Re: [NSW] quality of trains on airport line

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

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

> > > 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.

I don't mean this as an insult but.... are you still in school/tech/uni?


> > >  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).

But normal people just assume they're getting a train and that's it.


> > 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.

At last.

>  If not a regular rail traveller they will judge the service by the train
they do
> catch however.

So therefore, the type/state of train can't be an issue as to whether or not
they use the rip-off ghost stations.


>  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?

As you've already been told at least twice, they're not.

>
> > > 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).

That's *regular* passengers having a well deserved whinge. Nothing to do with
non-users of the ghost stations.

>  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.

Once again, for the slow of learning,... blah, blah, blah.



>  You either don't care about maximising passengers numbers or you too play
> devil's advocate?

You use the long distance trains for the long distance passengers.


> > > > 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.

I haven't said a word about perception, but about expectation.



> > So we agree on-time running's not a problem for the AL.
>
> For the last 2 out of 7 months yes.

What are the figures for both periods?


> For a transpotion to be required a train must be late initially.  The
> initial late train is not an AL issue.


So again we agree it's not an issue.


>  And of course a reduced service will further assist patronage.

It will?


> > >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.

So your above statement is wrong then.


> > > > 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

I haven't said all else is irellevant, I've said exhorbitant fares are the
main reason.


> 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?

Yes. The best outcome is if the company forfeits and the government is forced
to buy the stations and run them as any other CityRail station. Everyone who
matters, wins.