POLL: Should all new rail stations be built to 9 car-train standard?

[#Metro]

Should all new stations accomodate 9 car trains, as standard?
This would allow capacity to be added to accommodate a feeder and trunk system, even during peak hour.

I'm thinking the standard apply to new stations that are re-built or are new (Trouts road, Cleveland duplications, Gold Coast line extension stations, Springfield line and CAMCOS and Kippa-Ring)

[#Metro]

Don't forget to say why/why not 

[Golliwog]

Yes, I don't see it as really costing all that much extra, although there is of course the big but of if QR is actually considering running 9-car trains on all lines.

[mufreight]

You are being hopeful here, what chance is there of this government building longer platforms that will not be used for years if ever when they are currently spending millions building new platforms that are not at carriage floor height nor are refurbished platforms such as 1 & 2 at Oxley, 1,2,3 & 4 at Indooroopilly and 2,3 & 4 at Darra.
The justification of not being able to raise platforms due to clearance problems with freight services has now been refuted and the justification for not raising these platform to comply with the now current disability access requirements is now back to cost, so what chance longer platforms that may or may not see use in our lifetimes?  

[somebody]

Outside of the Gold Coast, I do not see the need for the bigger trains.  Most of our platforms are 6 platforms, and 9 car platforms would not be beneficial unless all platforms on the line are upgraded to the 9 car standard.

[ozbob]

Yes, upgrading the system to 9 car standard platform lengths is probably not achievable IMHO.  Apart from the cost there are some real issues with many station locations themselves.  The 7 car train proposal last state election was not well received and many of the opposing reasons are magnified with 9 car lengths.  With a good frequency 6 car is more than enough in most situations.

[colinw]

My view is that 9 car trains are probably only of benefit for heavily used interurban services like Gold Coast and the eventual line to Maroochydore.   In the suburban area I would rather not see it happen, as it would tend to lock in the "long trains infrequently" pattern we have now.

[AnonymouslyBad]

While I can't see any harm in platforms being able to accommodate 9 cars, the biggest priority on our rail network really needs to be increasing frequency and allowing higher capacity trains is no help in that regard.

If we've done all the upgrades we can to increase frequency to the maximum that's reasonably possible, and still more capacity is needed then we can think about 9-car trains. While there's nothing wrong with future-proofing, I'd imagine longer platforms come at a cost, and there's far more pressing ways to spend that money.

For interurban lines I can see more of a case for it, but even then the next priority after frequency should be decreasing journey times, and the network upgrades required for that would not be cheap.

[#Metro]

While I can't see any harm in platforms being able to accommodate 9 cars, the biggest priority on our rail network really needs to be increasing frequency and allowing higher capacity trains is no help in that regard.

If we've done all the upgrades we can to increase frequency to the maximum that's reasonably possible, and still more capacity is needed then we can think about 9-car trains. While there's nothing wrong with future-proofing, I'd imagine longer platforms come at a cost, and there's far more pressing ways to spend that money.

OK. I think you have made a good distinction with the new stations. I doubt the cost would be that much more for new stations, and if built before trains operated, would be less of a disruption than after trains started running.

However, like you said, I think future-proofing might be a better option.
Leave enough space to extend the platform to accommodate 9 car trains if the option needs to be exercised in the future.

[#Metro]

  (though the poll is running neck and neck!)