Re: [NSW] - hilarious SMH article

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

"David Burns" <dpburns@veal.optushome.com.au> wrote in message
> I hoped that the following article from the Herald was just a bit of
> humour ... Then I woke up...
>
> Certainly some of the operational ideas are sound. But reducing
> services? And Redfern an interchange???
>
> This is Yes Minister material: "Our population continues to grow. So we
> are forced to reduce services ..."

It's called having a *realistic* timetable. What's the point of having bullshit fast times when they can't be adhered to and
everyone commplains about their trains being late? Better to have a slower travelling time, which is attainable.

> http://www.smh.com.au/news/0010/03/national/national2.html
>
>                     Major overhaul for Sydney's rail system
>
>                     By ROBERT WAINWRIGHT, Transport Writer
>
> Sydney's rail system faces a major overhaul in the wake of the Olympic Games that > may reduce the number of services and increase
travel times on some lines to
> improve overall performance.

It'll only really increase them on paper.

> and even forcing commuters from outer suburban areas to change at stations
> such as Redfern to get into the city.

That won't go down well.


> One of the biggest changes may be allowing trains to sit at stations for longer than
> the current 60-second limit to take pressure off drivers and lessen mistakes.

What mistakes? :-) Most trains only sit at a station for 20 to 30 seconds, but increasing the dwell times will allow trains to catch
up from the too short running times.

> The main changes included:
>
> Extra running time between stations;

Definately needed in some areas. The NSR timetable added stops without increasing the overall running time. Glenfield to
Campbelltown was actually attainable uner the Olympic TT.

> Extra stopping times at major stations, especially
> the city circle, where some drivers waited for more than three minutes;

The City Circle is usually Ok, except Town Hall during the peaks.


> Forced train change for access to the city circle;

I can't see them ever doing that one.


> Reduced capacity, which would mean overloading and
> some missed trains because of a lack of room;

Only if the reduced capacity is during the peak. Off-peak they could easily cut capacity with no problems.


> Passengers forced to stand on a train for more than 15 minutes.

Happens now.


> "In comparison, the regular timetable delivers 33,000 people to and from the central
> business district in two peaks each lasting approximately two hours.''

I think someone's got their figures wrong.


> One of the most controversial changes, if made, would be to force passengers from > outer areas such as the South Coast to change
trains to get to the city. During the
> Olympics, many had to change at Redfern, which officials say took pressure off
> Central Station.

Oh, it's only the Illawarra, no prob. :-)