Article: Bid to end timetables

[somebody]

Simon, 38 million 8 years ago was a long time ago expecially when the carbon tax is going to add an additional 5 million to it I don't know how true it is but for the Blackwater system last year each train path used approx $2000 in electricity expenses.

Purely a guess

4 x 3000kW locos, running on average 25% output for 6hr out, 6hr back

= 36MW x $80/MWhr = $2880, so yeah, concern on the power

An SMU has 2880kW down to an EM60-79 3 car which has 810kW.

Even the higher figure is only $230.4/hr.
[/quote]

My calculation was in reference to the previous post on Blackwater System, so I took that to be 10,000t coalie and my number stands as a ball park.

For a two pack 60's series, thats 12 x 135kW = 1.6MW + Aux so say 1.7MW x 25% load average x 2hr = 0.85MWhrs x $80/MWhr = $68 to do the typical return run to Beenleigh/CL/Cab/Ips etc. Older Brisbane and coalie locos don't have regen into O/H,  The older stock operates like a DEL and just dumps breaking energy into the air as heat. Newer stuff makes the braking energy available to other trains and/or potential grid O/H feeder supply allows.

Go to NSW/Vic, the 46 class and later spark EL's have always regened into O/H if driver allows for use by other trains, if load not used up then blow off as heat at sub. Not sure on suburban/IMU sparks.

regards
Shane
[/quote]
Bother!  The $230.4/hr figure is 100% duty cycle at 8c/kWh.

I think the notion of electricity being a reason for poor services has been shown to be complete load of crap, just like most of the other excuses for mediocrity which I so often read on this site!

[HappyTrainGuy]

I don't recall any of us making excuses except raising the issues of why. Funding. In the end someone has to pay for it and yet Translink keeps funding buses that run on a 1h45min frequencies in Zone 3 cough354, bus routes that operate at 2 hour frequencies I'm looking at you 3xx that feeds into Strathpine station and Chermside interchange, bus routes that feed fresh air into the city and routes that directly compete with the heavy rail line as buses are cheaper to run and can span a greater area than what heavy rail can.

Simon, I think you might have gotten the initial electricity costs confused. I raised that when TT didn't think vehicle running costs of trains played much of a part. Labour is one part but so too is electricity consumption along with the increased pressure on maintainence schedules (both at Mayne and with associated track and overhead crews), wear and tear on parts, dead running, rollingstock availability, level crossing downtime and impacts on locals, the additional/longer rosted on staff at train control to look after the higher level of traffic, staff requirements and so on and so on. All of which has to be factored in. Some costs of which buses aren't responsible for such as roads, associated high price infrastructure/costs.

[#Metro]

Simon,
Power cost is not an excuse, its just part of the facts that make up the cost of running a train, small as it may seem.

If a train service costs $100/ return run and you do 2 x 7hr a day, M-F as proposed by Can do = $360,000pa

regards
Shane

Ferny Grove TUZ was quoted as $9 million pa

so 360 000 / 9 000 000 = 4% ; almost insignificant and hardly a determining factor.

So what's the other 96 % of the cost?

I would suggest DOO would have significant benefits...

[ozbob]

Sent to all outlets:

14th February 2012

Re: SEQ: Ferny Grove line - turn up and go trains

Greetings,

We look forward to more sound public and active transport initiatives from all sides of the political spectrum during the forthcoming election campaign.

The LNP's firm committment to begin to ramp up frequency on the rail network is long overdue and necessary.  As a community the massive investment in the rail network must be made to work around the clock.  Improved rail frequency means the bus network can be better tuned and help ease the capacity crisis it now faces.

We look forward to the public transport policy-counter-punches.  A failure to deliver them will result in political oblivion.

Public transport is going to be key issue in the south-east.

Best wishes
Robert

Robert Dow
Administration
admin@backontrack.org
RAIL Back On Track http://backontrack.org

Media release 24 January 2012

SEQ: Core Frequent Network: Get Rail Back On Track!

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, calls for an election policy on decent frequency and service span for rail. It's time to get Rail Back on Track!

Robert Dow, Spokesman for RAIL Back On Track said:

"Public transport is only useful if it is coming soon. If hundreds of millions of dollars have been expended on a new busway or railway for the service, but the service is not coming soon, then it is not useful."

"All day core frequency and a decent span of hours, especially on rail, are central to having a decent transport system (1)."

"Consider what you would do if it took half an hour for your car to start moving after turning the ignition key. Unacceptable waiting time - and yet this is what tens of thousands of daily rail passengers are asked to accept at most Queensland Rail stations across South East Queensland - services every 30 minutes or worse out of peak times. Even Perth has got rid of this type of archaic service standard years ago! Why haven't we?"

"For a fraction of the cost of big ticket infrastructure, Brisbane could be covered in rapid, frequent bus and rail services running every 15 minutes from at least 5 am - 9 pm, 7 days. On buses, frequent services to Bulimba (BUZ 230), The Centenary Suburbs (BUZ 400), The Northwestern Suburbs (BUZ 359) and the Great Circle Line are priorities. On rail, the Ferny Grove, Cleveland, Ipswich/Richlands/Caboolture lines are priorities."

"Overwhelming, members have indicated that frequency improvements, are the main game, not ticketing policies that are just more of the same! Public transport is only useful if it is coming soon!"

"It is a myth that we have to wait for big ticket, multi-billion dollar construction projects that take decades to deliver before we can get improvements to bus and train service frequency. There are many parts of the bus and rail network that can have more services now, very cheaply with little or no new infrastructure."

"Fare increases must be balanced by increases in service frequency, all modes."

"As RAIL Back on Track has always said, services must be frequent, bottom line!"


References

1. Building a Core Frequent Network http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=5173.0

Note: Unfortunate examples of this 'high cost, low frequency' phenomenon are the Richlands rail line which only runs two trains per hour but cost millions and millions of dollars, Ferny Grove-Keperra duplication (where are the new services?) and we suspect, the Kippa-Ring line which will probably run at a very unattractive anti-public transport frequency of just two trains per hour in the off-peak. Proper frequency would fulfill the actual intended purpose of paying for construction of that infrastructure in the first place.

Contact:

Robert Dow
Administration
admin@backontrack.org
RAIL Back On Track http://backontrack.org

[mufreight]

Both myself and HTG never said that we don't want higher frequencies,

Cough!

at night however I'd be happy with keeping the every 30 minute services (after 7pm) as I do believe this is sufficient to balance out the cost and benefits of the frequency of train services at this time.  

Cough!

Simon, 38 million 8 years ago was a long time ago expecially when the carbon tax is going to add an additional 5 million to it I don't know how true it is but for the Blackwater system last year each train path used approx $2000 in electricity expenses.

Purely a guess

4 x 3000kW locos, running on average 25% output for 6hr out, 6hr back

= 36MW x $80/MWhr = $2880, so yeah, concern on the power

An SMU has 2880kW down to an EM60-79 3 car which has 810kW.

Even the higher figure is only $230.4/hr.

In operation a train does not draw power for its entire journey and the current draw reduces as the load reduces.
The high current draw is on starting after that it is dependent on the grade and speed which determines the current draw (load) then one should consider the fact that in operation a train frequently coasts drawing no power.

[somebody]

In operation a train does not draw power for its entire journey and the current draw reduces as the load reduces.
The high current draw is on starting after that it is dependent on the grade and speed which determines the current draw (load) then one should consider the fact that in operation a train frequently coasts drawing no power.

Indeed.  I corrected my error a few posts above.

We have another on the list of excuses:
There aren't enough trains/makes it too hard for freight/might cause crossing conflicts/trains might catch up to the one in front/uses too much electricity

I don't recall any of us making excuses except raising the issues of why. Funding. In the end someone has to pay for it and yet Translink keeps funding buses that run on a 1h45min frequencies in Zone 3 cough354, bus routes that operate at 2 hour frequencies I'm looking at you 3xx that feeds into Strathpine station and Chermside interchange, bus routes that feed fresh air into the city and routes that directly compete with the heavy rail line as buses are cheaper to run and can span a greater area than what heavy rail can.

Simon, I think you might have gotten the initial electricity costs confused. I raised that when TT didn't think vehicle running costs of trains played much of a part. Labour is one part but so too is electricity consumption along with the increased pressure on maintainence schedules (both at Mayne and with associated track and overhead crews), wear and tear on parts, dead running, rollingstock availability, level crossing downtime and impacts on locals, the additional/longer rosted on staff at train control to look after the higher level of traffic, staff requirements and so on and so on. All of which has to be factored in. Some costs of which buses aren't responsible for such as roads, associated high price infrastructure/costs.

Ok, but I think this point has been well and truly exaggerated.  If they want to justify not doing it they need to either:
(a) Find better value upgrades (yeah, right) or
(b) Lower the PT growth targets.

If a train service costs $100/ return run, over an hour's work for 2 people, and you do 2 x 7hr a day, M-F as proposed by Can do = $360,000pa

Interesting calculation.  I think the cost will be more than $100 return; it's over an hour's work for two people.  There will presumably be additional early morning trains and counter peak services and probably shoulder peak as well.  However, I always thought that the real cost would be below the $9mil p.a. which Can Do budgeted.  Might increase Translink's service funding to QR but reduce QR's funding from service obligation or other accounts.

[Jonas Jade]

It's interesting that people think its worthwhile debating the immediate costs without attempting to appraise the benefits....

Eg.

Increased power consumption of trains, but that means decreased fuel consumption by cars.

Decreased congestion.

Increased mobility out of peak for shift workers, giving much better opportunities for them to use public transport. And decreased delays (ie increased productivity) for the ones who do use public transport currently.

etc.

[Stillwater]

  We demand full benefit and cost analyses for CRR.  The same methodology needs to be used here.

[#Metro]

Increased mobility out of peak for shift workers, giving much better opportunities for them to use public transport. And decreased delays (ie increased productivity) for the ones who do use public transport currently.

Time savings are easy to measure, but mobility - I wonder how do we incorporate that into BCR, because that's transit's main product!

[Jonas Jade]

Mobility (in the sense I'm using it here with high frequency trains) is essentially a result of time savings - time saved means more time to travel elsewhere!

eg the time savings (up to 30 minutes/day each way - this is a lot of productivity!) are what is measured, and the result is increased mobility.

You could measure it with arbitrary values such as "increased mobility means people spend $x extra that wouldn't be spent" or personal measures such as valuing the flexibility to people. (eg mobility is worth $25/day for group x eg students/shift workers).

[#Metro]

Mobility (in the sense I'm using it here with high frequency trains) is essentially a result of time savings - time saved means more time to travel elsewhere!

eg the time savings (up to 30 minutes/day each way - this is a lot of productivity!) are what is measured, and the result is increased mobility.

You could measure it with arbitrary values such as "increased mobility means people spend $x extra that wouldn't be spent" or personal measures such as valuing the flexibility to people. (eg mobility is worth $25/day for group x eg students/shift workers).

Mobility is the number of destinations or area or "menu" or places you can get to in a set time frame (say 30 minutes).
It is a spatial measure whereas time saved isn't really. Could you theoretically have two buses that save identical amounts of time
but one that has ZERO increase in mobility but another has a positive increase in mobility?

A question to ponder.

[Jonas Jade]

Mobility is the number of destinations or area or "menu" or places you can get to in a set time frame (say 30 minutes).
It is a spatial measure whereas time saved isn't really. Could you theoretically have two buses that save identical amounts of time
but one that has ZERO increase in mobility but another has a positive increase in mobility?

A question to ponder.

In this sense however the increased mobility is directly because of time saved because of increased frequency, which is what I was getting at. (Eg in the space that one train comes now, two trains will come meaning that it is possible to go from say Ferny Grove, get off en route to go somewhere, and then get the next train, in the time period that it would currently take you to wait for the next train.)

Anyway, the only way that your "concept" works that I can think of off the top of my head is

1) A bus that only stops twice (origin - destination) vs one that has extra stops, but then the one with extra stops should take longer.

2) A bus that goes one route as pick up only vs pick up & set down.

3) This one is more debatable as there are still "Destinations" en route just no significant ones:

a route that doesn't connect to any others and doesn't have any significant destinations en route vs one that does take in destinations en route. An example I can think of for this is the 130 deviation Simon has previously suggested via Hellawell Road instead of the Sunnybank Hills/Calamvale shopping precinct. There is no extra "significant" destination en route via Hellawell road, and therefore reduces the mobility of the route for local passengers in favour of CBD-centric, whereas via Sunnybank Hills there is opportunity for workers/shoppers/etc, with no "significant" time savings.

[Jonas Jade]

In the FG example, since we're talking about an existing line upgrading frequency, and not a new route introducing new destinations, time saved is the sole reason for increased mobility in this instance. (Eg. you can get to more existing destinations quicker, transfers to other routes will be quicker and easier, but no new destinations have been added).

[somebody]

a route that doesn't connect to any others and doesn't have any significant destinations en route vs one that does take in destinations en route. An example I can think of for this is the 130 deviation Simon has previously suggested via Hellawell Road instead of the Sunnybank Hills/Calamvale shopping precinct. There is no extra "significant" destination en route via Hellawell road, and therefore reduces the mobility of the route for local passengers in favour of CBD-centric, whereas via Sunnybank Hills there is opportunity for workers/shoppers/etc, with no "significant" time savings.

This point is valid, however the current system denies access to the BUZ networks for those along Hellawell Rd.  There are alternatives, I guess, like a re-route of the 135.  I'd want to know how many per week find the access to Sunnybank Hills shops useful.

[#Metro]

I like 'isochrones'
http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/13669/jarrett-walker-transits-job-is-to-create-freedom/

[Stillwater]

Indeed!  Surely someone here is up to the challenge of developing an isochrone for Greater Brisbane

[aldonius]

Actually, Stillwater, all that is needed to do is convince TL to release its route/timetable data publicly, then add SEQ to Mapnificent's (which generated the image TT posted just before) todo list. The release of that data should also enable Google Transit, which, incidentally, Toowoomba and the other Qconnect service areas have.

So it seems the problem here lies within TransLink.

[#Metro]

That number while probably not 100% clear was purely for power costs!!! I had previously stated labour costs would be around $200/hr

JAYSUS!!

That is a HUGE imperative for DOO AND ANY NEW METRO TO BE AUTOMATIC

Why are we paying so much for such awful service!

[SurfRail]

- Less fuel consumption by cars, but only if it increases ridership from cars to trains and consider the large energy cost per person for moving a lightly loaded train. A big assumption. Remember a Explorer DMU uses 1L/km/car. If a Explorer car holds say 50 people, thats 2L/person/100km. Typical medium size newer family car is 5-10L/100km. ie Audi A4 Diesel is 5L (from personal experience) and a Falcon/Aurion/Commodore around 9L/100km. So put 3-4 people in the car and fuel cost is now comparable for train even on bigger cars. Run the train with less than half full and the justification is just about blown.

It would be more pertinent to consider energy efficiency on a joule for joule basis, rather than fuel consumption, particularly where passenger trains don't run on oil.  I think cars would lose that contest big time.

- Decreased congestion, during the day roads are in general less congested (I didn't say congestion free), but driving around Brisbane between peaks has never been a major drama for me.

Bet that will not always be the case. 

Eliminating congestion is in any case a pretty dubious benefit of public transport, because it is hard to quantify if it actually does.  It probably does not.  What PT does is allow people to get around the congestion, and to reduce the severity of congestion when taken against the population it relates to.

-Increased Mobility, this is all great for the person using the train, but for the greater number who don't but are paying for it, it equals zip.

There is more room for them to drive on the roads, and more room for their goods to be carried as well.

And before someone jumps on increased farebox, please remember the current 30min trains are loosing over 75% of their costs, extra trains in off-peak, running lightly loaded on cheaper fares will only mean they loose more.

That only applies if you fudge the figures by not including capital expenditure on buying the trains.  Even if you do ignore that, it seems to be a reasonable maxim that doubling to 15 minute headways attracts around 80% more patronage, which means cost recovery would only decline very slightly.

The argument for extra 15min is purely based on the start of a cultural shift to more use of PT for the benefit of all stakeholders over the longerterm however cannot be easily quantified in $ terms.

Not true.  It is better value for money on the investment in the trains and the network to keep the things running more frequently.  They do nobody any good sitting in the yard waiting for a single peak service each direction each day.  You can quite easily calculate the benefit if you factor in cap ex and depreciation – by limiting yourself to looking solely at what the driver's wage and related operational costs are, you skew the conclusion.

I am also very strongly convinced, more than ever, that DOO is a necessary (but not entirely sufficient) way to go if we are going to save money and be in a position to boot-strap these headways to a sustainable level.

[Jonas Jade]

Ok from the taxpayers perspective that pay for off-peak services, playing devils advocate here as I personally believe in 15min timetable, got that part.

- Less fuel consumption by cars, but only if it increases ridership from cars to trains and consider the large energy cost per person for moving a lightly loaded train. A big assumption. Remember a Explorer DMU uses 1L/km/car. If a Explorer car holds say 50 people, thats 2L/person/100km. Typical medium size newer family car is 5-10L/100km. ie Audi A4 Diesel is 5L (from personal experience) and a Falcon/Aurion/Commodore around 9L/100km. So put 3-4 people in the car and fuel cost is now comparable for train even on bigger cars. Run the train with less than half full and the justification is just about blown.

- We're comparing to EMUs. DMUs don't factor into this at all.
- Most likely we're comparing to single occupant vehicles as people regularly using larger cars to transport multiple people are families travelling together and they'll be amongst the most difficult to convert over to regular PT use.

- Decreased congestion, during the day roads are in general less congested (I didn't say congestion free), but driving around Brisbane between peaks has never been a major drama for me.

True. But it will ease up some parts even more than they were previously. (Although it will also likely induce a lot of demand).

-Increased Mobility, this is all great for the person using the train, but for the greater number who don't but are paying for it, it equals zip.

They get the reduced congestion! And also, not really an argument since we're happily subsidising things like BUZ routes, GCLR, New Roads, even PT itself in full which is used for less than 7% of all trips! Using that logic the whole network should start shutting down.

And before someone jumps on increased farebox, please remember the current 30min trains are loosing over 75% of their costs, extra trains in off-peak, running lightly loaded on cheaper fares will only mean they loose more.

Based on the assumption that patronage won't increase, but there is a large amount of data/history supporting that it would (BUZ routes/Darra service increases etc).

The argument for extra 15min is purely based on the start of a cultural shift to more use of PT for the benefit of all stakeholders over the longerterm however cannot be easily quantified in $ terms.

It can be quantified, not "easily" but fairly easily.

[#Metro]

On train Labour $200/hr x 3750 = $750,000

I think tears are streaming down my face when I read that!!

What a BOMBSHELL COST!

[somebody]

- Decreased congestion, during the day roads are in general less congested (I didn't say congestion free), but driving around Brisbane between peaks has never been a major drama for me.

Bet that will not always be the case. 

Eliminating congestion is in any case a pretty dubious benefit of public transport, because it is hard to quantify if it actually does.  It probably does not.  What PT does is allow people to get around the congestion, and to reduce the severity of congestion when taken against the population it relates to.

I expect the reality is that it does reduce congestion for a given level of road expenditure.  Improved PT reduces the need for road expenditure so the bigger roads don't occur so much in places with good PT.

And before someone jumps on increased farebox, please remember the current 30min trains are loosing over 75% of their costs, extra trains in off-peak, running lightly loaded on cheaper fares will only mean they loose more.

That only applies if you fudge the figures by not including capital expenditure on buying the trains.  Even if you do ignore that, it seems to be a reasonable maxim that doubling to 15 minute headways attracts around 80% more patronage, which means cost recovery would only decline very slightly.

Not 100% clear on what you are saying.  Surely increased off peak services require minimal if any increase in the fleet size.  That's in line with the rest of your message, so perhaps its what you are trying to say here.

The argument for extra 15min is purely based on the start of a cultural shift to more use of PT for the benefit of all stakeholders over the longerterm however cannot be easily quantified in $ terms.

Not true.  It is better value for money on the investment in the trains and the network to keep the things running more frequently.  They do nobody any good sitting in the yard waiting for a single peak service each direction each day.  You can quite easily calculate the benefit if you factor in cap ex and depreciation – by limiting yourself to looking solely at what the driver's wage and related operational costs are, you skew the conclusion.

I think it is true to a large extent.  Who is going to go out expecting to use PT to get home with a 30 minute service?  Only someone with little choice, either for finances or the expectation of consumption of alcohol.

Your point is valid also though.

I am also very strongly convinced, more than ever, that DOO is a necessary (but not entirely sufficient) way to go if we are going to save money and be in a position to boot-strap these headways to a sustainable level.

I wouldn't say necessary, but it is desirable.

[Jonas Jade]

Not true.  It is better value for money on the investment in the trains and the network to keep the things running more frequently.  They do nobody any good sitting in the yard waiting for a single peak service each direction each day.  You can quite easily calculate the benefit if you factor in cap ex and depreciation – by limiting yourself to looking solely at what the driver's wage and related operational costs are, you skew the conclusion.

Yes.

And we have spent how many millions upon millions getting new rollingstock etc for this purpose.

Arguably the majority of trains purchased across the last decade are surplus to offpeak requirements. (i'm not getting into technical pedantics about ageing EMUs or maintenance - just in general), and so in effect are only required run two services each day (one each peak as for most lines by the time you run the service and back peak is pretty much done).

[SurfRail]

Not 100% clear on what you are saying.  Surely increased off peak services require minimal if any increase in the fleet size.  That's in line with the rest of your message, so perhaps its what you are trying to say here.

What I'm saying is that doubling service provision does not double cost if you include the cost of buying the trains and the associated infrastructure to begin with (ie it makes more sense to run the trains than not run them).

The car is not the evil many think. 1.2t of steel moving 4 people door to door, thats 300km of mass per person. 40t train carriage need 133 people to get same, yes lower rolling resistance, so maybe cut by 4x = 31people. For both train and car depends on route, terrain etc.

This argument is bogus in practice.  Cars carry 1.2 people on average, not 4.  Somebody could presumably work out the average occupancy of a QR city network service, but again I expect it would come down in favour of the train.  Factor in road maintenance and related charges as well, because you are including track access fees in the QR operating cost.

[Jonas Jade]

Bet that will not always be the case. 

Eliminating congestion is in any case a pretty dubious benefit of public transport, because it is hard to quantify if it actually does.  It probably does not.  What PT does is allow people to get around the congestion, and to reduce the severity of congestion when taken against the population it relates to.

It doesn't eliminate congestion. It relieves congestion (often short term) for certain trips.

Usually, road capacity that is freed up by new PT services are quickly gobbled up by induced demand. And the services themselves induce trips as well (eg people go into the CBD for something that they could do locally - but they go to the city because there's a convenient service etc).

What PT can do very well also is absorb increasing demand, thus preventing congestion.

There is more room for them to drive on the roads, and more room for their goods to be carried as well.

when it comes to roads commercial vehicles are really the concern rather than Sue who is going to yoga (but delaying Franks delivery of milk).

[ozbob]

Many assume that individuals wont change.  They will if the transit is accessible and frequent. You need to get out on Brisbane roads and public transport a bit more. Road congestion is becoming a lot more than just peak. Peak road congestion times are spreading to much wider periods now. Part of the problem is that forward journeys by public transport are not necessarily matched by return (relative early finish connecting buses etc.) so people need to drive.  Had a look at Gailes station today, hundreds of cars ... and Gailes is much maligned.

Darra is now good example of how improved rail frequency drives patronage. Ferny Grove will be next.

Having a frequent comprehensive public transport system means that delivery vehicles, and other service vehicles are in a much free flowing  road environment.

Brisbane is heading for terminal grid lock unless some bold moves are made, and looks like such moves are about to commence  ...  

[somebody]

Many assume that individuals wont change.  They will if the transit is accessible and frequent. You need to get out on Brisbane roads and public transport a bit more. Road congestion is becoming a lot more than just peak. Peak road congestion times are spreading to much wider periods now. Part of the problem is that forward journeys by public transport are not necessarily matched by return (relative early finish connecting buses etc.) so people need to drive.  Had a look at Gailes station today, hundreds of cars ... and Gailes is much maligned.

Darra is now good example of how improved rail frequency drives patronage. Ferny Grove will be next.

Having a frequent comprehensive public transport system means that delivery vehicles, and other service vehicles are in a much free flowing  road environment.

Brisbane is heading for terminal grid lock unless some bold moves are made, and looks like such moves are about to commence  ...  

Problem is that they aren't proposing evening or weekend services.

[HappyTrainGuy]

Why are we paying so much for such awful service!

Cos Translink has the idea that throwing more bus routes at it is cheaper than providing a better train service 

[BrizCommuter]

Many assume that individuals wont change.  They will if the transit is accessible and frequent. You need to get out on Brisbane roads and public transport a bit more. Road congestion is becoming a lot more than just peak. Peak road congestion times are spreading to much wider periods now. Part of the problem is that forward journeys by public transport are not necessarily matched by return (relative early finish connecting buses etc.) so people need to drive.  Had a look at Gailes station today, hundreds of cars ... and Gailes is much maligned.

Darra is now good example of how improved rail frequency drives patronage. Ferny Grove will be next.

Having a frequent comprehensive public transport system means that delivery vehicles, and other service vehicles are in a much free flowing  road environment.

Brisbane is heading for terminal grid lock unless some bold moves are made, and looks like such moves are about to commence  ...  

Problem is that they aren't proposing evening or weekend services.

Nor is it likely that these extra services will run past Roma Street. A reasonable proportion of off-peak travel is to/from South Bank/Brisbane.

Off-peak patronage will still be limited if 15 min frequency operating hours are restricted, and connections (rail and bus) are also not ramped up.

[Jonas Jade]

Congestion, ok guys we are talking off-peak. It would be fair to say the bulk of the arterial road network is designed for those few hours each morning and evening. Therefore during the midday the traffic is lighter. Yes every car off the road reduces congestion, but the term "congestion" needs to be put into context. at 5pm Gympie road might have 1700 cars per hour, but at Midday? So assume the road is running at 60-70% capacity during most of the day between peaks then reducing the traffic flow by the few % who might be able to catch the train isn't going to make much difference.

Re: congestion vs capacity:

Congestion is when roads operate above capacity.

During peak hour Gympie Road (as will most other main arterials) will be operating above capacity - this is when you get queuing, eg taking more than one cycle to get through a traffic light, right turn lanes full, conflicting traffic movements, slowing down for merges etc creating wait times etc.

It can be quite surprising how minor variations in traffic patterns/road design etc can affect traffic flow significantly. (eg a turning lane, a road being blocked).

Especially if we assume the bulk of the traffic is probably not well suited to PT, ie commerical doing business, industrial, driving to local supermarket, taking car in for service etc. Even if you trippled the off-peak numbers on FG, do you think you will see a visible difference on the roads?

I've caught trains and used roads in Singapore, Oslo, Colongne and Munich. All very PT proactive all still have alot of traffic on roads during the day, but all less than peak.

regards
Shane

- Commercial vehicles are, depending on the location of course, but generally you can expect 7-14% of all traffic tops (even less probably once you get closer towards FG?). They're not creating a problem - they're more victims than Lucy going to her 11am shift at the cafe at Brookside.

What you have to keep in mind also is that the population is growing. That means travel within the city is growing - there will be more trips made. Even if we assume that the roads can handle current volumes from 9:30 - 5pm (and I'd say there will be quite a few that reach or get pretty close to capacity during the day), without other modes to absorb growth, the period of the day that the roads operate at or above capacity will increase.

So what I mean is, while comparative to what you see now, perhaps you don't perceive the effect on congestion that higher off peak frequencies will have - it is there. I'm not talking about taking away existing congestion necessarily, but also effecting the reduction of future congestion.

They can absorb future growth as well as take in some existing trips, and perhaps convince some households that they might not need that second or third car!

[Stillwater]

Info here: http://www.btre.gov.au/publications/56/Files/wp71.pdf

[#Metro]

They could simply run to Yeerongpilly, terminate and turn around. Surely that's possible on the current timetable?
My guess is that they'll come from Roma Street though.

[Golliwog]

They could simply run to Yeerongpilly, terminate and turn around. Surely that's possible on the current timetable?
My guess is that they'll come from Roma Street though.

This is part of where your "run rail like they run buses" ideas fall down. Trains aren't buses. Buses can just pull around a stopped bus, of if it's at their stop, pull up behind it. You can't do that with trains, and they take a while to turn around where you're blocking a track from being used by other passenger and freight trains.

I'm not trying to say these are insurmountable problems, because they certainly aren't. But they're not things you can ignore either.

[HappyTrainGuy]

Best guess is they would terminate at platforms two and three at Roma Street. It might get jumbled up with Shorncliffe trains but who is to say that Shorncliffe trains won't turn into Beenleigh/Cleveland services and giving Doomben the Roma Street terminators in the timetable reshuffle if and before Ferny Grove gets their 15 min trains.

[Jonas Jade]

What about alternating Beenleigh/Cleveland from Ferny Grove every second train? Simplfying the operation, why create messy jumbles of routes?

That said, I'd much prefer something like the Coopers Plains or somewhere workable along the Beenleigh line for terminators and to have the 15mins extended to all times offpeak - evenings and weekends also.

[#Metro]

This is part of where your "run rail like they run buses" ideas fall down. Trains aren't buses. Buses can just pull around a stopped bus, of if it's at their stop, pull up behind it. You can't do that with trains, and they take a while to turn around where you're blocking a track from being used by other passenger and freight trains.

I'm not trying to say these are insurmountable problems, because they certainly aren't. But they're not things you can ignore either.

Wow, you really have to wonder what QR is doing when exuses like this ^^^ pop up as justifications for poor frequency service. How long are we going to listen to stuff like this? Will it be 2020 with SEQ population 2-3x what it is currently and we will STILL be running 30 minute frequency because of freight/I can't turn my train around fast enough/[insert excuse of choice here].

I'm sure they can find a solution. Turn around a Tennyson then. Find a place with a siding and if there isn't one BUILD ONE. Maybe they might have to use Roma Street Starters.

We can focus on PROBLEMS all day. Time to look at SOLUTIONS.

[somebody]

Problem is that they aren't proposing evening or weekend services.

Nor is it likely that these extra services will run past Roma Street. A reasonable proportion of off-peak travel is to/from South Bank/Brisbane.

Off-peak patronage will still be limited if 15 min frequency operating hours are restricted, and connections (rail and bus) are also not ramped up.

At this time there is no data on where these extra FG trains will run to as I doubt LNP have really looking into this level of detail. I'm going to take a punt and say that it will be extended onto south side somewhere. Worse case is P3 RS, urgh hopefully not or 2nd worse case Sth Bank!

I'd be tempted to put money that they won't.  They could also turn around at Roma St #6, and there's no conflicting moves with that.  The bureaucracy will be dead against running extra trains over the Merivale Bridge where they might conflict with freight, and if it isn't politically mandated it is most unlikely to happen.

[petey3801]

This is part of where your "run rail like they run buses" ideas fall down. Trains aren't buses. Buses can just pull around a stopped bus, of if it's at their stop, pull up behind it. You can't do that with trains, and they take a while to turn around where you're blocking a track from being used by other passenger and freight trains.

I'm not trying to say these are insurmountable problems, because they certainly aren't. But they're not things you can ignore either.

Wow, you really have to wonder what QR is doing when exuses like this ^^^ pop up as justifications for poor frequency service. How long are we going to listen to stuff like this? Will it be 2020 with SEQ population 2-3x what it is currently and we will STILL be running 30 minute frequency because of freight/I can't turn my train around fast enough/[insert excuse of choice here].

I'm sure they can find a solution. Turn around a Tennyson then. Find a place with a siding and if there isn't one BUILD ONE. Maybe they might have to use Roma Street Starters.

We can focus on PROBLEMS all day. Time to look at SOLUTIONS.

For crying out loud, i'm getting really sick of this crap you're peddling TT.

People aren't making excuses on here, they're pointing out things that must be taken into account when increases in frequency happen. You can't just click your fingers and have it happen! Try opening you eyes for once and looking at the real world, there are many things that need to be worked out before increasing frequencies ANYWHERE ON THE NETWORK.

Now before you start jumping all over me saying im just making more excuses etc. and having a general whinge, i'm all for 15-min services, the only thing i've got against it is that they weren't implemented years ago like the should have been. However, I would much prefer it is implemented PROPERLY rather than just throwing a few more trains on without working through problems etc. that may occur (resulting in constantly delayed/cancelled trains all the time).

[ozbob]

Many assume that individuals wont change.  They will if the transit is accessible and frequent. You need to get out on Brisbane roads and public transport a bit more. Road congestion is becoming a lot more than just peak. Peak road congestion times are spreading to much wider periods now. Part of the problem is that forward journeys by public transport are not necessarily matched by return (relative early finish connecting buses etc.) so people need to drive.  Had a look at Gailes station today, hundreds of cars ... and Gailes is much maligned.

Darra is now good example of how improved rail frequency drives patronage. Ferny Grove will be next.

Having a frequent comprehensive public transport system means that delivery vehicles, and other service vehicles are in a much free flowing  road environment.

Brisbane is heading for terminal grid lock unless some bold moves are made, and looks like such moves are about to commence  ...  

9.30am  ...

http://translink.com.au/travel-information/service-updates/bulletin/1329262098

Inbound bus delays Southbank to Cultural Centre

Buses inbound from Southbank to Cultural Centre on the South East Busway may be delayed 10-15 minutes due to heavy traffic congestion.

3 minutes ago ...


Basket case ...

[#Metro]

For crying out loud, i'm getting really sick of this cr%p you're peddling TT.

People aren't making excuses on here, they're pointing out things that must be taken into account when increases in frequency happen. You can't just click your fingers and have it happen! Try opening you eyes for once and looking at the real world, there are many things that need to be worked out before increasing frequencies ANYWHERE ON THE NETWORK.

Now before you start jumping all over me saying im just making more excuses etc. and having a general whinge, i'm all for 15-min services, the only thing i've got against it is that they weren't implemented years ago like the should have been. However, I would much prefer it is implemented PROPERLY rather than just throwing a few more trains on without working through problems etc. that may occur (resulting in constantly delayed/cancelled trains all the time).

You KNOW when someone is whinging when they point out 'concerns' but suggest no actions to alleviate them, no plans to investigate possibilities and MOVE FORWARD.
Other cities both overseas and even within Australia (Perth and Melbourne) manage to find solutions. Time to stop wallowing in problems.