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

[ozbob]

Nation Building — rail infrastructure — Moreton Bay Rail Link

Expense ($m)    2010‑11    2011‑12    2012‑13    2013‑14    2014‑15
Department of the Treasury    ‑    30.0    20.0    83.0    ‑192.0
Department of Infrastructure and Transport    ‑    ‑    ‑    ‑    ‑
Total    ‑    30.0    20.0    83.0    ‑192.0
Related capital ($m)                
Department of Infrastructure and Transport    ‑    ‑    ‑    ‑    ‑
Department of the Treasury    ‑    ‑    ‑    ‑    ‑
Total    ‑    ‑    ‑    ‑    ‑

The Government will bring forward funding of $133.0 million for the Moreton Bay Rail Link project from 2014‑15 to be spent from 2011‑12 to 2013‑14. The $1.15 billion project is jointly funded by the Australian Government ($742.0 million), the Queensland Government ($300.0 million) and Moreton Bay Regional Council ($105.0 million). Construction of the project is expected to begin in 2012 and be completed by 2016. The Commonwealth's contribution was to have been paid from 2014‑15. The funding includes $59.0 million in 2015‑16.

This measure delivers on the Government's election commitment.

http://www.finance.gov.au/publications/commonwealth-budget/2011-12/2011-12/content/bp2/html/bp2_expense-15.htm

[ozbob]

A confirmed green light.  Long time to wait for a reasonable frequency from Petrie.  No doubt MBRL will open with a spectacular 30 minute off peak frequency ...

[#Metro]

This is the problem with branches. If you built a shuttle service, you could run those trains every 10-15 minutes or more frequently and get people to change to citybound services on the main line. The upshot is that you can use the train paths for high frequency all the way to Caboolture if you don't split the frequencies.

[SurfRail]

A confirmed green light.  Long time to wait for a reasonable frequency from Petrie.  No doubt MBRL will open with a spectacular 30 minute off peak frequency ...

The project team indicated this was likely in November during the initial consultation.  They could hardly contain their lack of enthusiasm, and who can blame them.  They are only there to design it, not design the lacklustre services the government is prepared to fund.

[ozbob]

Media release 11 May 2011

SEQ: Federal budget train gain amongst the strain and pain

RAIL Back On Track (http://backontrack.org) a web based community support group for rail and public transport and an advocate for public transport passengers welcomes the confirmation of funding being brought forward for the Moreton Bay Rail Link as confirmed in the 2011-12 Federal Budget(1).

Robert Dow, Spokesman for RAIL Back On Track said:

"We are in difficult times in a fiscal sense.  The delivery of the Federal Labor Government's election commitment in the budget to fund the Moreton Bay Rail Link is welcome (2)."

"RAIL Back On Track particularly welcomes changes to how Infrastructure Australia (IA) functions. Allowing IA to better investigate independently the benefits of major projects gives more certainty for projects such as a Sunshine Coast Line upgrade and particularly Cross River Rail.  Having IA make public cost-benefit analyses also helps address the need for greater transparency. The introduction of new tax incentives designed to remove impediments in the tax system that discourage private investment in infrastructure projects is also very welcome."

References:

1. http://www.budget.gov.au/

2. http://www.finance.gov.au/publications/commonwealth-budget/2011-12/2011-12/content/bp2/html/bp2_expense-15.htm

Contact:

Robert Dow
Administration
admin@backontrack.org

[ozbob]

From the Courier Mail click here!

Moreton rail link on fast track

Moreton rail link on fast track

   Sarah Vogler
   From: The Courier-Mail
   May 10, 2011 10:10PM

THE long-awaited Moreton Bay rail link will receive an early funding boost under a transport and infrastructure package for Queensland.

The $1.2 billion Commonwealth commitment to the state's infrastructure aims to keep promises made during last year's election.

Transport Minister Anthony Albanese announced $133 million would be brought forward to help fast-track the $1.5 billion Moreton Bay rail link. About $30 million will be spent this financial year followed by $20 million next year and $83 million the year after that.

It follows an election promise by Prime Minister Julia Gillard to help deliver the vital link tipped to ease congestion north of Brisbane.

About $50 million has been allocated to completing the Gladstone Port Access Road and $160 million to finish a section of the Townsville Ring Road connecting the Douglas Arterial to the Bruce Highway at Mt Low.

Also $54 million has been allocated towards upgrading the dangerous Blacksoil interchange where the Brisbane Valley and Warrego highways meet.

Mr Albanese said $10 million would be spent on the Mackay Ring Road study and improvements to safety on the Peak Downs Highway will receive a $120 million boost.

He also announced almost $300 million worth of upgrades to the Bruce Highway would be reinstated, while a congested section of the highway in Brisbane has been identified as being eligible for funding to improve travel times.

[BrizCommuter]

http://brizcommuter.blogspot.com/2011/05/moreton-bay-rail-link-fast-tracked.html
Good news, but is there enough track capacity?

[somebody]

http://brizcommuter.blogspot.com/2011/05/moreton-bay-rail-link-fast-tracked.html
Good news, but is there enough track capacity?

Yes.

If the burden for serving Albion/W/Nundah/T is shifted to the suburbans.

[BrizCommuter]

http://brizcommuter.blogspot.com/2011/05/moreton-bay-rail-link-fast-tracked.html
Good news, but is there enough track capacity?

Yes.

If the burden for serving Albion/W/Nundah/T is shifted to the suburbans.

And as discussed many a time, assuming a realistic max capacity of 20tph on the suburbans, this cannot be done without either CRR, better core network signalling, or an approx. 71% decrease in services at Nundah and Toombul stations.

[somebody]

or an approx. 71% decrease in services at Nundah and Toombul stations.

But the current level of service is well above what they require.  Just two stations beyond Nundah at Bindha they are far from a 15 minute peak frequency.

The other point is that you are ignoring the independent capacity assessment(s) of the suburbans which is 23-25tph.  Depending on who you ask.

[#Metro]

If the burden for serving Albion/W/Nundah/T is shifted to the suburbans.

And as discussed many a time, assuming a realistic max capacity of 20tph on the suburbans, this cannot be done without either CRR, better core network signalling, or an approx. 71% decrease in services at Nundah and Toombul stations.

Sigh. We are adding more branches with is going to clog up and congest the core part of the train network. What will be the Kippa-Ring train frequency and is this better than the bus is now or could be? Will it be worst-class 30 minutes. I bet you it will be. and it is going to eat up more train paths.

What is the frequency of buses along this stretch at the moment? Are we replacing a bus with a train with no improvement in mobility for huge cost?

Maybe they should look at shuttles operated at higher frequency to compensate for the interchange penalty.

From the Human Transit Blog

http://urbanist.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83454714d69e2014e5f7205af970c-800wi


Branches split frequencies upstream! What we are going to get is bottom left corner- 30 minutes low frequency on all the branches!

[BrizCommuter]

The other point is that you are ignoring the independent capacity assessment(s) of the suburbans which is 23-25tph.  Depending on who you ask.

Given how much of BrizCommuter's life he has spent waiting at the Bowen Hills junction approach signal, BrizCommuter is rather pessimistic that even 20tph is achievable.

The last 3 times, BrizCommuter's morning train has arrived at this junction only to see a late running Caboolture train get priority, the headway between the preceding train, and BrizCommuter's train has been approx 3mins30secs, 3mins10secs, and 7mins+ (lost count after 7 mins). QR need a big kick up the posterior if they are to even manage 20tph southbound in the am peak along the suburbans.

Connecting SEQ 2031 draft document mentions maximum track capacity as being 20tph.

[somebody]

Probably reducing some of the insane conflicting moves in the current timetable, like Caboolture trains through Eagle Junction platform #1 while Shorncliffe trains are heading through Platform #3 will reduce this problem.

Last time I used the Airtrain, I certainly had to wait more than 3 minutes at the opposing signal.  The Ferny Grove train apparently had priority for some reason.

If QR can't manage 3 minute headways, I think some serious questions need to be asked.

[O_128]

Probably reducing some of the insane conflicting moves in the current timetable, like Caboolture trains through Eagle Junction platform #1 while Shorncliffe trains are heading through Platform #3 will reduce this problem.

Last time I used the Airtrain, I certainly had to wait more than 3 minutes at the opposing signal.  The Ferny Grove train apparently had priority for some reason.

If QR can't manage 3 minute headways, I think some serious questions need to be asked.

Why is it that other countries can easily run 35tph on tracks and we cant?. Surely it must be time to upgrade the antiquated signalling system currently in use.

[Stillwater]

Ahh, Grasshopper, your forget political vanity.  It is better for the politician's recognition that he/she place a plaque on a piece of rolling stock for all to see ... i.e. 'this is the 45th of 66 new trains promised by the government'.  It is less sexy and no-one can see the plaque at ground level that says: 'this signal relay provided by your government'.

[somebody]

Why is it that other countries can easily run 35tph on tracks and we cant?. Surely it must be time to upgrade the antiquated signalling system currently in use.

Care to give an example of >30tph on a signalised heavy rail system?  I think some tram systems may be able to do it.

[Zoiks]

Why is it that other countries can easily run 35tph on tracks and we cant?. Surely it must be time to upgrade the antiquated signalling system currently in use.

Care to give an example of >30tph on a signalised heavy rail system?  I think some tram systems may be able to do it.

It IS possible to run heavy rail at ~ 120-130 second headways using fixed blocks from my research, but usually you look at moving to moving blocks by that stage.

3.4.1 Signalling and Operating Margin
The CityTrain networks works predominantly on a four aspect colour signal system which divides a rail line into fixed blocks. As mentioned before, the network is running at 3 minute headways of which a significant proportion would be consumed by signalling. As such, signalling is a priority area that will need to be looked at in the near future in order to unlock significant capacity within the network.

There are two options in upgrading the signalling. The first would be to reduce the block spacing down to the minimum recommended for the train length operated on the network. In Figure 16 - Minimum train separation with regards to signalling in seconds VS train length (Parkinson and Fisher 1996)this is shown to be about 50 seconds. The WBTNI report suggests this time could reduce headways to roughly 2.5 minutes which is the practical limit for trains running on a fixed block network at reasonable speed. Significant cost would be endured performing this upgrade as many signals would have to be installed but would increase the capacity per track to 24 trains per hour. Cab control instruments could be installed but their cost to benefit ratio would be likely prohibitive.

The second option would be to convert the system to a moving block network connected with an ATP system operated with a variable safety distance. The advantages of this are clearly shown in Figure 6 - Headway comparison (Parkinson and Fisher 1996, XII).
A moving block network would cost about $1.5 billion to implement but this cost would be offset by removing the need to implement option one or continue to update the aging signalling system (Queensland Government 2009, 120). A moving block system has the capability to bring headways down to approximately 2 minutes which increases the capacity per track to 30 trains per hour.

[somebody]

Ok, that rebutts my concern about moving block signalling being nearly as expensive as CRR.

Still, reducing the impact of the Merivale bridge alignment is a real problem.

[Zoiks]

Ok, that rebutts my concern about moving block signalling being nearly as expensive as CRR.

Still, reducing the impact of the Merivale bridge alignment is a real problem.

Moving block is something we really should be moving towards. Ditto with cross river rail. As far as I can remember that figure was based off a figure found in a melbourne study.
You have to also remember that our current signal system is aging and is costing more and more to maintain.

As for the merivale bridge...
I have reason to believe that we could fit 6 tracks in the section where the marivale meets the ipswich line. IF we can do that we can seperate the services and achieve large increases in capacity and reliability

[SurfRail]

As for the merivale bridge...
I have reason to believe that we could fit 6 tracks in the section where the marivale meets the ipswich line. IF we can do that we can seperate the services and achieve large increases in capacity and reliability

I must admit I hadn't considered that.  ICRCS contended itself with rubbishing the concept of additional tracks through South Bank and over the bridge itself, then tunnelling from the Roma St West junction.

Perhaps ultimately we need to look at rearranging and expanding platform space to provide 2 platforms per track at Central and Roma St, rather than the current 2 into 4 for the suburbans only - so platforms 2-5 at Roma St become up-up-down-down Merivale platforms, and 6-9 become up-up-down-down Milton platforms, while at Central a 7th and 8th platform should be added.

[somebody]

As for the merivale bridge...
I have reason to believe that we could fit 6 tracks in the section where the marivale meets the ipswich line. IF we can do that we can seperate the services and achieve large increases in capacity and reliability

I'm not so sure about that.  Or at least it wouldn't be easy.  Firstly you'd need to remove the Roma St Fire Station, then move the busway south.  I'm not sure how you'd squeeze in the busway and two more tracks between the current tracks and the stairs towards Suncorp outside the Fire Station.  Maybe you'd tunnel, but that has its own problems.

Assuming CRR goes ahead, there would likely be Cleveland and Fairfield trains conflicting with suburban Ipswich Line trains.  There is another possibility however, and that is to have the Ipswich/Springfield trains on the suburbans go around via Tennyson.  That has conflicts at Park Rd, but no worse than at present.  A third possibility would be a fly-under for the outbound trains towards Milton, which would also mean you could at least remove the x25 points heading outbound.  Maybe harder to remove them heading inbound.

[Zoiks]

From what I can see you have about 27m at the narrowist bit. That will fit 6 tracks. There will be some modifications that have to take place though

I think this is spare space that could be used.

There is space on the other side too but maps was being stupid and not letting me highlight it

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/28343978/space.jpg

[#Metro]

The second option would be to convert the system to a moving block network connected with an ATP system operated with a variable safety distance. The advantages of this are clearly shown in Figure 6 - Headway comparison (Parkinson and Fisher 1996, XII).
A moving block network would cost about $1.5 billion to implement but this cost would be offset by removing the need to implement option one or continue to update the aging signalling system (Queensland Government 2009, 120). A moving block system has the capability to bring headways down to approximately 2 minutes which increases the capacity per track to 30 trains per hour.

I would agree however there are dwell time issues which are getting worse IMHO. We need trains with more doors to be phased in slowly so that eventually trains have three or four doors. Putting it off will just mean that it will cause more problems down the line.

[#Metro]

How hard would the transition be--- i.e. would lines have to be closed???

[Zoiks]

Way ahead of ya...

A comparison diagram between the layout of the newest trains in the Queensland Rail fleet and an author modified, metro style high capacity carriages is shown in Figure 17 – Comparison of current train layout (top) and suggested high capacity layout (bottom) (Downer 2008). In this modified train, an extra door in the middle has been added and all seats have been placed longitudinally creating a larger isle area. This combined with the use of handholds will encourage users out of the vestibule area and into the space between the doors. As numerous literary sources stated that standing is a more efficient use of space, seats have been sacrificed for standing room providing an overall increase of approximately 18% in train capacity (Table 4).
The extra door and space created by the layout will decrease the time it takes to complete a passenger cycle when the train is at a station resulting in a lower required dwell time. In an ideal situation these
Figure 17 – Comparison of current train layout (top) and suggested high capacity layout (bottom) (Downer 2008)
Passenger capacity per 6 car train
Situation
Current train
Modified train
Standing
240
564
Sitting
576
369
Total
816
960
trains would run all stops in the inner networks at frequencies greater than per hour creating an almost metro environment.
Table 4 – Passenger capacity comparison – calculations   6 can be found in appendix A
As this layout encourages standing for short distances, the current policy regarding overcrowding would not be in sync with the redesign.

Sorry for the crappy formatting. Its out of an assignment that I am in the process of updating.


As for the adding of new lines, it would be a fairly significant job with some major impacts on the line im guessing. I would think all tracks would have to be moved an the bridges over countess street would have to be replaced

[#Metro]

A comparison diagram between the layout of the newest trains in the Queensland Rail fleet and an author modified, metro style high capacity carriages is shown in Figure 17 – Comparison of current train layout (top) and suggested high capacity layout (bottom) (Downer 2008). In this modified train, an extra door in the middle has been added and all seats have been placed longitudinally creating a larger isle area. This combined with the use of handholds will encourage users out of the vestibule area and into the space between the doors. As numerous literary sources stated that standing is a more efficient use of space, seats have been sacrificed for standing room providing an overall increase of approximately 18% in train capacity (Table 4).
The extra door and space created by the layout will decrease the time it takes to complete a passenger cycle when the train is at a station resulting in a lower required dwell time. In an ideal situation these

So basically another 3600 passengers per hour per line can fit on the train....
Good.

[O_128]

Why is it that other countries can easily run 35tph on tracks and we cant?. Surely it must be time to upgrade the antiquated signalling system currently in use.

Care to give an example of >30tph on a signalised heavy rail system?  I think some tram systems may be able to do it.

Many of the paris metro line run every 90 seconds in peak and the district/circle lines in london

[Zoiks]

Those trains will be on a moving block.

As for capacity... theoretically....

Ipswich line capacity cases
Quadruplicated line capacity per direction per hour
% increase in capacity
Current use (6 car train)
6936
0%
Sectorisation + 20 trains per hour + current rolling stock
16320
135%
Sectorisation + 20 trains per hour + modified rolling stock
17760
156%

There is more options but Ill leave them out until I redo it.

[colinw]

This topic has been split so there there is a separate thread on signalling and CBTC.

Click here for the signalling & CBTC thread

[Stillwater]

Now we know why the feds changes there budget to bring forward money to construct this line, when the original schedule was for the Qld Govt to put its money in.  We are broke, as a state that is:

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/disasters-rain-on-frasers-budget-20110513-1em0a.html

We also now know why so much infrastructure funded by the state has been put back until after the state is back in the black.

[Gazza]

Sigh. We are adding more branches with is going to clog up and congest the core part of the train network.

Sigh, you're quoting Human Transit blindly again as if it's bible.

The situation on Bart is a special case, the track splits right before the terminus, with only one station on each branch, so that's where the choice comes about what is more important.

In Brisbane, yes its another branch, but both branches (Sunshine Coast, and Kippa Ring) are strong enough in their own right to prevent the Bart situation from happening.

It's pretty clear that when new branches are added to the network they add to the frequency rather than split it in half...That's what happened when Richlands opened right? When Kippa Ring opens they'll no doubt extend Richlands trains through to Petire and Kippa.

Secondly, when dealing with Branches, you can avoid making one branch worse off by doing something like the Thornlie spur in Perth...Both run at 4tph, but one runs express.

[#Metro]

Hi Gazza.

They take up train paths is my view and require work in the core section. Look past the specific example and at the general principle Jarrett is try to illustrate. Maybe in the off-peak this is not so much a problem as train paths are in excess but in peak hour train paths become limiting.

Jarrett is correct. 15 minute frequency only operates as far as Darra, and then beyond that point (as Ozbob has found out at Goodna) the
frequency is HALF this. Of course bad government policy also kills frequency as that whole line could be done more frequently 15 minute to Ipswich all day whatever the scenario. You don't necessarily need to build a branch to add frequency, you just put more trains on if you want more frequency... Even now, if we want high frequency mobility to Kippa Ring, why can't QR put on high frequency trains to Petrie now and connect the buses to that? The answer is that they can do it... you don't have to wait for a branch to be made.

The same will happen with Kippa Ring. I reckon that's going to be 30 minutes as well. Hardly patronage stimulating and very unattractive frequency. It will improve the frequency downstream but you can do that anyway right now. I suspect this might also explain why Shorncliffe has such low frequency in peak hour-- train paths have been eaten up.

To sum up, we should suspicious whenever we see a branch drawn as though one line can effortlessly divide into two equal lines.  Often, such a branch will be called an extension, a very slightly misleading word because it suggests that an existing, known quantity of service is being extended.  In fact, a branch always means one of three things.  Either

   *points beyond the branching point have less frequent service or <---- Richlands/Ipswich line branch is this one.
   *one of the branches operates as a shuttle, requiring a connection, or
   *in a few rare cases, the train itself comes apart, with some cars proceeding along one branch and some along the other.

Geometrically, it has to mean one of those things, and it may not be the one you prefer.  So before you decide whether the service is useful to you, or whether you support a proposed transit project whose map looks like this, you may want to ask which of those it is.

So, as a hypothetical, perhaps you could have got trains every 15 minutes all the way to Ipswich, which has more stations than just Richlands... during peak hour you are going to get the "starburst effect" as all trains try to get to the centre. I will agree with you that yes you could maybe have a 2 tier kind of thing.

Just out of curiosity, what is the maximum frequency that can be done to Ipswich on those tracks in both directions at the same time using a two tiered approach?

[Gazza]

Hi Gazza.

They take up train paths is my view and require work in the core section. Look past the specific example and at the general principle Jarrett is try to illustrate. Maybe in the off-peak this is not so much a problem as train paths are in excess but in peak hour train paths become limiting.

Not a good argument...

Imagine that Redcliffe, instead of having MBRL, had some uber high frequency feeder bus network leading onto the Caboolture line. If it was effective, you'd have a ton of people being funnelled into the train network, but as a consequence, you'd need higher frequency on the Caboolture line to deal with the crush of people.
Higher frequency = more train paths needed.

So how is this any worse?

Repeat this situation across the network for where new lines are proposed.

Thing is, they already did the study on MBRL, looking at bus/brt, lrt, and rail, and rail won out...

Yes, it takes more train paths, but don't people in these areas deserve it? (Where was it decided that people from Caboolture were more 'worthy' of rail, and people from Kippa Ring becoming a 'clogging' burden on the system?)

By leaving things as they are, you're basically keeping PT patronage artificially low. Feeder bus is good, but a 10km feeder bus ride isn't, and becomes arduous and a tough sell against just driving.
The case for branches/extensions (which you mentioned you aren't a fan of) is that the train can keep on going and, get them there faster than surface roads + a transfer penalty....As you have said, people value time, and for time, you need speed, and I reckon there would be some efficiency gains too through "keeping on going" along the same path.

[#Metro]

But Jarrett is still correct.

If you had a high frequency rapid transit service (it could be a shuttle rail service- remember I am speaking from a mode blind perspective here)
feeding into the Cabooture line then you would have high frequency not only to Cabooture but also to Kippa Ring. You wouldn't have a 30 minute service, you might have a.. I don't know... a 5-10-15 minute service... yes it might require a connection but this way you get high frequency everywhere.

Frequency is important. The transfer penalty- how long does it take to walk across a 3m train platform to the opposite side? And did they take into account the reduction in waiting time due to higher frequency at the platform when they did this modelling?

I'm just trying to make a general point here- don't focus too hard on the example, but the principle...
I take your point that there is probably enough train paths to go around for now and you could probably afford to do a direct service, though perhaps during peak not clear on that one
http://brizcommuter.blogspot.com/2011/05/moreton-bay-rail-link-fast-tracked.html

Imagine that Redcliffe, instead of having MBRL, had some uber high frequency feeder bus network leading onto the Caboolture line. If it was effective, you'd have a ton of people being funnelled into the train network, but as a consequence, you'd need higher frequency on the Caboolture line to deal with the crush of people.
Higher frequency = more train paths needed.

So how is this any worse?

So let there be no complaints when Kippa Ring starts off with 30 minute train frequency... I'm almost certain that this is what they are going to get... With a connective option, you don't have to wait for the "Kippa Ring" train, you just catch the first service to Caboolture that arrives and transfer. And not only that you get all the frequency up to Caboolture as well, possibly Sunshine Coast if they ever fixed up that bottleneck.

http://www.humantransit.org/2009/04/why-transferring-is-good-for-you-and-good-for-your-city.html

Out of interest, how many pphd is projected to be carried by MBRL in the morning peak hour?

[#Metro]

Maybe at this point I should realise that its not the infrastructure branching per se, but the direct service model "everything to the centre". There probably is train paths for that... but I just wonder what the counter-factual alternative would be...

[Gazza]

Its still 5 years away though, so who knows what sort of standard off peak frequency we'll have by then.

But Jarrett is still correct.

Yes, but it's not enough of a reason to dismiss the concept of branches, especially when the network already has them. Its like, at Park Rd, yes the frequency "Halves" at that point (Does this mean we should say the 'branch' to Cleveland is a bad thing???) but the counter argument is that if the two branches have an acceptable frequency in their own right then this doesn't matter. Now at present, the 2tph means this isn't the case. But say we had 4tph to Beenleigh and Cleveland, the presence of a branch would cease to be an issue.

Again, the BART example is an extreme illustration of the concept and is not comparable to Brisbane.

-On BART, the branch is at the end of the line.

-On QR, the branches tend to occur at the start of the lines quite close to the core. (Roma Street, Park Rd, Bowen Hills, Eagle Junction, Northgate, and now Darra)

Going back to Human Transits example.

On BART, this configuration causes issues because it means to provide good frequency on both branches you have to double the service basically along the whole line (which it doesn't necessarily need and becomes excessive), which is a problem for a cash strapped American transit system, so as a result, they've had to compromise and provide a crap service at the very end of the line.

But on QR, its more like the split occurs with the majority of stations beyond the split point, and the 'double frequency' that does occur fortunately occurs in the inner suburbs where it is needed anyway, and only for a short distance.

In an idea system, lines would be independent and would criss cross at the core rather than 'adding together' (think like a metro system, the London Underground, Singapore MRT etc so the effect doesn't occur too much (Well, the underground does have a few branches, dealt with in varying ways, but this is a big digression))

What you actually do at a branching point depends on the catchment of the line. Think of the branch lines in Melbourne, like Alamein. Its so short and low patronage they can get away with having people transfer to the main line.

But with MBRL, its going to have several stations, with a large local population feeding into it, so its entirely probable that trains will be quite full when reaching Petrie. In this case why make them transfer when they can keep on going? (A full train is paying its way and justifies its train path well)
In fact, this is what is projected to happen patronage wise, hence them choosing rail as the mode, and hence Kippa Ring trains being expresslink into the CBD on ConSEQ2031

With Richlands, you could've gotten away with a shuttle if it were 4tph to Ipswich and then 4tph Darra-Richlands, but I think they wanted to do the cheapest thing possible, which was extend Corinda terminators.

[somebody]

What I'd like to see from Northgate post-Kippa-Ring is:
4tph All to Shorncliffe
4tph All to Kippa-Ring
4tph express to Petrie, then all to Caboolture.

[ozbob]

Advertisement in the Courier Mail 8th June 2011 page 12

Moreton Bay Rail Link - Industry briefing

[somebody]

What I'd like to see from Northgate post-Kippa-Ring is:
4tph All to Shorncliffe
4tph All to Kippa-Ring
4tph express to Petrie, then all to Caboolture.

Did I say that?  Must have meant:
4tph All to Shorncliffe
4tph Eagle Junction, Northgate, then all to Kippa-Ring
4tph Eagle Junction, Northgate, express to Petrie, then all to Caboolture.

[BrizCommuter]

What I'd like to see from Northgate post-Kippa-Ring is:
4tph All to Shorncliffe
4tph All to Kippa-Ring
4tph express to Petrie, then all to Caboolture.

Did I say that?  Must have meant:
4tph All to Shorncliffe
4tph Eagle Junction, Northgate, then all to Kippa-Ring
4tph Eagle Junction, Northgate, express to Petrie, then all to Caboolture.

Optimistic! Expect half of that.