Re: [NSW] - hilarious SMH article

[dbromage@fang.omni.com.au (David Bromage)]

Dave Proctor (daproc@spambait.ozemail.com.au) wrote:
> "Magilla Gorilla" <choochoo@spin.net.au> wrote in message
> 39D96937.5A7FDA16@spin.net.au">news:39D96937.5A7FDA16@spin.net.au...
> > The difference is  less frequent trains that run on time or more frequent
> > trains that are always late. No matter what happens some people will
> > complain. In my view they should base the next timetable on the Olympic
> > timetable.

> Less frequent and bigger - get rid of R sets, make all trains 8 cars, but at
> slightly less frequencies.

That has proven time and time again to reduce patronage. Passengers want
more frequent trains rather than bigger trains running less often.

This was the whole point of the new system for VicRail in the early 80s.
Smaller trains, but fast and frequent. Patronage went up. When Shepparton
was cut from 3 to 2 services per day in the 80s, patronage went down.
Ditto Albury in the mid-90s.

When Countrylink replaced the twice daily Canberra pass with 3 Xplorers,
patronage went up. When the X2000 was running, patronage nearly doubled,
and the additional passengers were all paying premium fares. Compare this
with patronage of almost zero when it was down to 1 train per day.

Also note the patronage increase in Victoria when both suburban and
country trains were increased in frequency, particularly on weekends.

This was also evident when smaller (25 seat) buses started running in
Melbourne ad double the frequency, and when A class trams every 8 mins
replaced the B2s every 12 mins to Port Melbourne.

And above the ground, see, for example, the hourly turboprops between
Sydney and Canberra compared with the 4-5 jets per day which they
replaced.

The easiest way to put more people in cars is to run trains less often.

Cheers
David