Article: Bid to end timetables

[Arnz]

While we're at it, while pigs fly, Lets just get trains out of thin air and run them every 5 minutes on current infrastructure.  All expresses on the network are now all stations, no idea what to do with the freight.  

Or one better solution.  Replace the entire Australian rail network with maglev busways!!!!  60 mbph  

[Mr X]

Hate to get foaming, but I believe this is where the GPPFP's single carriage policy fits in?

TT, we all want frequent train services that are reliable and fast, but we just can't ignore capacity constraints on the current network. ALL goals must be SMART- specific, measurable, attainable, realistic and timed. We have to deal with realistic pressures.

[ozbob]

Change is not going to occur overnight, but at least change is now planned.  FG is a good start, I think after that the pressure will be considerable and others will follow.

Something that might be achievable is 20 minute off peak Caboolture - Ipswich as a transition.  Freight can fit into that during the day.  

[Arnz]

I would like to see Rosewood connected with Landsborough/Nambour somewhat.  Perhaps trains to/and from Rosewood in the off-peak taking the current peak stopping patterns (Darra to Roma Street, stopping Indooroopilly).  But this would have to be a post-Landsborough duplication scenario (circa 2020+).

Also, fleet allocation would be have to be redone to accomodate Rosewood on the IMU roster.  As of current, Gold Coast and Nambour sevices can be both found on the one roster (shared eg GC services in the morning, Nambour in the afternoon), stabling etc.

[HappyTrainGuy]

Get off your high horse TT. Tell me, since you seem to be the expert in shutting everyone down when they are only addressing what the hurdles are and not what you want to read, how much does it cost to operate a train. Just two crews and the overhead expenses. Now what about modifying crew rosters for guards, drivers, train control and maybe even maintainence crews.... would everyone be happy and okay with that or would they have to get legal advice, would more control/maintainence personal have to be employed, what about wear and tear on rollingstock/trackside infrastructure, level crossing impacts/impacts on locals/impacts on other PT, there's inner city paths/MTP to consider, upcoming railway lines such as Springfield and Kippa Ring as they require rollingstock too, then theres the rollingstock maintainence, rollingstock positioning, rollingstock recovery and upcoming timetable modifications. Then where is all the funding going to come from for providing all this. Would you dive into bus route modifications/culling/etc but how much would that cost for community consultations, advertising, impacts on the community or should fares be given anther bullet to the commuters gut and increased by another 15%.

3. The reason why the SE busway almost outperforms the ENTIRE rail network, even when we compare like with like is simply down to frequency and connectivity.

By the way you make it sound it's like 50,000 people must be using each busway station each day. How about you show me your evidence. None of this carrying, overall and out performing crap. Where are the stats for the busway station patronage. Has translink ever released those figures if not then why don't more people on here campaign about Translink releasing those figures like some do/did on here with QR/Translink not releasing passenger figures for trains. Did you know Holmview out performs Sandgate and that Bindha outperforms Nambour   

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].

Freights are indeed an issue but another issue is Translinks funding and bus everywhere mentality.

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.

Oh great more expensive infrastructure for you to complain about. And where do you propose that the $$$ for building these sidings come from.

[#Metro]

Get off your high horse TT. Tell me, since you seem to be the expert in shutting everyone down when they are only addressing what the hurdles are and not what you want to read, how much does it cost to operate a train. Just two crews and the overhead expenses. Now what about modifying crew rosters for guards, drivers, train control and maybe even maintainence crews.... would everyone be happy and okay with that or would they have to get legal advice, would more control/maintainence personal have to be employed, what about wear and tear on rollingstock/trackside infrastructure, level crossing impacts/impacts on locals/impacts on other PT, there's inner city paths/MTP to consider, upcoming railway lines such as Springfield and Kippa Ring as they require rollingstock too, then theres the rollingstock maintainence, rollingstock positioning, rollingstock recovery and upcoming timetable modifications. Then where is all the funding going to come from for providing all this. Would you dive into bus route modifications/culling/etc but how much would that cost for community consultations, advertising, impacts on the community or should fares be given anther bullet to the commuters gut and increased by another 15%.

Quote from: tramtrain on February 13, 2012, 02:05:48 PM
3. The reason why the SE busway almost outperforms the ENTIRE rail network, even when we compare like with like is simply down to frequency and connectivity.
By the way you make it sound it's like 50,000 people must be using each busway station each day. How about you show me your evidence. None of this carrying, overall and out performing cr%p. Where are the stats for the busway station patronage. Has translink ever released those figures if not then why don't more people on here campaign about Translink releasing those figures like some do/did on here with QR/Translink not releasing passenger figures for trains. Did you know Holmview out performs Sandgate and that Bindha outperforms Nambour  Wow!  Wow! Wow!

Quote from: tramtrain on Today at 06:12:57 AM
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].
Freights are indeed an issue but another issue is Translinks funding and bus everywhere mentality.

Quote from: tramtrain on Today at 06:12:57 AM
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.
Oh great more expensive infrastructure for you to complain about. And where do you propose that the $$$ for building these sidings come from.

You tell me as a commuter and a PT advocate why I should lower my expectations from BASIC to BELOW BASIC / THIRD WORLD.
15 minute trains, all lines, all stations within the main region - to Ips, to GC, to Cleveland, to Caboolture, To Shorncliffe.
Start with low hanging fruit and then work towards that. Nobody is asking for this overnight - where was that said? Or did you make that up?

Yes, it is going to be painful. Yes it is going to upset a lot of people. Yes it is going to cost money - that's why I pay taxes,
Heaven forbid, the union might even go on strike! Yes people will jump up and down and think it is crazy, can't be done
there are 10001 obstacles, oh my god we actually have to operate the train system like the rest of the civilised world and build it up to actually run properly etc etc.

Nobody is asking for the impossible. Time to get uncomfortable!
Ferny Grove is a good place to start!

E.F.F.O.R.T.

[Jonas Jade]

Where are the stats for the busway station patronage.

Google is your friend:

http://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/~/media/0bc453ca-d54e-4f02-8c14-03475c6625fe/pdf_sebx_cds_v1_s18_traffic_and_transport.pdf

Pages 5 - 6 for those interested.

From 2007, so a bit old, but interesting enough for some background.

[Arnz]

While we're at it lets just cancel any trains in maintenance, pull out extra trains out of the yard and staff out of thin air and run metro like frequencies on ALL current infrastructure.  Meanwhile a express or other traffic (track maintenance vehicles, freight, charters, etc) has to continually stop behind a passenger service.

You can't expect this to happen overnight TT.

[Jonas Jade]

While we're at it lets just cancel any trains in maintenance, pull out extra trains out of the yard

There can't be that many trains in maintenance!

The new order of SMU/IMUs was about 63 trains in total, but the off-peak schedule is almost exactly the same as it was before we had them!

[I know it's allowed the EMUs etc to be refurb'd etc but still.... that's a lot of money for new trains to run a couple of services a day).

[Arnz]

While we're at it lets just cancel any trains in maintenance, pull out extra trains out of the yard

There can't be that many trains in maintenance!

The new order of SMU/IMUs was about 63 trains in total, but the off-peak schedule is almost exactly the same as it was before we had them!

I do recall the old QR Citytrain utilising their fleet to the limit at one point pre-IMU160/SMU260s (There's a few posts somewhere buried in the archives), and they're now merely catching up on maintenance on the older EMU/SMUs since all were delivered and the Sector 1 timetables were applied in June 2011.

There are also the ongoing SMU/EMU refurbishments, and the ATP installations on the IMU100s.  I would assume that it will be a while before the ATP on the IMU100s will be operational, as drivers will need to be trained on them.

[Jonas Jade]

I do recall the old QR Citytrain utilising their fleet to the limit at one point pre-IMU160/SMU260s (There's a few posts somewhere buried in the archives), and they're now merely catching up on maintenance on the older EMU/SMUs since all were delivered and the Sector 1 timetables were applied in June 2011.

There are also the ongoing SMU/EMU refurbishments, and the ATP installations on the IMU100s.  I would assume that it will be a while before the ATP on the IMU100s will be operational, as drivers will need to be trained on them.

Yes, like I said. Aware of that.

It's still a lot of trains not doing much/being purchased to run a couple of services a day since they don't have 30 trains off for this at once.

[Arnz]

I do recall the old QR Citytrain utilising their fleet to the limit at one point pre-IMU160/SMU260s (There's a few posts somewhere buried in the archives), and they're now merely catching up on maintenance on the older EMU/SMUs since all were delivered and the Sector 1 timetables were applied in June 2011.

There are also the ongoing SMU/EMU refurbishments, and the ATP installations on the IMU100s.  I would assume that it will be a while before the ATP on the IMU100s will be operational, as drivers will need to be trained on them.

Yes, like I said. Aware of that.

It's still a lot of trains not doing much/being purchased to run a couple of services a day since they don't have 30 trains off for this at once.

Agree with the off-peak comment.  Small steps has started with the FG, but it's a start.   There is also a wasted opportunity with Petrie too (needs a few extra units to go with extending the current Richlands-Bowen Hills service, as well as retiming the Nambour services to fit in the timetable).

Not like some that ignore infrastructure constraints and expect 15 min or metro like off-peak frequencies on all infrastructure from the get go.

[John Fraser]

Any chance of showing the Link to where you congratulated the Bligh government for building the infrastructure at Ferny Grove ?

Congratulating one political party only shows that this is not an apolitical website and does not have the public transport passenger best interests at heart.

[Fares_Fair]

There's this ..

http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=533.0
Shown below.

Media Release 21 February 2008

Brisbane:  Infrastructure and extra services on Ferny Grove line very welcome!  But how will people get to the station?

RAIL Back On Track (http://backontrack.org) a web based community support group for rail and public transport has welcomed the announcement of extra services and expansion of 3 carriage peak services to 6 carriages.

Robert Dow said:

?The Ferny Grove line, as for most lines in south-east Queensland, has been undergoing a lot of passenger congestion.  RAIL Back On Track has previously highlighted this congestion and we welcome the announcement of more services.(1)?

?The track and infrastructure upgrades are essential for a sustainable transport future. Thanks to Transport Minister John Mickel and the Queensland Government for their ongoing commitment to rail.?
?A particular problem on the Ferny Grove line however, is the very restricted car parking at many stations which makes it difficult for many commuters to take the train.?

?There needs to be further consideration given to ramping up feeder buses, so that commuters can leave their cars at home.?

?We predict that the extra seats will soon be full.?

?The need for local feeder buses will be more acute than ever.?

References:

1.  18 Aug 2007: Brisbane: Ferny Grove Line Passenger Congestion
http://backontrack.org/mbs/index.php?topic=197.0

Contact:

Robert  Dow

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

Regards,
Fares_Fair.

[ozbob]

Any chance of showing the Link to where you congratulated the Bligh government for building the infrastructure at Ferny Grove ?

Congratulating one political party only shows that this is not an apolitical website and does not have the public transport passenger best interests at heart.

John, you need to read all the media releases.  There are many pats on the back for the government and TransLink for that matter.

This is a forum that supports improvement in public transport.  Being constructively critical of Governments and those who are the alternative government is to be expected, especially when mediocrity is churned out.

[HappyTrainGuy]

While we're at it lets just cancel any trains in maintenance, pull out extra trains out of the yard

There can't be that many trains in maintenance!

The new order of SMU/IMUs was about 63 trains in total, but the off-peak schedule is almost exactly the same as it was before we had them!

[I know it's allowed the EMUs etc to be refurb'd etc but still.... that's a lot of money for new trains to run a couple of services a day).

That's the thing. Everyone assumes that because there is more rollingstock now available that more services can be run across every line as maintaince is reduced. It's suitable for a couple lines but not the entire network. It has helped peak running greatly but it has also taken pressure off maintainence crews and given more slack for operations/movements/rollingstock refurbs. Please remember that just because there are trains sitting in the Mayne stabling yard it doesn't mean that work isn't being undertaken on them, that they are fit for revenue services or they are backup/reserved rollingstock. Rollingstock can also be an issue such as single ended EMUs and mismatched generation types eg there might be two 3 car IMUs sitting there but they can't be paired up due to different configs between IMU100s and IMU160s. Vandalism can also take a unit out of service. It might be instant at the end of its run and replaced with another service or it could be left in service until it can be replaced ie graffti to Nambour services can sometimes be replaced with another IMU while the vandalised unit gets cleaned or it will still be rosted on Nambour duties until the next day when another service could be subed for it. A service might have a hiccup during the morning peak, flagged during the day and crews will go to work to resolve the issue, maybe send it out for a quick test before giving the okay for peak running. Refurbs can take out the number of rollingstock giving it an uneven total. So while there might appear to be more rollingstock other factors can add up to reduce the available fleet. A good example would be IMU101/IMU214 getting refurbed/ATP/upgrades etc, IMU102 getting a bogie replaced, IMU103/104, IMU105/IMU106 getting worked on in the electric shed, IMU107/IMU108-IMU109/IMU110 are on reserve duties, IMU121 is getting cleaned after vandals leaving IMU122 all alone and IMU123 is out doing acceptance testing. There goes the entire IMU100/120 fleet in general maintainence (It would never be like that in real life for one generation of rollingstock as it would be spread out across the different generations but you can see how the smallest of things can take away fair portions of rollingstock).

[Jonas Jade]

While we're at it lets just cancel any trains in maintenance, pull out extra trains out of the yard

There can't be that many trains in maintenance!

The new order of SMU/IMUs was about 63 trains in total, but the off-peak schedule is almost exactly the same as it was before we had them!

[I know it's allowed the EMUs etc to be refurb'd etc but still.... that's a lot of money for new trains to run a couple of services a day).

That's the thing. Everyone assumes that because there is more rollingstock now available that more services can be run across every line. It has helped peak running but it has also taken pressure off maintainence crews and given more slack for operations/movements/rollingstock refurbs. Please remember that just because there are trains sitting in the Mayne stabling yard it doesn't mean that work isn't being undertaken on them, that they are fit for revenue services or they are backup/reserved rollingstock. Rollingstock can also be an issue such as single ended EMUs and mismatched generation types eg there might be two 3 car IMUs sitting there but they can't be paired up due to different configs between IMU100s and IMU160s. Vandalism can also take a unit out of service. It might be instant at the end of its run and replaced with another service or it could be left in service until it can be replaced ie graffti to Nambour services can sometimes be replaced with another IMU while the vandalised unit gets cleaned or it will still be rosted on Nambour duties until the next day when another service could be subed for it. A service might have a hiccup during the morning peak, flagged during the day and crews will go to work to resolve the issue, maybe send it out for a quick test before giving the okay for peak running. Refurbs can take out the number of rollingstock giving it an uneven total. So while there might appear to be more rollingstock other factors can add up to reduce the available fleet. A good example would be IMU101/IMU214 getting refurbed/ATP/upgrades etc, IMU102 getting a bogie replaced, IMU103/104, IMU105/IMU106 getting worked on in the electric shed, IMU107/IMU108-IMU109/IMU110 are on reserve duties, IMU121 is getting cleaned after vandals leaving IMU122 all alone and IMU123 is out doing acceptance testing. There goes the entire IMU100/120 fleet in general maintainence (It would never be like that in real life for one generation of rollingstock as it would be spread out across the different generations but you can see how the smallest of things can take away fair portions of rollingstock).

So, you think 63 is a reasonable number of trains to be required for these contingencies? (or approximately 1/3 of the total fleet)?

[HappyTrainGuy]

The newer trains were never meant to increase frequencies off peak. The newer trains were to improve maintaince that was already running on very tight turn arounds at Mayne without having to build a second facility, the result of EMU05 EMU60 being written off in late 2001 (parts salvaged to reform EMU60 and returned to service a few years later) reducing and making the fleet uneven, needed refurbs/upgrades to EMUs, the Airport line coming online, trains capable of running at 140kph on the Gold Coast line with the upcoming planned extension/duplication and the same for Nambour's planned duplication/realignment (ha! we know about that planned upgrade ), the modified HS SMUs for the Gold Coast-Airport line weren't going to plan with constant vibration and wheel wear problems, additional rollingstock required for additional peak hour services (Which still forces the use of 3 car trains today), improving running capacity and realibility on a network that had seen multiple lines frequencies increased/extended/proposed using the same number of rollingstock from the late 90's/early 00's.

[Jonas Jade]

Fantastic, some more backstory of QR "excuses". It provides a great insight into previous circumstances, but it's not a reason why they can't be used for increases in frequency in the future, nor is it an answer to my previous question?

You'd probably start running into issues if you wanted 6 car 15 min frequencies to everywhere all the time, but for some inner sections where infrastructure constraints are "workable/minimal" (let's bound it by FG, Petrie, Coopers Plains without going into too much infrastructure issue detail) the off peak rollingstock is currently available with sufficient out of service for contingency.

[mufreight]

While we're at it lets just cancel any trains in maintenance, pull out extra trains out of the yard

There can't be that many trains in maintenance!

The new order of SMU/IMUs was about 63 trains in total, but the off-peak schedule is almost exactly the same as it was before we had them!

[I know it's allowed the EMUs etc to be refurb'd etc but still.... that's a lot of money for new trains to run a couple of services a day).

That's the thing. Everyone assumes that because there is more rollingstock now available that more services can be run across every line as maintaince is reduced. It's suitable for a couple lines but not the entire network. It has helped peak running greatly but it has also taken pressure off maintainence crews and given more slack for operations/movements/rollingstock refurbs. Please remember that just because there are trains sitting in the Mayne stabling yard it doesn't mean that work isn't being undertaken on them, that they are fit for revenue services or they are backup/reserved rollingstock. Rollingstock can also be an issue such as single ended EMUs and mismatched generation types eg there might be two 3 car IMUs sitting there but they can't be paired up due to different configs between IMU100s and IMU160s. Vandalism can also take a unit out of service. It might be instant at the end of its run and replaced with another service or it could be left in service until it can be replaced ie graffti to Nambour services can sometimes be replaced with another IMU while the vandalised unit gets cleaned or it will still be rosted on Nambour duties until the next day when another service could be subed for it. A service might have a hiccup during the morning peak, flagged during the day and crews will go to work to resolve the issue, maybe send it out for a quick test before giving the okay for peak running. Refurbs can take out the number of rollingstock giving it an uneven total. So while there might appear to be more rollingstock other factors can add up to reduce the available fleet. A good example would be IMU101/IMU214 getting refurbed/ATP/upgrades etc, IMU102 getting a bogie replaced, IMU103/104, IMU105/IMU106 getting worked on in the electric shed, IMU107/IMU108-IMU109/IMU110 are on reserve duties, IMU121 is getting cleaned after vandals leaving IMU122 all alone and IMU123 is out doing acceptance testing. There goes the entire IMU100/120 fleet in general maintainence (It would never be like that in real life for one generation of rollingstock as it would be spread out across the different generations but you can see how the smallest of things can take away fair portions of rollingstock).

Assuming that your argument is valid, and it is reasonable in theory but in practice more resembles a mosquito net, it does again point out the stupidity of a system operating incompatible units.
Logic would indicate that all electric units should have the ability to operate in multiple with any other electric unit rather than the pie balled collection that we have presently where sets despite having cabs at both ends can not be driven from the other creating sets that can not operate as three car sets in general traffic, sets incapable of operating with other classes of car set when if they had that MU capability a hybrid set could be operated by two otherwise orphan three car sets from different classes, maybe not with all the bells and whistles but still as a functional six car train set.

[somebody]

I struggle to believe fleet size is an issue for improved off peak services, and none of what has been posted above or in other threads has convinced me either.  What portion of the fleet still runs two services per week day?

Assuming that your argument is valid, and it is reasonable in theory but in practice more resembles a mosquito net, it does again point out the stupidity of a system operating incompatible units.
Logic would indicate that all electric units should have the ability to operate in multiple with any other electric unit rather than the pie balled collection that we have presently where sets despite having cabs at both ends can not be driven from the other creating sets that can not operate as three car sets in general traffic, sets incapable of operating with other classes of car set when if they had that MU capability a hybrid set could be operated by two otherwise orphan three car sets from different classes, maybe not with all the bells and whistles but still as a functional six car train set.

It's mostly the EM60-79 with less motors which gets up my nose.  There could have been a good reason to change the interface, but I'm not sure why it would need to be changed twice, or is it three times?

[Arnz]

The ICEs iirc (small part of the fleet).  Double daily Gympie and the unit on the counterpeak direction Caboolture-Nambour shuttle. (utilises 2/4 ICE configs).

Off-Topic: On another note, the IMU that runs from Nambour to Ipswich in the morning is now utilised on the Ipswich-Caboolture all-stoppers until early arvo, when it's swapped for the EMU/SMU that's been parked in the Ipswich yard for much of the day.  The IMU still runs empty from Ipswich to Roma Street to form the 4:30pm service to Nambour iirc.

[SurfRail]

Most excuses are just window-dressing and history lessons. 

Even if some are valid, I sincerely doubt there are any operational constraints which stop the following from occurring right now in the off-peak (even with my proposed line colours for the map, to reinforce that these are no-variation always the same stopping pattern services):

- 2tph Airport to Beenleigh (express from Eagle Junction to Bowen Hills and from Park Road to Coopers Plains)
- 2tph Airport to Gold Coast (express from Eagle Junction to Bowen Hills and from Park Road to Beenleigh stopping at Loganlea)
- 4tph Ferny Grove to Coopers Plains
- 4tph Ipswich to Caboolture express from Darra to Petrie, stopping only at Indooroopilly, city stations from Milton to Bowen Hills, Eagle Junction and Northgate
- 4tph Petrie to Richlands
- 2tph Shorncliffe to Cleveland
- 2tph Doomben to Manly
- Clockface timetable for the Sunshine Coast even if frequency is still poor
- Existing Rosewood service

CRR and extra trackage (eg duplication to Shorncliffe and Cleveland, 4 tracks Yeerongpilly to at least Coopers Plains but preferably further south) are only needed to expand the 15 minute frequency zone to the whole system except north of Caboolture and west of Ipswich, and to allow for more services (eg for new lines like Flagstone and for greater tiering of the network in the future when passenger densities shoot up).

If the root cause is money, then we need to be lobbying to see more funding stripped out of less sustainable travel modes and put to better use.

Do it with 3 car sets if needed.

Somebody prove me wrong.

[Arnz]

Most excuses are just window-dressing and history lessons.  

Even if some are valid, I sincerely doubt there are any operational constraints which stop the following from occurring right now in the off-peak (even with my proposed line colours for the map, to reinforce that these are no-variation always the same stopping pattern services):

- 2tph Airport to Beenleigh (express from Eagle Junction to Bowen Hills and from Park Road to Coopers Plains)
- 2tph Airport to Gold Coast (express from Eagle Junction to Bowen Hills and from Park Road to Beenleigh stopping at Loganlea)
- 4tph Ferny Grove to Coopers Plains
- 4tph Ipswich to Caboolture express from Darra to Petrie, stopping only at Indooroopilly, city stations from Milton to Bowen Hills, Eagle Junction and Northgate
- 4tph Petrie to Richlands
- 2tph Shorncliffe to Cleveland
- 2tph Doomben to Manly
- Clockface timetable for the Sunshine Coast even if frequency is still poor
- Existing Rosewood service

CRR and extra trackage (eg duplication to Shorncliffe and Cleveland, 4 tracks Yeerongpilly to at least Coopers Plains but preferably further south) are only needed to expand the 15 minute frequency zone to the whole system except north of Caboolture and west of Ipswich, and to allow for more services (eg for new lines like Flagstone and for greater tiering of the network in the future when passenger densities shoot up).

If the root cause is money, then we need to be lobbying to see more funding stripped out of less sustainable travel modes and put to better use.

Do it with 3 car sets if needed.

Somebody prove me wrong.

4tph Ipswich-Caboolture would be better utilised if you maximise track capacity with Rosewood and Sunshine Coast.  

1tph of the 4tph to Ipswich continues through to Rosewood, and 2tph of the 4tph to Caboolture has 1tph to Beerburrum (Bus all-stops to Landsborough, then express to Nambour, stations inbetween Landsborough and Nambour covered by a local service), and the other 1tph to Nambour (squeezing it).  Petrie-Caboolture gets 4tph with 2 Caboolture terminators, 1 Beerburrum terminator and 1 Nambour terminator.

On the other hand, Kuraby-Beenleigh 4tph can be done if you all-stops the GC train to Kuraby, then run it express to South Bank via the DG.  That's combining both the Beenleigh and GC originating trains (2 from both locations makes it 4 from Beenleigh).

[HappyTrainGuy]

JJ, I never said that they couldn't be used in the future. When they (SMU260/IMU160) were introduced it was to help take off pressure from the current fleet which was needed and to add additional services/improve running times and realibility to other lines and connections (be it train or bus) such as the Gold Coast Line where only 14x 3 car trains (excluding the handful of modified HS SMUs) operated at the time. SMUs/EMUs were often subed and running it at 100kph instead of the posted 140kph which had follow on effects to return services and other lines (Which Nambour now suffers from if an EMU is subed). The extra trains weren't dilevered all at once but over several years which slowly gave greater flexability to how they maintained, operated, upgraded and refurbed the CityTrain/TravelTrain fleet mainly from the one depot. They could have been at the point where they were operational to operate some lines with an increased frequency but that's still up to Translink to say "okay, here's some cash, provide additional services" which it and the Government instead gave to operate bus services everywhere to the city and expensive busway infrastructure instead of investing it into heavy rail. Now with Springfield/Kippa Ring on the table and CRR on the cards the fleet is slowly heading back to the same point it was a few years ago.

mu, they can operate with mixed generations for shunting/empty train movements/recovery but expect problems when running them as revenue services as the electronics don't like each other.

[somebody]

Most excuses are just window-dressing and history lessons. 

Even if some are valid, I sincerely doubt there are any operational constraints which stop the following from occurring right now in the off-peak (even with my proposed line colours for the map, to reinforce that these are no-variation always the same stopping pattern services):

- 2tph Airport to Beenleigh (express from Eagle Junction to Bowen Hills and from Park Road to Coopers Plains)
- 2tph Airport to Gold Coast (express from Eagle Junction to Bowen Hills and from Park Road to Beenleigh stopping at Loganlea)
- 4tph Ferny Grove to Coopers Plains
- 4tph Ipswich to Caboolture express from Darra to Petrie, stopping only at Indooroopilly, city stations from Milton to Bowen Hills, Eagle Junction and Northgate
- 4tph Petrie to Richlands
- 2tph Shorncliffe to Cleveland
- 2tph Doomben to Manly
- Clockface timetable for the Sunshine Coast even if frequency is still poor
- Existing Rosewood service

CRR and extra trackage (eg duplication to Shorncliffe and Cleveland, 4 tracks Yeerongpilly to at least Coopers Plains but preferably further south) are only needed to expand the 15 minute frequency zone to the whole system except north of Caboolture and west of Ipswich, and to allow for more services (eg for new lines like Flagstone and for greater tiering of the network in the future when passenger densities shoot up).

If the root cause is money, then we need to be lobbying to see more funding stripped out of less sustainable travel modes and put to better use.

Do it with 3 car sets if needed.

Somebody prove me wrong.

Pretty sure the clockface cannot be done Nambour at hourly, only 2-hourly, unless perhaps unreasonable dwells are instituted.  Interestingly, 45 minute frequency IS possible.  

Notice - frequency reduction at Nundah/Toombul to 30 minutes from 15 minutes
Notice 2 - Ipswich trains should serve Toowong off peak

Is freight still on the Merivale Bridge?  If so I think that is problematic with 12tph passing.  Getting from Normanby to Sth Brisbane merging with 12tph, crossing 12tph+8tph+8tph?  Seems unlikely.

Freight could go via Tennyson though.  That's where the 5th track is useful.

I'm sure details on the above have already been posted.

[Jonas Jade]

Notice - frequency reduction at Nundah/Toombul to 30 minutes from 15 minutes
Notice 2 - Ipswich trains should serve Toowong off peak

- SR said 4tph Rchlands - Petrie also which would be 6tph at Nundah/Toombul

and agree on #2.

[Arnz]

It could be argued that Ipswich trains should stop all-stations to Indoroopilly then express to Darra.  Auchenflower is a borderline case due to the hospital nearby.

Pretty sure the clockface cannot be done Nambour at hourly, only 2-hourly, unless perhaps unreasonable dwells are instituted.  Interestingly, 45 minute frequency IS possible.  

Fairly sure beyond Landsborough it's only 2tph.  1tph to Landsborough may be possible (even in a past arup report in the archives somewhere), but at the same time it said will be squeezing it due to the other services.  I would push for the cheaper Beerwah-Glasshouse duplication (effectively a long loop) to eliminate a precision cross to achieve 1tph to Landsborough (every 2hrs to Nambour).  There's a reason why when a older SMU or EMU is subbed going North it's 5-8 mins late going northbound, and only 3-4 mins late going south (scheduled cross at Beerwah eats up time).

[Jonas Jade]

JJ, I never said that they couldn't be used in the future. When they (SMU260/IMU160) were introduced it was to help take off pressure from the current fleet which was needed and to add additional services/improve running times and realibility to other lines and connections (be it train or bus) such as the Gold Coast Line where only 14x 3 car trains (excluding the handful of modified HS SMUs) operated at the time. SMUs/EMUs were often subed and running it at 100kph instead of the posted 140kph which had follow on effects to return services and other lines (Which Nambour now suffers from if an EMU is subed). The extra trains weren't dilevered all at once but over several years which slowly gave greater flexability to how they maintained, operated, upgraded and refurbed the CityTrain/TravelTrain fleet from the one depot. They could have been at the point where they were operational to operate some lines with an increased frequency but that's still up to Translink to say "okay, here's some cash, provide additional services" which it and the Government instead gave to operate bus services everywhere to the city and expensive busway infrastructure instead of investing it into heavy rail. Now with Springfield/Kippa Ring on the table and CRR on the cards the fleet is slowly heading back to the same point it was a few years ago.

Bingo. Opportunity was and is there. Springfield/Kippa Ring would be workable under current rollingstock (eg if 15 min frequency operated to Petrie - just an extension of those).

CRR would depend on the scheduling timetables, but I'd agree then you might start needing the NGR.

[Arnz]

JJ, I never said that they couldn't be used in the future. When they (SMU260/IMU160) were introduced it was to help take off pressure from the current fleet which was needed and to add additional services/improve running times and realibility to other lines and connections (be it train or bus) such as the Gold Coast Line where only 14x 3 car trains (excluding the handful of modified HS SMUs) operated at the time. SMUs/EMUs were often subed and running it at 100kph instead of the posted 140kph which had follow on effects to return services and other lines (Which Nambour now suffers from if an EMU is subed). The extra trains weren't dilevered all at once but over several years which slowly gave greater flexability to how they maintained, operated, upgraded and refurbed the CityTrain/TravelTrain fleet from the one depot. They could have been at the point where they were operational to operate some lines with an increased frequency but that's still up to Translink to say "okay, here's some cash, provide additional services" which it and the Government instead gave to operate bus services everywhere to the city and expensive busway infrastructure instead of investing it into heavy rail. Now with Springfield/Kippa Ring on the table and CRR on the cards the fleet is slowly heading back to the same point it was a few years ago.

Bingo. Opportunity was and is there. Springfield/Kippa Ring would be workable under current rollingstock (eg if 15 min frequency operated to Petrie - just an extension of those).

CRR would depend on the scheduling timetables, but I'd agree then you might start needing the NGR.

As was pointed out by pretty much most of the board back when the Richlands spur opened, the lack of will to fund/planning stopped Richlands - Bowen Hills from being extended to Petrie at the most.

[Cam]

It could be argued that Ipswich trains should stop all-stations to Indoroopilly then express to Darra.  Auchenflower is a borderline case due to the hospital nearby.

I don't think that many passengers from between Ipswich & Darra alight at Taringa either.

In the future, I think that all stations to Indooroopilly from the CBD, express to Darra, Redbank & then all stations to Ipswich/Rosewood may be useful in the counter peak direction. However, you would need all stations services to Redbank to stop at those stations skipped.

From my own observations, it appears that the load balancing between the Richlands & Ipswich/Rosewood express services in peak times is about right. Any further stops on the express services will shift the balance to overcrowding on the express services.

[SurfRail]

Pretty sure the clockface cannot be done Nambour at hourly, only 2-hourly, unless perhaps unreasonable dwells are instituted.  Interestingly, 45 minute frequency IS possible.

The Sunshine Coast is, as we are all aware, an utter basket case – this is the one spot that really needs the concrete to fix the issues.  At the same time, it wouldn't be a huge drain on system resources to improve things slightly, even if there are just more shuttles to Cabtown.

Notice - frequency reduction at Nundah/Toombul to 30 minutes from 15 minutes

It gets an even 4tph from Petrie, plus the 2 from Shorncliffe.

Notice 2 - Ipswich trains should serve Toowong off peak

I'm not really in favour of variable stopping patterns at different times of the day (eg I have no issue with Gold Coast trains stopping at Loganlea in the peak, the time saving is negligible and most peak outbound services do anyway).  I think the balance is pretty much right to be honest, because with 8tph on the corridor transfer times would not be an issue.  Obviously if we were going 2 tph to Ipswich and 4tph to Richlands there would be a case, but I think they can do better.

[SurfRail]

What if you did sent the 4tph from Ferny Grove, sent two of them to Kuraby and sent two of them to Beenleigh, that would provide upto 4tph to Kuraby and still keep 2tph to Beenleigh and 2tph to Gold Coast?

4tph to Kuraby, 2tph express Park Road to Kuraby then all to Beenleigh and 2tph Gold Coast express would be fantastic, but I don't know if it could be supported on the current infrastructure in both directions.  4 tracks from Yeerongpilly to Kuraby would fix the problem easily, and would be a better investment than extending the 3rd track further south.

Coopers Plains at least improves the inner city frequency and is a convenient turn-back location, having 3 platforms.

[Jonas Jade]

With only 3 tracks & 15 min all stations on Beenleigh, the problems occur with express Gold Coast trains catching up to the previous all stations trains, and then the crossing of both directions - it's probably workable, but could be tight/prone to easy disruptions etc. Coopers Plains allows trains to stop short before that cross becomes an issue.

One way to avoid it is.... slowing the GC trains to stop at more stations to utilise track capacity more efficiently. And that would open up a whole new can of worms.....

[somebody]

Notice - frequency reduction at Nundah/Toombul to 30 minutes from 15 minutes

It gets an even 4tph from Petrie, plus the 2 from Shorncliffe.

Missed that.  Wouldn't there need to be a passing move to have IPS-CAB mega express + RCH-PET all stations.  There would be a conflicting move somewhere.

Notice 2 - Ipswich trains should serve Toowong off peak

I'm not really in favour of variable stopping patterns at different times of the day (eg I have no issue with Gold Coast trains stopping at Loganlea in the peak, the time saving is negligible and most peak outbound services do anyway).  I think the balance is pretty much right to be honest, because with 8tph on the corridor transfer times would not be an issue.  Obviously if we were going 2 tph to Ipswich and 4tph to Richlands there would be a case, but I think they can do better.

Ignoring that Toowong is a destination in its own right, you are also making it a lot harder to reach UQ St Lucia from beyond Darra then.

Can't agree with this one.

[Arnz]

There already is the UQ bus out of Indro for those beyond Darra.

[SurfRail]

Ignoring that Toowong is a destination in its own right, you are also making it a lot harder to reach UQ St Lucia from beyond Darra then.

Can't agree with this one.

The second you start making exemptions for people, the second it becomes easier for everybody else to claim they are hard done by (eg people getting to the Wesley), and then your express is only 5 minutes faster than an all stopper.  

In my mind, if I look at a map, it should show all possible variations in timetabling.  If you can't show that without footnotes, the timetable is too complicated and should be fixed to be idiotproof.  

Indooroopilly bus frequency can be ramped up if this is an issue, it is a better place to interchange people from the western suburbs from rail to bus because it serves more of St Lucia and the buses cover the Kenmore catchment.

[HappyTrainGuy]

Ignoring that Toowong is a destination in its own right, you are also making it a lot harder to reach UQ St Lucia from beyond Darra then.

Can't agree with this one.

Interchange. People need to harden up and learn to interchange to get the idea out of their head that everyone has to have direct to their destination service.

[somebody]

There already is the UQ bus out of Indro for those beyond Darra.

Infrequent and the 428 which provides most of the service is pretty slow.

Ignoring that Toowong is a destination in its own right, you are also making it a lot harder to reach UQ St Lucia from beyond Darra then.

Can't agree with this one.

Interchange. People need to harden up and learn to interchange to get the idea out of their head that everyone has to have direct to their destination service.

I would like to see a good service to St Lucia without needing to run a million 412 & 411 buses on their full length.  Also these buses do not serve Roma St O/B or Fortitude Valley.  With only 4tph actually stopping at Toowong, this isn't happening.

Ignoring that Toowong is a destination in its own right, you are also making it a lot harder to reach UQ St Lucia from beyond Darra then.

Can't agree with this one.

The second you start making exemptions for people, the second it becomes easier for everybody else to claim they are hard done by (eg people getting to the Wesley), and then your express is only 5 minutes faster than an all stopper. 

In my mind, if I look at a map, it should show all possible variations in timetabling.  If you can't show that without footnotes, the timetable is too complicated and should be fixed to be idiotproof. 

Indooroopilly bus frequency can be ramped up if this is an issue, it is a better place to interchange people from the western suburbs from rail to bus because it serves more of St Lucia and the buses cover the Kenmore catchment.

Having actually travelled on this corridor fairly regularly and seen a number of people getting off I/B services at Toowong in the early evening and getting on O/B in the later evening I am dead against the notion of non-stopping Toowong in the off peak!  I'd rather have the peak trains serve Toowong if we can't have a variation.

Indooroopilly-UQ bus frequency could be ramped up, granted, but there are other reasons why there is value in the Toowong stop, including improving it's bus/rail interchange options.

As for the arguments about Wesley, the load statistics simply do not support the need for such a thing.  I think it is probably because of the large car park at Wesley.

[Mr X]

Isn't there a bus every 15mins these days to Indro from UQ? There's one every 5mins or so to Toowong.