15 minute frequency, we are dreaming folks ...

[HappyTrainGuy]

Caboolture-Ipswich corridor I don't see 20min frequencies ever happening. After Springfield and MBRL are operational it would not suprise me one bit at all to see that corridor maintained at 2exptph with the spurs at 4tph until signal/track upgrades etc before 4exptph are introduced IPS-CAB.

[somebody]

Not really.  Still have 6 trains per hour all stopping Darra to CBD but 4 tph Darra - Springfield,  Darra - Ipswich now.  This where the real pax loads will be.

3 tph Springfield and Ipswich is actually a big improvement over 2 tph.

Huh?  Care to type that in english?

6tph with 15 minute frequency all stations Central-Darra cannot have a 20 minute frequency beyond Darra

Caboolture-Ipswich corridor I don't see 20min frequencies ever happening. After Springfield and MBRL are operational it would not suprise me one bit at all to see that corridor maintained at 2exptph with the spurs at 4tph until signal/track upgrades etc before 4exptph are introduced IPS-CAB.

Which upgrades are you referring to?

[ozbob]

Caboolture-Ipswich corridor I don't see 20min frequencies ever happening. After Springfield and MBRL are operational it would not suprise me one bit at all to see that corridor maintained at 2exptph with the spurs at 4tph until signal/track upgrades etc before 4exptph are introduced IPS-CAB.

You may be right, but I can't see people at Springfield or Ipswich waiting another 15 years for frequency improvements ....

[SurfRail]

It also requires QR to reverse trains faster than the current 8 minutes at Corinda #3.

There's no conceivable (non-union related) reason why they couldn't do it faster. 

Put a transit officer or 2 on the platform to help clear the train if need be.  They do this in Perth at terminating locations and they can clear trains extremely efficiently.

[ozbob]

Not really.  Still have 6 trains per hour all stopping Darra to CBD but 4 tph Darra - Springfield,  Darra - Ipswich now.  This where the real pax loads will be.

3 tph Springfield and Ipswich is actually a big improvement over 2 tph.

Huh?  Care to type that in english?

OK you have 2 tph to Springfield, 2 tph to ipswich.  15 minute frequency darra to CBD because of the overlap.

If you move to 3 tph to Springfield 3 tph to Ipswich you now have 10 minute  frequency darra to CBD (6 TPH)

Next step:

4 tph to Springfield 4 tph to Ipswich.  2 of the Ipswich could now be run express as desired.  Still have 6 TPH Darra to CBD, but now have 4 tph darra to springfield and darra to Ipswich.

The population growth will dictate increased frequency Darra to Springfield/ Darra to Ipswich.

[somebody]

So you are saying, measured at Darra:
:00 Ips all stops
:10 Spr
:15 Ips exp
:20 Spr
:30 Ips all stops
:40 Spr
:45 Ips exp
:50 Spr

Possible, but it will have conflicting moves, and the stagger isn't very nice either.

[ozbob]

Springfield will be on the subs by then.

It matters little what they do if the up sub is not sorted.  They will have conflicts no matter what.  Have them now.  But that is where we started 

[somebody]

Springfield will be on the subs by then.

AARRGGHH!!  There will still be conflicting moves even if that happens.

[ozbob]

Springfield will be on the subs by then.

AARRGGHH!!  There will still be conflicting moves even if that happens.

A lot less, conflicts between Darra and Oxley no more, conflicts between Corinda and Sherwood, no more ...

[HappyTrainGuy]

You may be right, but I can't see people at Springfield or Ipswich waiting another 15 years for frequency improvements ....

Some of the upgrades might have to be rushed. Caboolture has large portions of the corridor reserved for an extra track. Morayfield station needs work done. Burpengary car park extension a few years ago was to enable a third track to go through on the highway side. Narangba is designed for a third track in mind. Dakabin has the school side reserved for a third track but Petrie is the real kick in the nuts. I know Ipswich has a large portion of the corridor ready for a third track to go through in a minutes notice but there are still a few problems when it comes to select stations/old bridges/areas requiring money... money money money money money money 

I don't supose anyone has invented money on trees yet?

Simon, there are various plans for track upgrades (same can be said for the entire network) but government funding has been the real issue in how and when they go about it.

[somebody]

Perhaps I'm missing something.  Darra-Oxley only has a pax conflict in the PM peak.  Corinda-Sherwood doesn't ever have a pax conflict.

[ozbob]

Perhaps I'm missing something.  Darra-Oxley only has a pax conflict in the PM peak.  Corinda-Sherwood doesn't ever have a pax conflict.

There is a conflict if they cross from the main down to down sub between Corinda and Sherwood.

If the up and down subs were enabled for the suburban trains it would greatly improve a lot of things.  Including the freight trains as they would have much better paths as well.  But this has already been discussed to death.

[achiruel]

Narangba is designed for a third track in mind.

Doesn't Narangba already have a third track? Although I have no idea what it's used for.

[somebody]

There is a conflict if they cross from the main down to down sub between Corinda and Sherwood.

But only if there are actually trains running on the up main.

[ozbob]

You may be right, but I can't see people at Springfield or Ipswich waiting another 15 years for frequency improvements ....

Some of the upgrades might have to be rushed. Caboolture has large portions of the corridor reserved for an extra track. Morayfield station needs work done. Burpengary car park extension a few years ago was to enable a third track to go through on the highway side. Narangba is designed for a third track in mind. Dakabin has the school side reserved for a third track but Petrie is the real kick in the nuts. I know Ipswich has a large portion of the corridor ready for a third track to go through in a minutes notice but there are still a few problems when it comes to select stations/old bridges/areas requiring money... money money money money money money 

I don't supose anyone has invented money on trees yet?

Simon, there are various plans for track upgrades (same can be said for the entire network) but government funding has been the real issue in how and when they go about it.

Yes, the Ipswich corridor is interesting.  The road overbridges at Corinda, Oxley and Darra were built years ago with room for the track amplification.  The Corinda - Darra project all they had to do was just clear out some dirt.  There have been some dumb things done of late though.  Check out Goodna, the boxes on stilts make it very tight,  a triple might not fit.  At Dinmore the park n' ride was built on the alignment for the third track.  Other structures do have room for track amplification.  The Ipswich Highway upgrade has left room.

[HappyTrainGuy]

Doesn't Narangba already have a third track? Although I have no idea what it's used for.

Yep, there are 3 tracks and 3 platforms already there (currently 2 tracks/2 platforms in operation due to the station upgrade closing off one platform/one track). Publicly and visually in the true sense its going to be the exact same but there will be slight changes to trackside infrastructure such as placement and spacing of the overhead masts and other trackside equipment so when the third track goes through in parts between Petrie-Caboolture there are minimal works relating to Narangba that have to be under taken such as fixing up the level crossing for 3 tracks and moving the approach track slightly to the left.

There have been some dumb things done of late though.  Check out Goodna, the boxes on stilts make it very tight,  a triple might not fit. 

I went past Corinda the other week and I thought the exact same thing. I could only think that in the case of Corinda that it was cheaper to do a semi temp job now and then do a correct job once the highway upgrade was done and designs for a proper station upgrade such as moving it futher towards Church Street to get off the curve and match up with the overhead walkway were undertaken. Either that or move the station and change the alignment so the middle track goes through the island platform of the current Corinda station.

[somebody]

a flyover from between the mains on the  Corinda side of Cliveden Avenue and Corinda joining into the freight third line and platform 1 was considered and rejected on the basis that such a flyover would only be required for freight traffic (read coal) and the proposed southern freight line between Rosewood and Bromelton would make it redundent

Such a flyover would allow Springfield to South Brisbane without any conflicting moves.  How much would it cost, do you know?

[somebody]

If you did your homework you would know that a flyover from between the mains on the  Corinda side of Cliveden Avenue and Corinda joining into the freight third line and platform 1 was considered and rejected on the basis that such a flyover would only be required for freight traffic (read coal) and the proposed southern freight line between Rosewood and Bromelton would make it redundent

I've had a look at the ICRCS studies and there is no suggestion of such a flyover.  There is a Sherwood-Tennyson connection flyover though.

Was this an earlier study?

[STB]

15min services would be dreaming on the Gold Coast/Beenleigh and Cleveland lines due to the current infrastructure constraints, but I've managed to pull off a 20min frequency (with 10min frequency to boot on the Ferny Grove/Yeerongpilly corridor), with no conflicts that I can see.  Although I have had to alter the express pattern on the Gold Coast line to fit it in.  I have also taken into consideration of departmental trains, freight paths should be able to squeeze in.

Cleveland -> Shorncliffe (Every 20mins)
http://www.2shared.com/file/HI0--UqV/ClevelandShoncliffeEvery20mins.html

Both these services would provide a 10min frequency Ferny Grove to Yeerongpilly.
Ferny Grove -> Yeerongpilly (Every 20mins)
Ferny Grove -> Kuraby (Every 20mins)

Gold Coast -> Airport (Every 20mins)
Express pattern changed: Express Kuraby to Southbank running via the third track/dual guage on the inbound.

http://www.2shared.com/file/iT7FW84l/VarsityBeenleighFernyGroveAirp.html

Please note that I didn't fill it in for the entire day as it's a pain in the neck to manually fill in the times, unlike the Cleveland timetable where I can just highlight and drag across.

This is assuming that there is funding (which we know there isn't at this stage), and would operate during the off peak times only.

If you do spot any potential conflicts please let me know, but from what I can see I can't see any.  The Yeerongpilly train would cross onto the inbound platform a minute after the citybound train departs, then 3mins later the Beenleigh/Gold Coast train would express through on a green signal on the outbound platform.

The intermediate times are a mix of my own personal timings and the official timings from the Queensland Rail Working Timetable, which with thanks to a little birdee I have a copy of it (not normally available to the general public).

If you want me to explain it in more detail, please let me know.

[somebody]

Express pattern changed: Express Kuraby to Southbank running via the third track/dual guage on the inbound.

Can't imagine that the Gold Coast would be very happy about this aspect of the proposed change though.

[STB]

Express pattern changed: Express Kuraby to Southbank running via the third track/dual guage on the inbound.

Can't imagine that the Gold Coast would be very happy about this aspect of the proposed change though.

It's either that or a train every 30mins unfortunately.  What I'm trying to show above though is that it is possible to run a higher frequency on the Cleveland/Beenleigh and Gold Coast corridors, however there is a price, and after much mucking about, that's the best that I could work out under the current infrastructure.

[ozbob]

Thanks for the post STB, fair bit of solid effort putting that together.

[somebody]

Ok, STB's change results in an 11 minute slower journey for the Gold Coast but a potential 10 minute time saving in waiting.

I think you have to argue that the benefits for those making shorter journeys outweighs the downsides for the Gold Coast.

Perhaps you could extend the Kuraby trains to Kingston, do some crossover works (i.e. give the northbound non platform path the non diverging legs of the points and allow access to Kingston's northbound platform from the north without conflicting with northbound trains on the non platform path.  I hope that made sense).  I'd still doubt that slowing the Gold Coast line would be justified by its frequency increase on its own though.

[Golliwog]

Looks great STB. Just out of curiosity, what is the 3 minutes dwell at Beenleigh in both directions for?

[somebody]

I would add that I am reasonably comfortable with STB's plan being put forward, so long as duplication Manly-Lota is included.  A double precision cross is not something I would encourage.  If my proposed extension to Kingston is thrown in, the works around there, particularly the additional crossover would need to be included.  The proposed extension eats into the operating margin of STB's proposal.

[#Metro]

Sorry, but I can't seem to get the download off that site

[Fares_Fair]

20 minute frequency it is then ...  sorted. 

[somebody]

One other thing.  It has to be 10 minute interpeak for Ferny Grove, or otherwise they are welching on their promise.

[petey3801]

(i.e. give the northbound non platform path the non diverging legs of the points and allow access to Kingston's northbound platform from the north without conflicting with northbound trains on the non platform path.  I hope that made sense).

Do you mean the express trains using the butter siding road? With the current setup, not sure that would work overly well, it's not really set up at all well for fast, straight through movements (trains approaches the home signal at red, before the siding signal approach-clears), plus slow (25km/h) points and road all the way until back onto the main.
Southbound trains are able to use the northbound platform at Kingston though, so that could make it work under a Kingston terminating proposal (I haven't had a chance to peruse STB's timetable as yet, will do shortly though).

One other thing.  It has to be 10 minute interpeak for Ferny Grove, or otherwise they are welching on their promise.

Both these services would provide a 10min frequency Ferny Grove to Yeerongpilly.
Ferny Grove -> Yeerongpilly (Every 20mins)
Ferny Grove -> Kuraby (Every 20mins)

[SurfRail]

Can't say I'm terribly pleased with this (speaking strictly with my GC commuter hat on).

I expect 20 minute frequency would not be sufficient to outweigh the disadvantage over the distance involved.

Would it be possible to timetable for 30 minutes while keeping the same speed and still allowing Beenleigh services a 20 minute pattern?  Hardly ideal as an outcome, but the trip is slow enough as it is compared to other comparable journeys (eg Mandurah).

[petey3801]

(i.e. give the northbound non platform path the non diverging legs of the points and allow access to Kingston's northbound platform from the north without conflicting with northbound trains on the non platform path.  I hope that made sense).

Do you mean the express trains using the butter siding road? With the current setup, not sure that would work overly well, it's not really set up at all well for fast, straight through movements (trains approaches the home signal at red, before the siding signal approach-clears), plus slow (25km/h) points and road all the way until back onto the main.
Southbound trains are able to use the northbound platform at Kingston though, so that could make it work under a Kingston terminating proposal (I haven't had a chance to peruse STB's timetable as yet, will do shortly though).

Ahh, after having a look through, I see what you mean now.

Having the stoppers terminate at Kingston will result in a conflict with either the inbound GC/BNH or outbound GC/BNH, whichever platform is used. It could be resolved by a couple things:
1) Having the terminator stay on the outbound platform at Kingston, allowing the inbound GC/AP train to run through the inbound platform (thence run express to SBA, saving an extra few mins... if it still fits in with everything else once it gets into town, at least... haven't looked that far). Then the outbound AP/GC train can cross over and use the inbound platform and cross back over after Kingston and continue on (not ideal, but can be done.. will add a min or two into the outbound run though due to signals and slow xovers).
2) Ideally, a new platform could be built alongside the butter siding, therefore allowing the terminating train to run into the butter siding and turnback from there, allowing the GC/AP trains unrestricted use of the current two platforms at Kingston.

I do like the idea of having the stoppers run to Kingston instead of Kuraby, allowing the GC/AP trains to run express to/from Kingston instead of Kuraby (as long as it doesn't cause chaos in the City, as I said before), as that way it doesn't really slow the flyers down all that much (BNH-Kingston stopping won't really add that much time into the table, and running along the 3rd/DG will save extra time as it is quicker than running on the subs, as well as cutting out the Coopers Plains and Park Road stops). If it's not really needed, I think the dwell at BNH could easily be cut back to 1min (ie: arr 0715, dep 0716), but I will have to go through and adjust the timings to make sure it all suits.

Will have a look later tonight and see how I go...

[somebody]

(i.e. give the northbound non platform path the non diverging legs of the points and allow access to Kingston's northbound platform from the north without conflicting with northbound trains on the non platform path.  I hope that made sense).

Do you mean the express trains using the butter siding road? With the current setup, not sure that would work overly well, it's not really set up at all well for fast, straight through movements (trains approaches the home signal at red, before the siding signal approach-clears), plus slow (25km/h) points and road all the way until back onto the main.
Southbound trains are able to use the northbound platform at Kingston though, so that could make it work under a Kingston terminating proposal (I haven't had a chance to peruse STB's timetable as yet, will do shortly though).

That's exactly what I mean.  I did suggest that there be appropriate infrastructure upgrades.

Would it be possible to timetable for 30 minutes while keeping the same speed and still allowing Beenleigh services a 20 minute pattern?  Hardly ideal as an outcome, but the trip is slow enough as it is compared to other comparable journeys (eg Mandurah).

I'd be very surprised if that were possible.  What that would mean is 3:2 BNH:VL which really means there must be 6 paths per hour for both services unless you can get tricky somehow.

[STB]

Re: The infrastructure add ons people are mentioning about with this proposal.  I'm generally comfy with what people are putting forward, please note though that I based this timetable purely on the existing track layout, if you want to add on infrastructure requirements to get a better timetable out of it, by all means go ahead .

[Fares_Fair]

Re: The infrastructure add ons people are mentioning about with this proposal.  I'm generally comfy with what people are putting forward, please note though that I based this timetable purely on the existing track layout, if you want to add on infrastructure requirements to get a better timetable out of it, by all means go ahead .

Looking for train set ...

[STB]

Looks great STB. Just out of curiosity, what is the 3 minutes dwell at Beenleigh in both directions for?

Trying to reduce conflicts while allowing a chance for the train to catch up on time if needed.

[somebody]

How are conflicts reduced?

I don't agree with that aspect of the plan either, but I was assuming that readers would take that as read.

[petey3801]

It's taken a while (have been busy with numerous things), but I have managed to tweak STB's timetable to allow the all stoppers to run to Bethania (Kingston is also possible with no extra infrastructure, but would be much tidier with a simple side platform on the Butter Siding track for terminating trains).

Both the Kingston and Bethania options call for the Gold Coast/Airport trains to run all stops Beenleigh to Kingston, thence express to South Bank. This means the Gold Coast trains take 1hr 25min from Varsity to Central, compared to the current (off-peak) timing of 1hr 21min, so 4 minutes extra travel time, up to 10 mins less waiting time and 1hr 28 Central to Varsity, which is 8mins longer than current, but still 2 mins better off with worst case waiting time. (Main reason for different running times is that the inbound runs on the 3rd road/dual gauge which is faster than the sub).

The Cleveland to Shorncliffe run has crosses at Wellington Point and Lota, with time built in for both crosses (inbound service waits at Lota for outbound, outbound service waits at Wello for inbound).

Doomben I have left on 30min for now, as 20min on the Doomben branch with current infrastructure isn't pretty unless both platforms at Doomben are used, but even then, it doesn't leave anything in the bank for late running, so have left it as a 30min shuttle to/from Roma Street.

Links to download the timetables are:
FYG/YLY/BTI/BNH/VYS/BDT: http://www.2shared.com/file/znepBTKw/new_BNH_20min.html
SHC/CVN: http://www.2shared.com/file/3iYd64ro/new_SCH_CVN_20min.html

Let me know what you think and if there are any issues. Disregard the brown background colour on the FYG/South timetable, I was using that so I knew which services I had adjusted and forgot to get rid of it before uploading.

[SurfRail]

Petey's option I could live with.  In the absence of more tracks it's about as good as we are going to get, even with CRR.

What you basically end up with is the potential for 15 minute timetabling on all the Sector 1 and "Sector 2" lines (ie current Sector 2 with the CRR routes excised), and 20 minute patterns on the CRR lines.

This would be a good outcome.

[somebody]

(Kingston is also possible with no extra infrastructure, but would be much tidier with a simple side platform on the Butter Siding track for terminating trains).

Umm, isn't that the exact opposite of what should be done?  There would still be a conflicting move in that scenario.  Just straighten the track so that the "siding" track can be used at full speed.  But if it can be done at Bethania, then why not?  Would require a crossover to allow trains to terminate on platform 2 without blocking northbound trains.

Main reason for different running times is that the inbound runs on the 3rd road/dual gauge which is faster than the sub).

I think using the DG and missing Park Rd is a real limitation.  Freight won't like it either.

Let me know what you think and if there are any issues. Disregard the brown background colour on the FYG/South timetable, I was using that so I knew which services I had adjusted and forgot to get rid of it before uploading.

I don't see why you'd stand on Yeerongpilly #2 for 9 minutes rather than just going on to Corinda where you can stand off the running line.  There's a number of 1 minute gaps in this timetable.  Is that even achievable?

[petey3801]

(Kingston is also possible with no extra infrastructure, but would be much tidier with a simple side platform on the Butter Siding track for terminating trains).

Umm, isn't that the exact opposite of what should be done?  There would still be a conflicting move in that scenario.  Just straighten the track so that the "siding" track can be used at full speed.  But if it can be done at Bethania, then why not?  Would require a crossover to allow trains to terminate on platform 2 without blocking northbound trains.

Having the terminating trains run in to the butter siding at Kingston would mean they're out of the way off the main line. Yes, they have a conflicting move, but it isn't a problem as there are no northbound trains running at that time to get in the way of it. The other thing is the gold coast/airport trains will be stopping at Kingston as well, so they'll need a platform as well, no matter what track they use. The terminators using the butter siding would only need a simple side platform (platform face, ticket machine and go-card readers plus a couple shelters) with all other infrastructure able to remain the same. Much cheaper than having a platform as well as trying to get the butter siding up to a main-line standard. (The small little maintenance siding off the butter siding would have to go, but that's no real loss).
Regarding Bethania, might as well do it that way as the timings are OK with it, as long as the coasties still stop Kingston-Beenleigh. Terminating trains would use platform 3. Same deal with Kingston, it requires a conflicting move, but there are no northbound trains timetabled at the time they'll be crossing, so no conflict. No new infrastructure required really (except for active protection on the pad xing on the city end of the platform).
The entire point of this is to get more frequent services with minimal to no new infrastructure.

Main reason for different running times is that the inbound runs on the 3rd road/dual gauge which is faster than the sub).

I think using the DG and missing Park Rd is a real limitation.  Freight won't like it either.

There is enough time between express trains for freight to use the dual gauge. Park Road, not a major issue IMO but if P4 can be fixed up cheaply, then go for it..
Plus, using the sub = slower trains, simply because the express will catch up to the stopper and the track speeds on the sub are slower than the DG. In a pinch, the express could drop back onto the sub at the 'pilly, but it would cause the stopper to depart a couple mins late (which it could make up by Central anyway, so wouldn't be a massive issue).

Let me know what you think and if there are any issues. Disregard the brown background colour on the FYG/South timetable, I was using that so I knew which services I had adjusted and forgot to get rid of it before uploading.

I don't see why you'd stand on Yeerongpilly #2 for 9 minutes rather than just going on to Corinda where you can stand off the running line.  There's a number of 1 minute gaps in this timetable.  Is that even achievable?

Going to Corinda would require an extra set of units and create another conflicting move with the DG. No real reason it can't sit at the 'pilly for 9 minutes, and if needed, it can move across onto the Tennyson branch and turn back from the signal just after the junction (being a 3-car, the crew don't need a change platform to turnback) to get it out of the way if required. Not saying it can't go to Corinda, you'd just need an extra train and have the trains form the next later service than is shown.

The 1 minute gaps are all in places where it wouldn't matter if the train is 1 minute late arriving. The only 1 minute gaps are for the terminator arriving at the 'pilly when the Bethania - Ferny train leaves 1 minute earlier. If it gets onto the platform 1 minute late, it's not a massive issue, the express may be held up for 1 minute at most, which it can make up further along the line without causing delays to other services.

In the absence of more tracks it's about as good as we are going to get, even with CRR.

Pretty much! CRR will help by allowing the DG to be freed up from Yeerongpilly to Dutton Park, making it a bit easier for freight again, but other than that, it won't really help for running times etc. Especially with CRRlite.

I think it's a maintainable timetable, one delayed service shouldn't ruin the entire lot and there is enough turnaround time at each termination station for a few mins catch up time while still giving minimum crew turnback times. It still leaves room for freight services, both on the subs and the DG as well as to Holmview for the cattle trains, plus any departmental trains to run without causing chaos (such as the Mon/Wed/Fri 'Roadrunner' train that is run for Gold Coast line track inspection purposes). It's really about as close as we're gonna get to frequent trains on existing infrastructure, particularly on the outer ends of the network.