> Just a few niggling points although I suspect we think along similar
> lines...
I hope that GSR are also thinking along similar lines...
>
> >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.
Agreed
>
> >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.
I think in the above calulation you overlook passengers who are
currently travelling by car. Certainly frequency of services is
important but many budget travellers are not so time sensitive. I have
been prepared to travel late at night because of substantial discounts
on air travel from Perth to Melbourne (The Rocket). Somebody driving a
car is not so likely to be time sensitive. How many cars ply back and
forth each day from Melbourne to Adelaide - that might fill a few
trains. I think an overnight service is less time sensitive. In the case
of footy matches however a high speed service would need a timetable
that delivered the passenger in time for opening bounce and if possible
picked them up after the game and took them home. I wonder if the
railways have though about trying to attract football players travelling
interstate. They would be less dehydrated than travelling by air and
could have a good night's sleep on the train. Plus the fact that the
footy players go by train would be a good marketing tool.
>
> >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.
Agreed: Yes Mr Haber?
>
> >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...)
What about the high speed freight market who will absorb some of the
costs - and how big a population do you want? - Melbourne and Adelaide
must have around 5 million people or so between them and we are talking
carrying only a small fraction of the total population. Just 1% of the
combined population is 50,000 people.
>
> >Isn't this route significantly further than Melb-Adel thus any service
> >will take significantly longer?
> >
> To some extent the distance is irrelevant.
No it isn't - that last 4 hours on the Sydney XPT really drags!
> 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?
What I mean is that on a high speed speed service you should not be on
the train longer than 4 hours becuase any period longer than this and it
is better to fly.
> >
> >>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.
It does NOT take 1 hour to fly Melb to Adelaide. You fail to take into
account
Time taken to get to the airport.
Time taken to check in baggage
Time waiting for plane to leave
Time actually in the air
Time docking at destination
Time to collect baggage
Time organising getting your lost baggage redirected from Brisbane to
your destination address!
Time getting from the airport to my final destination.
All up your 1 hour trip may take anything up to 5-6 hours.
> >>
> >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.
Internet booking might be an option?
>
> >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.
That is an understatement. Giving away the empty seats for $10 each
would be better than
empty carriages yielding no revenue.
>
> >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.
For the small number of passengers involved I think the metropolitan
services at either end would not mind coming to an agreement for a token
payment. It just takes somebody to do a bit of negotiating and maybe a
spot of political lobbying.
> >> 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.
So take a taxi.
>
> >
> >> Taxis are expensive and minimise the cost effect of train
> >> travel pushing people towards flying. Hence convenience is not a factor.
Its probably costs less to get to the rail station by taxi than to the
airport in many cases especially here in Melbourne where the majority of
people are in the Eastern and Southern suburbs and the airport is to the
northwest of the city.
> >
> >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
Which is soon to be the subject of costly tolls
> 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!!!
Believe me it works. you rent them on the Bima in Indonesia and they
make a big difference.
>
> >> 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.
Apparently someone has just designed a new form of seating which
supports the back far better than previous designs have. I believe they
are soon to make an appearance in airlines.
>
> >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!
yes - but you'll really pay for that idea.
> >> 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...
I am not the greatest fan of Mcdonalds food but I can't fault them on
toilet standards. Without fault I have always found them clean and well
services no matter where I have been in the world (Indonesia, Hong Kong,
New Zealand & around Australia)
> 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.
Go on the Prospector. The service is quite good. I thoroughly recommeend
it. Good on you Westrail!
cheers Peter