E-Petition => Preserving the current timetable Nambour and Caboolture lines

[p858snake]

Preserving the current Translink timetable for services on the Nambour and Caboolture lines => http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/view/EPetitions_QLD/CurrentEPetition.aspx?PetNum=1599&lIndex=-1

[Fares_Fair]

TO: The Honourable the Speaker and Members of the Legislative Assembly of Queensland

Queensland residents draws to the attention of the House that the draft Translink train timetable for 2011 would add considerable travel and waiting times to commuters using the Nambour and Caboolture lines.

Your petitioners, therefore, request the House to preserve the current services and timetables of the Nambour and Caboolture lines.
e-petition wording above.


I am angry about the proposed changes to the timetable. Why, because of the adverse impacts upon our work-life balance which is already under very heavy pressure by our record commuting distances.
e.g. currently almost 4 hours door to door, each day.

It's wording should have said that we want to retain the same current arrival and departure times, and the same express leg lengths to keep our journeys no longer than they already are.

I do not want to take away the extra daily service provided for the people of Gympie North, nor the extra service in the 5am hour from Nambour, which is seriously required. Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater IMHO.

I know that many have signed this petition on paper (and e-petition) purely out of their anger over the proposed changes.
I'm one of them.

Regards,
Fares_Fair.

[Stillwater]

Some have not signed because the effect of the petition wording is to request that the status quo remains.  They want an improved timetable, with more services and appropriate arrival and departure times.

[Fares_Fair]

I agree 


Regards,
Fares_Fair.

[Arnz]

Not signed due to the wording.  I certainly don't want to take away the extra morning Gympie North service, or extra morning peak service leaving around 5:25am.

The real concerns are the timings and express running patterns.  Especially when there may be capacity on the suburbans between Northgate and Bowen Hills to allow express running for 1-2 extra interurban trains (each way) in the peaks.

Sure there may be "conflicts" at Bowen Hills if trains are to cross from suburbans to mains, though the question is whether if the transport planners are "providing a service", or "scheduling to avoid conflicts", which cannot be avoided at Roma Street anyway as there are plenty of Roma Street Platform 7 Starters/Terminators that "conflicts" anyway to and/or from the suburban platforms.

[#Metro]

If I were a sunnycoast commuter, I would probably not sign either.
They don't want the status quo, the want the go quo.

[Stillwater]

I read comments about congestion and don't know enough about the track operations or constrictions to have a personal understanding of the problem, but accept what the more technically-minded people are saying here.

I wonder if there are genuine conflicts and peak hour congestion worries for Sunny Coast trains entering the city stations whether that issue could be addressed by running the Sunny Coast trains counter-cyclical; that is, via the Exhibition loop.  In the morning peak, for instance, they would run Albion, Roma Street, Central, Fortitude Valley, Bowen Hills and back to Roma Street to terminate.

There may not be any advantage, in that this would affect trains coming in on the Ipswich line.  But all possibilities should be on the table, if feasible.

[BrizCommuter]

I read comments about congestion and don't know enough about the track operations or constrictions to have a personal understanding of the problem, but accept what the more technically-minded people are saying here.

I wonder if there are genuine conflicts and peak hour congestion worries for Sunny Coast trains entering the city stations whether that issue could be addressed by running the Sunny Coast trains counter-cyclical; that is, via the Exhibition loop.  In the morning peak, for instance, they would run Albion, Roma Street, Central, Fortitude Valley, Bowen Hills and back to Roma Street to terminate.

There may not be any advantage, in that this would affect trains coming in on the Ipswich line.  But all possibilities should be on the table, if feasible.

You've just added an extra conflict, plus taken up an Ipswich Line to City slot, and not improved the express issue.

[STB]

Erm Stillwater, that's just simply impossible to do, especially coming from the inbound, and you increase the journey time to make that round trip through Exhibition and disadvantage those wanting to use Bowen Hils and Fortitude Valley stations and it doesn't fix the conflicts issues.

[somebody]

You've just added an extra conflict, plus taken up an Ipswich Line to City slot, and not improved the express issue.

Why "extra".  The current route conflicts with the Ipswich line when heading to Mayne from Roma St #8.

I'm sure that this conflict is worse, however.

[Golliwog]

Extra because won't the south bound train have to cross over the northbound track to get to the exhibition loop?

[BrizCommuter]

The title of this blog post says it all.
http://brizcommuter.blogspot.com/2010/12/selfish-stupidity.html

[somebody]

Extra because won't the south bound train have to cross over the northbound track to get to the exhibition loop?

My point is that they have to do so anyway.

[somebody]

The title of this blog post says it all.
http://brizcommuter.blogspot.com/2010/12/selfish-stupidity.html

I think you are being somewhat harsh here.

The stupid part was really the premature separation of the Shorncliffe line from the current Corinda services operating on the mains.

If the Caboolture trains didn't need to pick up at Albion/W/T/N, then you wouldn't NEED the extra services as much.  The extras are mostly only needed because the Caboolture line will now take more of these pax.

I wish I could say that I was surprised that such an E-Petition would be floated in QLD, but I'm not.

[Golliwog]

Extra because won't the south bound train have to cross over the northbound track to get to the exhibition loop?

My point is that they have to do so anyway.

But in a way you still conflict with the Ipswich line when it rejoins at Roma St

[somebody]

But in a way you still conflict with the Ipswich line when it rejoins at Roma St

Yes, which is the part which makes it worse.  But strictly speaking, I can't call that a conflict, but a merge.