Re: [NSW] quality of trains on airport line

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

"Chris Downs"
> Tezza
> > "Chris Downs"
> > > Tezza <
> > > > > > The Campbelltown Tangaras are out every weekend, but as I said
> people don't know what train they're going to get so it's not a real issue.
> Regular commuters will of course get used to getting a certain class and
> get upset about getting something worse.
> >
> > > You're dodging the issue Tezza.
> >
> > As you can see I adressed what I knew about it. I didn't dodge anything at
> > all.
>
> Perception is as real as it gets in this fickle world.

I accept your apology.


> > >  Why stable better trains and run those in
> > > worse condition?  This is (or was) an issue on weekends if not weekdays.
> >
> > Ask whoever rosters the trains.
>
> My question was aimed at you for your view that using poorer rolling stock
> is a non-issue to travellers.

When they didn't know they would possibly get poorer rolling stock, of course
it was a non-issue.


>  Why would YOU use inferior rolling stock when
> better is stabled elsewhere?

Except that apparently it's not. Read David Johnson's reply.


>  > > Using the best available trains is about maximising the chance of
> repeat business.  This may not be a significant factor at International
station
> but it is at the other three stations where many users are (or would be)
> locals and regulars.  Grotty trains plant the seeds of doubt about security,
> > > maintenance and reliability.
> >
> > These are the very people who would already be used to the trains and
> wouldn't avoid the rip-off stations because of it.
>
> I have no evidence to contradict you, but I assume (please correct me, but
> only if I'm wrong) your evidence is your dogma.

As is yours.


> > > On the issue of usage (or lack there of) cost is a significant factor
> but hardly the only one.  Once you have someone travelling,

> > Which they won't do with rip-off prices.
>
> 12,500 won'ts that is too.

As opposed to the 48,000 expected.


> > > train presentation,
> >
> > I don't think that's really an issue for casual users.
>
> Of course it's an issue.  Look at how obsessive people can be about, car
> types and cleanliness, mobile phone covers, dress................. (or my
> obsession about this argument).  Its all back to perception and poor
> perception is a killer in this world.

But, again, when people don't know what they're going to get, it's not an
issue at all. In 30 years, I've *never* had someone tell me they wouldn't
catch a train because of presentation (or lack of ties David). They may whinge
about it (quite rightly), but if they want to catch a train, they will.


> > > ease of changing trains,
> >
> > That's obviously a problem and a hard one to remedy.
>
> On-time trains help.

The AL trains must be near 100% with all the other trains they've transposed
to run through there to keep the timetable.


>  It's as easy now as it's ever going to get at Central.
> Good planning means that you can travel from any City Circle station direct
> to the AL (except for 50% of weekend trains - bung another hurdle on the
> path).

If you happen to be going to the International terminal terminal maybe. Most
users of AL stations I would claim are from elsewhere.


>
> > > late running trains,
> >
> > Again, I don't think that's really an issue, remember you're supposed to
> > check-in 2 to 3 hours before departure.
>
> Not domestic, book in time is 30 minutes.  A late (or cancelled) train can
> mean a missed plane or close call and extra stress - perception rears its
> ugly head once again.
> CityRail's on-time standards, if maintained however, are appropriate.

It's not an issue then.

>
> > > cancelled (or Illawarra Localised) trains, signal and point failures,
> > inadequate publicity,
> >
> > That's another fault of the owners of the stations.

>
> Whoa - how the hell did you arrive at that conclusion (you didn't skip the
> first three stations, I mean first three points did you)???

Giddyup- Cancelled trains are not the *fault* of CityRail.
Signal failures are not the *fault* of CityRail.
Point failures are not the *fault* of CityRail.
Before today I would have said that "inadequate publicity" was not CityRail's
fault, but apparantly they had certain requirements under the bodgy baird
contract.



>  On the fourth one you are right although CityRail's AL sign explosion
indicates second
> thoughts on their policy.

See above.

> > > negative
> > > publicity (and no doubt other factors such as the TVMs) can easily turn
> > > passengers off further usage if not managed well.  Having made the
> decision to travel initially a passenger is a good part of the way to having
> decided that the service does represent value for money.
> >
> > Except that they're not making that initial decision.
>
> 12,500 a day are.

36,000 aren't.


> > > Thanks to the last NSW Coalition Govt we're stuck with the
> public/private partnership and the attendant cost structure.  Why throw a
single
> further unnecessary obstacle to encouraging repeat usage?
> >
> > I haven't seen any reports on repeat usage. They can't get initial usage
> due to rip-off prices.
>
> I hearby report my repeat usage.  6 return trips to Domestic since opening
> and many more to come.

One passenger doth not a railway make. Again, I say, I haven't seen any
reports on repeat usage