Re: [NSW] - hilarious SMH article

["Dave Proctor" <daproc@spambait.ozemail.com.au>]

"David Bromage" <dbromage@fang.omni.com.au> wrote in message
YdfC5.85$1N1.4465@news0.optus.net.au">news:YdfC5.85$1N1.4465@news0.optus.net.au...
> 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.

10 trains an hour during the peak is not going to be too different to 8
trains an hour timetable wise.

[...snip off topic comparison of long distance Victorian timetables...]

> When Countrylink replaced the twice daily Canberra pass with 3 Xplorers,
> patronage went up.

And the faster journey times and more confortable trains had nothing to do
with this?

> 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.

And the novelty value of the tilt train? Most were day trippers.

> 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 more reliable services will see more passengers travelling than frequent
unreliable ones will. Reliability is the most important thing when
attracting people to the railways, and slightly greater headways, with
slightly longer dwell times, are what is needed to achieve this.

> 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.

Do you seriously think that people care if there is 7 minutes between trains
as opposed to 9 minutes? I don't think they do, but i think they DO care
that the train will show up on time, stop at ALL of its timetables stations,
and arrive at its destination on time. Running many short trains is a
certain way to ensure that this does not happen.

Dave