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

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

Tezza <tezza2000@dingoblue.net.au> wrote in message
3a2398aa$0$19408$7f31c96c@news01.syd.optusnet.com.au">news:3a2398aa$0$19408$7f31c96c@news01.syd.optusnet.com.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.

Bonus, "we" open the AL line, in the first months (very important for
perceptions [or
expectations]) we can't meet performance targets for on-time trains for the
network
as a whole (no one have ever suggested, let alone said, that the AL was
better than
the network average on on-time stats [not even you Tezza, you assiduously
avoid
such a commitment]) and cancellations are a problem.  But we did run, not
1,000, not
2,000 but 3,000 trains we had no obligation to run.  On-time running was
poor,
cancellations (including Illawarra Local bypasses) were occurring at a high
rate
(maybe I saw all of the 5 cancelled AL trains - missed opportunity to buy a
lottery
ticket) but we gave you something for nothing!  Just a pity that passengers
value
punctuality and vehemently dislike no-shows.

Oh and how are the extra 3,000 trains relevant again?

> > > >  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 agree with you but of course you can't back it up.  Your whole negative
approach
(more of a Nezza than a Tezza to me) is not based on determining what
happened
but game playing.

I try and draw a logical conclusion from what I have and state why (and will
always
happily concede when clearly demonstrated to be wrong).  Your response is
I must be wrong but you can never justify why (or you can but chose not to).
Definitely a Nezza, who needs to pursue truth when you can be a Nezza.

> >  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.

Obviously, how?  Or is this another Nezza "truth"?

> >  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.

Pleased to see my extrapolation (CityRail network stats + CityRail PR
comment on EHL and AL on-time running via media) is best evidence
available in this discussion then.  Nezza'd again.

> > 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.

Smart move for somone who can't prove that anything I've concluded is
wrong -
so typically constructive..

> > > > 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.

The excellent OlyTT proved how to deal with the Olympics transport task and
what
the Sydney System needs to run on a reliable basis.  Unfortunately less
trains in
peak hour is not an option (what do you do with the excess passengers?) and
slower trains at peak hour is highly undesirable in maintaining competitive
transit times.  Service segregation will help though.

Ironically all EHL trains outside the (0000-0400 shut down period) were
tabled
through the AL for the OlyTT.  And an extra 50+ services per day used the
AL.  All
services via the AL (with an alternative available) was a very sensible move
for CityRail when Turrella to Macarthur is 2 tracks all the way with only
three
terminating roads and no useful overtaking possibilities.  It removed too
finely
timed overtakings between Central and Turrella which regularly see down EH
trains waiting at the sewer pipes for the overtaking Macarthur service.

> >  I suspect a more comprehensive strategy is called for.
>
> I think they're going to ignore you and go for a simple solution.

Of course they'll go for a simple timetable format.  They need a
comprehensive
strategy (I didn't say complex solution) to make this happen, especially as
some
infrastructure constraints such as the at grade Illawarra Junction on the
west
impose a significant compounding penalty when late running occurs.

> > > > 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.

Your perception (perhaps expection or desire) is that I did.  I didn't, my
view was
that other factors exacerbated a bad situation (that is high fares).

> > > > > 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.

I agree you have no facts, nor any desire to contaminate your opinions with
them.
Now you say that patronage was <12,000 (per day) last week.  I estimated
12,000/day the other week and explained how (I would have put a + or -
2,000 tolerance on my figures.  The figures were given at 12,500 tops the
next
day by ALC/CityRail (?).

How do you arrive at below 12,000/day?

 > > 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?

Nice touch, I hadn't thought of it as being cruel to both parties before.

Chris