Re: mel loop operation

["Les Chandra" <les_chandra@asparagus.hotmail.com>]

Might I suggest a few reasons why FS is the busiest station, besides its
general 'attractiveness'.

(1) It is the first station people arrive at (weekday PM, most lines
weekends) so they get off there - and go back there to get on again to go
home;

(2) People can't understand the loop (who can blame them?) so they go to the
one station they know they can get a train;

(3) (subtle difference from 2) They DO understand the loop and know that it
is not a good idea to board a weekday AM loop then FS train at loop stations
because (a) it might arrive at FS and terminate, or (b) change its
destination, regardless of what the displays say when they get on, or (c)
they are travelling around the middle of the day and have been caught by
loop - FS - reverse - loop again trips. [ I have been caught by all 3]

All loop mangement issues, nothing to with whether or not the passenger's
destination is nearby.

Les


"geoff dawson" <geoffrey.dawson@aph.gov.au> wrote in message
news:whsA6.34$vT3.4516@nsw.nnrp.telstra.net...
> Further thoughts on Melbourne loop:
> 1. If the loading was equal at all loop stations (20% each), then any
> pattern of loop operation is equally convenient/inconvenient, *on
average*.
> Ie for everyone  who changes at Richmond from a Parliament train to a
> Flinders St train, under one pattern, there would be equal number making
the
> reverse change under the mirror image pattern.
> Therefore you might as well stick to the same pattern all day for teh sake
> of consistency.
> This comment assumes no long layover at Flinders St and no Richmond
crawl -
> ie travel times are about the same between Richmond and Flinders St or
> Parliament; Spencer St or M Central; Flagstaff either way.
> 2. Someone suggested that the facts are (I am remembering this only
> *approximately*)
> Flinders St about 25%
> Flagstaff about 15%
> Spencer St, Parliament and Melbourne Central about 20% each.
> In this case the greatest good of the greatest number is best served by
> running trains to Flinders St first (am peak) and from Flinders St last
(pm
> peak). However IMHO the disproportion is not so great as to outweigh the
> desirability of having a single pattern all day.
> 3. Someone said that the purpose of the present system was to relieve
> overcrowding at Flinders St by encouraging people to go to the loop. You
> could paraphrase this unkindly as 'Most people want to go to Flinders St
so
> we'll make it as hard as possible to get there.' A more helpful approach
> would have been to take positive steps to improve the circulation space at
> Flinders St. ['overcrowding' must refer to predestrian circulation. There
> are plenty of tracks for trains providing they are used intelligently.]
>
> Regards, Geoff (Sydney)
>
>
>
> >>===== Original Message From "geoff dawson" <geoffrey.dawson@aph.gov.au>
> =====
> >>In response to the recent threads on this, speaking as a foreigner,  may
I
> >>humbly suggest:
> >>1. changing the direction of city loop services at midday is daft.
> >>Consistency and legibility is important, particularly to encourage the
off
> >>peak travel of irregular users. Encouraging offpeak travel is most
> important
> >>for public transport operators since the marginal cost of catering for
it
> is
> >>low (ie no need to build more trains that are only used for one trip per
> >>day)
> >>2. having long layovers at Flinders St is daft [why is this done?]
> >>3. Having no train service whatever from (for example) Parliament to
> Spencer
> >>St  change for Geelong (pm peak) is daft.
> >>
> >>As someone said, if all services ran in one direction all day, then
> everyone
> >>with city loop destinations would have an average journey time formed of
a
> >>slightly better time at one end of the day and a slightly worse time at
> the
> >>other. I accept that if *most* eastern commuters want to go to/from
> >>Parliament (for example) you would reconsider this. There seems to be
> >>dispute about the facts on this point.
>
>
>