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

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

Each time I reply to this crap, I trim the hell out of it to try and cut down
the size of it. Your reply was 11K, I got it down to 8, your next reply had it
back up to 15! Please go to your tools/options/send/news sending format/plain
text settings and select autowrap and set it to 78. It will make things so
much easier. That's actually for 5.5, but 5.0 shouldn't be too much different.

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

> 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.

Why?

> That's about 2 trains/week or 6 months x 4 weeks x 12 trains(observed) = 288
(approx).

If you observed them, then they obviously weren't cancelled. So, you go
through twice a week and I go through 5 to 20 times a week. Hmm, who would
know what's going on?


> 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).

As previously stated, I had never counted passengers and I didn't know then
just how many trains were pointlessly stopping at the ghost stations.


> > > 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.

It's been a good service. I'm being positive, you're being negative.


>  Or denial of an initially poor service is a positive thing.  No,
acknowledging it and
> fixing it is a positive thing.

Are you sure you're not at university? You really have a few reading and
comprehension problems. I have never said that anything bad is good. I'm
saying the service has been good, that's being positive, you're saying it's
bad, that's negative.


> 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'm realistic.

> > BTW, how do you watch a cancelled train?
>
> See above, my 288 (approx) vs your 100+.  Makes me more accurate by your
> "numbers" reasoning.

You're only seeing a miniscule part of each of those train journeys, I'm
seeing the entire journey.


> As for "how do you watch a cancelled train?" (not that I used this
> expression):

I did. Cooking dinner in your aluminium saucepans are you?

> 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?);

It's called a transposition, they run another train in it's place. They cancel
other trains every day to run through the AL.

> 2.    Your AL service is announced as ".......cancelled for today only" -
> you watch the empty space;

Still on 22./23? Gee, all the hours I spend there every week and yet it's
never happened while I'm there.

> 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.

Sounds like an indicator problem.

> > 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).

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


> > 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.

You said you had stats to back up your claims - you didn't have them - you
lied.

> > 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?

You said you had stats to back up your claims - you didn't have them - you
lied.


> 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.

I don't need to, you're caught red-handed. You said you had stats to back up
your claims - you didn't have them - you lied.


> > > 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."

What's a beard got to do with anything? Mind wandering again?


> > > > 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!

You say fewer, longer trains is bad, ergo, more shorter trains is good. Make
up your mind, if possible.


> However elegant proof of your negative approach

I say the OTT is good', that's positive. You say it's bad, that's negative.


> (also illustrates how you assumed I was quoting AL stats when I made no such
claim).

We were discussing the AL. You said you had stats to back up your claims. You
couldnt produce them because you didn't have them - you lied.


> My logic says match supply as closely with demand as is possible (available
> carriages, track, diagramming, crew rosters etc.).

Gee, why didn't anyone else ever think of that. What the hell do you think
they do now? Another example of me being positive - which leaves you where?


>  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.

Because it's over-optimistic and unsustainable. It needs to be relaxed (Me
being constructively positive.)


> 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.

Is that you being negative? I better not agree with you.


> > 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.

Could've sworn I said the last thing people want are all stations trains.


> > > 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.

And yet it's happening - even been reccomended by a judge. You really are out
of touch. A little less trainspotting might be in order.


> > > I agree
> >
> > Great! (it's like extracting teeth.)
>
> Are really that disingenuous as to truncate my reply?  A win at any cost, so
> honourable.

I have to trim as much as I can, you're making the post too big.


> > 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.

I never said use it, I said it was realistic.


> 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.

Useless if it doesn't work, any timetable has to be realistic. Passengers are
much happier when their train arrives on time.


> > > 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.

Delayed by the preceding EH 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.
>
> The "stats" you keep erroneously referring to (and insist I lied about) only
> relate to on-time running issues.

Doesn't matter what they related to. You claimed to have them when you
didn't - you lied.


> Anyway, done to death re your wrong assumption.

You got caught out lying.


> 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.


You claimed to have stats to back up your claims regarding the AL when you
didn't - that's a lie.


> > > (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.

Never happy are you. I disprove your claims about me never being constructive
or positive and you blow each time.


> 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.

Stop being negative, it's not a waste. It should have been spent in the first
place and kept the whole kit and caboodle in public hands.


> The Govt. needs to work with the NAB's managers to strike a better (lower)
fare level.

Crap. Why subsidise a private company with a deal that still leaves the
taxpayer forever out of pocket, when the problem can be rectified straight
away. The ALC wants what you want, Cityrail to lower it's fares while they
still reap a profit. Better to take control outright.


> 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.

Yet anybody who matters disagrees with you.


> > > 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.).

I'm not claiming to have stats on the number of Drivers that have told me that
I don't have.