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

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

"Chris Downs"
> Tezza

> > > and cancellations are a problem.
> >
> > Not on the AL.
>
> Not any more on the AL that is.

Haven't been from day one - except for your 5 of your 6 trains. I think that
says something.


> > 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.

I would say there's been bugger all at all. I can't say there haven't been
any, but when I'm through there on a regular basis and you're not, I think my
experience would be more accurate.


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

Not at all. I'm positive Cityrail have done a good job in the circumstances,
whist you continue to be negative about it.

> > > 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).

Nothing negative about the issue there at all, just pointing out once again
that you're absolutely full of it. I'll stack my 100 against your 30 any day.
BTW, how do you watch a cancelled train?

> > 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).

I couldn't care less and never said a word about it.

> > 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.

You claimed to have stats that backed you up and when I called your bluff you
folded and started attacking me and blowing smoke.

> > 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).

So when you didn't have any stats to back up your claims when you said you
did, that's not lying? It is in my book.


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

When you claim to something you don't have, that makes you 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.

Like you just did with that totally useless sentence?

> > > 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.

The OTT proved otherwise and under normal running there's even more spares to
bring into operation. Your logic says turn them all into 2 car sets.


> 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, .

No, they want express, the last thing they want are all stations.


> 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.

Join RSA and RAC, sack Fleur Daniel - easy.


> > > 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

Great! (it's like extracting teeth.)


> 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.

A reliable *realistic* TT. No use putting out bullshit TT's  that can't be
adhered to. The OTT was realistic, so it could be adhered to. In fact the OTT
could be sped up, there was too much time around the key whereas the current
15 minutes during peaks isn't enough, nor is the 10 minutes from Bondi
Junction.


> 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.

Most delays are actually the opposite. The Campbelltown and Macarthur trains
almost always catch the East Hills all stations.


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

Your claim to have stats that you didn't have was a lie.


> > > 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

But I don't and have never claimed to have, unlike yourself who lied and said
you did.


> (and an ability to be more reasonable/constructive), it would help no end.

Reduce fares - constructive.
Buy back the stations - constructive.
Reliable timetables - constructive.


>  This would be a constructive discussion rather than a bitch session.

If you wouldn't take so long to admit you were lying and know nothing, it
wouldn't be so boring.


> > > 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.

Numbers have actually picked up with all the publicity.


> 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:

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

They must come to see you, all the other Drivers tell me the same thing.