Everybody probably HAS noticed that the SRA Chief Exective has been
sacked (moved sideways?) and replaced with the ghost of Christmases
past- David Hill, reportedly over CityRail's performance.
I wonder what the insiders have to say about this and about the
rumours going the rounds of the media about the timetables,
specifically:
What WAS the assessment of what was wrong with the November '96
timetable.... several opinions have been canvassed here and in the
media- insufficent flexibility (whatever that means), insufficient
turnaround time, not enough (spare?) rolling stock? What kind of
criteria exist for measuring and assessing such things- hopefully in
advance of new timetables, so that their viability can be modelled.?
Or is this aspect of timetabling merely a suck it and see approach?
What was the status of the now apparently-abandoned May 1997 timetable
changes? And is the SMH correct when it reported that the May T/T was
mostly the introduction of skip stops on some services? Did this new
timetable exist other than in peoples' media releases?
Today's report says that Hill is to replace the November '96 timetable
with the February (?) '96 timetable, with the addition of the Y-link
services. Shades of 1975. Is THIS true? (never throw away your old
WTT's, I always say).
Where is the finger pointing at management in all this, was it all
just an unfortunate slip-up in an otherwise smoothly functioning
dynamic organisation? :-). Is Brian Langton to blame (Mr Carr
obviously thinks so)?
Geoff Lambert