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

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

Tezza, your advice was followed, hope it works.  Ta.

******************************************************************************

> > 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?

Because my mother lives in Bexley North and I visit her once a week (good son
that I am) - but you & I digress; why is totally irrelevant.

> > 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?

I don't think you have the foggiest.  You have an opinion (appears to be, hate
private enterprise involvement - your invective aimed at ALC and Flour Daniel
seems to confirm that) and try and make reality fit your world.  Try starting
without presumptions, apply some actual analysis and see what result you
arrive at.  Your approach to this matter is like that of the Coalition Govt
that signed the contract - so intent on having a particular outcome (private
involvement in the AL) that they forgot what's best and screwed it for all
involved.

As to how do I know what's going on, see previous posts.

> > 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.

No figures just hyperbole, Tezza tactic #1.

> >  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.

Be simplistic and blur an issue, Tezza tactic #2.

> > 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.

Now you're agreeing with my previous point.  To reflect on something which has
happened (and poorly) may be being realistic without being negative.
Referring to "Westies" in your Bondi post, that's negative (deliberately
antagonistic/destructive).

> > > 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.

Don't think outside the square, Tezza folly #1.

What are you seeing, passengers on and off one train.  I get to watch multiple
trains at the one station providing a better idea of passenger flow
(minimising any anomaly whereby there is either a 3' or 15' gap between
trains).  I also have the a better opportunity to count as I watch the
arrivals and then only have to do a quick count of people off the train.  Try
both techniques and see which is better.  And of course I'm not distracted by
other duties.

> > 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?

Use an irrelevant personal insult - Tezza tactic #3.  (and a repeated one at
that, if you must repeatedly be rude at least try something original each
time!)

> > 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.

Never happened to me, it doesn't happen at all - Tezza folly #2.

As you repeatedly say, they don't do it now and I agree they don't do it now
(or at least very infrequently). When the line opened it was a not uncommon
occurrence.

> > 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.

Not an indicator problem when the train doesn't arrive, the indicator just
reflects that the train will not run that day (ie. it's been cancelled).

> > > 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.

One of the Dave's immediately knew which stats I was referring to.  You
didn't, that's fair enough, but you insist that I'm lying.  I can only
conclude that it suits you to believe I was lying.

My original comment was (extracted from multiple responses - 25/11/00)
"CityRail may now but that appears to be a very belated reaction to their
contractual commitments.  The on-time stats from May 2000 and leading up to
the Olympics tell a truer and much sadder story.".  Now where did I say these
were AL stats or anything other than network stats?  At the very worst the
comment was ambiguous, however Dave (?) knew what I was referring to.  You
(wrongly) assumed that I referred to AL stats alone.

> > > 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.

See above re your incorrect assumption.

> > > 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.

Ditto re your flawed assumption.

> > 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.

Boring - when you assume you make an ASS out of U and ME - bingo!

> > > > > 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.

Everything is black and white - Tezza folly #3.

Try looking for the shades of grey or a bit of colour.  A blend of train
lengths to match demand balanced by capacity constraints.

> > However elegant proof of your negative approach
>
> I say the OTT is good', that's positive. You say it's bad, that's negative.

No I actually said the OTT was excellent (you actually deleted my words to
produce your reply above, extraordinary).  I also said that the OTT has
limited applicability to CityRail's normal weekday operations.

This is a newie - if it don't help my case, delete it - Tezza tactic #4.

> > (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.

You've just reiterated the (incorrect) assumption you made from my initial
comment.

> > 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?

So what's your reasoning for remarshall all trains as 8 car sets when they
will less likely match demand?

> >  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.)

A definite improvement: C+.

> > 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.  Negative would be something along the lines of {apologies in advance}
"These problems are all because of women and curry muncher drivers.".  My
comment was what  is called constructive criticism.

> > > 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.

Do you intend these express trains to stop anywhere?  Which trains will
service Wollstonecraft, Edgecliff, Arncliffe, Bardwell Park, St Peters and
Stanmore?  And if trains servicing these stations aren't all stations
services, where are they going to and which stations would they skip along the
way?

> > > > 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.

RSA + RAC appears a goer, yes (but lets hope they do a tad more than just
amalgamate the 2 bodies).  As for sacking Fleur Daniel, which of McInerney's
recommendations was this?

> > > > 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.

Well perhaps rather than skip the detail we should take this discussion off
aus.rail and e-mail direct.  No intention to impose this suggestion upon you,
its your call.  I'd prefer this as your trimming strikes me as rather
selective.  (Mr Oliver reasonably suggested so in his post -although
ironically that does make a 3rd reader - over to you.)

> > > 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.

Very realistic (why I've even got copies of it).  However it was only suitable
for
the Olympics.

> > > > 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.

Which was quite possibly delayed by the previous C'town/M'thur service.  Same
old problem on the EH/M'thur line, too much 2 track, not enough 4 track nor
terminating roads.

> >  > > 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.

You've started being constructive, as I said that's good.  Sad that you had to
be goaded into it.

> > 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.

Looking to save taxpayers $200m is negative?  You dream about the past
(mentally undressing the original contract?), try and focus on the present
situation, can you think of no better use for the $200m than to buy these
stations.  Buying the stations should be a last resort (although NAB will call
the shots on that one thanks to JF & BB).  Sadly the Coalition stuffed it for
all.

As for the $200m (if there's no greater demand), how about 4 tracks Turrella
to Salt Pan Creek and the grade
separation of Illawarra junction for starters rather than acquiring 4 stations
CityRail already services.

> > 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.

And what/who else suffers because $200m is lost to NAB?

> > 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.

What were these people that "matter" doing since 1992 then?  Each timetable
post the Jan '92 Ross Sayer red rattler retirement special has used a measured
blend of 4, 6 and 8 car trains.  Have they seen the light since 1/10/00 and
now believe there's only one way forward - 8 car trains for all?

I'll believe the all (or very near all) 8 car timetable when I see it as I
think it will have significant disadvantages; but I'll wait and watch on-time
running, patronage figures etc. with interest should it come to pass.  I won't
condemn such a timetable solely because it doesn't suit my thinking, why hell
I may be totally wrong on the matter.

> > > > 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.

I don't think you have claim to terribly much (at least things of substance)
at all.

Attack other's detail but avoid detail myself - Tezza tactic #5.

Chris

P.S. Don't forget to consider the off aus.rail option (solely to save those
precious bytes of course).  If it matters to you, you have the last word and
then we'll take it off aus.rail.