POLL: What is the next most important track amplification?

[somebody]

- Beerburrum to Glass House Mountains would allow a half hourly service to Landsborough without a precision cross
- Mooloolah to Palmwoods on its own would be of benefit largely for freight
- Lawnton to Narangba is a left field proposal which would the Petrie trains (perhaps some of them) to continue on to Narangba without conflicting with the Nambour and Caboolture trains.  You could also easily remove Dakabin and either Petrie or Narangba from the stopping patterns of the 9 stations bypassed Nambour trains.
- Narangba to Caboolture triple is also out of left field, but would allow Nambour trains to be 6 minutes before Caboolture trains and overtake the Caboolture train without using the wrong track
- Darra to Redbank is the official proposal AIUI
- Doomben line upgrades would allow 15 minute frequencies and help to remove Albion and Wooloowin from the Caboolture/Nambour line stopping patterns.

[skippy]

Is it too late to add:

Manly to Cleveland Duplication
Coomera to Helensvale Duplication

[somebody]

Is it too late to add:

Manly to Cleveland Duplication
Coomera to Helensvale Duplication

Options added.

[mufreight]

Reading the options included in this poll there has been oversight of the most critical track amplification needed for commuter services, that being CRR, this would have to be closely followed by Mooloolah to Palmwoods which while it would be of major benefit to freight service also makes possible considerable improvement for NCL commuter services, the next cab off the rank should be the new bridge accross the river at Petrie allowing for a third and fourth track between Petrie and Lawnton, essential if the Kippa Ring line is to be built and brought on line.
Darra to Redbank after these but with the typical levels of lack of forsight new construction adjacent to both the up and down lines at Goodna has enroached on the corridor to the point that a third track through Goodna can not be built without the relocation of the new infrastructure and the Goodna station.
There are many other track amplification projects that would be productive but the key is that all projects should be complete not half baked band aid solutions.

[somebody]

Reading the options included in this poll there has been oversight of the most critical track amplification needed for commuter services, that being CRR, this would be closely followed by Mooloolah to Palmwoods which while it would be of major benefit to freight service also makes possible considerable improvement for NCL commuter services, the next cab off the rank should be the new bridge accross the river at Petrie allowing for a third and fourth track between Petrie and Lawnton, essential if the Kippa Ring line is to be built and brought on line.
Darra to Redbank after these but with the typical levels of lack of forsight new construction adjacent to both the up and down lines at Goodna has enroached on the corridor to the point that a third track through Goodna can nor be built without the relocation of the new infrastructure and the Goodna station.
There are many other track amplification projects that would be productive but the key is that all projects should be complete not half baked band aid solutions.

Obviously CRR is more important than any of the listed possibilities.  I would have thought that was an axiom.

As for Petrie-Lawnton (a) I do not concede that it is essential for Kippa-Ring (b) There is an option for Lawnton-Narangba.  You'd rather just have it as far as Petrie?

[mufreight]

As for Petrie-Lawnton (a) I do not concede that it is essential for Kippa-Ring (b) There is an option for Lawnton-Narangba.  You'd rather just have it as far as Petrie?

We could argue all day on this one but the new bridge accross the North Pine at Petrie which should be buils as soon as possible and with two tracks to cater for the future needs once Kippa Ring comes on line and to allow for the future construction of CAMCOS, by building four tracks into Petrie it greatly simplify the operation of all station services into Petrie and the operation of tiered express services to Caboolture and Nambour.

[Derwan]

Sorry - I had to add my own. 

[O_128]

Sure the SC line desperately needs a duplication, on a passengers carried basis I would have to say Lawnton to Caboolture triplication.

Out of curiosity shouldn't we really be pushing for quadding to Ipswich rather than triplication to Redbank?

[Fares_Fair]

I selected Beerburrum to Glasshouse.
What I wanted to select was Beerburrum to Landsborough.

Regards,
Fares_Fair.

[Golliwog]

Sure the SC line desperately needs a duplication, on a passengers carried basis I would have to say Lawnton to Caboolture triplication.

Out of curiosity shouldn't we really be pushing for quadding to Ipswich rather than triplication to Redbank?

Perhaps, but if you could provide a third line that off-peak could be dedicated to freight there would be a much better chance of getting better than 30 minute frequencies to Ipswich. I'm sure mufreight will tell me that 15 minute frequency to Ipswich is possible now (and I'm not saying it isn't) but I think that would either be at the expense of reliability, or reduced freight movements via rail.

[somebody]

Sure the SC line desperately needs a duplication, on a passengers carried basis I would have to say Lawnton to Caboolture triplication.

Out of curiosity shouldn't we really be pushing for quadding to Ipswich rather than triplication to Redbank?

Perhaps, but if you could provide a third line that off-peak could be dedicated to freight there would be a much better chance of getting better than 30 minute frequencies to Ipswich. I'm sure mufreight will tell me that 15 minute frequency to Ipswich is possible now (and I'm not saying it isn't) but I think that would either be at the expense of reliability, or reduced freight movements via rail.

I think the plan here is for Ipswich trains to non stop Wacol & Gailes (I think Goodna also, but I'm not sure about that idea).  Also, Springfield trains would be able to run express in peak because the all stopping service is now provided by the Redbank trains.

Sorry - I had to add my own. 

That's OK, but I have to ask how you think such a duplication is a priority?

[BrizCommuter]

Is it too late to add:

Manly to Cleveland Duplication
Coomera to Helensvale Duplication

...not forgetting Ferny Grove quadruplication.

Seriously though, making efficient use of the suburban tracks (i.e evenly spread busy peak train loadings ) is probably now high priority. This may require Shorncliffe duplication, partial Cleveland Line duplications and/or 3rd platform at Manly, 4th platform at Kuraby, triplication Kuraby to Loganlea, Coomera to Helensvale.

BrizCommuter doesn't see why the Sunshine Coast Line should be prioritised ahead of other lines which have between 300% and 800% more patronage.

[ozbob]

BrizCommuter doesn't see why the Sunshine Coast Line should be prioritised ahead of other lines which have between 300% and 800% more patronage.

The compelling reason is for freight paths.  There is also a growing pax demand.  There are not many freight paths left.  A freight operator unable to secure a regular freight path on rail on this line recently has had to put another 50 B troubles on the road.  This is getting to be a very serious situation ..

The list of track amplifications is interesting and highlights the long term failure to upgrade proactively.

[Fares_Fair]

Is it too late to add:

Manly to Cleveland Duplication
Coomera to Helensvale Duplication

...not forgetting Ferny Grove quadruplication.

Seriously though, making efficient use of the suburban tracks (i.e evenly spread busy peak train loadings ) is probably now high priority. This may require Shorncliffe duplication, partial Cleveland Line duplications and/or 3rd platform at Manly, 4th platform at Kuraby, triplication Kuraby to Loganlea, Coomera to Helensvale.

BrizCommuter doesn't see why the Sunshine Coast Line should be prioritised ahead of other lines which have between 300% and 800% more patronage.

Fares_Fair cannot see how the 3rd highest growth region in the state, with trains now suffering heavy overcrowding on their services - which did not occur anywhere like this under the old timetables - can get more patronage even if it wanted to.

Regards,
Fares_fair.

[somebody]

BrizCommuter doesn't see why the Sunshine Coast Line should be prioritised ahead of other lines which have between 300% and 800% more patronage.

BrizCommuter does have a point to some degree, but it is hard to see why their service should be so much worse than the Gold Coast.  I am guessing then that BrizCommuter would vote for Doomben line upgrades or Cleveland line upgrades.

The compelling reason is for freight paths. 

Beerburrum-Glass House on its own would do little to assist this unless combined with Landsborough terminating trains.  Which really means a number of railbuses Landsborough-Nambour, which I know you are against.

[BrizCommuter]

Is it too late to add:

Manly to Cleveland Duplication
Coomera to Helensvale Duplication

...not forgetting Ferny Grove quadruplication.

Seriously though, making efficient use of the suburban tracks (i.e evenly spread busy peak train loadings ) is probably now high priority. This may require Shorncliffe duplication, partial Cleveland Line duplications and/or 3rd platform at Manly, 4th platform at Kuraby, triplication Kuraby to Loganlea, Coomera to Helensvale.

BrizCommuter doesn't see why the Sunshine Coast Line should be prioritised ahead of other lines which have between 300% and 800% more patronage.

Fares_Fair cannot see how the 3rd highest growth region in the state, with trains now suffering heavy overcrowding on their services - which did not occur anywhere like this under the old timetables - can get more patronage even if it wanted to.

Regards,
Fares_fair.

The problem is that other rail lines also have overcrowded trains, this is not just a Sunshine Coast Line issue. The 5:22pm is no busier than some services on the Ferny Grove, Shorncliffe, Cleveland, and Beenleigh Lines.

BrizCommuter doesn't see why the Sunshine Coast Line should be prioritised ahead of other lines which have between 300% and 800% more patronage.

BrizCommuter does have a point to some degree, but it is hard to see why their service should be so much worse than the Gold Coast.  I am guessing then that BrizCommuter would vote for Doomben line upgrades or Cleveland line upgrades.

Certainly the Cleveland Line timetable will be interesting in the phase 2 timetables with no further duplications. Its am peak service pattern at the Park Road merge is nearly as random as the Ferny Grove's am peak frequency, however Ferny Grove is getting fixed, Cleveland isn't!

[Arnz]

Is it too late to add:

Manly to Cleveland Duplication
Coomera to Helensvale Duplication

...not forgetting Ferny Grove quadruplication.

Seriously though, making efficient use of the suburban tracks (i.e evenly spread busy peak train loadings ) is probably now high priority. This may require Shorncliffe duplication, partial Cleveland Line duplications and/or 3rd platform at Manly, 4th platform at Kuraby, triplication Kuraby to Loganlea, Coomera to Helensvale.

BrizCommuter doesn't see why the Sunshine Coast Line should be prioritised ahead of other lines which have between 300% and 800% more patronage.

Fares_Fair cannot see how the 3rd highest growth region in the state, with trains now suffering heavy overcrowding on their services - which did not occur anywhere like this under the old timetables - can get more patronage even if it wanted to.

Regards,
Fares_fair.

The problem is that other rail lines also have overcrowded trains, this is not just a Sunshine Coast Line issue. The 5:22pm is no busier than some services on the Ferny Grove, Shorncliffe, Cleveland, and Beenleigh Lines.

The Sunshine Coast Line issue is more heavily leaning towards freight, rather than a passenger issue.  Also, I think freight issue would push the Sunshine Coast Line up in priority than most passenger only lines considering the North Coast Line is the "most congested" single line track in the country.  Putting more trucks (and cars) on the Bruce Highway due to the constraints of the single track wouldn't be in the best interest.

BrizCommuter doesn't see why the Sunshine Coast Line should be prioritised ahead of other lines which have between 300% and 800% more patronage.

BrizCommuter does have a point to some degree, but it is hard to see why their service should be so much worse than the Gold Coast.  I am guessing then that BrizCommuter would vote for Doomben line upgrades or Cleveland line upgrades.

Certainly the Cleveland Line timetable will be interesting in the phase 2 timetables with no further duplications. Its am peak service pattern at the Park Road merge is nearly as random as the Ferny Grove's am peak frequency, however Ferny Grove is getting fixed, Cleveland isn't!

I'd have to wonder whether keeping the 2x Expresses is possible if they're going to put more services on down there.  Electrifying the third road would be helpful for express services, but I don't think the freight operators would be happy sharing the track.

[somebody]

The problem is that other rail lines also have overcrowded trains, this is not just a Sunshine Coast Line issue. The 5:22pm is no busier than some services on the Ferny Grove, Shorncliffe, Cleveland, and Beenleigh Lines.

That may be, but I would hope that the phase 2 timetables will get all the services on the suburbans to a lower level of overcrowding than the 17:22 train.  Or do you think that is a bit of an ask?

I'd have to wonder whether keeping the 2x Expresses is possible if they're going to put more services on down there.  Electrifying the third road would be helpful for express services, but I don't think the freight operators would be happy sharing the track.

Don't see much point in patterns which run only twice.  Really, there is a good argument for expresses on this line as otherwise you need to run more trains into the single track.  Better to have 4tph heavily loaded between Lota and Thorneside than 8tph half loaded.

[#Metro]

The North Coast Line is the "most congested" single line track in the country.

QUOTE OF THE WEEK

This one because it sums up the problem in 1 line nicely. 

[somebody]

I selected Beerburrum to Glasshouse.
What I wanted to select was Beerburrum to Landsborough.

Regards,
Fares_Fair.

There is little, if any, reason to duplicate Beerwah-Landsborough before Mooloolah-Palmwoods.

[Fares_Fair]

I selected Beerburrum to Glasshouse.
What I wanted to select was Beerburrum to Landsborough.

Regards,
Fares_Fair.

There is little, if any, reason to duplicate Beerwah-Landsborough before Mooloolah-Palmwoods.

why ?
is that mufreight's (highly regarded) suggestion ?

Regards,
Fares_Fair.

[somebody]

I selected Beerburrum to Glasshouse.
What I wanted to select was Beerburrum to Landsborough.

Regards,
Fares_Fair.

There is little, if any, reason to duplicate Beerwah-Landsborough before Mooloolah-Palmwoods.

why ?
is that mufreight's (highly regarded) suggestion ?

Regards,
Fares_Fair.

Because without amplifications between Landsborough and Nambour there will still be a precision cross if the service runs more than 2 hourly (0.5tph).  Mooloolah-Palmwoods could eliminate this if combined with duplication to Beerwah.  Also, the alignment Beerwah-Landsborough isn't too bad.  Mooloolah-Palmwoods is a real shocker.  The latter allows the trains to be both significantly faster and more frequent, which Beerwah-Landsborough only does very slightly.

[Derwan]

Sorry - I had to add my own. 

That's OK, but I have to ask how you think such a duplication is a priority?

Despite claims by people in this forum, the timetablers at the CRG meeting said that infrastructure upgrades are required on the Shorncliffe Line for a 15-minute (4tph) frequency.  (Yes that's right - even 4tph during the peak period.)

How many other lines have less than 4tph during peak within 4 zones of the city?  (Apart from Doomben of course.)

[mufreight]

Perhaps, but if you could provide a third line that off-peak could be dedicated to freight there would be a much better chance of getting better than 30 minute frequencies to Ipswich. I'm sure mufreight will tell me that 15 minute frequency to Ipswich is possible now (and I'm not saying it isn't) but I think that would either be at the expense of reliability, or reduced freight movements via rail.

If they have the capability to run three freighters, (two coal and one grain) a light engine movement and a driver training sparks through Wacol between off peak services they already have the capability to operate a 15 minute frequency RELIABLY between Darra and Ipswich, what is missing is the funding to do so and the political will to provide the services.

[SurfRail]

Despite claims by people in this forum, the timetablers at the CRG meeting said that infrastructure upgrades are required on the Shorncliffe Line for a 15-minute (4tph) frequency.  (Yes that's right - even 4tph during the peak period.)

What about terminating services at Sandgate?  Is it really critical that Shorncliffe - a station that is within walking distance of Sandgate for most healthy people, considerably less patronised than Sandgate and has no real connecting bus service - is allowed to restrict the rest of the line's capacity?

[ozbob]

Perhaps, but if you could provide a third line that off-peak could be dedicated to freight there would be a much better chance of getting better than 30 minute frequencies to Ipswich. I'm sure mufreight will tell me that 15 minute frequency to Ipswich is possible now (and I'm not saying it isn't) but I think that would either be at the expense of reliability, or reduced freight movements via rail.

If they have the capability to run three freighters, (two coal and one grain) a light engine movement and a driver training sparks through Wacol between off peak services they already have the capability to operate a 15 minute frequency RELIABLY between Darra and Ipswich, what is missing is the funding to do so and the political will to provide the services.

I love living on the Ipswich line, train paradise!!  LOL  Even if my newly adopted station needs  a bit of TLC, it has some history!!

[somebody]

Sorry - I had to add my own. 

That's OK, but I have to ask how you think such a duplication is a priority?

Despite claims by people in this forum, the timetablers at the CRG meeting said that infrastructure upgrades are required on the Shorncliffe Line for a 15-minute (4tph) frequency.  (Yes that's right - even 4tph during the peak period.)

How many other lines have less than 4tph during peak within 4 zones of the city?  (Apart from Doomben of course.)

I just don't believe them.  Might not have a huge amount of margin without a crew swap, but I don't see how it's not possible.  Further, I don't see why they can't institute a crew swap.

How many times have we heard reports of "it can't be done", and then it is?  I'm thinking in particular of the track lowering at Indooroopilly station here.  Other times cries of it can't be done have prevented it from being done, of course.

[mufreight]

The it cant be done at Indooroopilly was just so much smoke, the track when lowered was only lowered back to the original level that it had been prior to the rebalasting of the line following resleepering.
The actual it cant be done relative to the track at Indooroopilly is that the track could not be further lowered so that the carriage floor and platform heights were uniform because of the subway.

[SurfRail]

The it cant be done at Indooroopilly was just so much smoke, the track when lowered was only lowered back to the original level that it had been prior to the rebalasting of the line following resleepering.
The actual it cant be done relative to the track at Indooroopilly is that the track could not be further lowered so that the carriage floor and platform heights were uniform because of the subway.

Should have just been closed so the station could be made more accessible for everybody and gated at the concourse to protect revenue given how busy it is - although Poo Punter would have been disappointed, I'm sure.

[Golliwog]

If they have the capability to run three freighters, (two coal and one grain) a light engine movement and a driver training sparks through Wacol between off peak services they already have the capability to operate a 15 minute frequency RELIABLY between Darra and Ipswich, what is missing is the funding to do so and the political will to provide the services.

But thats kind of my point, yes they can do it, but what are you planning to do with those freights and driver training? Just don't do them? I agree passenger services are important, but I don't quite think they should be at the expense of everything else.

[BrizCommuter]

Sorry - I had to add my own. 

That's OK, but I have to ask how you think such a duplication is a priority?

Despite claims by people in this forum, the timetablers at the CRG meeting said that infrastructure upgrades are required on the Shorncliffe Line for a 15-minute (4tph) frequency.  (Yes that's right - even 4tph during the peak period.)

How many other lines have less than 4tph during peak within 4 zones of the city?  (Apart from Doomben of course.)

I just don't believe them.  Might not have a huge amount of margin without a crew swap, but I don't see how it's not possible.  Further, I don't see why they can't institute a crew swap.

How many times have we heard reports of "it can't be done", and then it is?  I'm thinking in particular of the track lowering at Indooroopilly station here.  Other times cries of it can't be done have prevented it from being done, of course.

4tph/15 peak mins frequency to Shorncliffe is definitely possible, and is what BrizCommuter is expecting in the phase 2 timetable.

[mufreight]

But thats kind of my point, yes they can do it, but what are you planning to do with those freights and driver training? Just don't do them? I agree passenger services are important, but I don't quite think they should be at the expense of everything else.

At worst two of those movements could be delayed by 30 minutes into the next avaliable slots, no doubt one of the freight services and the driver training trip are the most logical as the previous 30 minute gap saw no other services and the 30 minutes till the next off peak services saw a three car sparks headed for the workshops.
One of the primary purposes of train control is to maximise the usage of avaliable train paths and trains are priotorised and slotted in accordingly.
There is sufficent capacity to reliably operate a 15 minute frequency service on the Ipswich line without impinging to any great degree on other services. On a single direction line such as between Darra - Ipswich or if you prefer Ipswich - Darra it is possible to operate a mix of trains on 5 minute headways giving a line capacity of 12tph.
In theory it would be possible to operate a cocktail of trains over this section of line on 3 minute headways giving a capacity of 20 TPH, but with the current spacing of signals the reliability of timekeeping would be questionable.
Time for some to get real, face fact and realise that they do nothing either for their own credibility or that of this site by their continual lets look for some reason why this cant be done when not only it can it be done but actually is done from time to time without the world falling in.  

[Derwan]

4tph/15 peak mins frequency to Shorncliffe is definitely possible, and is what BrizCommuter is expecting in the phase 2 timetable.

The timetablers said that 4tph was not possible without an infrastructure upgrade.  They also said that the Sandgate upgrade was "a given" for phase 2 timetables - so perhaps this is the only infrastructure upgrade required.  (I guess we'll see!)

Even if that was the case, it leaves absolutely no margin for error.  The other day the 7:31 from Boondall was 10 minutes late.  This is the service that stops just before Bowen Hills for several minutes every day while it waits for a service from the Ferny Grove line to clear the platform.  The question was asked at the CRG why the service couldn't just leave Shorncliffe a couple of minutes later.  The answer came back that it was because it needed to clear the platform at Shorncliffe to allow an outbound service to arrive.

Given that the inbound service was 10 minutes late, the outbound service would've had to sit at Sandgate for 10 minutes, which would've also made IT late doing its turnback.

Sure - 4tph might be "possible".

Why is it the opinion of some people in this form that the Shorncliffe line should be subjected to a substandard service with no margin for error?

[somebody]

10 minutes late is (or should be) abnormally late.  Currently, the Cleveland line has precision crosses, so that any delayed outbound train at Thorneside delays a corresponding inbound train.

This is surely more urgent than duplication Sandgate-Shorncliffe.

The other day the 7:31 from Boondall was 10 minutes late.  This is the service that stops just before Bowen Hills for several minutes every day while it waits for a service from the Ferny Grove line to clear the platform.  The question was asked at the CRG why the service couldn't just leave Shorncliffe a couple of minutes later.  The answer came back that it was because it needed to clear the platform at Shorncliffe to allow an outbound service to arrive.

Given that the inbound service was 10 minutes late, the outbound service would've had to sit at Sandgate for 10 minutes, which would've also made IT late doing its turnback.

This is still a confusing answer.  This train reaches Sandgate at 7:25am.  The O/B train at this time hasn't reached Deagon yet (7:28@Sandgate).  It then has a 19 minute dwell at Shorncliffe, so in fact it would NOT have delayed the following I/B train, even without squeezing the 8 minute turnaround time.

Not sure if this 7:31 train is the one which uses the back platform at Sandgate, but I am assuming that it isn't in the above.

[BrizCommuter]

4tph/15 peak mins frequency to Shorncliffe is definitely possible, and is what BrizCommuter is expecting in the phase 2 timetable.

The timetablers said that 4tph was not possible without an infrastructure upgrade.  They also said that the Sandgate upgrade was "a given" for phase 2 timetables - so perhaps this is the only infrastructure upgrade required.  (I guess we'll see!)

Even if that was the case, it leaves absolutely no margin for error.  The other day the 7:31 from Boondall was 10 minutes late.  This is the service that stops just before Bowen Hills for several minutes every day while it waits for a service from the Ferny Grove line to clear the platform.  The question was asked at the CRG why the service couldn't just leave Shorncliffe a couple of minutes later.  The answer came back that it was because it needed to clear the platform at Shorncliffe to allow an outbound service to arrive.

Given that the inbound service was 10 minutes late, the outbound service would've had to sit at Sandgate for 10 minutes, which would've also made IT late doing its turnback.

Sure - 4tph might be "possible".

Why is it the opinion of some people in this form that the Shorncliffe line should be subjected to a substandard service with no margin for error?

The FG Line currently has little margin for error (1-2mins), a late peak hour train into FG often results in a late train out of FG. Whilst this is being fixed, the line is still pretty reliable. The Alamein Line in Melbourne has a similar set up to the end of the Shorncliffe Line and manages 15 mins off-peak. The current Shorncliffe timetable has two am services departing 14 mins apart, and three pm peak trains arriving 15 and then 13 mins apart. Thus BrizCommuter finds it difficult to believe that 4tph is not possible.

[Derwan]

The FG Line currently has little margin for error (1-2mins), a late peak hour train into FG often results in a late train out of FG.

Which line is currently being upgraded?  Which line's upgrades aren't even on the horizon?

The Alamein Line in Melbourne has a similar set up to the end of the Shorncliffe Line and manages 15 mins off-peak. The current Shorncliffe timetable has two am services departing 14 mins apart, and three pm peak trains arriving 15 and then 13 mins apart. Thus BrizCommuter finds it difficult to believe that 4tph is not possible.

I've mentioned here before how this is achieved.  In the morning there are 2 times when an empty runs past the end of the platform at Shorncliffe.  Another train comes in and turns back.  Then the one past the end comes in to achieve the 14-minute gap.  Of course you can only do this once, then have a long gap before you can do it again.  This is why there is a 26-minute gap after the first 14-minute gap.

Evenings are achieved using changeover crews.  Of course if there are delays, these services are less important to head back to the city on time (for those that are revenue services).

Yes - they could use changeover crews in the morning, but the margin would be far too tight when it is necessary for the inbound service to be on time.

[somebody]

The it cant be done at Indooroopilly was just so much smoke, the track when lowered was only lowered back to the original level that it had been prior to the rebalasting of the line following resleepering.
The actual it cant be done relative to the track at Indooroopilly is that the track could not be further lowered so that the carriage floor and platform heights were uniform because of the subway.

Should have just been closed so the station could be made more accessible for everybody and gated at the concourse to protect revenue given how busy it is - although Poo Punter would have been disappointed, I'm sure.

That would also have required something to be done about the bus arrangements.  It would be too far to expect UQ bound pax to walk from the Westminster Rd exit to the Lambert Rd stop.

I don't think very many people don't touch on/off at Indooroopilly.

[BrizCommuter]

The FG Line currently has little margin for error (1-2mins), a late peak hour train into FG often results in a late train out of FG.

Which line is currently being upgraded?  Which line's upgrades aren't even on the horizon?

The Alamein Line in Melbourne has a similar set up to the end of the Shorncliffe Line and manages 15 mins off-peak. The current Shorncliffe timetable has two am services departing 14 mins apart, and three pm peak trains arriving 15 and then 13 mins apart. Thus BrizCommuter finds it difficult to believe that 4tph is not possible.

I've mentioned here before how this is achieved.  In the morning there are 2 times when an empty runs past the end of the platform at Shorncliffe.  Another train comes in and turns back.  Then the one past the end comes in to achieve the 14-minute gap.  Of course you can only do this once, then have a long gap before you can do it again.  This is why there is a 26-minute gap after the first 14-minute gap.

Evenings are achieved using changeover crews.  Of course if there are delays, these services are less important to head back to the city on time (for those that are revenue services).

Yes - they could use changeover crews in the morning, but the margin would be far too tight when it is necessary for the inbound service to be on time.

I don't understand why they don't use changeover crews in the am as well? Lets hope the Sandgate signalling gets sorted in the next 11 months.