Terms of use Privacy About us Media Contact

Author Topic: Targeted stabling facilities for additional trains  (Read 4424 times)

Offline ozbob

  • Administrator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 96904
    • RAIL Back On Track
Targeted stabling facilities for additional trains
« on: June 26, 2012, 03:07:59 PM »
Discussion on ' Constructing targeted stabling facilities for additional trains at locations that reduce junction conflicts and improve capacity '.
Half baked projects, have long term consequences ...
Ozbob's Gallery Forum   Facebook  Twitter

somebody

  • Guest
Re: Targeted stabling facilities for additional trains
« Reply #1 on: June 26, 2012, 03:09:24 PM »
More storage at Robina is absolutely needed!

Beenleigh, Ipswich, CAB and Cleveland line probably need something too.

Offline SurfRail

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8212
Re: Targeted stabling facilities for additional trains
« Reply #2 on: June 26, 2012, 05:07:43 PM »
More storage at Robina is absolutely needed!

And oh so easy to do.
Ride the G:

Offline HappyTrainGuy

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4969
Re: Targeted stabling facilities for additional trains
« Reply #3 on: June 26, 2012, 05:14:24 PM »
More storage at Robina is absolutely needed!

And oh so easy to do.

+1. QR are very good when it comes to stabling/locations however funding has been a royal pain in the ass when they actually go about it.

somebody

  • Guest
Re: Targeted stabling facilities for additional trains
« Reply #4 on: June 26, 2012, 05:16:15 PM »
Who do we blame for going in to Redbank before finishing Robina?

Offline ozbob

  • Administrator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 96904
    • RAIL Back On Track
Re: Targeted stabling facilities for additional trains
« Reply #5 on: June 26, 2012, 05:20:35 PM »
Who do we blame for going in to Redbank before finishing Robina?

I think Redbank was done because it is handy for maintenance as a one of the reasons. Another was that no room at Ipswich and cut down on dead running.

The thing I noticed about Redbank was there was no real public announcements, media, statements or anything much.

Only our little thread effectively.
Half baked projects, have long term consequences ...
Ozbob's Gallery Forum   Facebook  Twitter

Offline Arnz

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2428
Re: Targeted stabling facilities for additional trains
« Reply #6 on: June 26, 2012, 05:24:53 PM »
Moving Nambour stabling to one of the proposed/suggested locations near Yandina, also stabling south of Beerwah (to get rid of the 2x 6-car IMUs that are stabled at Caboolture each night).

The existing Nambour stabling iiirc, was earmarked for a 2nd through Nambour platform in a proposed Nambour station upgrade from 2 platforms (1 dock and 1 through) to 3 platforms (2 through and 1 dock layout)
Rgds,
Arnz

Unless stated otherwise, Opinions stated in my posts are those of my own view only.

Offline HappyTrainGuy

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4969
Re: Targeted stabling facilities for additional trains
« Reply #7 on: June 26, 2012, 05:45:39 PM »
From what I've heard Redbank was brought forward to offset the new mtce facility (won't have stabling for mtce anymore - pinching trains from Ipswich/Redbank/dead run sets for mtce) along with helping out the mains and said dead running freeing up paths.

Offline Golliwog

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5042
Re: Targeted stabling facilities for additional trains
« Reply #8 on: June 27, 2012, 12:29:55 AM »
It's not exactly new stabling, but I believe the release also mentioned it being targetted to reduce conflicts. This I believe would support the addition of access to Mayne stabling to allow empty services heading to Ferny Grove to get onto the line without having to run around the exibition loop and through the city and vice versa. IIRC, they have been looking at this (I saw something up here a while ago) but no idea where the idea is up to or where it sits in terms of cost-benefits.
There is no silver bullet… but there is silver buckshot.
Never argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

somebody

  • Guest
Re: Targeted stabling facilities for additional trains
« Reply #9 on: June 27, 2012, 08:25:26 AM »
Many excellent proposals in this thread.  This aspect is something we should strongly support.

Offline SurfRail

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8212
Re: Targeted stabling facilities for additional trains
« Reply #10 on: June 27, 2012, 10:23:19 AM »
It's not exactly new stabling, but I believe the release also mentioned it being targetted to reduce conflicts. This I believe would support the addition of access to Mayne stabling to allow empty services heading to Ferny Grove to get onto the line without having to run around the exibition loop and through the city and vice versa. IIRC, they have been looking at this (I saw something up here a while ago) but no idea where the idea is up to or where it sits in terms of cost-benefits.

Also extremely easy to do.  Just needs a Y-link here where the existing track goes into the back of Mayne from the flyover.  The land is vacant, although I am not certain who owns it.
Ride the G:

somebody

  • Guest
Re: Targeted stabling facilities for additional trains
« Reply #11 on: June 27, 2012, 10:37:39 AM »
Wouldn't there be issues with points on a curve there?  I guess there are other options - making the outer track always towards Windsor with the inner one towards Bowen Hills.

Offline SurfRail

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8212
Re: Targeted stabling facilities for additional trains
« Reply #12 on: June 27, 2012, 11:14:49 AM »
Wouldn't there be issues with points on a curve there?  I guess there are other options - making the outer track always towards Windsor with the inner one towards Bowen Hills.

I can't see any major issues if it's the same profile as the opposite existing track from the flyover.  Just pop in a flat junction in the Windsor direction between here and Lutwyche Road, for use by out of service trains coming back from Ferny Grove.

We are talking out of service trains going almost always in the counter-peak direction, so the speed and crossing issues should not be a massive issue for the likely task required of the line. 

It is certainly better than slingshotting trains all the way through the city and the Ekka loop.
Ride the G:

Offline Golliwog

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5042
Re: Targeted stabling facilities for additional trains
« Reply #13 on: June 27, 2012, 11:53:55 AM »
I think that vacant land might already be QR owned? I haven't gone through there and paid too much attention to where the fence goes though.

The only thing that might make this further down the list in terms of useful for peak hour, is that I believe in peak, most/all PM peak empties from FG only run dead to Bowen Hills before forming a new service, and vice versa in the AM peak, most/all are Bowen Hills terminators. However, during the start/end of peaks is when this would be most useful.
There is no silver bullet… but there is silver buckshot.
Never argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Offline Golliwog

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5042
Re: Targeted stabling facilities for additional trains
« Reply #14 on: June 27, 2012, 01:24:57 PM »
I'd just add that in terms of outstabling, the only place I could see this potentially happening on the FG line would be adjacent to Newmarket station. Anywhere else and resumptions would be required which would be expensive and most likely unpopular.

The downside to stabling at Newmarket is that it isn't really much closer than Mayne so doesn't do much for dead running. I also believe that due to the corridor being wider here than closer to Alderley it may be later considered if the Trouts Rd-Exhibition tunnel ever happens as a tunnel portal location.
There is no silver bullet… but there is silver buckshot.
Never argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

somebody

  • Guest
Re: Targeted stabling facilities for additional trains
« Reply #15 on: June 27, 2012, 01:31:36 PM »
I think the ICRCS had this one right.  Just not actioned.

Offline david

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 522
Re: Targeted stabling facilities for additional trains
« Reply #16 on: June 27, 2012, 09:42:29 PM »
Perhaps some stabling at Corinda to assist with Springfield/Richlands? Or if its too noisy - Tennyson?

somebody

  • Guest
Re: Targeted stabling facilities for additional trains
« Reply #17 on: June 28, 2012, 07:23:36 AM »
Perhaps some stabling at Corinda to assist with Springfield/Richlands? Or if its too noisy - Tennyson?
Clapham seems pretty close.  They've recently gotten rid of some sidings at Corinda, so I guess that's unlikely to be reinstated.

Offline ozbob

  • Administrator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 96904
    • RAIL Back On Track
Re: Targeted stabling facilities for additional trains
« Reply #18 on: June 28, 2012, 07:25:59 AM »
No room at Corinda, the old yard is now a works depot.  Also have the UP sub loop.
Half baked projects, have long term consequences ...
Ozbob's Gallery Forum   Facebook  Twitter

Offline ozbob

  • Administrator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 96904
    • RAIL Back On Track
Re: Targeted stabling facilities for additional trains
« Reply #19 on: June 29, 2012, 10:01:30 AM »


Media release 29 June 2012

SEQ: Train stabling upgrades need to proceed rapidly

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 has welcomed the announcement by the Minister for Transport and Main Roads including improved stabling being a priority (1).

Robert Dow, Spokesman for RAIL Back On Track said:

"The current Queensland Transport and Roads Investment Program 2010–11 to 2013–14 document (2) suggests that Mayne to Ferny Grove is the only stabling associated upgrade which is planned."

"While this upgrade is welcomed, there are many other worthy projects.  In particular the half-baked upgrade to the Robina stabling facility which was planned to be upgraded from a 5 space to a 10 space facility but cut back to a 7 space facility to save what could only be a small amount of money, could be quickly expanded as much of the work has already been done. This half-baking is the reason why the 5:10am ex-Bowen Hills to Varsity Lakes train, largely a positioning move, cannot be re-timed to 8:46pm where it would delay the onset of hourly frequency by a further hour and surely carry many times what it carries currently.  Similarly, without the stabling upgrades, the proposed increased shoulder peak services cannot be provided."

"An urgent stabling upgrade at Yandina should be considered, where it would prevent the need to stable at Caboolture and Nambour, and reduce freight capacity on the single track.

"Clapham is another proposed and useful stabling location which would also assist with increased service between Roma St and Park Rd counter peak, as well as Kuraby and Richlands trains.

"The final missing piece of the puzzle is Banyo, which would prevent the need for Shorncliffe trains to position via Roma St."

"Train stabling in appropriate locations can reduce the need for out of service running and we are supportive of the current government focusing on this."

References:

1. http://www.scottemerson.com.au/media-releases/panel-delivers-rail-capacity-options.html

2. http://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/About-us/Corporate-information/Publications/Queensland-Transport-and-Roads-Investment-Program/Queensland-Transport-and-Roads-Investment-Program-2010-11-to-2013-14.aspx

Contact:

Robert Dow
Administration
admin@backontrack.org
RAIL Back On Track http://backontrack.org
Half baked projects, have long term consequences ...
Ozbob's Gallery Forum   Facebook  Twitter

 

Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 


“You can't understand a city without using its public transportation system.” -- Erol Ozan