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

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

"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.

Most of it's neater and more legible, but you've expanded from 13kb, to 19kb.
>
>
******************************************************************************
>
> > > 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.

Why is totally relevant. Why do you "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).
> >
> > 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.

I don't like profit taking over public service. I've yet to see a good example
of privitisation.


> 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.

What's best is for the government to talke over the stations and provide an
(almost) reasonably priced service to the public.


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

Haven't shown anything so far.


> > >  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.

Nothing blurred there, just more smoke from you when you been provred wrong.


> 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).

Stick to the point and stop blowing smoke. If you've got nothing worthwile to
add, delete.


> > > > 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.

More smoke, address the issue.


> What are you seeing, passengers on and off one train.  I get to watch
multiple
> trains at the one station

Something I see everyday, yeah.


> 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.

I'm not distracted by any other duties either, I count the people on the
platform as I come in and count the people getting off, it's not rocket
science. I see more complete trains during a more varied time span than your
limited experience.


> > > 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!)

It's something I got off you along with your smoke blowing. If you'd like to
go back, you inititiated the persononal insults.


> > > 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.

Address the issue, rather than insult and blow smoke. I spend a damn sight mor
time there than you do, yet don't get all these cancelled trains you do.
Ergo.......


> 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.

You said you had stats to back up what you were saing. You were saying some
crap about the AL. You didn't have any stats on the AL, therefore you were
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.

The subject was the AL.


> > 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.


> > 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.

> > > > > > 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.

Stop attacking me and address the issue.


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

That's what they already have, hasn't worked as well as the OTT which had
fewer, longer trains with greater headways and worked great which is why
they're going to implement as much of it as they can.


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

Adress the issue instead of attacking me. Snip what's not needed.


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

As was shown by the overcrowded 6 car sets, 8 car sets will obviously (and
did/do) work better.


> > > > 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?

Campbelltown and Central sounds good.

>  Which trains will service Wollstonecraft, Edgecliff, Arncliffe, Bardwell
Park, St Peters and
> Stanmore?

Hopefully a lot less than now. Might as well skip Bexley North altogether -
you weren't there Wednesday afternoon when I didn't stop were you?



>  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?

Anything between Campbelltown and Central?


> > > > > 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?

Their contract won't be renewed I'm told - thank Christ, they're useless.


> > 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.

Nah, I'd just delete it outright.


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

Not so, and the PTB disagree with you.



> > 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.

Proves my point of an unrealistic TT. Can't be adhered to, almost never is.


> > > > > (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.

Yet I said all these things on my own initiative, with no goading, some right
from the start.


> > > 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?

Saying it's a waste of money to buy the stations but instead continuing in
private hands and costing passengers unnecessarily when it could be taken over
and run properly, is definately negative.


>  You dream about the past (mentally undressing the original contract?),

Something Freudian there dare I say?


> try and focus on the present situation,

That's what I'm talking about.


> can you think of no better use for the $200m than to buy these stations.

Nope, solve all the problems this line has that others don't.


> 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.

Barely. Buy them and they'll service them much more and reduce the number of
cars on the road and reduce the cost of the Tollback scheme.


> > > 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?

NAB loses nothing no matter what happens. BTW, I couldn't give a shit about
that blood-sucker.


> > > 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?

The same as you uslesssly say - more short trains in a tighter unworkable
timetable. They have now realised the error of their ways.


> 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?

Just about. Fewer, longer trains, more headway between trains, longer
turnaround times and a TT that works, rather than one that looks good but
doesn't work real good.


> 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.

It's called not lying.