Re: Carr blames Fahey for Airport Link bill

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

Tezza <tezza2000@dingoblue.net.au> wrote in message
3a1f2934$0$19425$7f31c96c@news01.syd.optusnet.com.au">news:3a1f2934$0$19425$7f31c96c@news01.syd.optusnet.com.au...
> "Chris Downs"
> > Tezza
>
> > > > > > > "The company, which has lodged a $15 million compensation
claim
> > > > against the SRA, has blamed late and cancelled trains for poor
patronage
> > on the link."
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > What a load of bunk. CityRail goes out of it's way to cancel
and
> > > > transpose *other* services to make sure the ghost trains run and on
> > time.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > CityRail may now but that appears to be a very belated reaction
to
> > their contractual commitments.  The on-time stats from May 2000 and
> > leading up to the Olympics tell a truer and much sadder story.
> > > > >
> > > > > They've been doing it right from the outset, Drivers were even
told
> > when learning the line that there were penalty clauses for late or early
> > > > trains. So what are these "on-time stats" you refer to?
> > > >
> > > > The only on-time stats I have access to are CityRails at
> > > > www.cityrail.nsw.gov.au .  Don't bother taking my word for it, have
a
> > look at May onwards in particular.
> > >
> > > So you have absolutely nothing to back up your bullshit claims.
> >
> > CityRail's On-time stats for the last 12 months (subrban and intercity
peak)
>
> > On-time running bottomed out in May this year and has climbed since
then.
> > Reflects exactly what I said above.  Can you provide something different
for
> > the AL to demonstrate high AL punctuality (and low cancellations) since
> > 21/05/00?  It would resolve this issue immediately.
>
> I was waiting for your AL stats to prove the on-time running wasn't high,
but
> you don't have any. As I said they're cancelling and transposing other
> services to keep the ghost trains running and on time.

I don't have AL stats and have never said that I have.  I do have CityRail
stats and CityRail confirmed after the opening of the AL that Sector 2,
especially the East Hills/AL, had the worst on-time running across the
network.  Now unless CityRail is lying in in their stats or statements (and
I don't think for a second they are), this supports my argument.  I'm
talking about the last 7 months, you're choosing a conveniently shorter and
more recent period.

> > And 6 trips includes observing numerous trains (not just the one I
catch)
> > which I wouldn't have travelled on if it had been cancelled.
>
> you're still the unluckiest person around when it comes to cancelled
trains. I
> repeat - "I've
> been through about 100 times without a single canclled *AL* service".

No, many were unlucky when the AL opened, the service on the East Hills line
and the AL was atrocious.  The media reports actually backed up my
experience and those of another regular EHL traveller I know.  Several
things have improved performance including settling in of the TT,
maintenance improvements and transpositions.  The service now is much better
but still has some way to go.  The TT needs a good work over, it's just too
demanding of sector 2, which lacks the more generous overtaking and
seperated turnback facilities of sectors 1 & 3.
>
> > > > > > Is a new CityRail TT on the board for the near future - one in
which
> > > > sector 2 services are more robust?
> > > > >
> > > > > There's always a new timetable coming.
> > > >
> > > > Avoid half the question and give a smart arse answer - typical.
> > .....for the near future?
> > >
> > > I just told you - there's *ALWAYS* a new timetable coming. That's not
a
> > > smartarse answer, you obviously haven't got a clue about the railways.
> >
> > If it wasn't a smart arse answer you've avoided another question
(chronic
> > evasion).
>
> I **ANSWERED** the question - there is **ALWAYS** another timetable
coming. As
> for specifics, you'd have to talk to someone in timetabling/ train
planning.
> >
> > Is a new CityRail TT on the board for the near future?
>
> YESyesYESyesYESyesYESyesYESyesYESyesYES
>
> Get the point?
>
Your "answer" to the question did not actually answer the question put.
>From above your answer to my question actually is "I don't know" not "yes".

Chris