Re: derailment and train management

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

Lol! Sorry Bill! But you can't tell expression from a posting on the
newsgroup! (phew, thanks for clearing that up for me, I thought I was in
trouble there!).

Brendan

"Bill" <billguest@the.net.nz> wrote in message
38608B9A.36DC2D9D@the.net.nz">news:38608B9A.36DC2D9D@the.net.nz...
> Whooops! You weren't meant to take that too literally! (Next time, I will
post
> it on April 1st.....)
>
> nobody wrote:
>
> > 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
> > >
>