Re: Feedback needed

["Dave Proctor" <daproc@sd5.mailbank.com>]

Roderick Smith <rodsmith@werple.net.au> wrote in message
01bf25c5$8d1c7260$a48817d2@rodsmith">news:01bf25c5$8d1c7260$a48817d2@rodsmith...
> 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.

No - simply acknowledging reality.

> I don't know how much rebuilding of an XP is needed between runs.

Rebuilding?

> The trailers are just carriages; IP ones make a return trip between Perth
> and Sydney before having a maintenance gap.

IP carriages do not have retention toilets that have to be emptied
constantly - Those things are often full by the time the set gets back from
Murwillumbah or Brisbane (having been empty before departure).

> XPs are just locos.

Locos that were designed for short runs - not for the massive rosters you
are suggesting.

> AFAIK there are 19 to cover 16 rosters.

Yes.

> Occasionally there are only 15 rosters, when Central West runs with a
> single XP.

And that only happens when they only have 15 XP's - which is becoming an all
to frequent occurrence.

> 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.

No - not EVERY arrival. By all means, offer a range of options, but not
EVERY arrival has to connect with EVERY possible destination.
>
> 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.

That is stupid - you are comparing an operation in a country a fraction of
the size of NSW that has frequencies vastly greater than anything that would
be possible here. You are also talking about (mostly) private operations
that are not hamstrung by government interference and government refusal to
provide adequate funding for rolling stock replacement.

> 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.

This is being addressed - they are to be re-engined in the near future -
might have already started (Jack?????) - I believe it is to be with Paxman
VP185's (already operating on GWT and Virgin (I think) in the UK.

> What is done in Sydney to fix this which can't be done by a technician in
> Brisbane or in Melbourne?

Parts availability and storage? If you are going to go down that road, you
might as well build complete service centres around the state - Moree,
Armidale and Canberra in case something falls out of an Xploder, etc., etc.,
etc. You and I both know that the buzzword is "efficiency" and the powers
that be in Countrylink have taken that to mean "centralisation".

> Is there regular component changeover?

Not sure - Jack might know.

The main fault that I see with your proposed timetable is that you are
increasing what is already extremely high utilisation. Countrylink sets
"worlds best practice" as far as long distance passenger cars go. You are
reducing the time for maintenance, by reducing the opportunities for these
cars to visit Meeks Rd. And you are having Lidcombe as your main Sydney
station. I cannot see that working, for the reasons that Tony Gatt (I think
it was) mentioned in his posts.

--
DaveProctor
thadocta AT dingoblue.net.au