> To add my 2c worth, there would be a relatively fixed amount of passengers
> offering between Melbourne and Adelaide. There are certain criteria which
> would affect how they travelled.
> 1. Time. People fly to Adelaide because to them the higher cost is worth the
> fact it only takes about an hour. Such people are business travellers and
> more wealthy football fans or tourists (especially those from countries
> which up until recently had much stronger economies than Australia's and
> whose currency was worth significantly more).
Cruise Liners are prrof that sometimes how you get there is more
important than how long it takes. Service is important.
> 2. Price. People catch the bus to Adelaide because it is worth putting up
> with the cramped uncomfortable conditions to save a few $.
If this is true it is becauuse they perceive that for the extra cost in
travelling by train they do not get any extra value. This must be
addressed by improved service, providing comforts and options that a
coach operator cannot.
> 3. Convenience. Several planes and buses leave each day between the two
> cities thus providing a better chance one is going there when you want to,
> not when it is convenient for the service operator to take you there.
True, but with an improved high speed service the rolling stock could
provide more services than are provided currently. Further, the
increased demand for the train service would mean that more trains could
be run thus using your logic more passengers woudl be attracted to the
service thus more trains could be run etc etc etc
> 4. Luxury. The airlines offer you a hot meal but apart from that, there is
> no real luxury offered on the trip no matter which mode you take.
Compare the personal service provided by airline attendants with the
lack of service provided by conductors currently. I believe there is
sigificant scope for improvement in service.
>
> It has been suggested by many that the railways compete on speed but this is
> a highly fanciful idea worthy of dreaming about but unlikely to occur.
Tell the French and Japanese that
In my
> opinion, the only route in Australia worth seriously considering for a high
> speed rail link would be the direct route between Melbourne and Sydney via
> Canberra.
Isn't this route significantly further than Melb-Adel thus any service
will take significantly longer?
It links two of the largest population centres in Australia and
> another largish one and if fast enough would encourage enough high
> fare-paying business and government people to stand some chance of making a
> profit.
>Any other route simply wouldn't have the demand or the profitable
>passengers for the trip or the time efficiency to make it viable.
I'll let others challenge this statement.
>
> Therefore how can the railways attract more customers?
How about some real marketing. I believe if you ask most peope in either
city how much it costs to ravel by rail they won't know. They would be
lucky to know that there IS a rail service.
Secondly, as previously stated, the railways have a lot to learn about
service.
Finally is the management of empty seats and marignal costs of adding
extra carriages. I beleive GSR must be more aggressive in its filling of
seats. Eveery empty seat is lost revenue.
>
> I doubt price would do much, there were $49 return fares going in the end
> times on AN and nobody particularly commented that traffic picked up because
> of it. Nor is this a really sustainable way of increasing traffic either as
> the trains cannot compete properly with buses as they cannot run frequently
> enough for the traffic offering unlike the smaller buses which have to run
> more vehicles for the number of passengers and hence can run them over more
> periods of time (ie higher frequency). Plus to make any return, the
> conditions would have to be similar to a bus thus removing a lot of the
> natural advantage the train has.
I'd be interested to know the marginal cost of adding an extra carriage
to the Overland and thus the marginal cost of an extra passenger. I
suspect it may not be as high as you make out. rail is a move of bulk
things - the more you increase the quantity of the thing the lesser the
unit cost. A 20 carriage Overland each night should lead to a
significantly reduced unit cost per passenger as fixed costs are
allocated across more passengers and economies of scale come into play.
How you then fill those seats is a mixture of aggressive marketing,
discounting, improved services, ancillary revenue generating services ie
pokies, food and drink and improved personal service
>
> Convenience is unlikely as you couldn't run a frequent enough service from
> enough places. Buses can run quite easily from any part of the metro area in
> either place, meet at a central location and then travel to the other city
> with minimal inconvenience to the operator. Trains are more or less stuck to
> travelling from Spencer Street to Keswick with an interchange of some sort
> at each end.
You forget the rail transport networks integrated at either end. Rail
will take me from my local station in Boronia to Spencer Street.
Integration of the journey into the one suburban/interstate ticket might
increase the attractiveness of the journey for me.
> It has been shown people do not like modal transfers unless
> they are simple and convenient. Adelaide has an hourly metropolitan train
> service on weekends and half hourly off peak during weekdays - hardly
> convenient. Melbourne's is slightly better. Bus/tram interchange is unlikely
> as the trams/route buses offered are designed for carrying loads of
> commuters carrying little more than a bag or briefcase, not people carrying
> several suitcases.
The Overland departs and arrives near peak hours when trains at a
premium.
> Taxis are expensive and minimise the cost effect of train
> travel pushing people towards flying. Hence convenience is not a factor.
Yes, but how does one get to the coach station then? What is the
difference between driving to the coach station and driving to the train
station?
>
> Luxury, as only a few operators seem to have discovered, is one of the few
> areas that railways can tackle its competitors head on.
No argument here except that good service can be supplied at an
affordable price.
> When I went on my
> trip from Melbourne to Brisbane via Sydney and Gold Coast a few years back,
> I went of course by train (the railway employee friend of mine I went with
> got train trip for free of course so HE wasn't going to go by any other
> mode - it took me a while to convince him I couldn't afford to pay twice the
> fare to go first class which he was entitled to so he eventually gracefully
> decided that if he wanted company on his trip, he had better slum it in
> economy with me...). I was rather glad as it offered me more leg room than a
> bus or plane and I could stretch my legs on a long walk every now and then
> when the XPT seats became unbearable (usually after an hour or so).
Try putting a pillow behind your back - it makes a hell of a difference.
It also
> enabled me to curl up in the doorway with one of the many books I had
> brought when my friend's crapping on became unbearable. Neither of which you
> can do on a bus or plane. Plus hot meals were available as well as a highly
> priced range of food from the buffet car.
>
> To summarise, let us get off the thread of high speed trains - the closest
> you might expect is the Prospector railcars (railmotors? DMUs?) or similar
> (eg souped up Sprinters). The best this will cut off may be an hour - which
> will get a few bums on seats but hardly a rush of people signing on the
> bottom line for rail travel. A better option would be to exploit the natural
> space and luxury advantages of a train. Provide a decent food service eg
> buffet car or seat service
Yes!
> with a good range of items including snacks and
> hot food available almost any time. Provide comfortable
insert reclining
> seating and easy
> access to a walk.
How about a gym car & hot showers? Can a plane supply that?
> The Club Car sounds like an excellent idea but allow
> anyone to use it, not just first class.
Agreed
> Clean and spacious toilets
Mcdonalds standard
> and even
> a bathroom with a few showers. Provide a convenient travel time eg day train
> that arrives in Adelaide late afternoon (eg leaves 9am, arrives 7pm and/or
> night train leaving around 10pm arriving around 8am. Or better as running
> times allow) None of these are overly expensive in themselves (except
> running the extra train which requires no real capital input but significant
> labour and loco hiring costs). These with associated public awareness
> marketing may help the Overland to run requiring more than a minimum service
> and may help take people off the buses and maybe even a few off the planes.
> I have known a number of business people who lament the loss of the night
> Syd-Mel trains as these weren't the quickest but they were better than
> getting up ridiculously early to catch a plane to be there by 8.30am and/or
> saved the cost of a hotel room as well as expensive air tickets. Plus they
> were LUXURY compared to the alternatives.
>
No argument here - are you reading this GSR?
cheers Peter