15 minute frequency, we are dreaming folks ...

[Golliwog]

Just to be clear, for me any improvement is good. If we argue strongly for 4tph, and they perhaps give us 3tph instead as a compromise, I'd be ok with that. I just don't think we should be lowering our targets just because Mr Scales has come out and said 4tph being extended to other lines is unlikely.

TT, 3tph might not be the best outcome, but it's better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick.

[Gazza]

If they don't want to pay for 4tph, why would they want to pay for 3tph anyway?
Thats the gist of the situation isn't it? Lack of money.

Hmm, I rekcon the push to reduce running costs through the removal of guards is the right way to go.

[#Metro]

TT, 3tph might not be the best outcome, but it's better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick.

Like I said - 20 minute frequency comes with none of the patronage induction but all of the costs of extra service.
Pick one or two lines and put 4tph on there, leave the rest at 30 minutes.

Frequency only works if it is concentrated. You can have frequency OR coverage, but not both.

[ozbob]

Three trains per hour has a lower service cost than 4 trains per hour.  That is how they worked up frequency in Melbourne.

As far as DOO goes, never going to happen with the present operator.

You can pontificate all you like about 15 minute frequency here and there, it is not going to happen with the present regime.  Queensland Rail have said they cannot do it, and now TransLink has said not likely.  So rather than flogging a dead horse look at what is needed to make it happen.

It is time to change the regime.

20 minutes is actually quite neat for the outer stations, with overlaps you then get 10 minute and 5 frequencies.  Yeah I know, we are in Queensland.

[ozbob]

Like I said - 20 minute frequency comes with none of the patronage induction but all of the costs of extra service.

The evidence elsewhere is otherwise.  You ask someone who actually uses the lines with poor frequency.  Would they prefer 2 trains per hour or 3 trains per hour?  I have, and I know what the responses are.

[ozbob]

Sent to all outlets:

23rd June 2012

Greetings,

The LNP made policy commitments:

LNP Policy Commitments:

• $18 million to double daytime off-peak services on the Ferny Grove line on weekdays

• If this two year trial is successful expand to other lines

• Deliver a public transport system that is reliable, frequent, safe and affordable for passengers

• Provide real fare relief for regular commuters by reintroducing discounted weekly fares on go cards

Reference: http://lnp.org.au/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&task=download&id=89

It appears that this policy commitment has already been kicked into touch.  Maybe the Premier wasn't ' adequately briefed ' ....

See  Queensland Times 22nd June 2012 page 17 (  http://backontrack.org/docs/qt/qt_22jun12_p17.jpg )

"TransLink chief executive Neil Scales said it was unlikely the 15-minute off-peak train trail would be extended beyond the Ferny Grove line, no matter how successful it proved."

Punters conned again hey?

The train frequency on the south-east Queensland  rail network is at worlds worst practise.  The way you improve fare box and reduce subsidies, with the broader economic benefits of reductions in road trauma costs, lessened congestion costs, lessened environmental impacts is to improve frequency not continue the stalemate.

Major investments in new rail lines are too going to suffer very poor frequency of services apparently.   Pathetic joke.

Best wishes
Robert

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

======================

Media release 13th May 2012 re-released 23rd June 2012

SEQ: New Rail Links - What will the service frequencies be?

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 welcomes the allocation of $20 million for construction of the Moreton Bay Rail Link (1).

Robert Dow, Spokesman for RAIL Back On Track said:

"The Moreton Bay Rail Link will connect Kippa-Ring to the Brisbane CBD via the Caboolture line. Funding is coming from all three levels of government - Federal Government ($742 million), the State Government ($300 million) and Moreton Bay Regional Council ($105 million). It shows that even local governments are capable of pitching in to do their bit when it comes to funding transport improvements in their area."

"Given that around $1.1 billion dollars is being spent on the project, we would like to know what the service frequency of trains during the off-peak and weekend times will be? Will it be just two trains per hour? What will the span of hours be? Will most services disappear immediately after peak hour finishes?"

"The railway to Springfield will be completed next year (2).  Similarly, is the massive investment in this new railway going to be another example of poor train service frequency?"

"All rail lines on the network need frequency improvements. Time for the big decisions!"

References:

1. Wayne Swan finds $20 million for Moreton Bay Rail Link in Federal Budget 2012
http://www.couriermail.com.au/questnews/moreton/million-for-moreton-bay-rail-link-in-federal-budget-2012/story-fn8m0yu3-1226350728134

2. http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=3940.msg94129#msg94129

Contact:

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

[#Metro]

The evidence elsewhere is otherwise.  You ask someone who actually uses the lines with poor frequency.  Would they prefer 2 trains per hour or 3 trains per hour?  I have, and I know what the responses are.

Yes, but if I asked those same people if they wanted a direct service or a connection, I know what the answer would be too. Or if they wanted a system with no standing and 100% seating.

I think your point about 20 minute frequencies overlapping at certain points is valid, and I accept that some lines will have infrastructure issues (which is also valid to an extent - i.e. 4tph not possible past Manly) however these overlapping points where lines come together are very close to the city (Park Road/Northgate) so the outer areas won't see much benefit. At the end of the day it really comes down to whether you want to spread the butter thin on multiple slices or have it thick on one slice.

15 minutes really is the threshold - anything above that and it is not turn up and go and still very inconvenient. See page 14 of the HiTrans Manual

http://www.thredbo-conference-series.org/downloads/thredbo10_papers/thredbo10-themeE-Nielsen-Lange.pdf

where it has a graph of this and the network effect.

Provided that it is technically possible, I think the Ipswich line really needs 4 tph all the way to Ipswich. Even if this means other lines (Cleveland, Shorncliffe, Beenleigh) miss out and still have to be on 30 min frequencies due to funding. That's where you have all the density, two direction commuting, large cities at either end, and bus connection opportunities etc. That's the line where you have the most stations. The network effect won't work if it is 20 min.

[somebody]

If they don't want to pay for 4tph, why would they want to pay for 3tph anyway?
Thats the gist of the situation isn't it? Lack of money.

Hmm, I rekcon the push to reduce running costs through the removal of guards is the right way to go.

I completely agree with this.  In the current environment removing guards is likely to be achievable, while service frequency increases are less likely.  Roll forward a few years, and if we don't have guards there will be less reluctance to add services due to their lower costs.

Guards do seem to add to dwell times, which isn't a good thing.

[justanotheruser]

it has long been accepted that 'salami' tactics are a valid option. This means you get a little bit but not your end goal to make it more acceptable. I agree with Bob that since the statements made we need to aim for bit by bit improvement. Otherwise realistically we should be arguing for DOO & 10 min frequency off peak complete overhaul of buses to all be introduced next week! Sometimes you have to be realistic.
Having also in my studies looked at community development you always have a main goal and then you set small goals that work towards your main goal. 20 min freq is a step towards 15 min frew.

[#Metro]

it has long been accepted that 'salami' tactics are a valid option. This means you get a little bit but not your end goal to make it more acceptable. I agree with Bob that since the statements made we need to aim for bit by bit improvement. Otherwise realistically we should be arguing for DOO & 10 min frequency off peak complete overhaul of buses to all be introduced next week! Sometimes you have to be realistic.

Er, but there are two ways to do this. I'm NOT saying 15 minutes everywhere. I am saying TUZ on ONE or TWO lines to start with and then roll out over other lines. Frequency needs to be concentrated to be useful.

[ozbob]

Thanks TT

15 minutes really is the threshold - anything above that and it is not turn up and go and still very inconvenient. See page 14 of the HiTrans Manual

http://www.thredbo-conference-series.org/downloads/thredbo10_papers/thredbo10-themeE-Nielsen-Lange.pdf

Your reference confirms dramatically the advantage for improving 2 TPH to 3 TPH.  I hate to tell you this, 4TPH is not achievable on the Ipswich line, the Caboolture line, the southern line, the Cleveland Line, the Shorncliffe line (advice from Queensland Rail), for reasons of infrastructure constraints (without considering rolling stock and crew limitations at present).  We need to be to be aware of these limitations and work constructively for best outcomes, improvements to over come the limitations and incremental improvements in frequency. 

I don't know how often you travel out to Ipswich, but 3 TPH would be a massive improvement.  It means folks have a lot less waiting time particularly with the dodgy bus connections.  Also there is a lot of local travel on the Ipswich line, and with a 3TPH would increase significantly.  20 minutes can be achieved now on the Ipswich line (trains and crew issues not withstanding).  But clearly TransLink and others have no interest in funding any more service increases other than the Ferny Grove pork barrel. 

[somebody]

I hate to tell you this, 4TPH is not achievable on the Ipswich line, the Caboolture line, the southern line, the Cleveland Line, the Shorncliffe line (advice from Queensland Rail), for reasons of infrastructure constraints

ROTFL!

Here is where Mr Caltabiano is correct.  Political hacks can make true statements sometimes.

[achiruel]

At the last CRG and more recently I have been told by Queensland Rail staff that they cannot implement 15 minute frequencies due to infrastructure constraints, freight requirements, crew and rolling stock issues.  Which just corroborates what Mr Scales CEO TransLink is saying as well.  Whether you believe that or not, that is as they see it.

This is a huge load of horse hooey.

Certainly there are certain lines where 15 minute frequency is unviable (outer Beenleigh/Gold Coast, outer Cleveland, Doomben, maybe Shorncliffe and certainly Sunshine Coast)

BUT

15 minute frequency could be operated on Ipswich, Caboolture, Richlands, Beenleigh to probably Coopers Plains, Cleveland to Manly or Lota, and probably Shorncliffe without too much difficulty.  There might be minimal investment required on some of these lines regarding signalling/platform upgrades/crossovers etc but it's overall fairly small compared to the cost of running 1000s of buses, building new busways, expanding freeways.

Even the cost of duplicating the Doomben line is bugger all compared with the proposed KSD upgrades.

[#Metro]

4TPH is not achievable on the Ipswich line, the Caboolture line, the southern line, the Cleveland Line, the Shorncliffe line (advice from Queensland Rail), for reasons of infrastructure constraints

What a useless train network.
Hundreds of millions is sunk into this, 56% of transport funding is poured into QR, and they are "happy to advise" that it doesn't even work and can't cope?! And they have know this for 20 years because the SAME OLD REASONS get trotted out, like they were trotted out in the 90's when busway proposals were being discussed.

WHAT A JOKE!!

Rollingstock Limitations? What, how can they say this when the train yard is full of trains sitting idle in the interpeak?

What exactly are the infrastructure limitations with 4tph on the Ipswich Line, all day?


I agree with Achiruel. I will accept 20 minute frequency, but only as a LAST RESORT

[O_128]

4TPH is not achievable on the Ipswich line, the Caboolture line, the southern line, the Cleveland Line, the Shorncliffe line (advice from Queensland Rail), for reasons of infrastructure constraints

What a useless train network.
Hundreds of millions is sunk into this, 56% of transport funding is poured into QR, and they are "happy to advise" that it doesn't even work and can't cope?! And they have know this for 20 years because the SAME OLD REASONS get trotted out, like they were trotted out in the 90's when busway proposals were being discussed.

WHAT A JOKE!!

Rollingstock Limitations? What, how can they say this when the train yard is full of trains sitting idle in the interpeak?

What exactly are the infrastructure limitations with 4tph on the Ipswich Line, all day?


I agree with Achiruel. I will accept 20 minute frequency, but only as a LAST RESORT

Simple, A bunch of useless people who can't run a network. Lets privatise it. As soon as someone actually has to make some money the network will magically be able to run more trains.

[#Metro]

Sorry, I need to go away, because I am seeing red signals all the way.

[#Metro]

A decision needs to be made whether the system is a freight network or a passenger network because at the moment we are getting the worst of both worlds. Sure we can't run 15 min frequency to the ends of all lines, but who said that it had to be 100% solution? Part way is still OK.

Whatever works. 20 minutes if need be...

[ozbob]

If the operator believes it is not possible, and after all they are running the railway, they are in a position to know I would suggest.  Do we believe them?

Don't forget about the freighters on the Ipswich line as well. 

Now you are starting to see sense TT.  Freight needs to be split out.  That would have a big benefit north, south and west.  Roma St west is a mess as well.

I have been told explicitly because of the paths required for freight, specials and so forth it is not possible to extend the Richlands - Bowen Hills to Petrie for example.

The argument trotted out about rolling stock is the maintenance requirements.  Just sayin' ...

[ozbob]

I hate to tell you this, 4TPH is not achievable on the Ipswich line, the Caboolture line, the southern line, the Cleveland Line, the Shorncliffe line (advice from Queensland Rail), for reasons of infrastructure constraints

ROTFL!

Here is where Mr Caltabiano is correct.  Political hacks can make true statements sometimes.

Ask Queensland Rail Simon, I am sure you will enjoy the response.  You seem to have an insight that the operator doesn't.

[ozbob]

You see, if the operator says it can't be done.  TransLink believes it can't be done.  Advice to Government is ' it can't be done ', no one is too interested in doing it. 

What needs to occur is to progressively address the 'constraints' to properly enable the network.  Some of this is underway but when you look at the funding required for:

NG rolling stock  -  how many trains again 150 or 200?

DDA compliance of the network - not an easy or cheap task

Signalling upgrades.

Infrastructure improvements - replacing points, rail etc.  Improved junctions and what not.  Sunshine Coast line?

And then additional lines for freight?

Anyone want a bottle of water?

[ozbob]

One of the enablers for 4 TPH to Springfield is sort out the Darra - Corinda fiasco.  Costings have been done (not sure of the exact amount) for completing the electrification of the up sub and fixing the layout at Corinda so the trains can run straight through without the dance from subs to mains and back to subs as they journey along.  We are stuck with Darra station itself.  It works albeit in a clumsy way.

There is a the matter of the missing platform at Oxley, but hey who catches a train at Oxley ... 

I was baby sitting my grand daughter yesterday.  We sometimes sit out on the veranda of the house at Darra and watch the trains.  The cross-over at Pannard St is just a reminder of how botched it all is.  My grand daughter also agrees.  I said to her yesterday, " look at that darling, the dance of the EMUs "  She said "  Ba ba " ...  I take that as a strong affirmative ...

[Jonas Jade]

imo, 20 is a good interim outcome.... If 20 minute services are implemented, the next logical step would be 10 minute services.

The paper you posted tt, only confirms that 15min frequency isn't true TUAG (I completely agree with this - 10 minutes is the threshold):

Half frequency will characterize lines with approximately half the number of departures per
hour, i.e. headways of 15–20 minutes. For these  lines the users will prefer to know the
departure times, and there is a clear need for  timetable co-ordination in order to facilitate
transfers between lines.

15 min frequency is a "good" outcome but it isn't ideal, and 20 min is much, much better than 30.

[somebody]

Ask Queensland Rail Simon, I am sure you will enjoy the response.  You seem to have an insight that the operator doesn't.

What would be the point of that?  I would not believe the answer.

I can see the limitations of the missing/misplaced crossover west of Darra between the up/down main in a world with 4tph express to Ipswich combined with freight.  However, I cannot see how the electrification of the 4th line without Oxley 4th platform enables it?  And which is more achievable, a new crossover or full electrification+Oxley 4th platform?

[ozbob]

However, I cannot see how the electrification of the 4th line without Oxley 4th platform enables it?

I agree, of course it has to be done.  (By 2015 was the ICRCS recommendation I recall).

You need to spend some time watching the trains between Corinda and Darra.  As frequency increases to allow speed running of freight and passenger movements unhindered will be needed.  There are also planned increases in coal train frequency as well.

[Stillwater]

I agree with Ozbob's granddaughter.  Dealing with Queensland Rail on sensible thinking about the direction of rail travel in SEQ would have anyone going 'ga-ga'.

I suspect that QR staff are beside themselves considering how the LNP axe will fall among their numbers, then there is the threat from the new head of TMR that QR will be 'turned upside-down'.  How does QR and TransLink interact?  What about the internal wounds caused by TL taking over management of long distance trains?

The illusion of Conning SEQ 2031 has been exposed.  CRR has been chopped up by a 'panel of experts' outside the experts within government.  (That must be a real morale booster.)

We need a realistic plan forward for the next 5-7 years, but ask anyone and all you get is ba ba ba, go go, aah, ribbub, even from Ozbob's granddaughter.

[somebody]

But do you agree that putting in the missing crossover west of Darra enables everything that the 4th platform+electrification does?  Only exception I can think of is via Tennyson services extending beyond Corinda but that would require a 6th platform or an additional crossover at Corinda.

then there is the threat from the new head of TMR that QR will be 'turned upside-down'.  How does QR and TransLink interact? 

I posted in another thread that the D-G of TMR does indeed appear to be responsible to the Minister, not the CEO of TTA.  Apparently, this is delegated to staff within TTA, but such a delegation would not prevent Mr Caltabiano from intervening normally.  This is the sort of confusing arrangement which existed in water in 2010 and the flood commission was quite critical.  Not sure if anything has changed.

[STB]

I hate to tell you this, 4TPH is not achievable on the Ipswich line, the Caboolture line, the southern line, the Cleveland Line, the Shorncliffe line (advice from Queensland Rail), for reasons of infrastructure constraints (without considering rolling stock and crew limitations at present).

I'd believe that.  From my little timetabling exercise the other day, Cleveland can get a 20min all day frequency, but only just.  It's tight with precision crosses and that's including non scheduled services such as departmental trains, and then there's the freight which the third track only carries some of the freight movements to/from the Port of Brisbane, other freighters head along the Up line between the passenger services during the day.  And that's not including the Beenleigh/Gold Coast lines which in my little timetabling exercise was a little too difficult to schedule around, we really need CRR and additional track on those lines.

At the end of the day, the Planners will only schedule with what they've got, which was reminded to us at the last CRG.  And if they can't schedule a 20min frequency, or 15min frequency, even if they did have the budget for it, it only means one thing, more track, and not just CRR, but duplication of the Cleveland line and triplication and/or quadding on the Beenleigh/Gold Coast line.

[ozbob]

But do you agree that putting in the missing crossover west of Darra enables everything that the 4th platform+electrification does?

Trains to and from Springfield will need to stick to the subs.  Hence the up sub does need full electrification with the platform at Oxley.  This then leaves the mains unhindered.  Trains are already stacking up between Corinda and Darra.  Half baked indeed.

[ozbob]

I agree with Ozbob's granddaughter.  Dealing with Queensland Rail on sensible thinking about the direction of rail travel in SEQ would have anyone going 'ga-ga'.

I suspect that QR staff are beside themselves considering how the LNP axe will fall among their numbers, then there is the threat from the new head of TMR that QR will be 'turned upside-down'.  How does QR and TransLink interact?  What about the internal wounds caused by TL taking over management of long distance trains?

The illusion of Conning SEQ 2031 has been exposed.  CRR has been chopped up by a 'panel of experts' outside the experts within government.  (That must be a real morale booster.)

We need a realistic plan forward for the next 5-7 years, but ask anyone and all you get is ba ba ba, go go, aah, ribbub, even from Ozbob's granddaughter.

Ba ba!

[#Metro]

The argument trotted out about rolling stock is the maintenance requirements.  Just sayin' ...

What requirements is this? How does MTR hong kong do their maintainence requirements? Or Melbourne? Or Perth which has IDENTICAL trains.

[somebody]

Trains to and from Springfield will need to stick to the subs.

Huh?

I understand that off peak it is:
- I/B from Ipswich via Oxley #3
- I/B from Richlands via Oxley #2
- O/B via Oxley #1

I don't have any particular problem with these arrangements except for eastbound freight not running via Oxley #2, taking us back to the missing crossover.

I would have presumed that the AM peak would be:
- I/B from Ipswich via Oxley #3 (non-stopping)
- I/B from Richlands via Oxley #2 (stopping)
- O/B via Oxley #1

And PM peak:
- I/B via Oxley #3
- O/B to Ipswich via Oxley #2 (non-stopping)
- O/B to Richlands via Oxley #1 (stopping)

Short workings to Darra are considered as Richlands trains for the above.

Is that not correct?

[ozbob]

Trains to and from Springfield will need to stick to the subs.

Huh?

I understand that off peak it is:
- I/B from Ipswich via Oxley #3
- I/B from Richlands via Oxley #2
- O/B via Oxley #1

I don't have any particular problem with these arrangements except for eastbound freight not running via Oxley #2, taking us back to the missing crossover.

I would have presumed that the AM peak would be:
- I/B from Ipswich via Oxley #3 (non-stopping)
- I/B from Richlands via Oxley #2 (stopping)
- O/B via Oxley #1

And PM peak:
- I/B via Oxley #3
- O/B to Ipswich via Oxley #2 (non-stopping)
- O/B to Richlands via Oxley #1 (stopping)

Short workings to Darra are considered as Richlands trains for the above.

Is that not correct?

At the moment, but think future.  Much higher frequencies freight and passenger, peak, counter peak and off peak will need improved paths.

Go and have a look and see what happens when the freight charge starts ... 

[somebody]

There is NO REASON to mess with those peak patterns unless and until trains to/via Corinda are leaving from Roma St 4/5.

Are you thinking of off peak?

[ozbob]

The argument trotted out about rolling stock is the maintenance requirements.  Just sayin' ...

What requirements is this? How does MTR hong kong do their maintainence requirements? Or Melbourne? Or Perth which has IDENTICAL trains.

No idea, but this is one of the reasons trotted out.  A number in heavy maintenance, some need maintenance in the off peak period,  running repairs and cleaning.

You may have noted that each day now there are problems even maintaining the present peak timetable as evidenced by a number of scheduled 6 car services being run as 3 car.

[ozbob]

There is NO REASON to mess with those peak patterns unless and until trains to/via Corinda are leaving from Roma St 4/5.

Are you thinking of off peak?

At the moment, but if you want to increase counter peak and accommodate increased services it will be needed, peak and off peak.  As I said, observation is the best teacher.  It is barely coping with the frequency now.  Throw in more freighters all gets very messy indeed and will be the end of any off peak increases.  Need to think forward ...  this has been the major issue with the rail network, stop gap thinking.

[somebody]

Rolling stock aside, counter peak can easily be increased without messing with the operating patterns on the Ipswich Line in either peak.

The reality is that you are incorrect on this point:

Trains to and from Springfield will need to stick to the subs. 

There are other ways this can be managed which are far more achievable than what you suggest.

[#Metro]

No idea, but this is one of the reasons trotted out.  A number in heavy maintenance, some need maintenance in the off peak period,  running repairs and cleaning.

You may have noted that each day now there are problems even maintaining the present peak timetable as evidenced by a number of scheduled 6 car services being run as 3 car.

How can we pump so much money into something that gives back so little!

[ozbob]

Rolling stock aside, counter peak can easily be increased without messing with the operating patterns on the Ipswich Line in either peak.

The reality is that you are incorrect on this point:

Trains to and from Springfield will need to stick to the subs. 

There are other ways this can be managed which are far more achievable than what you suggest.

Well lets agree to disagree and see what happens down the track hey?

By the way, have you ever been to Darra?

And PM peak:
- I/B via Oxley #3
- O/B to Ipswich via Oxley #2 (non-stopping)
- O/B to Richlands via Oxley #1 (stopping)

Trains coming off Richlands have multiple conflicts.  Running on the subs through to Sherwood removes all that.  I thought you would have seen that.

By having the UP sub for UP Springfield, down Sub for trains to City from Richlands (Springfield) a lot of conflicts are removed.  The absurd crossings from subs to mains and back to subs post Corinda are avoided.  This is turn improves train operations.  And will be important if you ever hope to have  4 TPH to Springfield. 

[ozbob]

Ask Queensland Rail Simon, I am sure you will enjoy the response.  You seem to have an insight that the operator doesn't.

What would be the point of that?  I would not believe the answer.

Great pity that comment.  If you don't engage how can you ever expect to properly understand.

Everyone else is wrong but you're correct?  Suggest you get off your soapbox and listen to others  for a change.  There other viewpoints than just yours, fortunately.

[ozbob]

No idea, but this is one of the reasons trotted out.  A number in heavy maintenance, some need maintenance in the off peak period,  running repairs and cleaning.

You may have noted that each day now there are problems even maintaining the present peak timetable as evidenced by a number of scheduled 6 car services being run as 3 car.

How can we pump so much money into something that gives back so little!

Under resourced for a long time it is all catching up.  The system and trains were flogged for around 5 years with under resourcing.  It is a long slow climb back to equilibrium ..