POLL: Which upgrades for the Ipswich line should we try for?

[somebody]

Just like it says.

[petey3801]

I'm still of the view that the most likely option to succeed at this stage would be 4tph all to Richlands, 2tph fulltime express to Ipswich. Once we get that I think we should go for a bit more. Start small and gradually expand. That way it's easier for QR/Translink to lobby for a little bit extra money from treasury etc., its much more pallatable for them. If we go for all at once (4tph Ipswich and Richlands etc.) I honestly doubt we'll have much success, if any at all.

[somebody]

I'm still of the view that the most likely option to succeed at this stage would be 4tph all to Richlands, 2tph fulltime express to Ipswich. Once we get that I think we should go for a bit more. Start small and gradually expand. That way it's easier for QR/Translink to lobby for a little bit extra money from treasury etc., its much more pallatable for them. If we go for all at once (4tph Ipswich and Richlands etc.) I honestly doubt we'll have much success, if any at all.

Ditto.

That would be the first option.

[#Metro]

I'm interested in the 3 tph richlands (20 minute cycle) and 3tph Ipswich (20 minute cycle)

This would give 6tph on the inner section (train every 10 minutes).

Current time = 58 minutes (Central to Ipswich)
Waiting time (worst case) = 30 minutes (and yes, waiting is waiting)

Journey time weight = (1.5 x 30) + 58 = 103 minutes
Car journey = 40 minutes

"The Gap" 40 minutes by car - 103 minutes by train = 63 minute penalty in favour of car

(Now you know why 80% of trips are by car- no it's not a conspiracy, no its not because there isn't TOD on top of the
stations- it's just too damn slow
this is why I also support park and ride so long as there is a charge, bus transfer will also put 10 minute
transfer penalty on top of that).

30 minutes - 20 minutes = 10 minute time saving by frequency
30 minutes - 20 minutes plus all express = 10 minutes time saving + 8 minutes time saving
Total time saved = 18 minutes

new time = 40 minutes (Central to Ipswich)
Waiting time (worst case) = 20 minutes

Journey time weight = (1.5 x 20) + 50 = 80 minutes

HOWEVER Train frequency at City-Toowong-Indooroopilly will also drop from every 15 minutes to
every 20 minutes. This takes the service standard backwards and therefore be politically unacceptable.

4 trains per hour to Ipswich, no express
30 minutes - 15 minutes = 15 minute time saving by frequency
no time saving by express

new time = 58 minutes
Waiting time (worst case) = 15 minutes

Journey time weight = (1.5 x 15) + 58 = 80.5 minutes (30 seconds perceived difference)

Turn up and go frequencies are better from a mobility perspective because it allows the timetable
to be thrown away and bus connections to be more reliable even if delayed.
There are also more stations on the Ipswich line than the richlands line therefore
the amount of people to benefit will also be greater, despite the higher cost.

I stand by my preference to see 4 trains per hour to be sent to Ipswich, and that these trains stop all stations.
and thus I have indicated "other".

[somebody]

^ What would happen to Richlands in that scenario?  2tph all stations?

[#Metro]

Sorry to say, but YES.

There may be a case to run a shuttle, but who knows.

Can't save everyone...there will always be winners and losers.

[somebody]

That would make it much harder to get 4tph Springfield and also harder to get a full time express to Ipswich.

[#Metro]

Full time express

Would save 8 minutes for everyone
Cheap
Still a huge wait

Removal of fat    - 1 (11.1%)

If fat is there it probably serves a purpose.
Would save ~ 5 minutes for everyone
Still a huge wait

Counter peak upgrades for 6-9min frequency at Milton & Toowong, and 15 minute at Ipswich    - 1 (11.1%)

I have no idea about this one.

3tph express to Ipswich + 3tph all to Richlands    - 2 (22.2%)

Results in frequency drop in the Inner city- politically risky

3tph all to Ipswich + 3tph all to Richlands    - 0 (0%)

This is an interesting compromise. Worth looking at.

3tph express to Ipswich + 6tph all to Richlands    - 0 (0%)

6tph to Richlands (6000 pphd) is totally unjustified- trains will be running mostly empty
because the line is so short (1 station) and the catchment area isn't as large as Ips.

[#Metro]

That would make it much harder to get 4tph Springfield and also harder to get a full time express to Ipswich.

There is no technical answer to this question. Do we priorities current needs (Ipswich, city already there, a lot of stations on that line
large feeder catchment) over future needs that are still a bit off in time (Springfield, some development there but will take a few decades
do develop).

In the future we may have the time and money to allow 4tph on that line. Or we could run shuttle. At the moment I prioritize Ipswich because they're already there and there are more people living there now, so the benefits can be realised now for the maximum number of people. There is no justification for running 6000 pphd capacity to Richlands, you'd be lucky if 6000 passengers used Richlands in one *day*.

Who's needs are more important? Springfield or Ipswich. Would be interesting to hear the views.

[somebody]

3tph express to Ipswich + 6tph all to Richlands    - 0 (0%)

6tph to Richlands (6000 pphd) is totally unjustified- trains will be running mostly empty
because the line is so short (1 station) and the catchment area isn't as large as Ips.

There is also serving stations Auchenflower, Taringa, Chemer-Oxley. Not just 1 station.

[#Metro]

There is also serving stations Auchenflower, Taringa, Chemer-Oxley. Not just 1 station.

That's true but it is also true that those stations would also be served by 4tph all stops to Ipswich anyway.
So it's not really a point of difference. This also gives 6tph on that section, so under both proposals, the service
level on that section of the line is identical.

Where there is a point of difference is after Darra. There are 12 stations on the Ipswich line beyond this point (we will assume anything
after that point generates negligible patronage) but only a maximum of four on Richlands. Ipswich itself has 160 000 of population, and growing.

By contrast, springfield:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Springfield,_Queensland

In 2009, the Greater Springfield area had a population of 18,100 with 80,000 people expected to call Springfield home by 2030.[1] The master-planned community is attracting up to 20 new households each week.

Do we prioritise frequent train service to 80 000 people in 2030 in Springfield over 160 000 people in 2011 in Ipswich?

The catchment and thus patronage on Richlands will thus be lower than Ips IMHO simply because the number of people is fewer.
This is why I chose the option I suggested.

[Gazza]

Im still all for a full time 2tph express with 4tph to Springfield.

Totally understand waiting times etc for Ipswich. Don't need to repeat that discussion here as it was already well covered in the other thread. At the same time, all these service options are going to have differing costs to implement, so when comparing that will be a factor (At least at the planners end)

This is because one line is much shorter than the other, and at the same time an express service costs less to run then an all stopper. These influence the cost of each option.

Few reasons for this viewpoint:

-Springfield will only ever be 4tph for a long time anyway (if it does get it)....

-Which brings me to my next point. Ideologically, I'm already clear that a $480 mil line shouldn't be running 2tph. We give 4tph to Springfield at opening, and we've 'won'. Issue closed, we then move on to Ipswich and advance the case there.

3tph express to Ipswich + 6tph all to Richlands    - 0 (0%)

Weird? Why would you do a 9tph solution when an 8tph solution (4 each branch) would do?

I'm not supportive of any 3tph solutions.
It's 2nd best.
Just like I argued about the SE Busway, we shouldn't defend 2nd best solutions because of weakness in the bureaucracy. There's little technically stopping an 8tph service, certainly nothing requiring a major capital project having to be done first.
If the funding and political will was there, it could be done pretty quickly.

[colinw]

By contrast, springfield:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Springfield,_Queensland

In 2009, the Greater Springfield area had a population of 18,100 with 80,000 people expected to call Springfield home by 2030.[1] The master-planned community is attracting up to 20 new households each week.

Do we prioritise frequent train service to 80 000 people in 2030 in Springfield over 160 000 people in 2011 in Ipswich?

The catchment and thus patronage on Richlands will thus be lower than Ips IMHO simply because the number of people is fewer.
This is why I chose the option I suggested.

Well, no surprises there. After all we also prioritised rail service for 18,000 people in Springfield over 300,000+ on the Sunshine Coast, and were also prioritising it over the 250,000+ in the region served by the MBRL until the Feds embarrassed everyone but putting up the money.

The planning process is completely compromised & politicised, and has far more to do with who holds what seats than any actual or perceived need.

The Springfield line is going to be a very good thing, and a rare example of a line getting to a new area before it is too late. But I still question the priorities that saw it get up ahead of MBRL, Beerburrum - Landsborough and (particularly) the Caloundra South / Caloundra bit of CAMCOS.

[#Metro]

Totally understand waiting times etc for Ipswich. Don't need to repeat that discussion here as it was already well covered in the other thread. At the same time, all these service options are going to have differing costs to implement, so when comparing that will be a factor (At least at the planners end)

This is true, but on the other hand it might cost more but it also has higher benefit IMHO. A service should not just be judged soley on whether it is cheap, but also the scale of it's utility. Where utility = time savings x number of people.

-Which brings me to my next point. Ideologically, I'm already clear that a $480 mil line shouldn't be running 2tph. We give 4tph to Springfield at opening, and we've 'won'. Issue closed, we then move on to Ipswich and advance the case there.

Disgree strongly. This is the sunk cost fallacy. The money is *already* spent. You can't recover it whether you run zero tph or 30 tph.
Secondly, I'm sure billions have been spent over the years on the two track railway running out to Ipswich, which *also* runs 2tph. So even if your argument was true, it would actually be more of a case to run 4tph on Ipswich rather than Richlands.

Weird? Why would you do a 9tph solution when an 8tph solution (4 each branch) would do?

Agreed. This sounds like overkill.

[ozbob]

I offer this comment as a constructive viewpoint.

Much of what happens between Darra and Ipswich out of peak is not Brisbane CBD focussed. It is Ipswich CBD focussed.  Running trains every 30 minutes does nothing really.  There are significant constraints, coalies etc.  So as TT has finally grasped, 20 minutes on both Richlands and Ipswich, is achievable today and will result in frequency increases to CAB, which is one of my major concerns.

CAB <-> IPS is the engine room of the network folks, love it or hate it   ...  

[somebody]

3tph express to Ipswich + 6tph all to Richlands    - 0 (0%)

Weird? Why would you do a 9tph solution when an 8tph solution (4 each branch) would do?

Thought I'd put it out there as its a 3tph without reducing anyone's service.  In fact increasing everyone's significantly.

8tph is probably more likely.

[Jonas Jade]

I voted 3tph all Ipswich / 3tph all Richlands.

If you're talking about something realistic that can be done relativley soon that maintains high frequency on the inner section - this is probably it.

It dips the toe of the outer suburbs towards high frequency (20mins is a , and gives the inner suburbs a true TUAG service (IMO 15 mins isn't quite tuag), and it provides a board from which moving to higher frequency is much easier - and that high frequency would likely be 6tph rather than 4.

[somebody]

I offer this comment as a constructive viewpoint.

Much of what happens between Darra and Ipswich out of peak is not Brisbane CBD focussed. It is Ipswich CBD focussed.  Running trains every 30 minutes does nothing really.  There are significant constraints, coalies etc.  So as TT has finally grasped, 20 minutes on both Richlands and Ipswich, is achievable today and will result in frequency increases to CAB, which is one of my major concerns.

CAB <-> IPS is the engine room of the network folks, love it or hate it   ...  

I'm inclined to ignore Caboolture for now.  My reasoning is that when we have put forward plans for upgrading it here and here we haven't had much media attention.  As compared to the media response on the Ipswich line which has been quite good, and even one of the pollies (Jo Ann Miller IIRC) noticed.

Getting a full time express on the Ipswich line would all but necessitate 4tph Richlands/Springfield.  Similarly, if counter peak express can be run at 2tph that removes excuses that it can't be done at 4tph.  I see a huge benefit from pressing for the express.  That Wacol-Ipswich don't benefit for local trips is unfortunate, but we won't get everything.

Adding Bowen Hills terminators is a limitation, but I think it would cause pressure to extend some of them somewhere.

[#Metro]

I think we now have a range of options come out of the debate which looks like:

(1) 4tph to Ipswich, stop all stations + 2 tph Richlands (Ipswich gets a big upgrade but no upgrade for Richlands)
(2) 3 tph Ipswich, stop all stations + 3 tph to Richlands (Upgrade all around)
(3) 3 tph Ipswich, EXPRESS + 3 tph to Richlands (decrease in frequency on the inner section from 15 minutes to 20 though, due to express run)
(4) 2 tph Ipswich, EXPRESS, + 4 tph to Richlands (very minor 8 minute time saving, service overkill on Richlands line)

I think option (2) does have decent merit, although I personally think option (1) is where my money is at.

I'm inclined to ignore Caboolture for now.  My reasoning is that when we have put forward plans for upgrading it here and here we haven't had much media attention.  As compared to the media response on the Ipswich line which has been quite good, and even one of the pollies (Jo Ann Miller IIRC) noticed.

Any upgrade, even if it is just Richlands/Ips to Bowen Hills is worth it IMHO. So I agree with you on this one.

[somebody]

Frankly, I'd hate for your option (1) to be implemented, for reasons which I've already mentioned.  I don't think anyone else would like it either, but I've added it as an option.

I think the way forward is clear, actually, hence my frustration.  I'm not content to raise the profile of PT; I want to see real improvements!

[ozbob]

I think it is clear that majority do want express trains around the clock,  the issue is how can that be achieved.

Option 1 in the poll just asks if Express is best.

4 tph/Richlands and 2 tph Ipswich express is one option.  Unless there is a committment to ramp up Springfield frequency is unlikely that 4tph Richlands will be achieved prior to Springfield opening, and then no guarantee.  No harm in asking.

3 tph Richlands and 3 tph Ipswich express is another option - this more balanced and is probably achievable now if funding was made available.  This was the way Melbourne went.  The problem with this it is out of sync with north of Brisbane, so if this was to be done the Richlands trains should run through to Petrie.  The Cab - Ips services all stations to Petrie (inbound) then express.  That could work.

Sector 2 will not see any real out of peak frequency increases.  The government is just not prepared to commit and the LNP don't have to do anything either.  George St is falling apart ...

[somebody]

Unless there is a committment to ramp up Springfield frequency is unlikely that 4tph Richlands will be achieved prior to Springfield opening, and then no guarantee.  

I disagree.  If full time express to Ipswich is achieved, then 4tph RCH will be achieved by default.  There's something in the planning principles here that you never, under any circumstances reduce an existing service.  I guess the 393 got around this by being "converted" into 66 trips.

[#Metro]

I disagree.  If full time express to Ipswich is achieved, then 4tph RCH will be achieved by default.  There's something in the planning principles here that you never, under any circumstances reduce an existing service.  I guess the 393 got around this by being "converted" into 66 trips.

It's not contingent IMHO. They might balk at sending 4 tph to Richlands, and with good reason! It has ONE station! It's and order of magnitude smaller than Ips!
Personally I think there is an emotional attachment to the word "EXPRESS". It focuses purely on time saved by vehicle speeds, ignoring platform waiting time.

2 tph express to Ipswich (even express) for something that should be core frequent is not good enough IMHO.

At least the 3 tph / 3 tph all stops solution is a compromise.

3 tph Richlands all stops / 3 tph Ipswich EXPRESS is a compromise, but will reduce train frequency slightly on the inner section
violating the "no worse off" principle Simon alluded to.

Ideally I would like to see 4 tph to Richlands and 4 tph to Ipswich EXPRESS, but I think that one was just asking too much and has technical
limitations on the track.

At the end of the day it's TransLink and QGov's call. If one option doesn't work, there are others. Try them all...

[somebody]

^ Not sure what I can add to what has already been said in response to that.

[#Metro]

My position is this:

1st Preference: 4 trains / hour sent to Ipswich, stopping all stations PLUS 2 trains / hour sent to Richlands. This cuts waiting time by 15 minutes and frequency stimulates patronage. The population of Richlands / Springfield is far below that of Ipswich, hence Ipswich should be the priority. Yes, Richlands does miss out but we can't all be winners.

2nd Preference: 3 trains / hour sent to Ipswich, stopping all stations PLUS 3 trains / hour sent to Richlands. This cuts waiting time by 10 minutes and frequency stimulates patronage. This is the "Melbourne" solution - 20 minutes on both lines, combined service frequency of a train every 10 minutes (metro) between CBD and Darra!

I don't like the 3 tph express to Ipswich because it means a reduction of service on the inner section from 4 tph to 3 tph due to the Ipswich trains running express.
People in Indooroopilly/Taringa/Auchenflower/Toowong/Milton aren't going to be happy (but maybe they can BUZ it?). Sending 4 tph Richlands / 4 tph Express to Ips would be holy grail stuff but QTreasury might get upset and not fund such a massive upgrade like that (though all means try anyway).

4 trains per hour to Richlands seems like overkill and 2 tph Express to Ips. not big enough time saving, not TUAG and not frequent enough.

[Gazza]

4 TPH  IPS + 2 TPH RCH is still an improvement for both.

Not TUAG for Ipswich of course, but its the cheapest to implement because the longest stretch is running express, and the shortest stretch is where the frequency is.

[somebody]

4 TPH  IPS + 2 TPH RCH is still an improvement for both.

Not TUAG for Ipswich of course, but its the cheapest to implement because the longest stretch is running express, and the shortest stretch is where the frequency is.

Did you mean the other way around?

[Gazza]

Yeah I did actually.

Point is, its not as simple as having "6 Trains" to play with, and distributing them accordinly. All options cost money too.

1st Preference: 4 trains / hour sent to Ipswich, stopping all stations PLUS 2 trains / hour sent to Richlands. This cuts waiting time by 15 minutes and frequency stimulates patronage. The population of Richlands / Springfield is far below that of Ipswich, hence Ipswich should be the priority. Yes, Richlands does miss out but we can't all be winners.

With this option, how do the RCH trains fit in...Is it like a 7.5 min gap at inner stations, then a 15 and so forth?

[#Metro]

With this option, how do the RCH trains fit in...Is it like a 7.5 min gap at inner stations, then a 15 and so forth?

Hmm... this creates gaps of 20 minutes unless we were to put up with
uneven frequency on the combined section.

60/0 minutes Richlands
10 minutes Ipswich
20 minutes Ipswich
30 minutes Richlands
40 minutes Ipswich
50 minutes Ipswich

OR

0 Ipswich
8 Richlands
15 Ipswich
30 Ipswich
38 Richlands
45 Ipswich

whereas the 3 tph each way wouldn't

[somebody]

With this option, how do the RCH trains fit in...Is it like a 7.5 min gap at inner stations, then a 15 and so forth?

60/0 minutes Richlands
10 minutes Ipswich
20 minutes Ipswich
30 minutes Richlands
40 minutes Ipswich
50 minutes Ipswich

WTF?

Then there won't be a 15 minute frequency Wacol-Ipswich, and your whole waiting is waiting argument fails.

Current average wait: 15 minutes
TT's plan average wait: 8.333 minutes - improvement 6.667 minutes.
Express plan improvement: 7-8 minutes

I thought we'd already been here.  Sigh.

[Gazza]

Simon <3 <3 <3

[somebody]

Simon <3 <3 <3

?

[#Metro]

Then there won't be a 15 minute frequency Wacol-Ipswich, and your whole waiting is waiting argument fails.

Current average wait: 15 minutes
TT's plan average wait: 8.333 minutes - improvement 6.667 minutes.
Express plan improvement: 7-8 minutes

I thought we'd already been here.  Sigh.

Sorry, while you were posting I was working out an even timetable. I think it is possible to have 15 minutes 4tph to Ips like this:
The frequency on the inner section will be in gaps of 8 minutes followed by 15 minute gap. But that's shouldn't matter too much,
that is still an improvement on the current 15 minute even gaps on the inner section.


mins past hour / destination
0 Ipswich
8 Richlands
15 Ipswich
30 Ipswich
38 Richlands
45 Ipswich

My main objection to 4 tph to Richlands is the population is Population (Richlands) <<< Population (Ipswich).

[#Metro]

This is a nice exercise. If you were at central, which would you rather see on the PID?

mins past hour / destination

0 Ipswich
8 Richlands
15 Ipswich
30 Ipswich
38 Richlands
45 Ipswich

OR

mins past hour / destination

0 Richlands
8 Ipswich EXP
15 Richlands
30 Richlands
38 Ipswich EXP
45 Richlands

[Gazza]

#2, definitely.

[petey3801]

The other thing about Option #2 there (which is also my preferred option) is it will cost a lot less money than the first option (4tph Ips). This is what QR/Translink/QGov will look at. Comparitvely, the 4tph Richlands (I really wish people would stop saying "But it's only one stop!". It is all the stations between the City and Darra/Richlands, which wont be served by the express) and 2tph Ipswich really won't cost much extra money, as the Ipswich trains will be turned around faster, meaning less units needed to run the corridor, crew times on the Ippy line will be lower meaning they can do something else in the saved time (reduced labour cost), the extra units required for the Richlands trains can partly be made up from the unit/s no longer needed on the Ipswich corridor and noone actually gets a lower frequency.

TT, you say there is an emotional attachment to the word 'Express'. Yes, yes there is. The public have this attachment as well. When I want to catch the train, I check the timetable for when it is due to depart the station I want to catch it from and see how much I can get done at home/work/shopping etc. before I have to catch it. To then find out the train doesnt stop at every single damn station is fantastic, because, even though it only saves a few minutes, the whole trip seems a lot faster because the train is not stopping.

Yes, 4tph to Ipswich (preferably express, +4tph Richlands/Springfield) is the holy grail for this line, but just straight up asking for that is going to end in QR/Translink/QGov laughing in our face. I feel 4tph Ips/2tph RHD is going to end in basically the same way (it will cost a lot more money, as discussed above). 4tph to Richlands is fairly simple to do, as the trains can turnback there out of the way, where they won't be blocking anything. Once we have achieved 4tph RHD/2tph IPS-exp, it's much easier to advocate for the upgrade to 4tph IPS exp, as it won't be much extra cost on top of what would be running already. Need to take it in small bites, it makes it look a lot better in the eyes of the money-holders.

[#Metro]

Like I said, people are free to argue their case but I am going to take a position that is against the majority here.
I'm happy to support 3tph all around as a 2nd preference.

4 tph to Richlands is overkill, especially given the population size compared to Ipswich, it is Ipswich that should be getting prioritised first, not richlands. I am not convinced that an 8 minute saving will significantly reduce the number of trains required or costs. How many fewer trains will be required roughly?

4 tph to Richlands would be cheaper but it would also have far less utility. Value for money means we look at both cost and benefits and their scale.

TT, you say there is an emotional attachment to the word 'Express'. Yes, yes there is. The public have this attachment as well. When I want to catch the train, I check the timetable for when it is due to depart the station I want to catch it from and see how much I can get done at home/work/shopping etc. before I have to catch it. To then find out the train doesnt stop at every single damn station is fantastic, because, even though it only saves a few minutes, the whole trip seems a lot faster because the train is not stopping.

LOL. We could just lie and write the word EXPRESS in big silver letters on the side of the train and then make it stop all stations. It would have the same psychological effect.

I have already been through the calculations and I am not convinced 2 tph saves enough time. We just cannot ignore waiting time like it doesn't exist. And this has been demonstrated experimentally by BUZ. By all means disagree with me, tell me that waiting isn't waiting (yeah right), but I can't concede that point. On average, a passenger will experience the best and worst journey times, we should care about the worst experiences they have on the PT system because that's what they'll remember. Half an hour variation is very large... As principle, something that should be Core Frequent should have a frequency of 4 tph.

4 trains per hour to Ipswich, no express
30 minutes - 15 minutes = 15 minute time saving by frequency
no time saving by express

new time = 58 minutes
Waiting time (worst case) = 15 minutes
Journey time weight = (1.5 x 15) + 58 = 80.5 minutes

(even under average wait of 7.5 minutes, and no weighting penalties = 65.5 minutes)

2 trains per hour to Ipswich, express
30 minutes wait
8 minute saving by express

new time = 50 minutes
Waiting time (worst case) = 30 minutes
Journey time weight = (1.5 x 30) + 50 = 95 minutes

(even under average wait of 15 minutes, and no weighting penalties = 65 minutes)

[#Metro]

Yes, 4tph to Ipswich (preferably express, +4tph Richlands/Springfield) is the holy grail for this line, but just straight up asking for that is going to end in QR/Translink/QGov laughing in our face.

Agreed!

I feel 4tph Ips/2tph RHD is going to end in basically the same way (it will cost a lot more money, as discussed above). 4tph to Richlands is fairly simple to do, as the trains can turnback there out of the way, where they won't be blocking anything. Once we have achieved 4tph RHD/2tph IPS-exp, it's much easier to advocate for the upgrade to 4tph IPS exp, as it won't be much extra cost on top of what would be running already.

This is not guaranteed and is it even technically possible to timetable in 8tph on that line?
The danger here is that we get stuck with high frequency to one station in whoop-whoop serving very few people, and also stuck with a negligibly faster Ips service with frequency that is terrible as ever. Be careful what you wish for!

[O_128]

Yes, 4tph to Ipswich (preferably express, +4tph Richlands/Springfield) is the holy grail for this line, but just straight up asking for that is going to end in QR/Translink/QGov laughing in our face.

Agreed!

I feel 4tph Ips/2tph RHD is going to end in basically the same way (it will cost a lot more money, as discussed above). 4tph to Richlands is fairly simple to do, as the trains can turnback there out of the way, where they won't be blocking anything. Once we have achieved 4tph RHD/2tph IPS-exp, it's much easier to advocate for the upgrade to 4tph IPS exp, as it won't be much extra cost on top of what would be running already.

This is not guaranteed and is it even technically possible to timetable in 8tph on that line?
The danger here is that we get stuck with high frequency to one station in whoop-whoop serving very few people, and also stuck with a negligibly faster Ips service with frequency that is terrible as ever. Be careful what you wish for!

4tph RHD and 2tph IPS at least gives 10 min frequency to Darra, Not giving Ipswich 4tph as well isn't ideal but seeing as you need more than 2 tracks to run more than 2tph in QLD I see no service improvement until the trip is done to redbank.

[Gazza]

4 tph to Richlands is overkill,

Its not 4tph to Richlands, its 4tph to every Station Milton to Richlands, since these wont be served by expresses (Except for the current express stops)
All the stations in from Richlands need 4tph, so its not overkill.