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

["Experience Will" <experience@bigpond.com>]

Boring!
Chris Downs <cvdowns@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
xGwX5.3605$Vu1.63934@ozemail.com.au">news:xGwX5.3605$Vu1.63934@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.
>
>
>
>