Email to Countrylink (was Sydney Trip)

["peter berrett <pberrett@" <"remove-this-spambait>tbsa.com.au"@inferno.mpx.com.au>]

Hi all

As suggested I have posted the following message to Countrylink;

cheers Peter






> 
> Dear Countrylink Staff
> 
> I recently posted the following message to the aus.rail newsgroup on the Internet detailing a trip which I shall be taking to Sydney shortly. I had intended to go by rail but as the message indicates, I decided to go by air when I found out that you had no single compartments.
> 
> Interestingly a number of replies have been posted to the aus.rail newsgroup in reply to my message. One reply suggested that I should write and tell you about my experience. One other poster suggested it would be a waste of time. I have preferred to be optimistic and have assumed that you do listen to your customers.
>       
> Interestingly also was another reply which suggested several legal and several somewhat morally dubious ways of securing a single compartment for myself. In particular was one suggestion that I should book a twin compartment for myself and one of my children and then just turn up by myself saying that my child was sick. 
> 
> For your information I have included the original posting and numerous replies in this email. As someone who finds flying unpleasant, I look forward to the day when I can book a single sleeper to Sydney with Countrylink.
> 
> Cheers
> Peter Berrett
> pberrett@tbsa.com.au
> 
> P.S. With your permission I should like to post any reply to the aus.rail newsgroup
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > Hi all
> > 
> > I have to attend a business trip soon and being somewhat nervous about
> > flying decided to go by train instead. My work was ok on this idea
> > provided it didn't cost extra. No problem.
> > 
> > I went down to Box Hill station to check out the availability of
> > sleepers. Then whilst discussing the cost etc with the station attendant
> > the realisation dawned on me - the only sleepers are twins. This means
> > that I would have to share with a stranger!
> > 
> > Normally this is not a problem cos my wife comes with me (ie on past
> > trips on the overland) so we just share a twin but because of work
> > commitments my wife could not come with me. Now I am a friendly enough
> > sort of chap but don't find the idea of booking a twin with a stranger
> > much chop. You never know what sort of a person your might get.
> > 
> > And so I'll have to fly but I am disappointed that a good opportunity
> > for the railways has gone begging because they didn't offer the service
> > the I was seeking. I wasn't in a particular hurry and would have been
> > happy to pay an extra premium for a single cabin - especially as work
> > was footing most of the bill but the patronage was lost because the
> > privacy I was seeking was not available.
> > 
> > cheers Peter
> 
> 
> 
> *******************************************************************************
> 
> peter berrett  tbsa.com.au"> (pberrett@"<"remove-this-spambait) wrote:
> >And so I'll have to fly but I am disappointed that a good opportunity
> >for the railways has gone begging because they didn't offer the service
> >the I was seeking.
> 
> You should write a letter to Countrylink and tell them what you think.
> 
> Cheers
> David
> 
> 
> *******************************************************************************
> 
> > You should write a letter to Countrylink and tell them what you think.
> 
> They won't listen - they are (almost) as bad as GSR when it comes to reacting
> to customer feedback.
> 
> On the issue of XPT sleeping cars, I'm amazed they didn't build these cars as
> roomette cars, fitting them out like IP economy sleepers - have 18-single
> BERTH compartments, i.e. same overnight capacity as now, but with 2 seats per
> compartment, i.e. a 33% increase in daytime capacity. You wouldn't get the
> problem I saw the other nite - there were 2 beds left on the train, but a
> couple, travelling together, couldn't get them - they had to be separated.
> The reason? One of the beds was in a compartment already occupied by a male,
> the other - you guessed it, in a compartment already occupied by a female. It
> means that couples still wouldn't be able to travel together, but it also
> means that you wouldn't have to refuse custom because the potential passenger
> was the wrong gender!
> 
> Hope this helps,
> 
> David "The Doctor" Proctor
> 
> ***********************************************************************************
> 
> Dave Proctor wrote 
> 
> >In article <6laoqq$4k@news.tbsa.com.au>,
> >  "peter berrett <pberrett@" <"remove-this-spambait>tbsa.com.au"> wrote:
> 
> >> I went down to Box Hill station to check out the availability of
> >> sleepers. Then whilst discussing the cost etc with the station attendant
> >> the realisation dawned on me - the only sleepers are twins. This means
> >> that I would have to share with a stranger!
> 
> >This has been the case on this route now for almost five years - why did you
> >only realise it when you got to the station?
> 
> I have worked for my employer for 13 years and have now finally worked
> myself into a position where I will get the occasional bit of interstate
> travel. Previously on my travels to Sydney the $$$ situation always made
> me travel economy but now that someone else is paying and I have a
> little bit more spare cash these days it is far more likely that I can
> afford to/will consider travelling by sleeper.
> 
> The other thing is that last year I and my wife went by sleeper from
> Adelaide to Melbourne and I enjoyed it immensely. (I do not know whether
> they have single sleepers either ...???) Much better than seating. I'm
> now hooked on this mode of travel. Most of the time I go interstate with
> my wife but this was the first time I had to consider a sleeper
> travelling alone.
> 
> Add to that the fact that while I have an interest in rail I do not by
> any means claim to be an expert on all the services that are provided.
> 
> cheers Peter
> 
> 
> *********************************************************************************
> 
> Dave Proctor wrote
> 
> 
> <snip>
> 
> >And what is wrong with sharing with a stranger? In my experience, the type of
> >people who are prepared to pay for sleeping berths are not the type of people
> >to create a ruckus, etc., and if they DO prove to be smelly, etc., do what I
> >did - complain to the conductor (they were told to shower or be removed from
> >the sleeping car - they were removed from the sleeping car, although he was
> >then inflicted on a heap of unfortunates in the sitting car!)
> 
> Lack of privacy.
> 
> >There are a number of ways you can get the whole twinette compartment for
> >yourself - one perfectly legal, one legal, but morally dubious, the third
> >legally dubious.
> 
> >1. Pay the adult fare for two people, and have sole occupancy.
> 
> Ummm... that's a tad expensive
> 
> >2. Pay the fare for yourself, and your "four-year old son/daughter" this
> >would be a childs fare. Oops, your "son/daughter" has the flu and cannot
> >travel, result: sole occupancy - they rarely sell sleeping berths en-route,
> >and you would have a justifiable claim for them not to do so (I have two
> >tickets here - are on-board staff going to argue with THAT?)
> 
> Hey that's a great idea. I shall seriously consider that for my next
> trip. 
> 
> >3. Book by telephone for two people ON THE SAME BOOKING - different names
> >though. Go into the station and pay for your own ticket, telling them that
> >the other ticket will be collected later. With the way the TRAINS computer is
> >configured, that booking will now be showing as a ticketed booking, and will
> >not cancel OR be subject to any followup (this is a major flaw). Result -
> >sole occupancy, although subject to reselling en-route. (Not recommended)
> 
> ???
> 
> The option has always existed to have sole occupancy of a twinette - you
> have
> >just always had to pay for it, thats all.
> 
> >Hope this helps,
> 
> >David "The Doctor" Proctor
> 
> I shall mention the above to Countrylink. It will be interesting to see
> what sort of a reply I get. I shall post a reply to the newsgroup also.
> 
> cheers Peter
> 
> *********************************************************************************
> 
> 
> Crookesp wrote:
> 
> > Thing 5. I expect a sleeping car to be positioned in the train and so sprung
> > that it minimises the noise and sideways motion of travel. Not just shoved at
> > the end of the train regardless.
> 
> Don't forget the exhaust smoke, or even worse, the PSS smoking in his compartment
> and blowing the smoke through the air-conditioning for the whole car.  This has
> happened every time I have used an XPT sleeper.
> 
> 
> ********************************************************************************
> 
>