Re: Cityrail Bashing #3

["Dave Proctor" <daproc@spambait.ozemail.com.au>]

Chris Downs wrote in message ...
>And an extremely simple system of course.  Two pairs of through lines where
>services without conflicting movements.  Melbourne and Sydney would perform
>equally well with such abundant infrastructure for their respective
>passenger loadings.

Not disputing that, and as I have said before, for the complexity of the
Sydney system, and the frequency of services, Sydney does extremely well in
the circumstances. I have no complaints about my service to Penrith (apart
from the fact we have too many R sets), and late running? Who cares, instead
of getting the train due in five minutes, you get the one due ten minutes
ago running fifteen minutes late.

Other lines may have cause for complaint, but the vast majority of Sydney
commuters, if they were being honest, would not.

Dave

>Chris
>
>Dave Proctor <daproc@spambait.ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
>news:1KiG4.142$d67.682658@news0.optus.net.au...
>>
>> Sam Eades wrote in message <38E9AD11.FC220A62@yahoo.com>...
>> >
>> >
>> >Dave Proctor wrote:
>> >
>> >> Eric Cartman wrote in message <8cc871$7mb$1@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>> >> >What rail system in Australia doesn't need "fine tuning"?
>> >>
>> >> Perth?
>> >
>> >All they need is a few more lines!
>>
>> True, but what is there is fantastic. 15 minute frequencies on all lines,
>> good connections, fast services just about always on time. Amazing what
>you
>> can do with a totally new system, isn't it!
>>
>> (All right, I know the tracks are not totally new, but the rest is).
>>
>> Dave
>>
>>
>
>