Re: [NSW] quality of trains on airport line

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

Tezza <tezza2000@dingoblue.net.au> wrote in message
3a1f1c9b$0$19408$7f31c96c@news01.syd.optusnet.com.au">news:3a1f1c9b$0$19408$7f31c96c@news01.syd.optusnet.com.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?

No, but I can count. (and I have no delusions of perfection).

> > > >  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.

That's remarkably naive.  People want a clean, punctual, airconditioned
train with a seat and so on.  If they don't get this or can't be sure they
will then that becomes a reason tp not travel.

> > > 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.

The workings of peoples' minds are clearly more subtle than you give credit
for.  They will weigh up the factors and then decide.  Why would CityRail
add an extra handicap of grotty trains when they don't have to (CityRail's
recent action running Tangaras on weekends indicates like thinking).

> >  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.

First time no, every other time yes.
>
> >  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.

You still can't tell shit from clay.
> >
> > > > 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.

Why are they different?

> >  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.

Actually CityRail can use them for whatever they like (such as
Sydney-Olympic Park services).  Passenger perception of V-sets is better
than for most rolling stock - think laterally and cover all travelling
issues, not just fares.

> > > > > 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.

Bad perception = low expection = no travel!

> > > 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?

System wide, courtesy CityRail:
5/00    77.6%
6/00    85.3%

9/00    94.5% (better for the Oly TT)
10/00    88.8%.

Looks like an increase to me.
>
> > 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.

I've heard of didvide and conquer before, but until now, I'd not encountered
your simplify and twist strategy.
>
> >  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.

People staying away and slowly increasing patronage from a low base are not
mutually exclusive - you've simplified and twisted again.
>
>
> > > > > 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.

Everything you've said so far in disputing my points is "lower fares and
they will come - all else is irrelevant".  Your last comment is heartening.
>
>
> > 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.
>
As if society has no other calls on $200m.  I'd love to see the response if
you put your view in a letter to the editor and stated it was in preference
to ALC staying, lowering fares and spending $200m elsewhere.