Re: [NSW] quality of trains on airport line

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

Tezza <tezza2000@dingoblue.net.au> wrote in message
3a1d062d$0$19420$7f31c96c@news01.syd.optusnet.com.au">news:3a1d062d$0$19420$7f31c96c@news01.syd.optusnet.com.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?

I thought your earlier reference was to ALC/CityRail agreement on rolling
stock to be provided, obviously not.

> >  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.

Don't know what I'm getting, I wouldn't buy (and I'm not as fussy as the
average bear).

> > > >  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".

Of course they won't think that, they won't even know that.  If not a
regular rail traveller they will judge the service by the train they do
catch however.  So again, why on weekends would you offer a less appealing
train (when better is sitting in a siding elsewhere) unless you want to
deter passengers?

> > 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.

Train presentation will always matter to people (dredge out letters to the
editor from Sydney's papers in may and June this year for confirmation of
that - there's plenty).  It may be the difference between only carrying the
passengers that have no real choice and those that can chose.  Why would you
deliberately using inferior rolling stock when better is available.  You
either don't care about maximising passengers numbers or you too play
devil's advocate?

> > > > > > 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.

I can't argue about that which you deny exists, that is passenger
perception.  Would you seriously try to market the line without using the
best trains available?  Because that's what you saying is appropriate at
weekends.

> > > > > > 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.

For the last 2 out of 7 months yes.

> > > > 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.

For a transpotion to be required a train must be late initially.  The
initial late train is not an AL issue.  And of course a reduced service will
further assist patronage.

> > 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.

Same as previos point.

> > > > > > 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.

Too far to go back to check the parts you've since snipped.

> > > > > > 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.

Passengers numbers are up the AL post Olympics too.

> > > > > > 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.

I'm astounded that you think only fares matter and all else is irrelevant
(or should I interpret something else from what you say).  Most (probably)
all other railways around the world acknowledge fares are important (both to
attract and manage passenger numbers) but they apply considerable emphasis
to the perception of safety, train and station presentation, and on-time
running.  I don't see Sydney as being any different.

You are right, significantly reduced fares will see vastly increased usage.
The other factors I mention, if well managed, will see it increase even
further, isn't that the aim here?

Chris