Redcliffe Peninsula Line [was MBRL (Petrie to Kippa Ring)]

[ozbob]

If your not a fan of car parks, avoid looking at Murrumba Downs Station! 

[red dragin]

Buy a house in Camarsh Drive they said. They'll never build that railway, you always have lovely park views they said. 

Must be such a contrast having the sound barrier as a back fence compared to all that parkland.

[Golliwog]

Buy a house in Camarsh Drive they said. They'll never build that railway, you always have lovely park views they said. 

Must be such a contrast having the sound barrier as a back fence compared to all that parkland.

Haha, I think a lot of North Lakes is the same! Could have integrated much better with the future railway but the developers didn't want to waste space if the line never went ahead.

[ozbob]

Mango Hill East SM

[ozbob]

Twitter

Tegan George ‏@tegangeorge 5m

Mango Hill platform complete. 1st of 6 new stations for Moreton Bay Rail Link #qldpol @tennewsqld

[ozbob]

Here comes the presser ...

======================

http://statements.qld.gov.au/Statement/2015/11/4/moreton-bay-rail-first-station-complete

Media Release
Deputy Premier, Minister for Transport, Minister for Infrastructure, Local Government and Planning and Minister for Trade
The Honourable Jackie Trad

Moreton Bay Rail first station complete

The $988 million Moreton Bay Rail project is well on track to completion with the first station at Mango Hill officially unveiled today.

Federal Minister for Major Projects Paul Fletcher together with Deputy Premier Jackie Trad and Mayor Allan Sutherland today visited the station to inspect the first of six stations to be completed on the new line.

"The completion of Mango Hill station is a significant project milestone," Mr Fletcher said.

"The Moreton Bay Rail project once completed will deliver a new double-track passenger rail to Kippa-Ring, connecting to the existing North Coast line," Mr Fletcher said.

"The architecturally designed station features two platforms with passenger shelters and seating, lift towers and a raised pedestrian footbridge, as well as an open bike shelter.

"When the project is complete, Mango Hill station will provide the local community in the growing North Lakes area with easy access to an outstanding public transport network."

Deputy Premier, Minister for Transport and Minister for Infrastructure, Local Government and Planning Jackie Trad said that, in addition, construction of a 12-kilometre dedicated shared pathway adjacent to the new line between Petrie and Kippa-Ring is now complete.

"The pathway's design ensures easy access for all who use it to the region's existing shared pathway network," Ms Trad said.

"Whether it's used recreationally or for commuting, the shared pathway is a huge bonus for residents.

"The completion of Mango Hill station and the shared pathway brings the region's biggest public infrastructure project in more than a generation another step closer to completion."

Moreton Bay Regional Council Mayor Allan Sutherland said the delivery of Mango Hill station and the shared pathway demonstrated that work on the Moreton Bay Rail project was on the home stretch. 

"With new bridges, roads and pathways, the benefits of the Moreton Bay Rail project for our region extend well beyond the 12.6 kilometres of dual track and six new stations," Mayor Sutherland said.

"I can't wait to see the first passengers hoping on-board the first trains on opening day next year for this once-in-a-generation public transport infrastructure project."     

The shared pathway and stations will be opened to coincide with completion of the rail line in mid-2016.

The Australian Government is contributing $583 million to the project, the Queensland Government $300 million and the Moreton Bay Regional Council $105 million.

For more information about the project: http://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/moretonbayrail

[ozbob]

Twitter

Chris O'Brien ‏@COBrienBris 9m

Mango Hill stopping all stations to Redcliffe @jackietrad @abcnews #qldpol

[ozbob]

Twitter

Tegan George ‏@tegangeorge 4m

The last time a major piece of infrastructure was opened near here was 1986 ... & we were still using these #qldpol

[ozbob]

[red dragin]

Latest newsletter

http://www.vision6.com.au/em/mail/view.php?id=1046443&a=38836&k=11e0096

Of note is the power to be switched on in December & testing of trains to start soon after.

[BrizCommuter]

So where are all the NGR trains to enable the MBRL and extra Northgate services???

[Gazza]

I think the express patterns and merging of Nambour services saved some units compared to the current timetable.
I have a suspicion the last timetable deliberately didn't use all spare units, to allow the MBRL to operate.

[BrizCommuter]

I think the express patterns and merging of Nambour services saved some units compared to the current timetable.

Possibly, but quite a few additional units (probably 3-car) will be required for the Northgate shuttle, and I'm not sure if all the units queuing to get into Petrie will cover all of the MBRL services.

I have a suspicion the last timetable deliberately didn't use all spare units, to allow the MBRL to operate.

That's not what QR claim whenever I complain about the full 3-car unit services on the FG Line.

[Gazza]

See thats the thing, I wonder if QR deliberately haven't made the problem FG services 6 car, because doing so would force them to revert back to 3 car when MBRL opens.

[BrizCommuter]

See thats the thing, I wonder if QR deliberately haven't made the problem FG services 6 car, because doing so would force them to revert back to 3 car when MBRL opens.

I have a fear of some existing 6-car services turning into 3-car services due to the lack of NGRs at the start of the new timetables.

[HappyTrainGuy]

Mate. Just an FYI. The current backlog of trains waiting between Petrie-Bowen Hills are going to free up extra services along with allowing more trains to head north instead of into the stabling yards at Mayne. Instead of double yellows being displayed and trains crawling northbound they are now going to be going full pelt with next to no delays at Petrie-Lawnton. The northbound MBRL service is now going to be the main hurdle slowing services where as before (and currently still is until MBRL/the new bridge opens) it was the empty trains parked between Lawnton-Strathpine that slowed the in service Caboolture train and limited how many trains they could send north from Bowen Hills. Remember the out of service train has to park and wait at Lawnton for both the ex-Nambour/ex-Caboolture and ex-Petrie service to clear the bridge due to both tracks being configured for both inbound citybound services. It is quite the sight to see 2 trains going across the same bridge in the same direction. Pitty it will soon be only seen in its rarity between South Brisbane and Roma Street. Once MBRL is open morning peak hour will expect to see P1 being used by outbound Caboolture/Nambour services. P2 would be unused to avoid conflicts/future Petrie starters if needed. P3 will see outbound MBRL services/services running to make up morning peak runs from Kippa Ring. P4 inbound Caboolture/Nambour services. P5 inbound MBRL services. Out of peak expect to see P2 used by ex-Caboolture services to allow for quicker interchanges to Kippa Ring bound trains.

[SurfRail]

Why would you want to use platform 1 at Petrie for anything except contingencies?  The whole point should be to allow cross-platform interchange round the clock.  We don't need another repeat of Darra.

[HappyTrainGuy]

Why would you want to use platform 1 at Petrie for anything except contingencies?  The whole point should be to allow cross-platform interchange round the clock.  We don't need another repeat of Darra.

P1 is currently used by Citybound Caboolture/Nambour services in morning peak hour due to P2/P3 being occupied by Petrie starters.

For example a Petrie starter occupies P3 and the crew starts its turn around for the 7.04 city service. Another Petrie starter arrives a few minutes later for the 7.10 service and occupies P2 meanwhile at Lawnton the next Petrie starter (the 7.16 service) arrives and parks at P3 waiting for a clear path. P1 at Petrie now has the 7.03 City service from Caboolture arriving. The P1 and P3 service from Petrie depart around the same time. Once clear the 7.16 service on P3 at Lawnton departs towards Petrie and occupies P3 there, the 7.22 Petrie service stopped prior to the level crossing at Lawnton moves and occupies P3 at Lawnton and the 7.10 service waiting on P2 at Petrie has now completed its turn around and is ready to depart to the city just as the next 7.09 citybound Nambour service arrives at P1. That basically repeats all peak hour long.

Remember Petrie has the platform numbers reversed. The Western side is P1 while the eastern side is currently P3 and P4-P5 when MBRL opens. When MBRL opens to have Caboolture/Nambour use P4 it creates more conflicts as they would have to traverse onto the subs and then back onto the mains. Anyway I'm pretty sure there aren't crossovers that would allow for that as the only crossover allows for the citybound Nambour/Caboolture trains to run into P1 instead of P2. What you lose in a Lawnton-Virginia transfer you gain from the cross platform MBRL transfer. IIRC it's a 2 minute transfer time between inbound Caboolture/Nambour trains and the outbound MBRL trains at Petrie vs the 6 minutes between both the inbound Caboolture and MBRL services. Anyway you transfer youre looking at roughly a 6 minute transfer. Plenty of time to make a cross platform change if needed. You only start to run into problems if you are one of those people that get on at Bowen Hills and sit at the tail end of a Caboolture service and then complain that you miss the bus connection at Caboolture because you had to walk so far.

[red dragin]

Why would you want to use platform 1 at Petrie for anything except contingencies?  The whole point should be to allow cross-platform interchange round the clock.  We don't need another repeat of Darra.

I think the crossover required to get back onto the Down Main (north of Petrie) is north of the crossovers to the P4 line - you'd be blocking that short section of the Up Main.

Move that crossover and you could do it. There is 6 minutes between services, going up and over from P1 to P3 isn't that hard. In the other direction it is cross platform all the time.

[BrizCommuter]

Is there a track map of the new layout available anywhere?

[red dragin]

Is there a track map of the new layout available anywhere?

https://www.queenslandrail.com.au/business/RegulatoryFramework/Documents/ProposedUndertaking/NAG%20046_South_Issue11.pdf

4th Page (sheet 2 of 23)

[BrizCommuter]

Is there a track map of the new layout available anywhere?

https://www.queenslandrail.com.au/business/RegulatoryFramework/Documents/ProposedUndertaking/NAG%20046_South_Issue11.pdf

4th Page (sheet 2 of 23)

Thanks for that link.
Good to see that a sensible track layout went into Petrie.
But it is odd that the facing crossover on approach to Kippa-Ring is 400m away from the next set of switches. Seems to not be designed well for high capacity. Very odd.

[ozbob]

Petri >

[aldonius]

Everything makes sense to me now except the interactions with the middle road.

Inbound, getting onto it from P4/5 (and also P2) are obvious paths, so AM inbound expresses have no problems.

Outbound it's easy to get onto P3 and... that's pretty much it. P2-outbound eventually has a crossover back to the Down Main at Narangba Rd, but that's a bit far away. There's also a merge/cross conflict if the outbound MBRL services are coming from the down main onto P3.

Other fun stuff: The expresses as timetabled are 9 minutes faster than the current locals. My reading of the 'connection times will be 6 minutes all day' is that the ex-Kippa trains go through Petrie 6 minutes after the ex-Caboolture trains do. So at Northgate there will be the ex-Caboolture and then 3 minutes later the ex-Kippa. That completely destroys the even 15-minute frequency on the inner Ipswich line, at least outbound.

[red dragin]

Trains end up passing central every 3 minutes in peak. 4 go to the yard etc, one goes to Ipswich. That gives you a train every 15 minutes.

Regarding the P1/P2 issue at Petrie, more people from the express would go to the car parks or buses than transfer to a Kippa Ring train. I'll be one of the train transferees, and wont mind the stairs. And those transferring from the all stopper are already doing the stairs transfer and won't think anything of it.

[SurfRail]

Why would you want to use platform 1 at Petrie for anything except contingencies?  The whole point should be to allow cross-platform interchange round the clock.  We don't need another repeat of Darra.

P1 is currently used by Citybound Caboolture/Nambour services in morning peak hour due to P2/P3 being occupied by Petrie starters.

For example a Petrie starter occupies P3 and the crew starts its turn around for the 7.04 city service. Another Petrie starter arrives a few minutes later for the 7.10 service and occupies P2 meanwhile at Lawnton the next Petrie starter (the 7.16 service) arrives and parks at P3 waiting for a clear path. P1 at Petrie now has the 7.03 City service from Caboolture arriving. The P1 and P3 service from Petrie depart around the same time. Once clear the 7.16 service on P3 at Lawnton departs towards Petrie and occupies P3 there, the 7.22 Petrie service stopped prior to the level crossing at Lawnton moves and occupies P3 at Lawnton and the 7.10 service waiting on P2 at Petrie has now completed its turn around and is ready to depart to the city just as the next 7.09 citybound Nambour service arrives at P1. That basically repeats all peak hour long.

Remember Petrie has the platform numbers reversed. The Western side is P1 while the eastern side is currently P3 and P4-P5 when MBRL opens. When MBRL opens to have Caboolture/Nambour use P4 it creates more conflicts as they would have to traverse onto the subs and then back onto the mains. Anyway I'm pretty sure there aren't crossovers that would allow for that as the only crossover allows for the citybound Nambour/Caboolture trains to run into P1 instead of P2. What you lose in a Lawnton-Virginia transfer you gain from the cross platform MBRL transfer. IIRC it's a 2 minute transfer time between inbound Caboolture/Nambour trains and the outbound MBRL trains at Petrie vs the 6 minutes between both the inbound Caboolture and MBRL services. Anyway you transfer youre looking at roughly a 6 minute transfer. Plenty of time to make a cross platform change if needed. You only start to run into problems if you are one of those people that get on at Bowen Hills and sit at the tail end of a Caboolture service and then complain that you miss the bus connection at Caboolture because you had to walk so far.

The point should be to simplify interchange - hence why I was expecting that they would have configured Platforms 2 and 3 to operate as the only outbound platform.  They appear to have omitted the crossover that would actually make that work.

[red dragin]

Who is better (from a PR perspective), those that are used to walking off the train onto a bus or to their car, or those already used to going over a bridge to catch another train?

Agreed, logistically P2 makes more sense, but politically/PR wise it seems better to stay with the current setup.

P2 can be used as a freight or Traveltrain refuge in either direction then.

[BrizCommuter]

The BrizCommuter word on the sub-optimal track layout at Kippa-Ring.
http://brizcommuter.blogspot.com.au/2015/11/kippa-ring-crossover-crazyness.html

[James]

The BrizCommuter word on the sub-optimal track layout at Kippa-Ring.
http://brizcommuter.blogspot.com.au/2015/11/kippa-ring-crossover-crazyness.html

If this is the biggest issue with the MBRL, I'm happy. The issue is far worse at Varsity, a train terminating on Platform 1 having to wrong-road (almost) all the way to Robina.

There are bigger issues to worry about, like bus services going away when the sun goes down.

[HappyTrainGuy]

There's always something to complain about isn't there. If you are expecting the stabling to be used exclusively for peak hour only you'll be disappointed. Until NGR comes 100% online you'll find a lot of the peak hour Kippa Ring starters will actually just be the same or rerouted Bowen Hills terminators coming from the city. From what I've heard the Kippa Ring stabling was pretty much designed short term to only cover the first few services of the day (IIRC 4 services depart before the first one arrives and a 5th departs minutes after the first train arriving) and fills in a couple small gaps where trains can't get there due to the all stopper. Afternoon peak the early peak hour services will quickly turnaround and run dead back to Bowen Hills to form new services with the final few peak services actually running back into the stabling. There will be crews stationed there so turn around times should be fast as too would be the speeds of trains using the junctions.

[colinw]

If those are higher speed turnouts (1:25?) then placing them further back with the trains moving faster may be a better solution than 25km/h crossovers close in.

[red dragin]

I think I have a reason for the location of the western crossovers.

In between the crossovers is a curve and the entrance to the stabling yard. Perhaps the curve is why the crossover is so far away from the station. I'd imagine a curve is difficult place to setup crossovers? A check on Google Maps shows it better than my MS Paint skills can.

[BrizCommuter]

If those are higher speed turnouts (1:25?) then placing them further back with the trains moving faster may be a better solution than 25km/h crossovers close in.

Nah, the speed of the crossover doesn't make any difference to optimal placement. Close to the platforms is always the most optimal.

I think I have a reason for the location of the western crossovers.

In between the crossovers is a curve and the entrance to the stabling yard. Perhaps the curve is why the crossover is so far away from the station. I'd imagine a curve is difficult place to setup crossovers? A check on Google Maps shows it better than my MS Paint skills can.

Yes, I think the curve is the reason for the large gap between crossovers. But why not have a scissors crossover then, as as Ferny Grove?

If this is the biggest issue with the MBRL, I'm happy. The issue is far worse at Varsity, a train terminating on Platform 1 having to wrong-road (almost) all the way to Robina.

Varsity Lakes also has a bizarre sub-optimal crossover layout. Can trains reverse in the siding to the south of the station though?

[James]

Varsity Lakes also has a bizarre sub-optimal crossover layout. Can trains reverse in the siding to the south of the station though?

It can, but I don't think it ever occurred. At the very least, it only occurred in the peaks. Never saw it happen during the previous off-peak timetable (when trains needed to terminate at P1 due to a train occupying P2).

[BrizCommuter]

There's always something to complain about isn't there.

Yes. Where else in the world are there such sub-optimal terminus designs? I've seen track maps for over 50 different metro and suburban rail systems and only in QLD is it stuffed up!

[#Metro]

Perhaps you could do a MR and post about the designs, and give images of overseas examples where they did get it right. It sounds like an issue that could be dealt with in standards and station design. I know TL has standards for stops etc on the bus network, not so for rail, as that is usually seen as the domain of QR.

[petey3801]

Nah, the speed of the crossover doesn't make any difference to optimal placement. Close to the platforms is always the most optimal.

Not really.. It depends a lot more on signal and track circuit placements than what you are thinking. Having a 25km/h scizzor cross-over close to the station can actually be worse than, for example, a 50km/h crossover a bit further out. If the signals are in the same place in each circumstance, then a faster crossover a bit further out (such as the Kippa Ring example) would actually be preferrable, as the train would be through the crossover and past the other crossover quicker, allowing the other train to depart slightly earlier. Scizzor crossovers are OK for a constrained space area, however apart from that, they are quite painful and generally very slow (ie: 25km/h). Ferny Grove would have been a lot better had there have been two 40km/h seperate crossovers in place.

For example:
a)

->--I--------------------|--------------
           \              /             ===
-<--I--------------------|--------------

b)
->--I--------------------|--------------
                          X            ===
-<--I--------------------|--------------

a) has higher speed (40-50km/h) crossovers, whereas b) has a 25km/h scizzor crossover. Signals are in the same place (b is how Ferny Grove is set up), === is the platform, I is the signal, | is the track circuit end point.
a) can be a preferred placement, as the incoming train spends less time in the track circuit section than the incoming train in scenario b, due to the higher speed crossovers, thereby allowing the outgoing train to depart earlier than in scenario b.
Now, a isn't always the best option, somtimes b is a better option for the area where it is required, and it depends on the speed of the points in a as to whether it is the better option or not.
         

[colinw]

Thank you Petey, that is what I was alluding to above but failed to express clearly.

I discussed this set up (over a beer) with a couple of the signalling & design guys here after the issue came up, and basically the message I got is that after signal placement, calculations involving release times and approach locking, braking distance calculations, position of that curve, etc., it would have come up as more efficient to use two sets of 1:16 swingnose points (which are good for with 50km/h) than a lower speed or scissors arrangement closer in.  Bear in mind, this line was NOT one of our projects, so I have no access to actual design or rationale here - if it was one of our jobs I would be unable to comment due to the terms of my employment agreement.

The design guys here prefer not to use lower speed points or (in particular) scissors crossovers due to the impact on speed of departure if taking the crossover (can't go above 25 km/h until tail of train clear),  the longer period of time a train takes to traverse at low speed. Another consideration would have been the greater wear and tear (track and rollingstock) imposed by 1:12 crossovers and (particularly) scissors arrangements.

I agree with Briz that the placement of the crossover from the down to up line some 500 metres out is not ideal, and closer to the terminus would be better.   However that seems to be constrained off in this case by the curve and the location of the turnout to the yard.  Rather the decision was apparently made to have a single 50km/h 1:16 cross-over close in allowing a train departing from the platform on the down line to accelerate normally while crossing over to the up line. (Down = toward Kippa-Ring, UP = Toward Petrie.)

I did a rough "back of a post-it note" calculation of the braking distances, time to traverse distance from the  crossover in question, etc., and I think layout here should be fine for up to ~12tph / train every 5 minutes.  Beyond that it would choke.  It certainly would NOT cut it as a Metro terminus for 3 min / 20 tph or better, but for outer suburban commuter rail I think it'll handle any realistic level of traffic - constraints closer in to the city would bite long before the layout at Kippa-Ring did.

Varsity lakes, Airport, Springfield, Shorncliffe are all far worse.

EDIT: I should add that in all the recent works done in the entire SEQ network, the bit that most makes my head hurt is Corinda - Darra.  What WERE they thinking?

[red dragin]

Thank you to both Colin & Petey for the detailed information. 

[ozbob]

Buy a house in Camarsh Drive they said. They'll never build that railway, you always have lovely park views they said. 

Must be such a contrast having the sound barrier as a back fence compared to all that parkland.

Couriermail Quest 11th November 2015 page 11

Residents not happy with station lighting