>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.
>
And marketing them too - most people compare train travel to bus travel
without having travelled on a train and as any train traveller knows, there
are many advantages a train has as I described earlier.
>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
>
To a point. Lets say 50 people on a bus (roughly). Lets say a 20 car
Overland as you suggest carries 1000 people (roughly 50 per carriage). Thus
to run another train you would need to attract 1000 people off other modes.
Even a seeding service with 5 cars would need to attract 250 people with
more to stay viable. Hence to compare the frequencies of service, I would
GUESS there would be around 20 buses a day to Adelaide (accurate answers
welcomed) This means that on average, there could potentially be a bus
leaving almost every hour. If a train attracts 250 passengers somehow to run
1 extra train whose service frequency is now 12 hours, the buses frequency
now goes down to 24/15 or 1 hr 20 minutes on average. Convenience is still
weighted in favour of the bus service. Plus even if you attracted more
people, the train service frequency wouldn't improve unless you then decided
to run smaller trains. But then costs go up for hiring more staff and track
access fees and you negate the bulk transport advantage of rail.
To go the other way, if buses attract the 3 carriages of passengers that
the 1 train provides, they can provide 3 more buses hence they can
significantly improve their frequency to about 1 bus every hour.
I would like to be fanciful and suggest GSR look seriously at running
smaller trains more frequently but then Countrylink have a lot more
potential to do that on the busier Mel-Syd route and they still only run 2
trains, even though they probably could run up to 5 and compete with other
modes quite well, especially if they could remove some of the worst track
limits. I don't think convenience will ever play too much of a part in
attracting people back to rail between Mel-Adl, especially not initially as
it would be too economically unviable to try, even if long long term it
could be a success which is too high risk in itself.
>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.
I agree and have said so before. Again, apart from checking tickets and
small assistances to some passengers, what do conductors do on the sometimes
long stretch between stations? (Mr Haber???) I would agree more could be
done and your ideas are a good starting point.
>Tell the French and Japanese that
>
The French and Japanese (and British too to a lesser extent in terms of HST)
can feasibly operate High Speed Trains because they have larger populations
(and hence markets). You couldn't seriously compare Tokyo to Kyoto or any
other Japanese city with Melbourne to Adelaide - there would be street
blocks in Tokyo with populations comparable to Adelaide! 8^) Or Paris-Lyons
or Paris-Brussels either. Plus the alternatives in Japan and to a lesser
extent France are less viable due to the short air distances and the
competition for road space. And without the large potential market to cover
the high startup costs of HST vs. conventional trains and lack of
competition to put them on your fast trains, it just isn't economically
viable. Especially not for a private company who at the end of the day need
to make money - GSR isn't a charitable organisation you know (although it
could be run quite well as a tax loss...)
>Isn't this route significantly further than Melb-Adel thus any service
>will take significantly longer?
>
To some extent the distance is irrelevant. It's like saying the airlines
shouldn't fly Melbourne-Perth because it is further than Melbourne-Sydney.
So what? It just means they can charge more as it is a further distance.
Or alternatively are you saying I shouldn't leave Melbourne on my
holidays as the Gold Coast is further away than Luna Park and would take
longer to get to?
>
>>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.
>
If other posts are similar to Maurie Daly's, I'm not sure they will. At the
end of the day, people need to use the service for the operator to make
money. And people will use it if, compared to the alternatives, it is quick,
cheap, convenient and/or luxurious. Given you can fly to Adelaide in an
hour, rail isn't quick, even with a train that takes half the time (around 6
1/2 hours and I bet the fares for this wouldn't be much cheaper than an air
fare - when I went on my holiday 2 years ago Mel-Syd with 40% discount by
return economy train was $110, similar cheap 14 day air fares were $189).
Given you can bus to Adelaide for around $40, a train would need to be
mighty cheap and there would be little money in it for rail. Rail will never
offer the frequency of service a bus can offer due to the fact it is more a
bulk carrier than a small frequent carrier. Hence luxury is a more
marketable option.
>>
>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.
>
I agree! Convenience of booking is important too. You can book a plane or
bus trip at any travel agent and they will do it quite happily as it is easy
for them (many have a link to Qantas or Ansett reservations computer booking
system)and there is money in it for them. You can book rail too but from
what I heard they discourage it due to the inconvenience of booking it with
the railways and the lack of profit. Perhaps the railways can do more in the
marketing with travel agents ie special phone numbers guaranteed to get
through for them or even acces to TRAINS reservation system. Even normal
people get sick of waiting on the phone to Vline, Countrylink et al. Whereas
I generally haven't waited very long on the phone to Qantas getting through
straight away most times of the day or night.
>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.
>
True, they could learn a lot from the airlines in this regard.
>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.
>
I mentioned this in the original post. At the Melbourne end, it is less of a
problem except on Sunday when interstate trains arrive and depart in the
morning before the first train services arrive and in the evening, unless
you live in the western suburbs, you need to change trains at Flinders St
(loop trains finish at 7pm) which in the case of the Hurstbridge line leaves
a 20 minute interchange at FSS. Maybe Belgrave trains connect better than
Hurstbridge ones???
If you care to look up www.transadelaide.sa.gov.au I think you will find
the SA Govt worse than the Victorian one as their weekend train service only
runs every hour and the weekday off peak is every half hour. I don't think
waiting 30 minutes on a cold platform at Keswick just because you just
missed the train could be considered convenient or user friendly. I agree
with the intermodal ticketing idea but cannot see it happening in real life
as it involves two government corporations (not known for their service
orientation or entrepreneurial spirit) and GSR coming to some agreement on
cost and profit split. Hmmmmmm....I shall await your comment on that one.
>> 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.
Even if the Overland arrived in both cities off peak, low floor buses still
aren't very common and have you ever tried using a bus service with a carry
bag and a suitcase. I have every time I have flown to Sydney on company
business used the Airport Express buses which are supposedly designed for
such things and it is still inconvenient lugging suitcases up bus steps.
Take it a step further with normal route buses as used in Adelaide and Perth
and it becomes REALLY inconvenient as unlike the Sydney Airport Express
buses, there is nowhere practical to put them apart from the seat in front
where they slide off or the aisle where it gets in other peoples way and
still slides around the bus. And as I mantioned above, train services in
Adelaide off peak are a bare minimum service provision.
>
>> 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?
>
Often buses pick up in outer suburbs taking the service to the people before
picking up at the central city location - hence no taxi cost. The Melbourne
airport is served by a good freeway system enabling taxi travel from
northern and eastern suburbs to be much cheaper than queueing up in traffic
going to the city at Spencer Street station. Having said that I am lucky as
I live 25 minutes from the airport - less when they finish the Thomastown
part of the Western Ring Road- so I am slightly better off there than anyone
living in say, Boronia. 8^)
>>
>> 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.
>
Thank you!!!
>> hot food available almost any time. Provide comfortable
>
>insert reclining
>
XPT seating does recline and so does aircraft seating but neither are
particularly comfortable past an hour.
>How about a gym car & hot showers? Can a plane supply that?
>
True. Or for that matter a bath tub - now I'd like to see 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
>
Some MacDonalds maybe but there are some small cramped MacDonalds toilets
around, especially in newer MacDonalds that have made me wish for an XPT...
Anyway, I hope GSR are reading this thread and other passenger rail
operators too - some of them could lift their game too. Vline aren't too bad
but they don't really have the sorts of long train trips that we are
discussing here. Countrylink on the other hand could learn a few things
about service - I don't know why others claim Countrylink's service is so
good - I haven't seen too much of it when I lived in NSW or have used their
services to go from Mel to Brisbane on holiday.