Newman Solution (Sth Brisbane), will it work?

[rtt_rules]

I thought I'd look at some numbers of Newman's proposed Sth Brisbane terminators solution to see what potential it may have.

From Q3 2011 ridership numbers (Rounded)

Total
AM Peak inbound 71,000 boardings, 63,000 alightings (not sure what this means, I assume the difference is people not getting off in city)
PM Peak Outbound 57,000 boardings and 66,000 alightings

Sth Brisbane to Park Rd
AM Peak 3500 get off (5%), 550 get on (<1%)
PM Peak 4600 get on (7%), 1100 get off (2%)
Ratio is about 40:45:15    Sth Bris:Stb Bank:PR

Ridership on Sth lines of Total
AM
- GC 3600, BL 7000, CL 8000
PM
- GC 3700, BL 6200, CL 6500 

CL and BL lines about 10% of total Each, 5% for GC

About half (3500) get on BL south of Kuraby (4% of total network) and about third (2500) South of Manly (4% of total network)

So assume 25% of network comes from south side and 5% of network gets of at Sth Brisbane to PR

So 71,000 x 25% x 5% = ~900 people

So I think potentially there is some benefit, although not huge benefit in running 1 maybe 2 x 6 car sets into some terminating station at Sth Brisbane in morning peak and 1 in evening peak. Morning peak could be from either CL or BL and probably require services to start/finish from terminus.

If trains arrive after about 8:15, they cannot be used again in peak so would need to stow in some shunt neck or 4th platform nth of Sth Brisbane station

Obviously no CRR, but assuming you can get extra trains to Sth Brisbane, an option, maybe!

regards
Shane

[ozbob]

Cost vs. benefit?   Be negative ...

A non solution really.  This is what the LNP have dished up as the alternative so far, non solutions.

[BrizCommuter]

Trains terminating at South Brisbane? So the LNP want to turn the clock back to 17th November 1978?

[#Metro]

"One may not talk about costs while ignoring benefits.
A car with no engine may well be cheap in cost, but it also lacks benefit."

BEWARE OF "COST-ONLY" ANALYSIS

[ozbob]

Trains terminating at South Brisbane? So the LNP want to turn the clock back to 17th November 1978?

Be grouse hey what ...


http://westonlangford.com/media/photos/108465.jpg

South Brisbane D17 269 running round

From Weston Langford Railway Photography  --> http://www.westonlangford.com/search/?q=south+brisbane  (well worth a bo-peep ..)

[SteelPan]

re Sth Bris "termination" of services = most STUPID idea ever put forward.  As already noted, have we time-traveled back to the 70's!   

[david]

The one question I want answered by the LNP is where they plan to move these trains after terminating them at South Brisbane?

I can only see three ways:

1- Reverse them to somewhere (Manly, Kuraby, whatever) - causes conflicting movements, hence eating up train paths. Creates a bigger problem than it solves.
2- Get them all to spontaneously combust on arrival at South Brisbane - could become expensive.
3- SEND THEM ACROSS THE MERIVALE BRIDGE TO MAYNE???

As ozbob said, a non-solution. May it never be spoken of again.

[BrizCommuter]

The one question I want answered by the LNP is where they plan to move these trains after terminating them at South Brisbane?

I can only see three ways:

1- Reverse them to somewhere (Manly, Kuraby, whatever) - causes conflicting movements, hence eating up train paths. Creates a bigger problem than it solves.
2- Get them all to spontaneously combust on arrival at South Brisbane - could become expensive.
3- SEND THEM ACROSS THE MERIVALE BRIDGE TO MAYNE???

As ozbob said, a non-solution. May it never be spoken of again.

Reversing trains at South Brisbane, and thus the increase in counter-peak services would require (on top of extra platforms and tracks):
Grade separation of Park Road $$$$
Stabling at Clapham and/or Thorneside $$$
Improved pedestrian access to Cultural Centre Busway and Victoria Bridge $$

To be fair to Mr Newman, BrizCommuter cannot recall reversing at South Brisbane being part of the plans. BrizCommuter thought that the extra platforms were to be used Central style, and improved signalling would allow more trains through the CBD on the suburban tracks. The plan falls flat on it's face due to capacity constraints still existing through Fortitude Valley and Bowen Hills (the latter with long dwell times due to crew changeover).

[somebody]

1- Reverse them to somewhere (Manly, Kuraby, whatever) - causes conflicting movements, hence eating up train paths. Creates a bigger problem than it solves.

Actually I think it is feasible, but third best*.  Add a crossover heading north from South Bank #2 to the DG, and heading south from South Brisbane #2 to South Bank #1.  Voila, you have a centre turnback at Sth Brisbane #2.  Can more than 4tph be turned on a single platform turnback?  Not that easily.

Not sure how effective this would be in the PM peak, but I don't think there is as much of a need there anyway.  I guess if you keep using the DG in the PM peak it can work.

Grade separation of Park Road $$$$

Not sure why you have such a thing for this.  It would add reliability, but very expensively.

Stabling at Clapham and/or Thorneside $$$

Needed anyway.

To be fair to Mr Newman, BrizCommuter cannot recall reversing at South Brisbane being part of the plans.

My understanding of the plan was that this is precisely what was envisaged.

* Best = CRR, 2nd best = GC trains taking over peak Dutton Park-Yeronga service

[HappyTrainGuy]

Add a crossover and terminate at platform 3. Send them back to Yeerongpilly behind the XPT. Turn around the station/clapham and send them all stops just after the city express service passes.

[Fares_Fair]

If this is a short term stop-gap measure to make it through the 2016 crisis point?

My questions;
1. Will it work?  Opinions here seem to be divided between no way and maybe.
2. What, if any options are there after this to make it work?
3. Another river crossing (cheaper than tunnelling)?

[Gazza]

3. Another river crossing (cheaper than tunnelling)?

Gardens point bridge. I'd actually prefer that to the current CRR proposal anyway.

[Fares_Fair]

3. Another river crossing (cheaper than tunnelling)?

Gardens point bridge. I'd actually prefer that to the current CRR proposal anyway.

Hello Gazza,

Why?

[Gazza]

Simple, it would offer the same hourly capacity, but cheaper because the stations would be shallower, and tunnel run ups could be shorter. Could also be some positive benefit through quicker station entrances and exits.

The billion or two saved then pays for SC Duplication, and then Cleveland Duplication etc.
Even saving $500 mil off the current proposal is decent. That could pay for a busway extension.

[ozbob]

3. Another river crossing (cheaper than tunnelling)?

Gardens point bridge. I'd actually prefer that to the current CRR proposal anyway.

Hello Gazza,

Why?

This is a variation of the Wilbur Smith proposal.  Has been discussed here many many times.  Check out the CRR thread.

Basically rather than tunnel under the river, shallower tunnel through the ' Gabba, out of the cliffs - bridge across river, back down.  Similar alignment to the proposed CRR.  The bridge can be achieved with the same clearances as go between bridge.  The big advantage for me is that it could also be a bus bridge.  It would be considerably cheaper, but I suppose the the aesthetics would cause NIMBYs to ramp up rather largely.

The great tragedy is if they had pushed a head 1960/70s with Smith's proposals, Brisbane would have been set, and a changed metropolis.  Instead they fell victim, like many, to car culture ...

[mufreight]

The reason I went through the pax numbers was to see how many people actually might benefit from this proposal and the fact is you'd be hard up by my estimates to fill two 6 car sets in AM peak and 1 in PM peak. But if you did it and provided more seats maybe more people would get out of a car and this would boost numbers more? You might also get some people from Sth and SE who are marginal RS/Sth Brisbane to go Sth Brisbane. So lets say 4 x 6 car sets worth, assume 2 from each line, first pair arriving around 7:45-8:15 and 2nd pair 8:15 to 8:45.

First pair you have option to send back to say Yerrongpilly or maybe Manly if they get to Sth Bris by at least 8am, 2nd pair no point and sending them on just causes problems. So why not just extend the viaduct from Sth Brisbane end of Plat another 300m and hold a two shunt neck? You would need it anyway as turning trains around on PL3 would take too long. Either that of build PL4 on the SG now DG (It can fit, only just though as SG line spacing is fairly wide). Maye also help if the SG line to Sth Bank was DG'ed and sparked to enable passing of NG trains.

But reality check for all I doubt anyone including LNP suggests this is an alt to CRR, its just a small stop gap that enables about 1000people per hour extra at best from the Sth and SE by rail.  

When are you wackers going to face reality.
Sit down and read through the garbage that you have posted on the subject, then add up the costs of the infrastructure that you are proposing, not just the selective band aid bits in isolation but the additional infrastructure that will be required to make it work, then consider the operational aspects and remember that effectively CRR is to provide additional train path capacity not only to get trains accross the river but through the CBD and to serve two areas that while having high patronage public transport needs are not currently served by rail.
Then start considering the reality that despite having expended in excess of a third of the cost of CRR your proposals have only provided less than a tenth of the benefit as a stop gap and that CRR in some form will still be required within five to seven years.
Newman has stated that he intends to stop waste of public funds so he espouses a half baked scheme that is doomed to failure rather than to invest that expendature in a real solution that provide long term effective benefit.
I wonder if some of those who support what is overall another slice of the stupidity that has been the reason for neglect of rail for decades.
What would be the situation if the quadruplication works that were carried out in the 1950's 1960's had not been carried out to "SAVE" money and the costs of attempting to carry them out today.
Time to stop the foam and be a bit realistick and face the fact that there is no point in half doing the job, do it once and do it right.