Re: Remove City Loop trains from Burnley group lines

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

"Peter" <railvic@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
3ACD73B6.30CD8411@iprimus.com.au">news:3ACD73B6.30CD8411@iprimus.com.au...
> Paul Dwerryhouse wrote:
> >
> > Peter <railvic@iprimus.com.au> writes:
> >
> > >I am interested to find out what are people's view of removing **
DIRECT
> > >** City Loop trains from Burnley group (Alamain/Belgrave/Glen
> > >Waverley/Lilydale lines) during morning peak.  Instead all services
will
> > >run direct to Flinders Street and most will then run around the Loop
> > >afterwards.  If those people choose to have direct Loop access during
> > >that time, they would have to change at Richmond.
> >
> > This absolutely insane for the outer Burnley Group lines.
> >
> > You could get away with it for just the stopping-all-stations trains
> > from Box-Hill and Alamein (ie, just make them go direct to Flinders St
as
> > they did about 5 years ago), but to do it for trains from Ringwood and
> > Glen Waverley is counterproductive.
> >
> > There's just far too many people travelling in on those lines, and the
> > vast majority of them go to Parliament, Museum and Flagstaff stations.

And if you eliminate the lengthy stop at Flinders St, you will create
quicker journeys fopr those going to Flagstaff and about the same for those
going to Melbourne Central. At the same time, you will create a service from
Flinder/Spencer St to loop stations in the morning peak, and if you reverse
the direction in the afternoons, you will provide a service from the loop to
Flinders/Spencer Sts, a service which does not currently exist.

Or are you against providing services to the public?

> > To make them all change at Richmond is ridiculous, given the number of
> > people, and the distance from the city that they have to travel already.

Who said anything about making them change? Oh, that's right, Peter said
they would all change.

Funnily, it doesn't happen in Sydney, as an example, travelling from
Ashfield to Museum, people stay on the train and travel around the City
Circle, rather than change at Central onto a train which is next stop
Museum.

Similiarly, people from Revesby to Town Hall stay on the train and go around
the City Circle rather than change at Central onto a train whish is next
stop Town Hall. The journey times are similiar between Sydney and
Melbourne - why should the commuters of Melbourne behave any differently
than the commuters of Melbourne (anyone who says MetCard will end up in my
killfile!)

I think that if you provide a direct service, and the journey times are not
greatly longer, then people will prefer the direct service over having to
alight, go down a ramp, along a subway, up a ramp, wait on a wet and rainy
platform for a train, and then get the next train in, all to save what, 4
minutes?

Of course, we can argue about this all day, neither of us really knows,
because it has never been done. You have no evidence for your assertions, I
have no evidence for mine, apart from the fact that a NEW service will be
provided, one which does not exist at the moment.

> > Anyone who attempted this would have a very short career ahead of
themselves
> > in public transport.

Please state why, Paul, and please don't rehash Peter's arguments. And can
you give a reason why people travelling to and from Flinders St, Spencer St
and Flagstaff should have longer journey times?

Dave