POLL: Should we have via Tennyson services post CRRlite

[somebody]

After CRRlite is built, there would be 3 tracks through Moorooka and two platform faces.  The only ways that sectorisation can be achieved are by not running via South Bank trains through there, which would be a best practice option anyway.  That leaves either Yeerongpilly reversing or extending to Corinda.

This is important to be discussed now as we should decide what to push for in the sector 2 timetable review for the Beenleigh line.

Note: A Coopers Plains extension is not an option pre-sector 2 timetable review due to current timings on the Ferny Grove line
Note 2: Extending the promised Ferny Grove line trains to Manly would not have a 15 minute frequency in any possible scenario.

[#Metro]

Note 2: Extending the promised Ferny Grove line trains to Manly would not have a 15 minute frequency in any possible scenario.

Can you elaborate please?

[somebody]

Note 2: Extending the promised Ferny Grove line trains to Manly would not have a 15 minute frequency in any possible scenario.

Can you elaborate please?

Well, I suppose I am assuming that the Ferny Grove line still connects with the Beenleigh line.  If the Ferny Grove line trains come at :00, :15, :30, :45 and :00+:30 extend to Beenleigh and :15+:45 extend to Manly, then Cleveland trains cannot come at :00+:30

You could swap the line pairings, but that does have the unfortunate side effect that you increase the degree that the Gold Coast/Airport trains catch up to the Beenleigh-? trains, because there is an express zone north of the river as well.

[somebody]

Here are the patronage stats from 2010, based on my reading off the graph for the all day entries:

Station	Approx entries	AM peak boardings	Off peak boardings	Rank	Rank
	5:30am-20:30		Based on difference	Off peak	All day
Dutton Park	700	142	568	3	4
Fairfield	800	439	361	4	3
Yeronga	1500	505	995	2	1
Yeerongpilly	500	437	63	8	5
Moorooka	400	317	83	7	7
Rocklea	200	114	86	6	8
Salisbury	500	282	218	5	6
Coopers Plains	1300	446	1054	1	2

[somebody]

The same thing for the Ferny Grove line looks like this:

Station	Approx entries	AM peak boardings	Off peak boardings	Rank	Rank
	5:30am-20:30		Based on difference	Off peak	Peak
Ferny Grove	1800	2014	-214
Keperra	300	304	-4
Grovelly	800	581	219
Oxford Park	500	394	106
Mitchelton	1800	1327	473
Gaythorne	700	544	156
Enogerra	1300	626	674
Alderley	900	685	215
Newmarket	900	432	468
Wilston	600	463	137
Windsor	1000	661	339

Curious about the negative values at Ferny Grove and Keperra.  The latter could be rounding, but the former can only be explained by the surveys occurring on different days, even if neither is based on one day alone.

Totals:
Windsor-Ferny Grove = 2569
Dutton Park-Yeerongpilly = 1987
Dutton Park-Coopers Plains = 3428

Coopers Plains is a bit of an unfair inclusion though, with the Gold Coast trains also serving it.  I think it does show that patronage follows the services.

[somebody]

Roma St-Ferny Grove: 16.9km, 36 minutes.
Corinda-Sth Brisbane-Roma St: 10.8km, 21-25 minutes
Cooper Plains-Sth Brisbane (all stations): 14.4km, 25 minutes

If the Ferny Grove trains do not reach Yeerongpilly that would be a pork barrel.

[SurfRail]

I'm surprised BCC has not been pushing for this with their new business centre there.

[somebody]

I'm surprised BCC has not been pushing for this with their new business centre there.

At Yeerongpilly?  I haven't heard about that.

[techblitz]

http://www.couriermail.com.au/questnews/central/business-centre-opens-four-others-close/story-fn8m0qb4-1226439463918

[SurfRail]

I'm surprised BCC has not been pushing for this with their new business centre there.

At Yeerongpilly?  I haven't heard about that.

It's the big building right next to the new footbridge.  No doubt there will be extra development adjacent to it all through that area, flooding notwithstanding.

http://www.nearmap.com/?ll=-27.52429,153.01392&z=18&t=k&nmd=20120619

[Derwan]

Why would you deliberately run conflicting paths to service just one station?

[ozbob]

It is a bit more than just servicing one station.  It is a non radial connection between the southern and western lines.  There have always been connecting passenger services via Tennyson since the line was built (late 1800s), until the last few years. 

A failure to progressively upgrade the rail network meant via Tennyson was junked to save a few peak paths.

After CRR it makes a lot of sense to bring them back.  Could also be an option for the new FG off peak services as well.

I expect to see some peak Gold Coasters going via Tennyson in the next rewrite.  These won't be stopping though.

[somebody]

Why would you deliberately run conflicting paths to service just one station?

The only possibility which has less conflicting paths is reversing on Roma St #6.  All other movements have the same number of conflicting moves.  Some spread them between Park Rd and other locations - others have them all in one location.

I expect to see some peak Gold Coasters going via Tennyson in the next rewrite.  These won't be stopping though.

Are you still saying this?  Roma St #9 has few slots left.  Between 7:30am and 8:30am, there is only: 7:33am, 8:06am, 8:21am and 8:24am.  I'm sure they intend to leave these free to allow for future growth.  Besides, that would still have problems with Robina stabling yard being insufficient.

[ozbob]

QR have looked at running some GC services via Tennyson in the past.  Has always been a future option, I am not saying anything it is the official position.

There are concerns with consequential delays under the present timetables. 

I expect that the timetables (ALL) will be rejigged ...  you heard it here first! Expect more operational flexibility ala Metro Melbourne ..

[nathandavid88]

It is a bit more than just servicing one station.  It is a non radial connection between the southern and western lines.  There have always been connecting passenger services via Tennyson since the line was built (late 1800s), until the last few years. 

A failure to progressively upgrade the rail network meant via Tennyson was junked to save a few peak paths.

I've always thought that it was stupid that any existing rail infrastructure which is in good working order and can serve a useful purpose, would be abandoned due to to failing to upgrade it/integrate it into the new timetable. I've always felt that the Tennyson Line is a great piece of line because it allows that bit of flexibility that a lot of other lines don't, being able to route two separate lines via each other – have Ipswich Line services that stop at South Bank/South Brisbane, and Beenleigh Line services that that stop at Indooroopilly and Milton.

I personally think the question shouldn't be whether we should use Tennyson Line, but how will we make the most use of it.

[SurfRail]

I can't understand why you wouldn't want all lines from south of Yeerongpilly to use Cross River Rail.  There is plenty of room and it restricts the poor alignment from Park Road to the city to the only lines that need to use it (Cleveland and the remaining surface stations inbound of Yeerongpilly, whether you attach Tennyson to it or not).

[somebody]

I can't understand why you wouldn't want all lines from south of Yeerongpilly to use Cross River Rail.  There is plenty of room and it restricts the poor alignment from Park Road to the city to the only lines that need to use it (Cleveland and the remaining surface stations inbound of Yeerongpilly, whether you attach Tennyson to it or not).

Ditto.  Removing the double negative: "I can't understand why you would want lines from south of Yeerongpilly to use the surface path"

[Golliwog]

In a CRR 'Heavy' world, you probably would have all trains from south of Y'pilly use the tunnel. However, in a CRR 'Light' world, the Mayne junction isn't grade seperated and theres only so much you can do unless you're terminating most if not all trains at Exhibition/Roma St and running them back into the yard.

[somebody]

I don't really see the problem with doing precisely that.

[SurfRail]

I still think it is pretty much a fait accompli that Gold Coast trains will be using the tunnel.  It's the only thing in the near to medium term which will bring the speeds up and make it more competitive with the M1.  Inner city congestion already restricts the contestability of the inner Beenleigh line, plus you have the busway and surface buses too, so I doubt there would be as great a gain putting trains from say Kuraby to Yeerongpilly into the tunnel (although I certainly support that).

Even without grade separation at Mayne, is throughrouting Caboolture to Beenleigh, Kippa-Ring to the inner Beenleigh and Varsity to say Landsborough that much of a hassle that it becomes serious unworkable?

All depends on how much Cth funding is forthcoming...

[somebody]

Then where do the Ipswich & Richlands trains go?  They can't just turn around at Bowen Hills AIUI.

[Arnz]

^ You could at least say you're intending to break sectorisation with those pairings in that case.

Also, making people change at Central/Roma Street for GC is not a big deal as some people are making it out to be.  Especially if it's a cross-platform transfer if kept on the suburbans, or they have to take the escalator/lift down to the CRR platforms.

Many cities overseas does this without problem, especially from experience after returning from Singapore (their Airport line is a shuttle to Tanah Merah, terminating at a dock platform with cross platform transfers to both citybound and outbound trains).

[HappyTrainGuy]

I love it how all the options involve big pricetags to impliment.

RS is always going to be the major interchange hub.

[SurfRail]

Then where do the Ipswich & Richlands trains go?  They can't just turn around at Bowen Hills AIUI.

You would need an extra track pair between roughly the "hole in the wall" and a few 100 metres past the FG flyover so the CBD mains can be routed onto the sub tracks - plus a little bit of reconfiguration of existing tracks.  I think you could do this more cheaply than what they were proposing (which of course would have been better).  Through-routed trains from the west then feed into the airport, Shorncliffe and Doomben.  FG trains run to Cleveland, and everything else via CRR.

The only complication for the Bowen Hills area then is the extra track pair, being at grade, would interfere with access to the yard from the eastern side.  The original plan would avoid that but be more expensive.

The south-side is harder because there is still only a single track pair plus the DG track south of Yeerongpilly.

[somebody]

I never understood why they didn't do it that way all along.  I don't think that is part of the plan for CRRlite though.

[SurfRail]

I never understood why they didn't do it that way all along.  I don't think that is part of the plan for CRRlite though.

Probably not, but they will realise very quickly I think that you need something there.  Building a tunnel is no use if you can't actually access it without halving the possible frequency between the new and old track pairs.

[Gazza]

Still see no reason why regular GC trains (not saying all peak has to) cannot remain via bridge

Because GC trains have to suffer trying to run express along a crappy alignment (Esp around Fruitgrove etc) so taking the tunnel at least makes up for the crappy alignment in a more permanent way.

The needs of GC commuters on a day to day basis for faster trips are more important than a person on holiday flying in from BNE going on to the GC having to change trains once a year when they visit.

[Arnz]

Still see no reason why regular GC trains (not saying all peak has to) cannot remain via bridge

Because GC trains have to suffer trying to run express along a crappy alignment (Esp around Fruitgrove etc) so taking the tunnel at least makes up for the crappy alignment in a more permanent way.

The needs of GC commuters on a day to day basis for faster trips are more important than a person on holiday flying in from BNE going on to the GC having to change trains once a year when they visit.

+1 from me.

Making the tourists change to a GC train by taking the escalators or the elevators down isn't a big deal as some people make it out to be. 

Also, with GC Airport having it's own flights to Asia (through various Low Cost Carriers such as AirAsia and Scoot), I would think the BNE-GC tourist traffic would've gone down since then.  Also there is the smaller MCY airport 90km up the highway on the Sunny Coast for LCC domestic and tran-tasman flights (Runway is only limited to 737/A320s)

[somebody]

I raised similar a while back that a 3rd pair of tracks should/could run parrellel from the Ekka line along side the existing tracks using the existing bridge then merge with mains before Albion. This would enable trains on the mains to shuttle across to suburban.

However the extra pair of tracks would take a dive next to Mayne to enable easy access for traffic from Mayne to Mains. A Dive is not cheap, but hardly expensive either, cut and cover.  Dive would start prior to BH on Ekka line where there is ample room.

If the only reason yo want Grade seperated access from Suburban lines to Ekka and ultimately tunnel, then maybe just need to think about the train routing, ie branch pairs instead. Seems alot of money just to get the GC-AP train to cross a pair of tracks. Still see no reason why regular GC trains (not saying all peak has to) cannot remain via bridge and let the suburban BL, Kuraby and future GB trains use the tunnel.

regards
Shane

Edit: Thinking some more, ok yes you need more of the Tunnel traffic on Suburban Line to avoid freights. Perhaps the above proposed DIve could actually continue under the Mains as well. Shift the Mains on to the two spare bridges and one Suburban onto the Mains bridge and then the Dive tracks pop up using one track on each of existing bridges then merge after. This could be all be done easily with trains to rolling.

Actually, the old plan had the viaduct looping around the Ferny Grove flyover and connecting to the mains.  It didn't make any sense.

[Gazza]

(not saying all peak has to)

One stopping pattern all the time please.

Again, people on the GC are enitled to be able to turn up at the station and know that it's consistent...In fact, post CRR all lines should aim for the same stopping patterns all the time (Eg Ipswich full time express)

[somebody]

(not saying all peak has to)

One stopping pattern all the time please.

Again, people on the GC are enitled to be able to turn up at the station and know that it's consistent...In fact, post CRR all lines should aim for the same stopping patterns all the time (Eg Ipswich full time express)

I can live with a certain level of variation e.g. outside of peak, and counter peak, Ipswich trains should always serve Toowong.

[Arnz]

(not saying all peak has to)

One stopping pattern all the time please.

Again, people on the GC are enitled to be able to turn up at the station and know that it's consistent...In fact, post CRR all lines should aim for the same stopping patterns all the time (Eg Ipswich full time express)

Would also depend on infrastructure requirements to achieve that goal for the lines requiring regular express running. 

If infrastructure not provided, there would have to be a small variation on various lines, as seen on the Sunshine Coast Line going from 2 patterns (a off-peak and peak pattern) to about 5 patterns.