SkyscraperCity banner
1 - 20 of 144 Posts

·
Registered Melbourne
Joined
·
4,166 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 · (Edited)
OK guys ... here's a thread so you don't bitch about the absence of passenger rail services to Mildura in the Melbourne Public transport thread, or post stuff like this in the Eddington Report thread:

He doesn't seem to like a dose of reality - well here's some more

From open, Sydenham services depart at intervals of 30, 24, 20, 11, 14, 18, 19, 13, 13...

Why the rise then fall? Well, because everyone needs to move out the way for Botchelor's little legacy from Bendigo
The posting above refers to the time interval between successive departures in minutes of trains from Sydenham weekday mornings: the first leaves at 4:55 am. The fourth figure is incorrect.

If I understand the posting correctly, the inference is that the service interval of a morning is decreasing, and then increases (to 18 & 19 minutes, between 6:32 and 7:09 in the morning) due to what is described here as "Botchelor's little legacy from Bendigo".

It's true that the so-called "show pony" service does run through in this time-slot, but so what? Between three trains, the interval was 18.5 minutes rather than 12.5 for the previous three (up to the 6:32) and 13 for the three (from the 7:09) after them?

Jeez, Bleak City, you deserve the Nobel Prize for that, and we should all run to the International Criminal Court and have "Botchelor" put away for life. Don't you realize you wouldn't even have a Sydenham train if it wasn't for Bendigo?

You guys complain because the Victorian RFR trains don't run at maximum speed, and then if or when they do, you complain that suburban trains have to make way for them. You guys reject out right the suggestion of separating express from local traffic, and then gripe when your local gets held up.

Anyway, if you want to bitch about V/Line do it here, rather than stick a whole lot of irrelevancies (like Mildura trains) in other threads.
 

·
derp
Joined
·
10,274 Posts
Where have we (I'm assuming I'm included in your gunzel gang reference) ever disagreed outright with separating express traffic from local traffic?

All I can recall rejecting outright is the Rock Farmer Special in favour of separating express and local services on the existing corridor + building a new tunnel from Newport to Southern Cross Station and putting the Caulfield-CBD tunnel to better use.
 

·
̙͈̩ͫ̎Ż̌ͫ&
Joined
·
3,549 Posts
I do notice that you have managed to selectively chop the point out of my post.

You sound frustrated Yardmaster.
 

·
̙͈̩ͫ̎Ż̌ͫ&
Joined
·
3,549 Posts
My post in context:

From open, Sydenham services depart at intervals of 30, 24, 20, 9, 14, 18, 19, 13, 13...

Why the rise then fall? Well, because everyone needs to move out the way for Botchelor's little legacy from Bendigo

Same story when the Ballarat comes through later in the peak

Truth is, you could make these trains crawl, thus increasing capacity, and those from afar would still catch them, since they simply wouldn't be able to support their bad habit without them. They could never afford the costs of daily road commuting, and most likely, wouldn't even be able to support their existing travel if it weren't for the massive decrease in regional fares (which also has much to do with the increased patronage).
Much of the capacity scenario is imagined

There is no real reason to give such wide path consuming slots to express regional services.

The passengers on these services are, most likely, non transferable to private road transport

(And even if they were, there are far more beneficial places to spend the funds)

One of the reasons Sunbury electrification is mentioned in the Eddington report, is for its ability to create extra train paths and increase capacity, as to improve the efficiency of the system, by getting a tighter headway between services and more people on each train

(Though AFAIK it is already in advanced planning, and was as such before the study)
 

·
Registered Melbourne
Joined
·
4,166 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
My post in context:

He doesn't seem to like a dose of reality - well here's some more

From open, Sydenham services depart at intervals of 30, 24, 20, 11, 14, 18, 19, 13, 13...

Why the rise then fall? Well, because everyone needs to move out the way for Botchelor's little legacy from Bendigo

Same story when the Ballarat comes through later in the peak

Truth is, you could make these trains crawl, thus increasing capacity, and those from afar would still catch them, since they simply wouldn't be able to support their bad habit without them. They could never afford the costs of daily road commuting, and most likely, wouldn't even be able to support their existing travel if it weren't for the massive decrease in regional fares (which also has much to do with the increased patronage).

You can't say the regional network has improved much whilst keeping a straight face.
Much of the capacity scenario is imagined

There is no real reason to give such wide path consuming slots to express regional services.

The passengers on these services are, most likely, non transferable to private road transport

(And even if they were, there are far more beneficial places to spend the funds)

One of the reasons Sunbury electrification is mentioned in the Eddington report, is for its ability to create extra train paths and increase capacity, as to improve the efficiency of the system, by getting a tighter headway between services and more people on each train

(Though AFAIK it is already in advanced planning, and was as such before the study)
You're evading the issue, BleakCity.

There's a minimal disturbance (as compared to the rest of the peak) for the 6:02 from Bendigo to pass through to Melbourne by 7:26: which would not be done on the highway!

The reference which you highlighted:
Truth is, you could make these trains crawl, thus increasing capacity, and those from afar would still catch them, since they simply wouldn't be able to support their bad habit without them
is quite frankly, offensive: and unsubstantiated.

What is this "bad habit" ? Tell us all.

Dare I guess (from what you've previously posted) that you're inferring that the passengers on this train are a bunch of deros that would be happy with any slow old bus to Melbourne? Sure ... that's why they caught the train from Bendigo at 6:02 in the morning, or from Castlemaine 19 minutes later.

The simple fact is, at worst, one suburban train slot was consumed by this train, in other words, your statistics prove nothing (and you still haven't corrected them, even though I pointed out that they were wrong!).

I used to go to and from school on that line: if I missed the 4:04 from Sunshine home, I had to wait 26 minutes for the 4:30. What are you whinging about: at 7 am in the morning, there are two trains 18 & 19 minutes apart rather than (on average) 13 minutes apart for the previous and subsequent two? I can't believe you can make such a mountain out of a mole-hill.
 

·
̙͈̩ͫ̎Ż̌ͫ&
Joined
·
3,549 Posts
Yardmaster said:
What is this "bad habit" ? Tell us all.
Long range commuting

Yardmaster said:
Dare I guess (from what you've previously posted) that you're inferring that the passengers on this train are a bunch of deros that would be happy with any slow old bus to Melbourne? Sure ... that's why they caught the train from Bendigo at 6:02 in the morning, or from Castlemaine 19 minutes later.
Well, yes.

Think about it - a weekly from Bendigo to Melbourne is only $106.8 (against $47.4 for a zone 1+2 metcard)

Now if these people were to drive the 300Km round trip they would be up for (given economy 10L/100Km and fuel $1.5/L):

1500Km * 10L * $1.50 / 100LKm = $225

Citylink to Footscray Rd = $32.20

Parking at $10 per day = $50

Thus weekly spend for a Bendigo commuter to drive would be $307.2 - which makes a raft of assumptions including: early bird parking, no stop-start traffic, cheap fuel, no vehicle maintenance and leaving Citylink in the northern CBD. The actual figure would therefore be much higher.

The subsidy provided to these long range commuters, is far above that given to commuters from closer in, for a much lower benefit

So please deposit your indignation elsewhere - they continue to drain the State's coffers, and still demand more.

Why should we encourage such activity?
 

·
Registered Melbourne
Joined
·
4,166 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 · (Edited)
^^ Any responsible government has a responsibility to encourage regional development: Australia is one of the most metro-centric countries in the world.

The way I see it, every long-distance commuter who takes the train instead of driving the car is doing something good for the planet as well ... are you really complaining that they're getting these people off the road ? Incidentally, if we accept your figures, you'll note that the cost of commuting by road from Bendigo amounts to about $15K per annum: certainly more than I'd want to pay.
 

·
̙͈̩ͫ̎Ż̌ͫ&
Joined
·
3,549 Posts
Yardmaster said:
Any responsible government has a responsibility to encourage regional development: Australia is one of the most metro-centric countries in the world.
But you don't do that by just trying to create a distant dormitory suburb to the metropolis.

You do it by encouraging things like the Bendigo Bank HQ etc. to create a regional city in its own right.

Yardmaster said:
The way I see it, every long-distance commuter who takes the train instead of driving the car is doing something good for the planet as well ... are you really complaining that they're getting these people off the road ? Incidentally, if we accept your figures, you'll note that the cost of commuting by road from Bendigo amounts to about $15K per annum: certainly more than I'd want to pay.
As I showed with the weekly cost of commuting by car, the actual number of trips converted from that mode would be negligible.

If you think getting cars off the road is a good thing, then don't you think the State should invest its limited funds in projects of a far higher potential benefit?

(You're also making the false assumption, one that is often perpetuated throughout the threads of this transport section, that long-range commuting is somehow sustainable because the passengers are on a train - which is certainly not the case)
 

·
Registered Melbourne
Joined
·
4,166 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
I don't have statistics on how many people commute daily from Ballarat or Bendigo to Melbourne, but I doubt it's huge. Whoever does- from Bendigo- is spending 15 hours a week if they catch your so-called "show pony" service, and, as you your mates have argued earlier, significantly more if they catch a later train. If you ask me, if they put up with that, they deserve a clear run through Sydenham ...

There's no doubt that a lot of people commute daily from Geelong: you seem to be suggesting that we should be encouraging them back onto the highway (which of course costs more in providing yet more road infrastructure to enable them to do it).

We're not a communist state: if people want to live in regional cities and commute to Melbourne, well, that's their choice. I doubt anyone enjoys long-distance commuting: are you going to drive these people onto the Melbourne housing market?

And the idea that PT fares should be directly proportionate to distance travelled never held up: just as it doesn't for your airfares, or for your electricity, gas or water bills: in my case, in each instance, most of the bill is the fixed "service charge".
 

·
̙͈̩ͫ̎Ż̌ͫ&
Joined
·
3,549 Posts
Yardmaster said:
I don't have statistics on how many people commute daily from Ballarat or Bendigo to Melbourne, but I doubt it's huge.
And yet you believe we should be wasting more money on these few?

Yardmaster said:
There's no doubt that a lot of people commute daily from Geelong: you seem to be suggesting that we should be encouraging them back onto the highway (which of course costs more in providing yet more road infrastructure to enable them to do it).
Hence why I suggest options that cater better to this group (and the broader suburban south west) where a greater benefit can be had

Yardmaster said:
We're not a communist state: if people want to live in regional cities and commute to Melbourne, well, that's their choice.
But you don't encourage it with:

-Outlandishly cheap periodicals (50% saving on a 5x daily, against 14% for Met zone 1+2)
-Special express trains designed with that purpose (and marketed as such)
-And even official recommendations towards towards such actions

I think you missed my point, so I'll repeat it again:

The subsidy provided to these long range commuters, is far above that given to commuters from closer in, for a much lower benefit
 

·
Registered Melbourne
Joined
·
4,166 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
Your original issue seemed to be two (Sydenham) trains in 37 minutes, rather than two in 26 or 28 minutes. However, this is the V/Line gripe thread, so get it off your chest!

Dare I point out that- by citing just the weekly ticket price from Bendigo- you are in effect quoting what is almost the cheapest option available (the yearly is $3,081.60). "The Railways" have always offered significant concessions for regular travel.

The cost of a daily return from Bendigo might be more representative. At $42.80 for a daily return, that's over twice what you've quoted per day ...

If there are very few people purchasing weeklies for this sort of trip, then, obviously, the overall subsidy doesn't amount to much either. I dareso someone will then argue that we're holding up another potential Sydenham train-slot for one person on the "show-pony", but without reliable evidence, there's no point buying into that.

Seems to me that you're complaining that V/Line services are interferring with your suburban service- and that they're over-subsidized.

The guy at V/Line pointed out you're getting an extra platform at Sydenham to improve service reliability :)

Regarding the first point, I use the Sydenham service too: I know it's overcrowded (the worst on the system, in fact), but no-one is going to seriously consider cutting out V/Line services to Ballarat & Bendigo to put on more trains to Sydenham: unless the regional trains are half-empty.

Regarding the second point: the subsidy may be greater, but no-one wants to see PT end at the metropolitan boundary (not in this sub-forum anyway). People don't choose to live in Bendigo and commute to Melbourne- by car or by road- five times a week; nor do they set up house in Bendigo because the train-fares are cheap: except as a short-term strategy.
 

·
̙͈̩ͫ̎Ż̌ͫ&
Joined
·
3,549 Posts
Again with the talking in circles.

Yardmaster said:
The cost of a daily return from Bendigo might be more representative.
No, it wouldn't, since that would not be what a daily commuter would buy.

Yardmaster said:
If there are very few people purchasing weeklies for this sort of trip
:hammer:

Yardmaster said:
...unless the regional trains are half-empty.
Which many technically are, in comparison to a packed six-car spark.

Yardmaster said:
Regarding the second point: the subsidy may be greater, but no-one wants to see PT end at the metropolitan boundary
Easy way to remedy this - slash the massive periodical subsidy
 

·
Registered Melbourne
Joined
·
4,166 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
^^ You know, the posting above does not make a great deal of sense ... you've quoted me four times above ...

Quote 1:

People don't buy weekly tickets from Bendigo to Melbourne unless they commute daily ... BleakCity, have you got any data on how many people do this?

Quote 2:

I can't argue with a smilie of someone banging their head with a hammer ... because it means absolutely nothing.

Quote 3:

Here you compare the patronage of the so-called "show-pony" from Bendigo to a "spark" even though there's no data yet presented about how many people actually commute from Bendigo to Melbourne, on a daily basis, by road, rail or air-ship ... until we have some data, is this argument worth having?

I concede: the number of passengers would have to be less on what you refer to as the "show pony" than on a crowded Sydenham train (especially by the time it gets to Footscray!) but what exactly does that prove?

Quote 4:

If I read you correctly, you do think that the rail system should end at the Metropolitan Boundary? Remember, you do get a subsidy from the Government as well each time you travel to town ...

So what are you whingeing about? I really can't understand. BleakCity, I know your current angst is about V/Line periodic tickets offering too much in the way of a concession if you buy a weekly, but what is it to you? These services don't compete with each other (except for space on the line, which is another matter, and was what I thought you were originally griping about), so why would anyone in V/Line give a stuff about the ratio of cost of daily versus weekly Met tickets in the metropolitan area when setting their fare structures? They're trying to attract patronage, aren't they? So if someone goes to Bendigo and lays down $100 a week to commute to Melbourne, what's the problem? Sounds like a good deal to me: if you like sitting on a train for fifteen or more hours a week, plus anything at the end to get to and from the station.

Perhaps you could explain to me why this is such a problem for you ?
 

·
̙͈̩ͫ̎Ż̌ͫ&
Joined
·
3,549 Posts
Problem for me? It's a problem for the State - do I need to spell it out?

It costs government more to support commuters from further out, than closer in - agree?

Now given this, it does not make sound economic sense to actively support the former - agree?

As supporting that option will obviously lead to a much greater transport deficit - agree?

Yardmaster said:
They're trying to attract patronage, aren't they?
Attracting traffic from nowhere is called induced demand - which is just as bad for PT as it is for roads.
 

·
Registered Melbourne
Joined
·
4,166 Posts
Discussion Starter · #16 ·
Problem for me? It's a problem for the State - do I need to spell it out?

It costs government more to support commuters from further out, than closer in - agree?

Now given this, it does not make sound economic sense to actively support the former - agree?

As supporting that option will obviously lead to a much greater transport deficit - agree?
No, I don't necessarily agree at all: it depends on the circumstances. Tarneit is far closer to Melbourne than Pakenham: should we encourage development there?

Attracting traffic from nowhere is called induced demand - which is just as bad for PT as it is for roads.
It ain't "induced demand" if it shifts traffic from one medium to another.

When you grow up and build your own house, BleakCity - have a few kids and that sort of stuff- you'll come to the relization that you don't just shift house out of town because of cheaper railer fares: unless you have very good reasons ...
 

·
̙͈̩ͫ̎Ż̌ͫ&
Joined
·
3,549 Posts
Yardmaster said:
Tarneit is far closer to Melbourne than Pakenham: should we encourage development there?
Certainly not, especially when we have the Melton and Sunbury (albeit with airspace gap) corridors with decent PT links

That, and it would box in the industrial powerhouse.

Yardmaster said:
It ain't "induced demand" if it shifts traffic from one medium to another.
I think I showed with the daily road commuting cost, that this is simply not the case.
 

·
Registered Melbourne
Joined
·
4,166 Posts
Discussion Starter · #18 ·
This is in response to this posting:

Don't open that box.

I think you'll find the massive fare decreases, and concurrent petrol price increases, have more to do with the greater patronage.
in the "Countrylink to be axed" thread: regarding increases in V/Line patronafe on RFR routes.

The increase of 49% quoted for the Bendigo line (and for a 30% increase overall) was for the financial yeat 2006-2007: well before the current petrol price blow-out.

The fare decrease took place in February or March 2007: i.e. only three months of the reduced fares relate to that financial period.

And by the way, in the comparison of road versus rail costs for commuting from bendigo, while including the cost of parking in the CBD may have a bearing on some travellers, it obviously distorts things to assume that everyone in the train would otherwise be paying parking fees in the city.

Let's keep the V/Line gripes in this thread!
 

·
Registered Melbourne
Joined
·
4,166 Posts
Discussion Starter · #19 · (Edited)
Long range commuting


Well, yes.

Think about it - a weekly from Bendigo to Melbourne is only $106.8 (against $47.4 for a zone 1+2 metcard)
A weekly from Newcastle to Sydney (same distance: 160 km) is $79. Lithgow to Sydney: same price.
From Gympie Nth to Roma St. Brisbane (slightly further: 180 km): $117

Incidentally, I notice you also included Citylink Toll costs in your comparison ... again, not an essential item. Since you compared the Bendigo figures with Sydenham, factor them into a trip from Sydenham as well ...
 

·
̙͈̩ͫ̎Ż̌ͫ&
Joined
·
3,549 Posts
If you think RFR had much to do with patronage increases you are seriously deluded.

Compare a pre-RFR timetable to present - barely a change.
 
1 - 20 of 144 Posts
Top