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

["Tezza" <tezza2000@dingoblue.net.au>]

"Chris Downs"
> Tezza
> > "Chris Downs"

> > > So you're saying that the AL was better than the network average
> >
> > It should have according to what I pointed out above. Also, according to a
> > recent report Cityrail ran 3,000 more trains through the ghost stations
> than they were required to.
>
> Bonus, "we" open the AL line, in the first months (very important for
> perceptions [or expectations]) we can't meet performance targets for on-time
trains for the
> network as a whole (no one have ever suggested, let alone said, that the AL
was
> better than the network average on on-time stats [not even you Tezza, you
assiduously
> avoid such a commitment])

> You're the one who claimed to have stats, not me.


> and cancellations are a problem.

Not on the AL.


>  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.


> 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.


> > > 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?


> 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?


> 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.


> 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.

> > >  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'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.



> > > > > 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.



> 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.


>  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.


> > 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.


> nor any desire to contaminate your opinions with them.

If I had facts, it wouldn't be opinion.


> 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.