Re: [NSW] Chris' & Tezza's AL Diatribe (was: Carr blames Fahey for Airport Link bill)

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

"Chris Downs"
> Tezza

> > > > 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.
> >
> > Yet you were saying the stats proved what you were claiming.
>
> So you're saying that the AL was better than the network average

It should have according to what I pointed out above. Also, according to a
recent report Cityrail ran 3,000 more trains through the ghost stations than
they were required to.


> or are you really saying nothing and obfuscating the issue?

Just pointing out once again that your stats are non-existant.

> > >  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.
> >
> > And what was /where is that confirmation? The East Hills line certainly
> got worse. They would terminate down trains at Turella and dump all the
> regulars out so they could run another up service through the ghost
stations.
>
> Where do cancelled trains figure in the stats.

Maybe they don't, I don't know. I do know they mattered to all the regular
passengers getting turfed out for non-existing passengers.


>  I thought they were omitted from late running stats (please correct me if
I'm wrong) which would probably
> improve the EHL's figures.

Obviously not, according to what you said about sector 2.

>  Again I'd love to see your figures that clearly show my extrapolation is
wrong.

I have never claimed to have any, unlike yourself who has several times
claimed to have stats to back up your claims, yet can never produce them.


> > >  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.
> >
> > I haven't "chosen" any period. You've provided nothing for your claims
> about the AL.
>
> That's they key to many of your points, hyperbole without substance or
> reasoning.

There is no hyperbole in that statement. Every time I point out that you can't
back up your claims, you start blowing smoke.

> I'm prepared to say why I believe something and quote why.  Why don't you?

I have, constantly. I don't have a problem with you saying what you believe,
but when you keep claiming something as fact and you keep claiming to have
figures to back it up, but can't produce them, I won't let it pass.

> > > 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.
> >
> > Definately. They need to reduce the number of trains through the ghost
> > stations.
>
> That in itself improves service reliability how?

Less trains, bigger margins, less flow-on delays. The Olympic timetable proved
it.


>  I suspect a more comprehensive strategy is called for.

I think they're going to ignore you and go for a simple solution.


> > > > > > > > > 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".
> >
> > Really can't take yes for an answer can you. For the 5th time there is
> another timetable coming. I've told you, Cityrail's told you, Bob Carr's
told you,
> the newspapers have told you and the TV has told you and the radio has told
> you. Talk about dense.
>
> 3 times you didn't say near future and twice you did - I now know which you
> want me to believe but should I believe it?

Want to try rewriting this sentence? Looks like it's been translated into
English from Chinese by an Arab.


> > > > > Again, you can easily prove me wrong.  What are some of the run
> details of these regular timetabled Gosford G-sets on weekends?  the only
thing
> > > I've seen in WTTs is that they stable Friday evening and start on Monday
> > > morning and snooze in between.
> > > >
> > > > I don't know. I don't care.
> > >
> > > That's coz you're wrong.
>
> > It wasn't my claim.
>
> You use it as an answer of support and then state "It wasn't my claim".
> Interesting approach that resolves nothing.

You claimed one thing, someone else contradicted you twice, I reminded you of
that due your memory/comprehension problems.. I neither know nor care which of
you is correct.


> > > I'd ask someone to verify on Gosford's G-sets but
> > > I suspect everyone bar you and I switched off the lights long ago and
> went to bed on this topic.
>
> > I'm not surprised. But at last we finally agreed that the exhorbitant
> fares were the problem for the absymal failure of the ghost stations.
>
> I haven't stated anything contrary to excessive fares being the main reason
> for lower than projected patronage,

You constantly did.

> but I also say that other factors exacerbate the
> patronage problem.  Focus on what I'm saying rather than what you think I'm
saying and
> you'll save us both a hell of a lot of effort.

Stay away from the aluminium saucepans and I won't have to keep reminding you.

> > > > Theres a thing called a door in the Drivers cab. It allows me access
> to the exterior to actually view the passengers disembarking.
> >
> > > And you still ended up with 1,000/day.
>
> > When I wasn't counting. Please try to keep up.
>
> So unless you check your facts your judgement is severly biased.  Explains a
> few of your other answers to date.

I didn't claim to have any "facts". Even during peak hours last week, the
numbers on and off didn't average out to 12,000.


> You're putting yourself in the same league as the "experts".  Not even I'm
> cruel enough to have thought of and suggest that as a possibility.

Cruel to who?