Re: derailment and train management

["nobody" <dweebken@NOSPAM.yahoo.com>]

Yes Bill, I do happen to be a "bloody customer", and like any "bloody
customer", I would like to travel on a product that is safe, reliable, and
efficient. Not only that, but im sure most "bloody taxpayers" would prefer
money spent on more gainful things. If a brand new point at Chatswood which
cost god knows what doesnt work, what is the point of having it?
Yes I am a beancounter, and I am a customer. I DO NOT APOLOGISE FOR
COMPLAINING ABOUT THE SYSTEM. I believe something can be changed for the
better in the rail system and make it better for the consumer and the
operator. Win win situation. I believe the railway SHOULD be run for me and
every other paying customer who travels on it - isnt that what it's there
for? Complaints are made for improvement - if no complaints were accepted,
think of the poor quality of the service that would result.
I think that it would be hard enough for me to stuff things up - looking at
the state of Sydney's rail system today I dont think you could complain that
changing it would "stuff it up" The tracks are on alignments over a century
old, the signals appear to be problematic, training appears to be shoddy,
there are kilometres of dangerous or unsafe track and the whole thing is
gathering cobwebs.
So if the system isnt changed, if I cant get a reliable and safe service for
my travel, then I will no longer be a "bloody customer" of the railways. And
nor will anyone else. I made a simple suggestion and I dont think that makes
me a criminal.

Brendan


"Bill" <billguest@the.net.nz> wrote in message
385F4E9F.C483ADE5@the.net.nz">news:385F4E9F.C483ADE5@the.net.nz...
> Yeah, "nobody", whodoyathinkyouare? Just a bloody customer, that's all,
and your
> old man too........ You seem to think the railway should run for you,
don't
> you?????............I bet CityRail runs optimally for the purposes of the
staff
> ----   so why should you wanna stuff things up! Economically?
"Properly"??? What
> are ya, some kind of beancounter????
>
> nobody wrote:
>
> > I'm not entering the debate about safeworking and all that, but couldnt
> > Cityrail at least think economically and properly?
> > I caught a train from Pennant Hills with the news ringing in my ear that
> > there might be delays due to a derailment. On arrival at hornsby, where
I
> > changed to get to st Leonards, I found out the trains were being
replaced by
> > busses between Gordon and North Sydney.
> >
> > I question the logic of CityRail (Dad calls it Sh..y Snail and I'm
beginning
> > to see why) in this move. The RSA recently replaced the crossover at
> > Chatswood so trains on the up line could travel over to the down line
> > platform.
> >
> > Could CityRail have operated trains to Chatswood and Hornsby on a Point
to
> > Point operation, therefore requiring fewer busses on a shorter route @
less
> > cost and time waste? On arrival at Chatswood a train could be directed
into
> > the down platform, then go back the other way. Excess trains could be
held
> > at Gordon or Lindfield or Hornsby. They have the infrastructure to do
it -
> > why did they congest traffic and increase delays by stopping trains at
> > gordon?
> >
> > Can someone inform me as to whether this can be done?
> >
> > Brendan
>