Re: [NSW] quality of trains on airport line

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

Tezza <tezza2000@dingoblue.net.au> wrote in message
3a1bd89c$0$18135$7f31c96c@news01.syd.optusnet.com.au">news:3a1bd89c$0$18135$7f31c96c@news01.syd.optusnet.com.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.

An apology from nothing, good self preserving psycology.

> > > >  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.

What the partners thought some time ago is irrelevant.  What passengers get
now is relevant - stick to the topic at hand.

> >  Why would YOU use inferior rolling stock when
> > better is stabled elsewhere?
>
> Except that apparently it's not. Read David Johnson's reply.

I read David's response to relate to suburban stock, not G sets stabled at
Gosford and where ever around Wollongong.

> >  > > 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.

Ever thought of working in marketing - grotty trains + cheap fares will
attract as many passengers as clean trains + the same cheap fares.  Goes
against the marketing principles of all other transport operators, CityRail
must be unique.

> > > > 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.

Or as opposed to <1,000 - your original highly educated and very methodical
estimate.

> > > > 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.

I can hear marketing calling you.

> > > > 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.

For State Rail/CityRail to resort to such frequest transpositions is
indicative of how poor on-time running is in sector 2 generally.  Ironically
this is the one thing the ALC is in no way responsible for.  Reliability
will however help build repeat business, it is a critical element to public
transport sucess.

> >  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.

I'd agree with that but direct services to AL from everywhere are not
practical, there's insufficient service separation between sectors now.  And
that's just part of life that the AL will have to live with.  CityRail
suburban services will move to more frequent services on trunk routes with
greater use of interchhnges, the trick is to make interchanging as easy as
possible (unlike South Coast to AL).
>
>
> >
> > > > 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.

It wouldn't be an issue if trains ran on time and transpositions aren't
required (which you advise they regularly are).  The value of an on-time AL
service is diminished by the rest of the network being unreliable
(especially if most passengers aren't from the city, again as you say).
>
> >
> > > > 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.

And the first 3 certainly aren't the fault of the ALC.  Delayed travellers
gain no solace from knowing that there train was not delayed by CityRail but
by a SR or RAC problem.  It's thoroughly irrelevant to them.  Each body
needs to keep its house in order and talk to each other (that's one problem
the Carr Govt is responsible for).

> >  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.

Actually many more than 36,000 aren't.  the 48,000 projection was nothing
more than it's name suggests.  The ALC got it wrong, mainly with fares, but
the resultant bad publicity for the plethora of other problems (CityRail's,
RAC's SR's) has also kept people away.
>
> > > > 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.

Moot point then.