Re: [NSW] Chris' & Tezza's AL Diatribe (was: Carr blames Fahey for Airport Link bill)

["Chris Downs" <cvdowns@ozemail.com.au>]

Tezza <tezza2000@dingoblue.net.au> wrote in message
3a27afaa$0$29576$7f31c96c@news01.syd.optusnet.com.au">news:3a27afaa$0$29576$7f31c96c@news01.syd.optusnet.com.au...
>
> > and cancellations are a problem.
>
> Not on the AL.

Not any more on the AL that is.

> >  But we did run, not 1,000, not 2,000 but 3,000 trains we had no
obligation
> to run.  On-time running was
> > poor, cancellations (including Illawarra Local bypasses) were occurring
at a
> high
> > rate (maybe I saw all of the 5 cancelled AL trains - missed opportunity
to
> buy a
> > lottery ticket) but we gave you something for nothing!  Just a pity that
> passengers
> > value punctuality and vehemently dislike no-shows.
>
> Yet not one of the 100+ trains I've been rostered to take through there
has
> been cancelled.

So from your and my experience we can reasonably conclude that there were
some cancellations initially (first 2 or 3 months) and almost none now.

> > Oh and how are the extra 3,000 trains relevant again?
>
> Please try to keep up. If they were running more trains through there than
> they were required to, the on-time figures could well have been better
than
> network average.

Could be - what a valuable contribution.  Could be they were the same or
worse (now that covers each posibility).

> > > > Where do cancelled trains figure in the stats.
> > >
> > > Maybe they don't, I don't know. I do know they mattered to all the
regular
> > > passengers getting turfed out for non-existing passengers.
> >
> > I agree with you but of course you can't back it up.
>
> What, you want me to ring you each time a train is terminated and
re-directed
> to the AL? You want to talk the angry passengers yourself?

Not at all.  What you've done three paragraphs above is very good form, that
is be
honest about whether you know something for sure, or whether you make a
conclusion from some info, or you're making a guess.

> > Your whole negative approach (more of a Nezza than a Tezza to me) is not
> based on determining what
> > happened but game playing.
>
> I'm saying the on-time running has been good, you're saying it's bad, but
I'm
> negative?
>
> I'm saying the none of my 100+ AL trains have been cancelled, you're
saying 5
> out of your 6 have been, but I'm negative?
>
> You do understand the meaning of the word don't you?

You're confusing accuracy (what actually happened) with negativity (negative
statements made around the point rather than about the issue).

> > I try and draw a logical conclusion from what I have
>
> 6 trains was that? Glad you don't work for the Bureau of Statistics.

No it wasn't 6, there are more than enough references in my posts to add up
to
many dozens of AL trains that I've travelled or watched (negativity over
objectivity
on your behalf again).

> and state why (and will
> > always happily concede when clearly demonstrated to be wrong).  Your
> response is
> > I must be wrong but you can never justify why (or you can but chose not
to).
> > Definitely a Nezza, who needs to pursue truth when you can be a Nezza.
>
> See above, stop blowing smoke again.

On the "sectors" post I was wrong about S & R sets from sector 2 being based
at Mortdale (but I included a caveat in my original statement inviting
corrections
because I wasn't sure).  Ironically the posts of others supported my other
point
that sector 2 R-sets (and S-sets as it turns out) are "grottier" than sector
2 T-sets
because, in part, they're based at Flemo rather than Mortdale and get less
TLC.

We all blow smoke, yours is more poisonous.

> > > >  Again I'd love to see your figures that clearly show my
extrapolation
> > is wrong.
> > >
> > > I have never claimed to have any, unlike yourself who has several
times
> > > claimed to have stats to back up your claims, yet can never produce
them.
> >
> > Pleased to see my extrapolation (CityRail network stats + CityRail PR
> > comment on EHL and AL on-time running via media) is best evidence
> > available in this discussion then.  Nezza'd again.
>
> More smoke. You claimed to have fifures and then couldn't produce them so
you
> attack me instead of the argument.

I drew a conclusion from what I had which you say was wrong but can't (or
won't)
logically refute in any way.  The only reasons I can see for doing this is
you're
either a Nezza or you have a line to push no matter what.

> > > > I'm prepared to say why I believe something and quote why.  Why
don't
> > you?
> > >
> > > I have, constantly. I don't have a problem with you saying what you
> > believe, but when you keep claiming something as fact and you keep
claiming
> to have
> > > figures to back it up, but can't produce them, I won't let it pass.
> >
> > Smart move for somone who can't prove that anything I've concluded is
> > wrong - so typically constructive..
>
> I'm proving you time and again to be a bald-faced liar.

If I draw a conclusion from what I have observed and state that basis for
that
conclusion and I have nothing to suggest otherwise or I have no reason to
believe
otherwise, that's not lying (that is, a lie requires my intent to be
untruthful).

Conclusion, what I've said may not mean I'm right, doesn't necessarily make
me
wrong, certainly doesn't make me a liar.

Anyway I've got a beard (or a close approximation thereof) and from what
I've
seen of your idea of proof, it relies on confusion and failure to address
issues.

> > > > > > The TT needs a good work over, it's
> > just too demanding of sector 2
>
> > > > >
> > > > > Definately. They need to reduce the number of trains through the
ghost
> > > > > stations.
> > > >
> > > > That in itself improves service reliability how?
> > >
> > > Less trains, bigger margins, less flow-on delays. The Olympic
timetable
> > proved it.
> >
> > The excellent OlyTT proved how to deal with the Olympics transport task
and
> > what the Sydney System needs to run on a reliable basis.  Unfortunately
less
> > trains in peak hour is not an option (what do you do with the excess
> passengers?) and
>
> Put them in the fewer 8 car trains replacing the 6 car trains as has been
> proposed.

If only it were so simple.  How much more havoc a cancelled train causes to
passengers in such a situation.

No doubt you're right in some situations but applying this across the
network has an
impact on shoulder peaks.  For example this would probably require a half
hour
all-stations service on the EHL at the peak shoulders.  Not what travellers
(esp. commuters) need or want, .

A more reliable timetable is also dependent upon some infrastructure
improvements, maintenance solutions and service segregations to make it
work,
this is not a problem with a simple solution.

> > slower trains at peak hour is highly undesirable in maintaining
competitive
> > transit times.  Service segregation will help though.
>
> No use having a fast timetable that can't be kept to. The OTT showed
realistic
> TT's will work.

I agree but it needs to be attacked on several fronts not just by slowing
trains.  The
aim should be higher, a faster timetable that's reliable, not just a
reliable slow 'table.

> >  It removed too finely timed overtakings between Central and Turrella
which
> regularly see down EH
> > trains waiting at the sewer pipes for the overtaking Macarthur service.
>
> Another case of unworkable TT's.

No argument here although the unworkability comes from earlier in these
trains' travels
where the EH service is on-time but the Macarthur run is late.   But part of
the solution
(at hand) is four tracks to Kingsgrove.  Lets hope Kingsgrove gets a
separate terminating
road for that much needed EHL (& AL) flexibility.

> > > I didn't claim to have any "facts". Even during peak hours last week,
the
> > > numbers on and off didn't average out to 12,000.
> >
> > I agree you have no facts,
>
> And, unlike yourself have never lied and claimed I did.

So my 12,000 estimate against 12,500 tops is a lie?  Bullshit.

> > nor any desire to contaminate your opinions with them.
>
> If I had facts, it wouldn't be opinion.

"If I had facts.....".  I agree, if only you had facts (and an ability to be
more
reasonable/constructive), it would help no end.  This would be a
constructive
discussion rather than a bitch session.

> > Now you say that patronage was <12,000 (per day) last week.  I estimated
> > 12,000/day the other week and explained how (I would have put a + or -
> > 2,000 tolerance on my figures.  The figures were given at 12,500 tops
the
> > next day by ALC/CityRail (?).
> >
> > How do you arrive at below 12,000/day?
>
> Each time that I have been through and counted, (including early
afternoon,
> late afternoon, evening and night) counting the passengers getting on and
off
> my train, then multiplying by 256 (and there's a lot less on the later
trains)
> has never got near 12,000.

It suggests a sudden drop in numbers (unlikely if punctuality is now much
better
and cancellations are zip), or that your methodology doesn't reflect the
situation.
As loadings are nowhere near even throughout the day I took a multiple train
early PM sample and a multiple train PM peak sample and calculated an
average train figure thus:

"Today's 1358 Central to Macarthur
Green Square    4 off    1 on
Mascot                6 off    4 on
Domestic            15 off    6 on
International        11 off    5 on
(total of 52 early PM)

The following down trains at International were
12 off    4 on
15 off    4 on

Up trains around the same time (1415) at International were (offs may have
been higher, view obscured)
1 off    16 on
1 off     2 on
unknown off but 12 ons waiting

Returning home (1636 ex Bexley North - Central)
International    1 off    11 on
Domestic        1 off    22 on
Mascot            3 off    40+ on
(total of 78 exc. Green Square)

Next three trains at Mascot
2.5 min later    1 off    7 on
3 min later        1 off    10 on
6 min later        0 off    35+ on

Green Sq        1 off and 19 on (after 6 minute wait)

That's over 250 people watching 16 station stops (15 per stop).

Crude extrapolation of 15 per stop x 4 stops x 200 trains = 12,000
(ignoring 20% of trains for close running late night etc.)"

As I said, very crude, but I would have expected it to be within +or-
2,000 of the correct figures which it was.

Chris