Re: Feedback needed

["Roderick Smith" <rodsmith@werple.net.au>]

Well, I do consider them valid, and that David's reaction is simply that of
railway management for the last 30 years, which is one reason why rail lost
its market share to bus and aeroplane.

I don't know how much rebuilding of an XP is needed between runs.
The trailers are just carriages; IP ones make a return trip between Perth
and Sydney before having a maintenance gap.
XPs are just locos.
AFAIK there are 19 to cover 16 rosters.
Occasionally there are only 15 rosters, when Central West runs with a
single XP.

My own proposal includes a few robustness provisions: Melbourne turnrounds
are not tight (7.50 arr forms 11.40 dep.; 17.30 arr forms 20.40 dep; 21.00
arr. forms 7.30 dep.).  This allows recuperation of lost time, and time for
minor maintenance in Melbourne: presumably by RTS under contract.

It should be possible to exchange an XP at any of the three Sydney stops.

EVERY arrival CAN and SHOULD connect with EVERY departure.

Switzerland went through two stages with its regular-interval memory
timetables.  In the second stage, it would introduce selective improvements
so that trains could meet at nodal cities every hour.
If a journey was less than 60 min, there was no point spending money to
shorten the journey time.
If a journey was 64 min, there was every point spending money to bring the
time down to less than 60 min.

In NSW, the effort should be expended on reliability improvement.
As far as I can judge from postings, the main cause of late running is an
overheating or failed XP.
What is done in Sydney to fix this which can't be done by a technician in
Brisbane or in Melbourne?
Is there regular component changeover?

-- 
Regards
Roderick Smith
Rail News Victoria Editor

Dave Proctor <daproc@spambait.umpires.com> wrote in article 
> Roderick Smith <rodsmith@werple.net.au> wrote in message
> > David appears to have ignored every point which I made.
> No - I did not consider them to be valid - EVERY arrival cannot connect
with
> EVERY departure.
> > Connections in capitals should be a priority.  If reliability has to be
> > enhanced to achieve this, work on improving reliability rather than
> > throwing up the hands in horror 'we can't achieve this, so we will make
it
> > impossible'.
> With the current political situation in NSW (i.e. NO new rolling stock)
and
> the current extremely heavy utilisation of the existing rolling stock, we
> HAVE to say "we can't achieve this" - because it IS unachievable (at the
> moment - unless the government does an about face and orders more stock).