Re: [MELB] City Loop issues

["Jeff Melvaine" <jeffm52@rivernet.com.au>]

Vaughan Williams <ender2000@MailAndNews.com> wrote in message
3ADA4D6B@MailAndNews.com">news:3ADA4D6B@MailAndNews.com...
> >So Vaughan from what you just stated above, the Burnley group will be
> >the only one that run direct to Flinders Street than Loop all day.
> >Therefore, I look forward to see Richmond during morning peak - many
> >changing from Burnley to Caulfield group services in order to have
> >direct access to the City Loop.  Also with the current privatisation
> >arrangement, the only services that may run from one side to other side
> >of the town is Caulfield and Northern groups by M>Trains.
>
> And by happy co-incidence, that works quite nicely.
>
> Burnley group people would still be able to get to the loop without
> changing,
> just by staying on their train as it runs around the loop after Flinders.
> Flagstaff people would probably save some time, and Spencer/Flinders
people
> certainly would.
>
> >So when your suggestion of Loop working becomes reality for Burnley
> >group, we can mention your Association as the one who suggested such an
> >idea to our angry customers who have now lost City Loop services during
> >morning peak.  Let's hope your answering machines can handle all their
> >calls!
>
> Well, its not specifically PTUA policy to change the direction of that
> particular line. I can't help thinking youre deliberately beating up the
> story. I never suggested removing all Burnley trains from the loop, only
> reversing their direction.
>
>   Just let me remind you again that my personal observation for
> >morning peak is 75% City Loop and 25% Flinders Street direct.  In fact,
> >during morning peak, all our services are City Loop.
>
> So?
>
> IF youre including Spencer St as City Loop (and how do you make this
> observation, anyway? DOn't you work out at Ringwood or somewhere? How do
you
> know where all the passengers get off?) then that figure may be right.
>
> Lets do a bit of guesswork here:
> Flinders 25% (accepting your figure as correct)
> Melb Central 22.5%
> Parliament 20%
> Spencer 20%
> Flagstaff 17.5%

Figures add to 105% but the idea is clear enough.

The original reasons given for running Clifton Hill / Burnley / Caulfield
line services anticlockwise in AM, clockwise in PM, and North/West v.v.,
were two:

1: to encourage passengers to use city loop stations in preference to
Flinders St by shortening journey times for loop stations relative to FSS,
to ease overcrowding at FSS.  The figures shown suggest that passengers have
been converted to this view.

2: to allow CH/B/C trains terminating at FSS to run direct into Jolimont
sidings without reversing, to reduce time wasted at platforms there and
increase overall capacity.  Now that siding capacity has been moved from
Jolimont yard to the suburbs, this problem has gome away.

The main technical reason for reversing direction during the day now would
be to ensure that all the signalling and pointwork involved in reversible
working is exercised regularly, keeping the option of flexible working.
(Unless they have the Illawarra Train Park problem of uneven flange wear
from going round the loop the same way all the time, but this would only
apply to city circle, because the other trains balloon loop instead of
circling, which reverses them for the next circuit).  Providing this can be
done, the pattern of train operation can be tailored to the overall
passenger preference, whatever that may turn out to be.
>
> (Very rough figures based on knowing Flinders then M.Central are the
> busiest,
> and incorporating some anecdotal observations of passenger movement and
the
> employment density around there. Spencer is likely to increase with
> Docklands
> development)
>
> If we say people going to Flinders and Spencer are better off with the
> reversal of direction, and people going to Parliment and M.Central are
worse
> off, and Flagstaff about the same, then we see that 45% are better off,
> 42.5%
> worse off, and 17.5% the same.
>
> We could argue about this all day, though. Finalising any such change
would
> need proper market research and adequate consultation with passengers.
>
> Vaughan Williams
> Secretary
> Public Transport Users Association
> 247 Flinders Lane
> Melbourne 3000
> http://www.ptua.org.au
>