Re: [NSW] quality of trains on airport line

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

"Chris Downs"
> Tezza
> > "Chris Downs"

> > > 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.

Who said anything about any partners and anything they might have thought at
any previous time?


>  What passengers get now is relevant - stick to the topic at hand.

Which is exactly what I was adressing when I said it's irrelevant. They didn't
know what they were going to get so it wasn't an issue for them to not use it.


> > >  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.


Still a non-issue. Someone is not going to say or think "I'm not going to use
the airport station because there's a G set in Gosford".


> 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.

Except that nowhere have you stated about using better trains and cheaper
fares. Reduce the fares and people won't give a shit about the type of train,
they'll just weigh it up on convienience.


> > > > > 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.

I admitted I underestimated it. I'd never actually realised just how many
trains were going through there each day.


> > 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.

It's called reality. Argue the point, not the person.


> > > > > 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.

So we agree on-time running's not a problem for the AL.


> > > 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).

To ensure the AL ghost trains run on time. It's everyone else who suffers for
it.


> 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).

That's the price people have to pay for the Fahey/Baird contract. Not much
Cityrail can do about it.


> > > > > 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.

Never said they were.


> > > > > 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.

The figures for all other stations would put the lie to that. Passenger
numbers are up everywhere else since the Olympics, so it's the exhorbitant
surcharge for the ghost stations.

> >
> > > > > 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.

You made it, but with nothing to back it up.