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?
>
> No, but I can count.

But you seem to have problems with reading/comprehension.

> (and I have no delusions of perfection).

That's nice for you.

> 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.

Not if they don't know before hand. And if the fares are exhorbitant, they
won't bother to find out.


> > > > 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.

They'll weigh up wether the price/access is right and then make a decision.
They won't know about the train so that doesn't come into the equation.
They're not buying tickets and then not taking the train.

> 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).

They always run Tangaras on weekends.

> > 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.

Finally. It was a long haul but you finally arrived.


> > >  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.

Getting shot down so you attack me instead of the point.


> > > > > 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?

It's not mostly regulars using the ghost stations. Drop the exhorbitant fares
and others will use it regularly.


> > 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.

You don't take long distance trains of long distance passengers to bolster a
useless service.


> > > > 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!

They're expectations don't get a workout because of the exhorbitant fares.

> > > > 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:

Not talking citywide, we're talking about the ghost trains.


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

Can't take yes for an answer?


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

Nothing to say on that ridiculous point?


> Everything you've said so far in disputing my points is "lower fares and
> they will come

Exactly. That's what people keep saying. That's why they're staying away in
droves.


 - all else is irrelevant".

Your comprehension is slipping again.


> > > 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.

Everyone benefits. The taxpayer stops propping up a private company. Hopefully
the bank could get shafted somewhere along the way, but I doubt it. It would
get thousands of cars off the roads, so the enviroment benefits. The M5
operators wouldn't like it but who cares about those parasites either. The
government saves money on the Tollback farce which eventually pays for the
stations.

>  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.

Not gonna happen.