Terms of use Privacy About us Media Contact

Poll

Overall performance for 2010.  Consider timetable, congestion, parking, stations, and bus integration.

4 or less
2 (33.3%)
5
2 (33.3%)
6
2 (33.3%)
7
0 (0%)
8
0 (0%)
9
0 (0%)
10
0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 4

Author Topic: Rosewood  (Read 3968 times)

Offline ozbob

  • Administrator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 93794
    • RAIL Back On Track
Rosewood
« on: November 28, 2010, 07:04:31 AM »
Have your say!
Half baked projects, have long term consequences ...
Instagram   Facebook  @ozbob13@mastodon.social

Offline ozbob

  • Administrator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 93794
    • RAIL Back On Track
Re: Rosewood
« Reply #1 on: November 28, 2010, 07:01:52 PM »
After constantly pushing for a number of years a small victory in 2010, the peak gap was reduced --> http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=3747.msg25648#msg25648

Rosewood services are essential and will increase as the new developments proceed (already started).

Shuttles are working fine, thru is better but it does mean services where there may not be.   Stations will need upgrades.  One way of establishing commuter rail to Gatton - Helidon would be electric-hybrid sets.  Run under wires to Rosewood then battery/diesel.  These units exist.
Half baked projects, have long term consequences ...
Instagram   Facebook  @ozbob13@mastodon.social

somebody

  • Guest
Re: Rosewood
« Reply #2 on: November 28, 2010, 08:41:25 PM »
it does mean services where there may not be.   
I don't follow what you mean by this.

Offline ozbob

  • Administrator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 93794
    • RAIL Back On Track
Re: Rosewood
« Reply #3 on: November 29, 2010, 03:07:44 AM »
It means a local crew can provide services during the day, where as if it was all thru there would be a greater requirement overall for trains and crew. They do it for a reason.
Half baked projects, have long term consequences ...
Instagram   Facebook  @ozbob13@mastodon.social

somebody

  • Guest
Re: Rosewood
« Reply #4 on: November 29, 2010, 09:01:15 AM »
Doesn't sound like much of a reason to me.  An hourly shuttle uses up just as much of the crews time as half hourly through running in theory, although the extra time at the controls may mean that rest breaks need to be taken sooner.

Might I suggest that the major reason is to improve on time running on the Ipswich Line?

Offline ozbob

  • Administrator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 93794
    • RAIL Back On Track
Re: Rosewood
« Reply #5 on: December 16, 2010, 05:34:57 PM »
Score 5.0
Half baked projects, have long term consequences ...
Instagram   Facebook  @ozbob13@mastodon.social

Offline petey3801

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1564
Re: Rosewood
« Reply #6 on: January 01, 2011, 05:16:28 PM »
Doesn't sound like much of a reason to me.  An hourly shuttle uses up just as much of the crews time as half hourly through running in theory, although the extra time at the controls may mean that rest breaks need to be taken sooner.

Might I suggest that the major reason is to improve on time running on the Ipswich Line?

One 3-car set is currently utilised for the shuttle service with one crew. A half-hourly frequency to Rosewood would require a second set and second crew. Also, there are not many crews outside Ipswich depot that are qualified for Rosewood.
All opinions stated are my own and do not reflect those held by my employer.

somebody

  • Guest
Re: Rosewood
« Reply #7 on: January 01, 2011, 08:36:53 PM »
Doesn't sound like much of a reason to me.  An hourly shuttle uses up just as much of the crews time as half hourly through running in theory, although the extra time at the controls may mean that rest breaks need to be taken sooner.

Might I suggest that the major reason is to improve on time running on the Ipswich Line?

One 3-car set is currently utilised for the shuttle service with one crew. A half-hourly frequency to Rosewood would require a second set and second crew. Also, there are not many crews outside Ipswich depot that are qualified for Rosewood.
It requires more than one crew, but with through running it would only require part of a second crew.  I.e. a second crew for only 20 minutes or so of every hour in addition to current.  I feel that it would be worth trying to see if patronage from beyond Rosewood increases.  Australians seem to really hate transferring!

It is a good point about the crew qualifications though.  I'm sure if there was more through running, crews from Mayne and Caboolture would need to be qualified for Rosewood.

Offline Mozz

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 850
Re: Rosewood
« Reply #8 on: January 01, 2011, 09:04:19 PM »
I believe the root cause issue with transferring is that frequency is generally poor so in commuters minds: transfer = significant delay = dislike of transfers

If frequency is high then: transferr = acceptable delay = acceptance of transfer

somebody

  • Guest
Re: Rosewood
« Reply #9 on: January 01, 2011, 09:16:22 PM »
I believe the root cause issue with transferring is that frequency is generally poor so in commuters minds: transfer = significant delay = dislike of transfers

If frequency is high then: transferr = acceptable delay = acceptance of transfer
Yes, I think there is a lot of truth to that.

Offline Arnz

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2388
Re: Rosewood
« Reply #10 on: January 01, 2011, 09:35:53 PM »
Don't forget 'Zero-Harm' basically means that any 6-car trains that operates past Ipswich in revenue service is basically a "3-car" set with the back 3 turned off.

IMO, an ideal (fantasy file  ::)) arrangement would be either a 3-car set (or a 4-car ICE set) operating limited exp/stops into the City (provided paths and stopping arrangements are ideal).  Otherwise on a more realistic note, a more frequent peak shuttle (every 15 mins) may have to suffice.

Any thought of running ICEs past Ipswich for limited expresses would require training for Ipswich crews (ICE crews are based only at 3 depots; Mayne, Caboolture and Nambour).
« Last Edit: January 01, 2011, 09:45:36 PM by Arnz »
Rgds,
Arnz

Unless stated otherwise, Opinions stated in my posts are those of my own view only.

Offline #Metro

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 20300
Re: Rosewood
« Reply #11 on: January 01, 2011, 10:13:23 PM »
Quote
believe the root cause issue with transferring is that frequency is generally poor so in commuters minds: transfer = significant delay = dislike of transfers

If frequency is high then: transferr = acceptable delay = acceptance of transfer

Yes.

It isn't transferring that is the problem- entire cities' transit systems are built on the principle. There are fast transfers and slow transfers. There are transfers where you walk across a platform inside a nice station, and there are transfers where you have to walk out of a building, down a flight of stairs, cross a road in the pouring rain and then wait for the next service.

Its the wait, and the difficulty in doing it. Poor information, mapping and marketing does not help either.
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 petey3801

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1564
Re: Rosewood
« Reply #12 on: January 02, 2011, 11:00:12 AM »
Doesn't sound like much of a reason to me.  An hourly shuttle uses up just as much of the crews time as half hourly through running in theory, although the extra time at the controls may mean that rest breaks need to be taken sooner.

Might I suggest that the major reason is to improve on time running on the Ipswich Line?

One 3-car set is currently utilised for the shuttle service with one crew. A half-hourly frequency to Rosewood would require a second set and second crew. Also, there are not many crews outside Ipswich depot that are qualified for Rosewood.
It requires more than one crew, but with through running it would only require part of a second crew.  I.e. a second crew for only 20 minutes or so of every hour in addition to current.  I feel that it would be worth trying to see if patronage from beyond Rosewood increases.  Australians seem to really hate transferring!

It is a good point about the crew qualifications though.  I'm sure if there was more through running, crews from Mayne and Caboolture would need to be qualified for Rosewood.

I'll rephrase that, it requires one crew at a time, there are numerous jobs at Ipswich which involve two, three or four (and up to seven) Rosewood shuttle runs in a shift. 

As for transfer, in the Rosewood shuttle case, it shouldn't be much of a problem due to the shuttle and Ipswich trains being a'Guaranteed' connection (on most runs). This often actually causes the Rosewood shuttle to become unreliable due to the Ipswich trains running late into Ipswich and holding up the shuttle. Generally there is enough time at Rosewood to pick up most of the lost time, however there are some cases (especially in peak) where the time is unable to be picked up again for quite a few runs due to very tight turnarounds at both ends.
All opinions stated are my own and do not reflect those held by my employer.

somebody

  • Guest
Re: Rosewood
« Reply #13 on: January 02, 2011, 02:01:17 PM »
I'll rephrase that, it requires one crew at a time,
I understood what you meant.  The point I was trying to make is that with through running you wouldn't have to have the second crew full time west of East Ipswich.  Although the new timetable squeezes the turn times, so that fruit cannot be picked for the through running half hourly plan.

I also don't understand why the first services of the day are to be done with shuttles from Rosewood rather than through running services as in the current timetable.

I hope I've made that clear.

Offline petey3801

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1564
Re: Rosewood
« Reply #14 on: January 02, 2011, 02:11:45 PM »
I'll rephrase that, it requires one crew at a time,
I understood what you meant.  The point I was trying to make is that with through running you wouldn't have to have the second crew full time west of East Ipswich.  Although the new timetable squeezes the turn times, so that fruit cannot be picked for the through running half hourly plan.

Current turnaround times are only 12 minutes at Ipswich, so to have through running instead of the shuttle would require at least another crew for another train to have through running, if that makes sense. In other words, for the purpose of reducing the crewing needs, it's pointless, as another train would have to be run to keep the half hour frequency on the Ipswich line.


Quote
I also don't understand why the first services of the day are to be done with shuttles from Rosewood rather than through running services as in the current timetable.



I'm with you on this one, I have no idea why they decided to do that in the new timetable. If they added an extra one or two early morning services from Ipswich which connect with the shuttle service I could partially understand (but, once again, if they did that they might as well just run the service from Rosewood in the first place instead of having the shuttle going...), but the first service from Ipswich still won't arrive into Brisbane until after 05:30 which is an absolute joke!
All opinions stated are my own and do not reflect those held by my employer.

Offline Arnz

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2388
Re: Rosewood
« Reply #15 on: January 02, 2011, 02:39:26 PM »
It would cost quite a fair bit of money for a second guard to hop on at Ipswich just to shut off the back 3 cars and man the back 3 cars, due to 'Zero Harm' requirements for short platforms west of Ipswich.

Not to mention switching units at Rosewood, and then turning the back 3 cars on again on arrival at Ipswich.
Rgds,
Arnz

Unless stated otherwise, Opinions stated in my posts are those of my own view only.

somebody

  • Guest
Re: Rosewood
« Reply #16 on: January 02, 2011, 03:28:08 PM »
It would cost quite a fair bit of money for a second guard to hop on at Ipswich just to shut off the back 3 cars and man the back 3 cars, due to 'Zero Harm' requirements for short platforms west of Ipswich.

Not to mention switching units at Rosewood, and then turning the back 3 cars on again on arrival at Ipswich.
Yes, zero charm doesn't make any sense!  Not sure about the problem with switching units though.  Isn't Rosewood a 6 car platform?  It's just like every other end swap when the terminating and starting services both have the rear 3 cars locked.  Unless you can tell me that this never happens (possible).  Even if it doesn't happen currently, I don't see the problem with doing it here.

Offline petey3801

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1564
Re: Rosewood
« Reply #17 on: January 02, 2011, 03:30:59 PM »
It would cost quite a fair bit of money for a second guard to hop on at Ipswich just to shut off the back 3 cars and man the back 3 cars, due to 'Zero Harm' requirements for short platforms west of Ipswich.

Not to mention switching units at Rosewood, and then turning the back 3 cars on again on arrival at Ipswich.

No second guard needed. Current procedure (for through trains from Brisbane) is front 3-cars are emptied out at Ipswich (utilising the guard and station officer) with all through passengers put into rear 3-cars.
Train then runs to Rosewood with rear 3-cars on the platforms to Rosewood. Once at Rosewood, driver changes ends and the (now) front 3-cars are used with the front 3-cars stopped on the platforms to Ipswich, from where normal operation continues. The main reason the rear 3-cars are used from Ipswich to Rosewood (which become the front 3 on the return) is so the level crossings at Karrabin and Thagoona are not blocked by the stopped train.

The current through Rosewood train late at night is the exception to this, as it uses the front three cars due to the rear 3-car unit being locked from Caboolture.
All opinions stated are my own and do not reflect those held by my employer.

somebody

  • Guest
Re: Rosewood
« Reply #18 on: January 02, 2011, 03:33:43 PM »
Does the current late night train just block the level crossings?

Thanks for that info, at least zero charm isn't as stupid as people have said.  I always expected thus.  Assuming you are correct of course.

Offline petey3801

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1564
Re: Rosewood
« Reply #19 on: January 02, 2011, 03:34:48 PM »
It would cost quite a fair bit of money for a second guard to hop on at Ipswich just to shut off the back 3 cars and man the back 3 cars, due to 'Zero Harm' requirements for short platforms west of Ipswich.

Not to mention switching units at Rosewood, and then turning the back 3 cars on again on arrival at Ipswich.
Yes, zero charm doesn't make any sense!  Not sure about the problem with switching units though.  Isn't Rosewood a 6 car platform?  It's just like every other end swap when the terminating and starting services both have the rear 3 cars locked.  Unless you can tell me that this never happens (possible).  Even if it doesn't happen currently, I don't see the problem with doing it here.

Platform 2 (Down) at Rosewood is a 3-car (with a bit of overlap at each end) platform. Platform 1 (Up - rarely used) is a 5-car platform. The reason for the use of Platform 2 instead of 1 is due to the ticketing and toilet facilities being on Platform 2, which is also where the bus stop is. Also, platform 2 is much easier accessed by disabled passengers as opposed to platform 1.
All opinions stated are my own and do not reflect those held by my employer.

Offline petey3801

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1564
Re: Rosewood
« Reply #20 on: January 02, 2011, 04:10:03 PM »
Does the current late night train just block the level crossings?

Thanks for that info, at least zero charm isn't as stupid as people have said.  I always expected thus.  Assuming you are correct of course.

Yes, late night train blocks the level crossings, but at that time of night there simply aren't many cars out there to be inconvenienced. That, and the train isn't stopped for long at either Karrabin or Thagoona most nights.

I should hopefully know the drill, considering i've driven said services numerous times  ;)
All opinions stated are my own and do not reflect those held by my employer.

somebody

  • Guest
Re: Rosewood
« Reply #21 on: January 02, 2011, 04:11:28 PM »
Thanks for the correction!  Seems I'd been given wrong info.  Maybe lengthen platform 2 to 6 car length.

 

Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 


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