BaT - Bus and Train project (was UBAT, was no CRR)

[#Metro]

Goodness me, maybe WE should be speaking at the BDA! We could charge entry fees! 

Not much hope - looks like another smoke and mirrors noisefest which will result in no physical infrastructure actually paid for.

Very concerning also the previous talk The Cleveland Solution ---> http://www.bda.org.au/files/pictures/BDA%20-%20270212.pdf

Have a read of the "myths" versus "facts" GHD makes. They would have to build the system at the extreme / higher end of tolerance specifications.

Why do I feel all this cross river rail hoo-ha is actually currying up a plan to re-present the Cleveland Solution again as an alternative to CRR?
The Lord Mayor has far too much influence on things totally outside his own scope and jurisdiction IMHO.

One thing they got right is the integrated versus direct network scheme. Irony is that forcing train passengers to transfer is Ok, but on bus it is not. Hypocrisy.

[STB]

Funnily enough, I was speaking to my local MP (LNP) and he did mention that the Cleveland Solution was something they were thinking of going back to.

[ozbob]

Despite the assertions, the Cleveland Solution is way undercosted.  And why wouldn't they project it favourably?   More jobs for the boys.

Let them build it.  Be kind of special ... 

The alternative is to cut Cleveland back to shuttles - Park Road.  All solved then ..

During the Commonwealth Games they might just have to do that, as I don't think there will be much happening between now and then ...

It is clear I think that the Government/TransLink intend to keep the lid on peak patronage by continuation of high fare control - might be some improvements off peak though.

[somebody]

This is interesting ...

http://www.bda.org.au/events/2012/the-inner-city-rail-the-solution

Talk fest at Tatts on 28 Mar 2013

The Newman Government understands the critically important role that passenger rail will play in supporting the next phase of growth within the CBD, and expects:

"Over the next 25 years, the population in the inner five-kilometre ring surrounding Brisbane's CBD will grow by about 50 per cent, or an extra 90,000 residents. At the same time, the number of workers needing to enter the city each day will double from 200,000 to 400,000."

With a number of exciting new developments planned within the CBD, including the catalyst 1 William Street project, set to increase demand for travel to and from the CBD, the passenger rail network will play an increasing role in supporting commuter, tourist and visitor travel.

The Hon Scott Emerson MP, Minister for Transport and Main Roads, will provide an update on the Newman Government's strategy to deal with capacity constraints on our rail network and the prospects for the Brisbane Inner-City Rail Solution over the next two decades.

His presentation will also touch on longer term planning for public transport bringing high capacity and high frequency services to Brisbane to further support the unprecedented inner-city population and employment boom.

Indeed it's interesting, but they want $125 to attend.

Funnily enough, I was speaking to my local MP (LNP) and he did mention that the Cleveland Solution was something they were thinking of going back to.

That's pretty disgraceful.

[ozbob]

Re platform 4 Park Road.   Does anyone know the background to its construction and why it is such a cluster f****?

Assume something to do with the Gold Coast line?

[petey3801]

Re platform 4 Park Road.   Does anyone know the background to its construction and why it is such a cluster f****?

Assume something to do with the Gold Coast line?

I thought it was just a typical QLD infrastructure project 
But seriously, i'm not sure about the circumstances that it was built around. Could certainly be to do with the Gold Coast line though.

[ozbob]

Yes, thanks Petey.

The Queenslander factor no doubt has played a major part ... 

I am wondering how hard it would be to salvage.  Gauntlet track perhaps?

[somebody]

Running down wiki references gets you this seemingly highly placed reply: http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/qrig/message/21646
And this railpage thread: http://www.railpage.com.au/f-t11303122-next.htm

[#Metro]

The issue has been raised in this forum before. The platform curve / tilt is unsafe apparently, hence it's non use.

[ozbob]

Hmmm  thanks Simon.  Even more intriguing as it seems to have been built primarily for 3'6" QR ...

[ozbob]

The issue has been raised in this forum before. The platform curve / tilt is unsafe apparently, hence it's non use.

That is the standard response from TL/QR, I am endeavouring to find out why it was built as is, and what can be done to salvage it ... 

[SurfRail]

I know it has definitely been used as a terminus for the XPT when access to the CBD has not been possible and when it was thought this would be better than just running to Casino only and putting people on a bus to Kyogle and Roma Street.

I suspect that is why there are still boarding ramps stowed down the southern end of the platform.

[mufreight]

Yes, thanks Petey.

The Queenslander factor no doubt has played a major part ... 

I am wondering how hard it would be to salvage.  Gauntlet track perhaps?

The design was apparently done by TMR who could not get their head around the requirements of the swept path of the SG rollingstock so they took the easy way out with the low level platform and additional horozontal clearance, they could have raised the platform height to carriage floor height, almost common between the SG and NG rollingstock and put a lower speed limit on the curve which would have given them a 175mm or thereabouts horozontal gap for the NG rollingstock and a minimal clearance for the SG rollingstock, in the region of 75 to 90mm.
In other words some interlectual pigmy in TMR messed it up.

[ozbob]

Do you think it could be made operational mu?

[mufreight]

Do you think it could be made operational mu?

A major rebuild is the only option but it is feasable but the naysayer experts would complain about the horozontal gap, for mine better even a 200mm horoxontal gap to the existing 260mm horozontal gap and a 425mm vertical step up which leaves a gap large enough to throw a politician or TMR engineer through.

[BrizCommuter]

Hey first-time poster here,

Been very interested to read attitudes towards CRR, and never fails to disappoint me how Australians on-the-whole (especially QLDers) do not understand how fantastic a great public transport system can be for day-to-day life and the entire economy. Having been to cities like Shanghai, Beijing, Paris and Singapore, I can really appreciate why it is so crucial for a great public transport system here in SEQ. I also dont believe the 'too sparsely populated' argument, while we wont see 4-min train intervals all day, there is no reason that 10mins, and even 5 mins at peak, is not viable. I do think that a properly implemented CRR would be a great help, I also think that the Libs will win the next election and we wont see it until Labor gets back in again (hopefully sooner rather than later - we cant afford to wait any longer).

While I cannot think of a proper-fix, one possibility I thought of is based on the Singapore MRT change for the short-hop to Changi Airport. My idea was to have the Beenleigh line terminate at a redesigned Park Road. If Platform 4 could be redone so boarding was on both sides (similar to Platform 2/3 already), you could have the Beenleigh line terminate at the Platform 3/4 Stop and passengers going into the city would exit on the right (Platform 3) and board the awaiting GC/Cleveland train at Platform 2. Meanwhile, passengers from the City on the GC line will arrive on Platform 4 and disembark and board on the left side of the train which will return to Beenleigh. The only difficulty would be passengers who board a Cleveland bound train would exit at Platform 1 and climb over to Platform 3/4 to board the Beenleigh Line. To compensate for the reduction in capacity over the Merivale, the Cleveland Line and Gold Coast line can have an increased capacity to equal the previous capacity, so thereby giving more overall capacity on those two lines up until Park Road and then maintaining capacity between Park Road and Roma Street, not to mention that the Beenleigh line can be increased since it doesnt have to cross the Merivale.

While passengers on the Beenleigh line would undoubtably whinge, if the timetable could be set up so there was always a train waiting for them (so only an extra 2 mins on their travel time + they only have to walk across a platform (not up and over)) then any complaints would quickly disappear. This would also solve the issue of GC trains not stopping at Park Road, which is absolutely absurd, the number of UQ Staff/Students that get off at South Bank and rush to the busway to catch the overcrowded 109 back through Boggo Road to UQ Lakes, is ridiculous. Park Road + Busway serve as a great link to UQ and should not be neglected.

While I am not sure exactly what potential train movements over the Merivale are, I would envisage a timetable that would see (off-peak):
2ph - All Stations to Manly
2ph - All Stations to Cleveland
2ph - Express to Manly, all stations to Cleveland (stopping at Morningside)
4ph - Express to Beenleigh, all stations to Varsity Lakes (stopping at Loganlea and Yerrongpilly)
2ph (FUTURE) - Express to Beenleigh then express to Coomera (or Helensvale) - Nerang - Robina then all stations to Coolangatta

That gives 12ph crossing the Merivale, so at most, Beenleigh-line passengers would be waiting 6mins for a train at Park Road into the city.

I realise my plan likely has many flaws in it, especially in the timetable section, and would like to know what they are

Sorry to be critical of a first time poster, but there a few flaws.

For starters, why do you only want 12tph crossing the Merivale Bridge when it can handle 20tph (and currently handles 19tph in the am peak - approx. 4tph from Gold Coast, 7-9tph from Beenleigh Line, and 7-9tph from Cleveland Line)?

Also, what happens when 800 passengers have to exit their train from Beenleigh at Park Road, and the next train to get them to the city only has space for 200 passengers?

Also, the Gold Coast/Beenleigh Line and Cleveland Line cannot handle your proposed service patterns in both directions due to lack of tracks.

[#Metro]

Also, what happens when 800 passengers have to exit their train from Beenleigh at Park Road, and the next train to get them to the city only has space for 200 passengers?

Catch the bus 

[HappyTrainGuy]

Plenty of empty buses going to the city each day. Maybe it might be smart to make a bridge between the train and bus platforms at South Bank.

[somebody]

For starters, why do you only want 12tph crossing the Merivale Bridge when it can handle 20tph (and currently handles 19tph in the am peak - approx. 4tph from Gold Coast, 7-9tph from Beenleigh Line, and 7-9tph from Cleveland Line)?

He did specify off peak.  Not sure why though.  Merivale Bridge easily handles off peak demand.

[minbrisbane]

Plenty of empty buses going to the city each day. Maybe it might be smart to make a bridge between the train and bus platforms at South Bank.

Even now I don't think that's a bad idea. 

[somebody]

Plenty of empty buses going to the city each day. Maybe it might be smart to make a bridge between the train and bus platforms at South Bank.

Even now I don't think that's a bad idea.

Huh?  There's already a subway.  You need to cross a road, but it's not a difficult road to cross.

[BrizCommuter]

Also, what happens when 800 passengers have to exit their train from Beenleigh at Park Road, and the next train to get them to the city only has space for 200 passengers?

Catch the bus 

...and that'll be 12 buses!

[#Metro]

...and that'll be 12 buses!

Which is why South Brisbane termination would be more useful than park road termination due to the proximity of the victoria bridge and the CC busway, where buses come every 30 s and 50% are empty, even in peak.

For the record, pre-1979, passengers stepped off the train at South Brisbane, and caught a tram

[#Metro]

See

[HappyTrainGuy]

It would be interesting to know would it be possible to send 330/333/345/444 etc to start/finish at the station itself. Maybe other terminating services for example the ones that return express from CC back to the Chermside interchage/northside depots to make up a new South Brisbane station to Roma Street station via busway service? That way you walk out of the station and straight onto a bus to the city. Its during peak hour only so there are alot of empty buses that just head empty back to the Northside. I think some even come from as far as the Southside for the 77/340 runs (Always see the shorter 'fin' buses coming off Albion road heading for the northside). Squeezing an extra lane would be tough... maybe remove the footpath on the QPAC side?

[Golliwog]

It all depends on what you can do with the traffic light phases. You'd probably have to remove some of the traffic islands in the intersection, but for buses heading from South Brisbane station onto the busway towards QSBS, you'd just have them go formthe general traffic lanes at the same time as when Grey St heading north gets a green straight ahead and right turn arrow. Though given the busway, I don't think there's a large portion of time where that occurs. Turning left from CC to South Brisbane is where it gets a bit more complicated because you will basically end up with a duplication of what happens with West End vs Melbourne St portal buses, but as long as you synch it with the lights that allow buses to go left into Melbourne St portal, it shouldn't be toooooo terrible. Though if you changed the set up so you no longer had any buses turn right from the busway onto Grey St to go to GoMA/lay over then you could switch the lanes about so what it currently a straight through lane becomes a left turn lane and what is currently a right turn lane becomes a straight through lane.

But this would probably make the intersection more congested for both cars and buses as you'd basically I think have to squeeze in another traffic light phase into whats already a pretty tight rotation.

[SurfRail]

Short answer would be "no" I think.  For a start, you would need to be able to swing around and drop off in front of the station on the same side for there to be any advantage.

The best way to fix the problem would be an overbridge from the concourse level or from QPAC directly over Grey St to the station entrance.  Probably not going to happen because it smells too much like in-ter-mo-dal in-ter-chan-ge...

[HappyTrainGuy]

You could get around the traffic light cycle problems by removing traffic from the area during peak hour only. For example during peak hour only traffic won't be allowed from Grey Street to Merivale street via Melbourne street. It also has the benefit of improving access to and from the busway. Buses terminating at the CC can go left to the station without blocking the busway to go right. West End bound buses could then use the non busway part of Melbourne street which prevents them blocking access to those going onto the busway. Build a new access road from the station directly to the busway and operate it similar to the intersection for buses coming off Queens Warf road.

Red: Terminating services (so your 330, 333, 345 etc)
Blue: West End services (199, 196, CC etc)
Yellow: Southern Busway Services
Green: Pedestrian crossing
Orange: Vehicle traffic.

[James]

I don't think you have to worry about too many buses.

CRR was to have a station down near George St/Botanical Gardens? Why because alot of people work down there.

The southern end of the city and the area around the Casino are now a short walk across the river and had a office view of same on George Street. I did this 10 years ago on a morning peak and there was more than a small crowd existing the train. The alighting numbers on the survey show that 10-15% get off at these three stations PR to Sth Brisbane.

Run two trains, one from each of BL and CL, arriving and terminating at Sth Brisbane between 8:00 and 8:40 (or maybe just two from BL if the CL train cannot get to the 3rd platform at Sth Brisbane but one from CL would be better). Need to build a double siding shunt neck at the nth end of Sth Brisbane station and you are done. The masses will sort out the rest.

If a Nth bound double shunt neck is not possible. Perhaps one set could be stored on the SG converted to DG.

This has been touched on prior, but I would be more inclined to terminate two Gold Coast trains between 8:00 and 8:40. Gold Coast trains run over the Merivale half-full, and having a half-full train move onto another train is smarter than having a full train move onto another train (less time, less room required for people to wait etc.) Trains coming from Beenleigh should also run express Kuraby - Yeerongpilly via the DG. This one-seat journey combined with express running should be enough to get Beenleigh commuters off GC trains as well. The only issue with this is implementing it (especially in PM peak) would generate the mother of all conflicting moves, along with requiring the construction of more points. My thoughts were (assuming no South Brisbane terminators - yet):

Beenleigh/Gold Coast Line
5tph Beenleigh - CBD, express from Kuraby to Yeerongpilly stopping only at Coopers Plains (express could be shortened a bit, Yeerongpilly - Park Road for standees)
5tph Kuraby - CBD, all stops (the reason for this is a lot of patronage between Fruitgrove and Sunnybank is absorbed by BUZ 130/140/150)
4tph Varsity Lakes - CBD, express from Beenleigh to South Bank, terminating at South Brisbane.

Cleveland Line
4tph Cleveland - CBD, express from Manly to Morningside
6tph Manly - CBD all stops
(Ideally there should be a 5tph split for both, but single track on the outer Cleveland line restricts this).

If there is the capacity to send 24tph over the Merivale, keep the GC trains going over the bridge, and as capacity from BL/CL is required, start terminating them at South Brisbane. The reason for the uniform patterns is because I also think Sector 2 needs an expansion of express patterns, along with speeding expresses up - especially along the Beenleigh line.

Terminating GC trains should lessen the need for bus, but as SurfRail mentioned, I think a bridge or an underpass would be the best way of doing things. I see buses going to the doorstep of South Brisbane station as a way to cause chaos to be honest. Interchange should be encouraged at South Bank. The bus/rail network along that corridor should have enough capacity to cater for around 400-500 passengers/Gold Coast train. If not, an extra bus can be put on, simple.

[somebody]

You could get around the traffic light cycle problems by removing traffic from the area during peak hour only. For example during peak hour only traffic won't be allowed from Grey Street to Merivale street via Melbourne street. It also has the benefit of improving access to and from the busway. Buses terminating at the CC can go left to the station without blocking the busway to go right. West End bound buses could then use the non busway part of Melbourne street which prevents them blocking access to those going onto the busway. Build a new access road from the station directly to the busway and operate it similar to the intersection for buses coming off Queens Warf road.

Red: Terminating services (so your 330, 333, 345 etc)
Blue: West End services (199, 196, CC etc)
Yellow: Southern Busway Services
Green: Pedestrian crossing
Orange: Vehicle traffic.

That would require another phase in the traffic light cycle at Grey/Melbourne, unless I'm missing something.

Better to just send West End bound in the general purpose lane over the Victoria Bridge.  Saves traffic light phases to the west.

[techblitz]

Which is why South Brisbane termination would be more useful than park road termination due to the proximity of the victoria bridge and the CC busway, where buses come every 30 s and 50% are empty, even in peak.

Funniest thing ive heard all day.... Damn those empty 150,140,200,222,111,130,120,100,180,160 buses coming through the cc at peak.

Please outline the 50 percent of routes to back up that claim LD.
Tralink classes empty as 5 or less pax.

[somebody]

Which is why South Brisbane termination would be more useful than park road termination due to the proximity of the victoria bridge and the CC busway, where buses come every 30 s and 50% are empty, even in peak.

Funniest thing ive heard all day.... Damn those empty 150,140,200,222,111,130,120,100,180,160 buses coming through the cc at peak.

Please outline the 50 percent of routes to back up that claim LD.
Tralink classes empty as 5 or less pax.

I think he meant 50% empty on average - which is the official figure.

[#Metro]

I agree with simon

[techblitz]

more believable...cant argue with the official TL stats.
I would bring that percentage down even more however as there are a lot of pax boarding at mater/southbank/gabba.
I see more  'moderate/high' patronage levels from the TL review than 'LOW' which clearly shows that these buses are filling up after the CC and leaving around the 50 percent full mark.

BCC as a starting point should first focus on the routes that are less than 20/30% full once they leave either gabba or mater.Then work their way up towards the busier routes.Seems like the gabba is the only suitable termination spot.Any others?

[nathandavid88]

Just to throw another option out there, we're all focusing on ways to easily transfer pax from South Brisbane Station to the Cultural Centre, but I think there is another option that hasn't been considered: Cleveland trains do pass Buranda which is already well connected to the busway station and is serviced by a multitude of buses, including the 111, BCC's new peak 111 clone the P163 and the Paris Hilton Rocket, among others.

Would it be worth terminating all the Cleveland trains at South Brisbane, but encouraging CBD bus transfers to the 111, P163, Paris Rocket, etc at Buranda, with South Brisbane the train interchange point? Just a thought bubble that came to mind. 

[somebody]

Issue with terminating GC trains is they run to airport and there are contractual issues that maybe at play here.

"are" "maybe" eh?

Reality is that we don't know either way.

[nathandavid88]

Issue with terminating GC trains is they run to airport and there are contractual issues that maybe at play here.

"are" "maybe" eh?

Reality is that we don't know either way.

We do know that QR are contracted to run services to the airport, so if they do terminate the GC trains it will have knock-on effects on other lines (Ipswich line most likely) as the services need to come from somewhere. QR might see that change as causing more trouble than it's worth...

[James]

Issue with terminating GC trains is they run to airport and there are contractual issues that maybe at play here.

"are" "maybe" eh?

Reality is that we don't know either way.

We do know that QR are contracted to run services to the airport, so if they do terminate the GC trains it will have knock-on effects on other lines (Ipswich line most likely) as the services need to come from somewhere. QR might see that change as causing more trouble than it's worth...

Simple. Through-route the train that takes its place.
e.g. Current timetable, GC train arr. South Brisbane 8:18am
New timetable, GC train terminates South Brisbane 8:17am, BL/CL train arr. South Brisbane at 8:18am to take remaining passengers.

A GC train terminates, than one minute after a BL/CL train arrives to take remaining City-bound passengers. This train can just continue to the airport instead. The only issue I see is toilets - some of these trains may continue to the GC, meaning an IMU needs to go on a suburban run for most of AM Peak when it could be better used on the interurban lines. Sending trains from Ipswich to the Airport is as bad as sending GC trains via Tennyson. Conflicting moves and significantly decreases reliability.

[nathandavid88]

Simple. Through-route the train that takes its place.
e.g. Current timetable, GC train arr. South Brisbane 8:18am
New timetable, GC train terminates South Brisbane 8:17am, BL/CL train arr. South Brisbane at 8:18am to take remaining passengers.

A GC train terminates, than one minute after a BL/CL train arrives to take remaining City-bound passengers. This train can just continue to the airport instead. The only issue I see is toilets - some of these trains may continue to the GC, meaning an IMU needs to go on a suburban run for most of AM Peak when it could be better used on the interurban lines. Sending trains from Ipswich to the Airport is as bad as sending GC trains via Tennyson. Conflicting moves and significantly decreases reliability.

...but why terminate the GC train? Why not terminate the CL or BL train instead and move those patrons onto the GC train? On the face of it, I would argue for terminating the Cleveland line, and then (if possible) pairing the Shorncliffe and Doomben lines going via the Ekka so that a service from Shorncliffe to Doomben via Roma Street only passes the inner city stations once. There's probably issues doing this though, seems to always be the case.   

[SurfRail]

I think any talk of terminating any trains at South Brisbane is pure foam.

The bridge is capable of taking 24 trains per hour with the right stuff.

We should be talking about wrong-roading over the bridge and terminating/originating trains at Roma Street, if anywhere. 

Have a look at the transport plans for the new Perth Stadium for some real, actual discussion of this in practical terms (ie using excess capacity on the outbound Armidale line track to get trains back from the stadium station to Perth and beyond).