2011 Timetable changes

[Stillwater]

Yes, ozbob, the 'dance of the trains' on the SC line is quaint and quirky.  You have the 'fastest train on narrow gauge in the southern hemisphere' doing a grandma slow shuffle at 70 km/hr and the (too few) passenger trains doing a square dance on the crossing loops to pass the freighters, or a Michael Jackson 'moon walk' of going forward while going back, at Nambour for instance.  Hey, at least the countryside is pretty good to look at, the ICE trains (when they are used) are comfortable ... and there is also the option of a good book.

[Stillwater]

The ICE trains could do with a refurbishment/maitenance check -- attention to brakes and automated doors, then maybe internal fitout, which is looking a bit tired.  If you scrap them, that means fewer train sets to rattle around the entire network.  They are reasonably good fit for the Gympie North run, and they have toilets!

The extension of the daytime Cooroy Flyer/Lander to Gympie North maybe renders these names redundant, as Cooroy is no longer the terminating station.  Perhaps the 'Gympie Go-for (Gopher)'??

[mufreight]

In regards to the Gympie North ICE services, they told me the safety restrictions are related to the gap between the platforms and the ICE sets (different door types apparently), also the different braking setup it has compared to the normal surburban services.

Where did this misinformation come from? fantasy central, the carbody on the ICE sets is the same width and length as the EMU sets the difficulty is the actual doorways being a single door at the end of the cars, the braking system is identical to that of the EMU sets which they are compatible with for multiple unit operation.
Next chapter of this amusing misinformation please

[Arnz]

A 2-car ICE power pair used to operated coupled to a EMU to form a 5-car set for the Sunday Gympie North service.  It was replaced by a 6-car ICE formation (It was initially a 4-car ICE set before increasing to 6-car due to overcrowding issues on the return service).

ICE/EMU combos in revenue service was stopped due to "Zero Harm" safety concerns at Traveston (which is the only 1-car platform on the network, and is earmarked for shutdown, iirc).

[somebody]

If the Shorncliffe line is being de-coupled from the CAB-IPS corridor due to Kippa-Ring, that implies that they do not intend to revisit the timetable for a decade or so.  I'm not impressed if that is true.

[Stillwater]

Yes, the Gympie North to Brisbane service on a Sunday is popular, so six-car set warranted.

[Golliwog]

mufreight, I expect the frieght timing issue is not with passenger services following freights but the other way around. Of course a passenger service can go right after a freight, the freight train shouldn't be stopping! Trying to have a frieght stop start behind a passenger service however is a stupid and pointless manouver, hence why you need a larger time gap so it won't catch up to the passenger service unless it can overtake. I also think they were talking about 15 minute frequencies where its not quad/tri track (ie: Past Darra).

Somebody, I have no clue about when next they will revisit the timetable, but don't make a mountain out of a molehill! The Shorncliffe line is being decoupled from IPS-CAB for proper sectorisation. IPS-CAB will be on the mains from Northgate and Shornecliffe on the subs.

[STB]

mufreight, I expect the frieght timing issue is not with passenger services following freights but the other way around. Of course a passenger service can go right after a freight, the freight train shouldn't be stopping! Trying to have a frieght stop start behind a passenger service however is a stupid and pointless manouver, hence why you need a larger time gap so it won't catch up to the passenger service unless it can overtake. I also think they were talking about 15 minute frequencies where its not quad/tri track (ie: Past Darra).

Somebody, I have no clue about when next they will revisit the timetable, but don't make a mountain out of a molehill! The Shorncliffe line is being decoupled from IPS-CAB for proper sectorisation. IPS-CAB will be on the mains from Northgate and Shornecliffe on the subs.

That's it pretty much in a nutshell. Sorry for not being as clear in earlier posts.

At the end of the day think what you like even if you disagree with what is said re: the construction of the timetables, but there are rules when it comes to the railways and those are constraints that the planners have to work through like it or not.  They aren't stupid.

[ozbob]

The issue is the freight stuff is being used as another excuse for non action.  It is not the big problem it is made out to be particularly on the Ipswich line, is bit of a problem on the Sunshine Coast line but can worked around.  I live overlooking the western line and generally observe around the clock what actually happens.

It just highlights the absolute folly of not proceeding with the Beerburrum to Landsborough duplication as planned.  Rail timetable planners are not fools they can only work with the infrastructure as it is and funding made available for services, it is the idiots in the bloated bureaucracy who purport be into policy development that raise eyebrows ..

[mufreight]

mufreight, I expect the frieght timing issue is not with passenger services following freights but the other way around. Of course a passenger service can go right after a freight, the freight train shouldn't be stopping! Trying to have a frieght stop start behind a passenger service however is a stupid and pointless manouver, hence why you need a larger time gap so it won't catch up to the passenger service unless it can overtake. I also think they were talking about 15 minute frequencies where its not quad/tri track (ie: Past Darra).

Somebody, I have no clue about when next they will revisit the timetable, but don't make a mountain out of a molehill! The Shorncliffe line is being decoupled from IPS-CAB for proper sectorisation. IPS-CAB will be on the mains from Northgate and Shornecliffe on the subs.

Lets take this step by step.
Yes it is preferable to have an unrestricted path to operate any train be it passenger or freight, having driven both types of service running on the yellows does not pose any great problem and to operate trains in such a manner is why drivers have to have road knowledge and based upon this regulate the operation of their trains to suit the conditions imposed by the circumstances.
The section of line that I was specifically referring to was Corinda to Ipswich which was only two tracks until the recent commissioning of the third and fourth tracks between Corinda and Darra West.
As to the timetabling, in days gone by timetabling was created by people with actual operating experience and from actual sectional running times, yes they had guidelines to work within but they knew from practical experience what was possible and the pitfalls that existed from the operation of different types of trains and made allowances for varying motive power.
Transport planners of these days by and large lack any operational experience and are more concerned with  creating timetabling which lacks operational flexibility to the point that their planning inhibits the effective operation of services.  Are they stupid? well you raised the question, were it me I would look at some on their more recent efforts and then you can form your own opinion

[Arnz]

The priority running on the North Coast Main Line between Beerburrum and Gympie North is Long Distance > QueenslandRail Passenger > Freights.  Freights have to give way to Passenger services, and  Passenger has to give way to Long Distance services.

QueenslandRail passenger services on the Sunshine Coast Line has priority over the freights, but has to give way for Long Distance services.

[Stillwater]

Hence the 'dance of the trains' up north, Arnz.

It is easy to see that the operational restriction of the track is becoming critical, not just on NCL, but elsewhere.  Crossing loop extensions on the NCL would allow for longer freight trains (more efficient and potentially fewer freight trains because you would be combining possibly two shoter freight trains into one).  That may free up train 'slots'.

We all look to the 'big ticket' stuff, like the Kippa-Ring Line, but there exists a very clear case for the Queensland Government to implement a 'small rail projects' building fund similar to the road 'black spots' program.  The black spots program fixes dangerous intersections, puts in some guard rail or removes a bend in the road where people kill themselves.  People don't die on the railways, but a 'small projects' fund could  deal with some of the little issues that may have big consequences.  Better switching capability at one or two locations, crossing loops ... that sort of thing.

[STB]

I should just generally mention that I did notice a significant difference in how open the planners were about the rationale and why they planned it what they did.  Queensland Rail was far more open about it and more informed, while TransLink seemed to enjoy saying 'No Comment' and 'That's confidential', when asked similar questions between the two organisations.  Evident when compared at both the Western Region info session (TransLink, Westside in attendance), and the QR timetable consultation (Queensland Rail and TransLink in attendance).

[#Metro]

I should just generally mention that I did notice a significant difference in how open the planners were about the rationale and why they planned it what they did.  Queensland Rail was far more open about it and more informed, while TransLink seemed to enjoy saying 'No Comment' and 'That's confidential', when asked similar questions between the two organisations.  Evident when compared at both the Western Region info session (TransLink, Westside in attendance), and the QR timetable consultation (Queensland Rail and TransLink in attendance).

What is TransLink's role in the construction of the rail timetables? IMHO TL is just a bit like the "shopfront" if you like. I would imagine that TL sends some sort of instructions to QR (more services, sectorised etc) and then QR constructs the timetable and then hands it to TL. Maybe that is why TL seems to be less open about why everything is timetabled as it is-- because they simply might not know, because they didn't make it?

[STB]

I should just generally mention that I did notice a significant difference in how open the planners were about the rationale and why they planned it what they did.  Queensland Rail was far more open about it and more informed, while TransLink seemed to enjoy saying 'No Comment' and 'That's confidential', when asked similar questions between the two organisations.  Evident when compared at both the Western Region info session (TransLink, Westside in attendance), and the QR timetable consultation (Queensland Rail and TransLink in attendance).

What is TransLink's role in the construction of the rail timetables? IMHO TL is just a bit like the "shopfront" if you like. I would imagine that TL sends some sort of instructions to QR (more services, sectorised etc) and then QR constructs the timetable and then hands it to TL. Maybe that is why TL seems to be less open about why everything is timetabled as it is-- because they simply might not know, because they didn't make it?

QR writes the timetable, TransLink approves the timetable, then handles marketing etc.  In terms of network planning, TransLink looks after the bus and ferry schedules/routes.

In terms of the Western Region (if I may go slightly off topic), TransLink did all the planning of the bus timetables and routes with Westside providing input but both were fairly silent on why they did what they've done.  QR on the other hand (at the Caboolture consultation session) were very open, giving technical details and proper reasoning by the ones themselves that constructed the draft timetable.  TL a little more silent on the bus routes that service the Ipswich/Caboolture lines even though they are indeed working on the timetables.

[#Metro]

QR writes the timetable, TransLink approves the timetable, then handles marketing etc.  In terms of network planning, TransLink looks after the bus and ferry schedules/routes.

In terms of the Western Region (if I may go slightly off topic), TransLink did all the planning of the bus timetables and routes with Westside providing input but both were fairly silent on why they did what they've done.  QR on the other hand (at the Caboolture consultation session) were very open, giving technical details and proper reasoning by the ones themselves that constructed the draft timetable.  TL a little more silent on the bus routes that service the Ipswich/Caboolture lines even though they are indeed working on the timetables.

I think a lot of the unrest would be immediately relieved if the people involved in the construction were able to openly justify what goes where.
IMHO the changes on the whole are improvements. Some patches to fix up with areas not covered by the new flexilink etc. Mind you, there will always be huge response to anything that is seen as a service cut, even if it makes the network overall better. That's just human nature...

[ozbob]

I should just generally mention that I did notice a significant difference in how open the planners were about the rationale and why they planned it what they did.  Queensland Rail was far more open about it and more informed, while TransLink seemed to enjoy saying 'No Comment' and 'That's confidential', when asked similar questions between the two organisations.  Evident when compared at both the Western Region info session (TransLink, Westside in attendance), and the QR timetable consultation (Queensland Rail and TransLink in attendance).

Thanks for sharing this observation STB.

[ozbob]

Overall I can live with the Ipswich - Cab stuff (either way with Toowong), but have real concerns with the Sunshine Coast stuff.

I think there is room to move some of the timings and/or perhaps increase frequency slightly on the Sunshine Coast draft.

[Stillwater]

I concur with STB's observations.  Generally, the QR people listen, not just hear, and attempt to answer your specific query.  This impression was reinforced at the Caboolture consultation re the new timetable.  With TransLink staff, I have the impresion they want to tick the box when it comes to public consultation, but see it as being a bit of nuisance in the path they have pre-determined things should proceed.  TransLink staff seemed to have rehersed 'pat answers', so you got an answer delivered in a general sense.  In contrast, the QR staff were more sincere, and came across as more genuine.  Maybe on the day, we had the QR planners there, whereas the TransLink people were the 'public relations' staff, who had the one-liners and buzz words, but did not know the detail.

[STB]

There was a TL Bus Planner at the Caboolture consultation session, the others were from the Marketing team from what I could gather.  The QR people there are full time planners, that timetable now for consultation, well those are the horse's mouths so to speak, they created them.

[somebody]

I should just generally mention that I did notice a significant difference in how open the planners were about the rationale and why they planned it what they did.  Queensland Rail was far more open about it and more informed, while TransLink seemed to enjoy saying 'No Comment' and 'That's confidential', when asked similar questions between the two organisations.  Evident when compared at both the Western Region info session (TransLink, Westside in attendance), and the QR timetable consultation (Queensland Rail and TransLink in attendance).

This is something I'm sure we have all noticed.  I do wonder if TL have been getting worse or better?  Is the consultation something that they have been required to do, but don't want to?

[#Metro]

This is something I'm sure we have all noticed.  I do wonder if TL have been getting worse or better?  Is the consultation something that they have been required to do, but don't want to?

How can the public make a proper judgment of the timetable with consultation if the logic behind the changes/timetable is hidden to the public?

[#Metro]

Maybe on the day, we had the QR planners there, whereas the TransLink people were the 'public relations' staff, who had the one-liners and buzz words, but did not know the detail.

This is the problem! PR staff!
Get the planners out there, the public will have much more respect for TL's efforts if they do that.

[somebody]

Somebody, I have no clue about when next they will revisit the timetable, but don't make a mountain out of a molehill! The Shorncliffe line is being decoupled from IPS-CAB for proper sectorisation. IPS-CAB will be on the mains from Northgate and Shornecliffe on the subs.

So, if BNH-FYG and CVN-SHC go to 4tph, then you need DBN-RS and no improvement to the Airport service.  I don't see those trade offs as positives.

[ozbob]

From the North West News 24th November 2010 page 12

Ferny Grove line misses out

[somebody]

People aren't very happy with their rail service are they?  I do not believe anyone has ever seen a headline like that in Sydney.

[ozbob]

From the Bayside Bulletin click here!

Cleveland rail line timetable overhaul a year away

Cleveland rail line timetable overhaul a year away

JUDITH KERR
22 Nov, 2010 12:00 AM

CLEVELAND rail line commuters will have to wait another year for a timetable overhaul, which will include tinkering with express train schedules and possibly extra peak-hour services.

The news was no consolation for commuters who will also have to wait 16 years before the track between Cleveland and Manly is duplicated.

The State Government announced plans on Wednesday to streamline timetables on the Ipswich and Caboolture lines but there was no mention of the Cleveland line.

The Cleveland timetable was last revised in March 2008 and it will be revised again late next year, along with the Ferny Grove and Gold Coast timetables as part of Queensland Rail's (QR) second round of upgrades.

Until then, Cleveland commuters will have to put up with the existing services, which include two, hour-long express trains in the morning and two in the afternoon.

In the morning peak period, about 7800 people catch trains inbound between Cleveland and Buranda.

In the afternoon peak period, about 6600 people get off trains between Buranda and Cleveland.

The timetable upgrade program would not make trips to and from Brisbane any faster or easier for Cleveland line commuters in the short term, Cleveland MP Mark Robinson said.

"This is not looking at the real problem on the Cleveland line, which is track duplication," Mr Robinson said.

"Before the line can cope with extra capacity, it needs dual train tracks between Manly and Cleveland.

"This is the perfect opportunity for QR to look at short-term solutions such as adding an extra peak-hour service from the city in the evening and duplicating sections of the track.

"I'm disappointed this plan does not keep pace with what Cleveland commuters need and will only force more commuters on to already congested roads.

"No streamlining of timetables is going to solve the existing congestion problems," Mr Robinson said.

A QR spokesman said the proposed timetable overhaul would not include upgrading or adding to existing track infrastructure.

The track duplication is part of the South East Queensland Infrastructure Plan under which $30 billion has been committed to build a better rail network.

"Possible timetable upgrades for Cleveland would include more express trains and increasing the number of stations an express train would miss," a QR spokesman said.

"But nothing has been decided for the Cleveland line yet and we will assess the success of the first stage of this timetable overhaul first before implementing stage two.

"QR is reviewing the existing stopping pattern of all Cleveland line trains and will draw up a timetable that will make the most efficient use of trains and tracks," the spokesman said.

Commuters' responses to the restructuring of the Ipswich timetable will be monitored before plans for the Cleveland line are drafted.

[#Metro]

Brace yourself TransLink and DTMR. The rail boom is just around the corner.

It happened in Melbourne, it happened in Perth, Brisbane is next IMHO.

[STB]

A staged approach with duplicating the rail line between Manly and Cleveland might be a little more achievable financially in the short term than doing the whole lot in one go, although operationally it isn't ideal.  The best way IMO is if the Manly to Cleveland duplication is done around the same time as CRR as that would definately increase available train paths between Cleveland and the City and hence allow increased frequency.

While the patronage should increase over time naturally, it will be interesting to see what shift in patronage from what areas of the Redlands occurs when the Eastern Busway is eventually built to Capalaba, as time wise it's much quicker (even presently) to get a bus from Capalaba to the City than to travel to the train station at Birkdale and then get the train in, some do that already however, not sure why, higher quality of ride over an increased travel time perhaps?

[ozbob]

One of the features of transport planning in SEQ is the failure to capitalise on existing infrastructure.  I have grave doubts if the Eastern Busway will ever make it out there STB.   The reality of using what we already have will increasingly resonate.  The Cleveland line is a good example  as is the line out to Doomben.

Staging is a good approach, and is applicable to the line from Beerburrum to Nambour as well.

Stabling is also going to have to be sorted for the future.

What do you think is more likely?   Fifteen minute service out of peak to Cleveland or a hat-trick in an Ashes test match?  

(   )

[somebody]

The hat-trick.

Didn't Merv Hughes bowl one of them?

[STB]

Stabling is an interesting issue out here.  They currently stable 3 trains at Manly, 2 in the yard and 1 on the platform overnight and up until some years ago they used to stable a couple of trains at Cleveland.  When that ended all trains ended up running empty from Mayne.

[ozbob]

The hat-trick.

Didn't Merv Hughes bowl one of them?

Brisbanetimes Siddle hat-trick rocks England

there is hope yet for a 15 minute to Cleveland ...  

[somebody]

Stabling is an interesting issue out here.  They currently stable 3 trains at Manly, 2 in the yard and 1 on the platform overnight and up until some years ago they used to stable a couple of trains at Cleveland.  When that ended all trains ended up running empty from Mayne.

Cleveland would have had to be a crew depot then.  Maybe more trouble than it was worth, and the 3 trains in Manly cover non-peak services.  If crews don't need to drive an MT or pax back to Manly, then they are taking over services which the Mayne starting crews normally cover (presumably Ferny Grove, for example).  If that make sense.

[Gazza]

The point is though TT the spruik going on is that the 104 will be improved to cover the loss of the rail services via Tennyson.  Now this seems to be bull doesn't it?

I've been appalled that this is the way it is done here.

So do we actually have any hard evidence that they are going to reduce services? Official statements and the like? Or is it just hearsay?

[ozbob]

Judge yourself Gazza --> http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=4867.msg39978#msg39978

Comments by TL personnel are not hearsay.

I have taken the time to highlight the 104 at the recent Darra timetable information session and at last evenings Ipswich line CRG.  There is much local feedback going in from around Corinda as well.  The 104 will need to be reviewed and increased, particularly for the school runs.  The few rail services via Tennyson do transport a lot of school students.

On the TL site it says ..

"Trains will no longer travel between Corinda and Yeerongpilly via Tennyson. Additional bus services will be introduced to replace these trains."

http://www.translink.com.au/travel-information/service-updates/queensland-rail-timetable-changes/ipswich-and-rosewood-line

[Gazza]

So we have conflicting statements...The official line is that they will be increased, the statement from an individual staffer is that they will be reduced. Can only be one or the other.

TBH, the benefit of the doubt needs to be given....who knows, maybe the official staff member was mistaken? Or vice versa.

I don't think it's really productive to go asserting anything one way or another until we actually have a 104 timetable in front of us.

Though it's a bit of a failure on TL's part to go announcing the suspension of Tennyson services, but then not have the 104 timetable ready to go.

[colinw]

Regarding Tennyson, I can see some logic in suspending it until CRR is built.  Peak hour Merivale Bridge capacity is too valuable to waste on an alternate route from Ipswich when it could be used for more Cleveland/Beenleigh/Gold Coast trains.

Post CRR, I expect to see a return of "via Tennyson" services using Merivale Bridge capacity freed up.  A nice frequent Doomben to Corinda service would do nicely, assuming Cleveland is once more paired with Shorncliffe and Springfield/Ipswich to Caboolture/Kippa-Ring is an independent sector.

Although I am not particularly hung up on retaining any particular line pairing.

[ozbob]

Presently on board EMU58 the lead unit for the 3.04pm ex Fortitude Valley - Corinda via South Brisbane ...  I think school is mainly over, just leaving Roma St.  Thought I would take the opportunity whilst I could.  About to play 'spot the horseless carriage on the Go between bridge' .....  shock horror there was three ...

[STB]

So we have conflicting statements...The official line is that they will be increased, the statement from an individual staffer is that they will be reduced. Can only be one or the other.

TBH, the benefit of the doubt needs to be given....who knows, maybe the official staff member was mistaken? Or vice versa.

I don't think it's really productive to go asserting anything one way or another until we actually have a 104 timetable in front of us.

Though it's a bit of a failure on TL's part to go announcing the suspension of Tennyson services, but then not have the 104 timetable ready to go.

The information I got was from the Planner himself who's reorganising route 104 (and other routes).  So I'd take his comment on board rather than the advertised comment.