has a terminal space at Central Station to stow trains from long distance services.

Perth increased their capacity by having new stations and a tunnel entrance
Melbourne has the loop, but it is being used ineffectively.
Negative people... have a problem for every solution.
Posts are commentary and are not necessarily endorsed by RAIL Back on Track or its members. Not affiliated with, paid by or in conspiracy with MTR/Metro.

somebody

  • Guest
Re: SEQ Rail Network Project
« Reply #11 on: September 09, 2010, 02:34:07 PM »
It's not so much the Bowen Hills terminators.  It's the Roma St terminators/starters which do not serve Milton, Toowong, and Park Rd.

Offline Zoiks

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 266
Re: SEQ Rail Network Project
« Reply #12 on: October 30, 2010, 12:12:16 PM »
Alright... what do you guys think?
Thesis V3.pdf - 1.77MB

Online ozbob

  • Administrator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 80976
    • RAIL Back On Track
Re: SEQ Rail Network Project
« Reply #13 on: October 30, 2010, 01:11:33 PM »
Quote
All of this has been analysed and in the context of the South East Queensland Rail network, instead of investing in multibillion dollar new rail lines, it has been discovered that huge increases in network performance can be reaped from simple network and infrastructure improvements that unlock existing, yet unrealised capacity.

You have nailed it IMHO.  Thanks for sharing the document.

Some network expansion is needed but there is plenty of latent capacity today that IS NOT BEING USED.  As we all constantly point out.  Nothing really stopping 15 minute frequency around the clock on most lines.
Half baked projects, have long term consequences ...
Bob's Blog  Instagram   Facebook  @ozbob13@mastodon.social

Offline #Metro

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19681
  • DON'T SIGN! DON'T RENEW!!
Re: SEQ Rail Network Project
« Reply #14 on: October 30, 2010, 01:43:54 PM »
Quote
All of this has been analysed and in the context of the South East Queensland Rail network, instead of investing in multibillion dollar new rail lines, it has been discovered that huge increases in network performance can be reaped from simple network and infrastructure improvements that unlock existing, yet unrealised capacity.

pages 40/41/42 show some exciting possibilities. IMHO a lot of the problem is to do with peakiness- and this is a result of the 30 minute off peak frequency. Price signals will be ineffective if off-peak services are not ramped up.

The idea of unlocking the Ipswich line is interesting- but nearmap shows electical equipment at that site- http://www.nearmap.com/?q=@-27.466201,153.013819&ll=-27.466201,153.013819&z=20&t=k&nmd=20100912
Negative people... have a problem for every solution.
Posts are commentary and are not necessarily endorsed by RAIL Back on Track or its members. Not affiliated with, paid by or in conspiracy with MTR/Metro.

Offline Golliwog

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4988
Re: SEQ Rail Network Project
« Reply #15 on: October 30, 2010, 01:57:51 PM »
Yes but you could fairly easily squeeze at least one track on the northern side, a second track might need a bit of take on both sides but I don't think the electrical gear is the issue there, IMO the busway gets in the way a bit there. Although even so, you do just move the bottleneck from the junction to Roma St/Central.
There is no silver bullet… but there is silver buckshot.
Never argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Offline Zoiks

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 266
Re: SEQ Rail Network Project
« Reply #16 on: October 31, 2010, 10:28:40 AM »
Glad you guys like it. Lets hope my marker thinks the same  ;D

Guys, feel free to discuss the issues more. Im glad I can bring this to the table

Offline #Metro

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19681
  • DON'T SIGN! DON'T RENEW!!
Re: SEQ Rail Network Project
« Reply #17 on: October 31, 2010, 10:40:19 AM »
It would be interesting to see initiatives rolled out.
If there were some discussion threads about individual measures, then these could be
looked at and possibly turned into releases...
Negative people... have a problem for every solution.
Posts are commentary and are not necessarily endorsed by RAIL Back on Track or its members. Not affiliated with, paid by or in conspiracy with MTR/Metro.

somebody

  • Guest
Re: SEQ Rail Network Project
« Reply #18 on: November 06, 2010, 06:40:04 PM »
I've finally finished reading this.  A few points:
Ipswich is listed as interurban style, while Caboolture is listed as suburban.  Both are suburban on almost any measure I can think of.  Rosewood is tough to define.  "Basket case" is the only thing which comes to mind, which would make Nambour a hybrid of Interurban and "Basket case".  Hybrid may be the best description for both.

You don't cost sextuplication through the CBD.  Assuming that can be done for a negligible cost is a serious omission IMO.  If that were true, CRR1 may not proceed.

up-up-down-down on the Corinda-Milton corridor presumes that bi-di signaling is already installed.  I'm not sure it is.  There is also the issue that at Indooroopilly especially the platform on the mains is much narrower, with less seats and a worse pax experience.  Obviously we coped during the upgrade though.  I think this applies at most stations along here.

I don't like the idea of less seats, but that's not a reason for you not to advocate it.

Never noticed that express from Redbank before, that's a bit of a shocker.  There is more than 1 Corinda-City train in the AM peak.

I'm fairly sure your number of pax from the Airport & Doomben is wrong.  Unless that is seats, but even then Airport is less than Doomben.

Other threads have discussed conflicts on the Ippy in some detail, so I won't go into that.

Hope these points aren't too late for you.

Offline Stillwater

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6027
Re: SEQ Rail Network Project
« Reply #19 on: November 06, 2010, 07:16:25 PM »

Your postal mailbox may have something Zoiks.

somebody

  • Guest
Re: SEQ Rail Network Project
« Reply #20 on: November 06, 2010, 08:31:33 PM »
Besides my comments above, it is good to see these things being discussed in academic circles.  May raise the profile of these issues.

Offline Zoiks

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 266
Re: SEQ Rail Network Project
« Reply #21 on: November 08, 2010, 06:46:39 PM »

Your postal mailbox may have something Zoiks.

Wow, just picked it up today (I get everything routed to my parents). Thanks so much, you must have spent so much time on it. Shame its already handed in. Although you did a good job at ripping appart my grammer  ;D

Offline Zoiks

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 266
Re: SEQ Rail Network Project
« Reply #22 on: November 08, 2010, 06:56:11 PM »
I've finally finished reading this.  A few points:
Ipswich is listed as interurban style, while Caboolture is listed as suburban.  Both are suburban on almost any measure I can think of.  Rosewood is tough to define.  "Basket case" is the only thing which comes to mind, which would make Nambour a hybrid of Interurban and "Basket case".  Hybrid may be the best description for both.
Point taken.


You don't cost sextuplication through the CBD.  Assuming that can be done for a negligible cost is a serious omission IMO.  If that were true, CRR1 may not proceed.
I had neither the time nor resources to cost sextuplication through the CBD. In any case, CRR1 would still get the go ahead as the sextuplication would only clear the ipswich line, not eliminate the cross river issue unless you start using the tennyson line in force.

up-up-down-down on the Corinda-Milton corridor presumes that bi-di signaling is already installed.  I'm not sure it is.  There is also the issue that at Indooroopilly especially the platform on the mains is much narrower, with less seats and a worse pax experience.  Obviously we coped during the upgrade though.  I think this applies at most stations along here.
Yes the up up down down may need to be modified. I got the idea from the WBTNI. Platforms would(should) be upgraded.

I don't like the idea of less seats, but that's not a reason for you not to advocate it.
The 'metro' style layout would be only for short distance all stations services. Its just an option that could be tried.
Never noticed that express from Redbank before, that's a bit of a shocker.  There is more than 1 Corinda-City train in the AM peak.

I'm fairly sure your number of pax from the Airport & Doomben is wrong.  Unless that is seats, but even then Airport is less than Doomben.
[/quote]Got these details from the WBTNI, so im guessing they were correct as per the time of their writing. As for the numbers, its referring to capacity not pax.


Thanks for your input though. Its good to see its making people think.  :-t

 

Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 


“You can't understand a city without using its public transportation system.” -- Erol Ozan