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
3a2a4403$0$19407$7f31c96c@news01.syd.optusnet.com.au">news:3a2a4403$0$19407$7f31c96c@news01.syd.optusnet.com.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.

Let's see - once a week Central to Bexley North and return.  Disembark at
one AL
station each way and watch 2 or 3 trains pass in each direction.  That's
about
2 trains/week or 6 months x 4 weeks x 12 trains(observed) = 288 (approx).

>From your 100+ above it appears I have a far better analytical view of the
line's
operation than you do (certainly backed up by our respective patronage
estimates,
my initial >10,000 versus your initial <1,000 per week day).

> > 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.

So you think a bad service was a good thing, your idea of positive.  Or
denial of
an initially poor service is a positive thing.  No, acknowledging it and
fixing it
is a positive thing.

Your negativity is found in your approach to many matters on aus.rail.  If
you
don't agree you apply negativity to try and prove your point.

> > > > 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, my 288 (approx) vs your 100+.  Makes me more accurate by your
"numbers" reasoning.

As for "how do you watch a cancelled train?" (not that I used this
expression):
1.    Central platform 22/23, your EH via AL service is changed to 1st stop
Turrella
(and travels via Sydneham) ie. all AL stops have been cancelled (or do you
have
a euphemism for this type of cancellation?);
2.    Your AL service is announced as ".......cancelled for today only" -
you watch
the empty space;
3.    You're waiting at an AL station and your trains "disappears" or is not
shown
at all on the platform destination indicators (probably a #1.) - you watch
your train
disappear from the board and not arrive.

> > > 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.

The stats are CityRail's (system wide) along with CityRail's admittance that
AL
performance was poor.  You chose to assume (foolishly) that my stats applied
to the AL only (again solely to justify your position).

> > > 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.

Your misrepresentation again.

> > 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.

Good reasoning.  So Eintstein (no delusion here of comparison with this
genius)
when he postulated E=mc2 (pardon lack of superscript) was a liar even though
he used reasonable deduction to arrive at the formula and was later proven
correct?

So you don't like my conclusion (and my reasoning and sources) but you're
incapable of refuting it in any substantive way other that using a coverall
of
"liar".  Try harder.

> > 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?

Useless because it's wrong, it's right or you just don't like it?  And I
still believe
".....your idea of proof, it relies on confusion and failure to address
issues."

> > > > 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.

What an extrapolation, 2 cars sets be buggered!  However elegant proof of
your negative approach (also illustrates how you assumed I was quoting AL
stats
when I made no such claim).

My logic says match supply as closely with demand as is possible (available
carriages, track, diagramming, crew rosters etc.).  Even this timetable is
fine
when all goes well.  The problem is it's fragile (especially sector 2) and
on-time
running goes to pieces too easily.  One problem with more recent timetables
is
that a higher level of integration has crept back into the suburban network
services and this is a bad trend, delays snow ball too readily.

> > 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.

How do you intend to provide these expresses in addition to all stations
trains
at the peak shoulders when you run less trains overall because you have
fewer,
albeit longer, trains?  Your timetable in the making appears to be a
paradox.

> > 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.

If that's your only strategy god help us all.

Joining RSA and RAC is useless unless they improve their dealings with
State Rail/CityRail, and that's only for starters.

> > > > 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.)

Are really that disingenuous as to truncate my reply?  A win at any cost, so
honourable.

> > 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.

The OTT was great for the big O.  It doesn't address normal peak needs from
Campbelltown via EH, the west or main north by a long shot however.  8 car
trains
everywhere suits 3 peaks a day with higher than usual off-peak loads, it
does not
suit Sydney's weekday 2 peaks a day travel patterns.  And isn't all 8 car
trains a
back to the future (Jan '92) approach.  Admittedly we have more trains but
that
timetable's faults were too few peak shoulder trains, something CityRail
when to
great lengths to fix (with extra Tangaras and 6-car trains) in subsequent
revisions.

> > 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.

And that may well be because the EH train was held for a preceding and late
C'town/M'thur service.  The EHL's inadequate infrastruture compounds delays
because one late running train usually effects the following one or two
services in
peak hour (3 for the price of 1).

 > > 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.

The "stats" you keep erroneously referring to (and insist I lied about) only
relate to
on-time running issues.  The only figures I've ever used for patronage have
been
my own extrapolation and those given in the media.

Anyway, done to death re your wrong assumption.

> > > > 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.

I stated what my stats were and the basis of my conclusions.  I didn't lie,
you
just made a wrong quantam leap in your assumption.

> > (and an ability to be more reasonable/constructive), it would help no
end.
>
> Reduce fares - constructive.
> Buy back the stations - constructive.
> Reliable timetables - constructive.

In a most simplistic sense they're all constructive, its just that they
could be so
much more constructive.

No dount lower fares will be better for patronage but the Govt. should not
have to waste $200m to rectify the results of a dud contract.  The Govt.
needs
to work with the NAB's managers to strike a better (lower) fare level.  If
$200m
is required what's the bet it will come from rail budgets elsewhere (a
disasterous
outcome)

Reliable timetables is constructive but your more detailed approach
(rejigged
OTT with almost all/all 8 car trains) will miss the mark for what's needed
in
Sydney.

> > > > 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.

Surely you're not suggesting that high fares are not the only impediment to
increased travel?  First marketing, wow, next it could be train presentation
and then reliability (and of course reduced fares will help immensely).

> > 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.

Doesn't make them accurate (is this where I should apply your strategy and
assume [for no good reason other than it might suit my ends] that you
literally
mean all drivers and then state that you're lying.  I'll read nothing extra
into
your statement however and take it as all the drivers you've spoken to
rather
than all drivers - a reasonable approach.).

As to these opinions, ever heard of the expression counter intuitive?
Detailed analysis produces a different result to that from what you
"logically"
expect from what you see/know/assume.

I'd suggest you pinpoint a flaw in my calculation and assumption that
arrived at
12,000/day and explain why it's so wrong.  The initial figures I obtained
are
accurate and the proportion used is reasonable.

Chris