If we change the timetable to define slow trains as “on time”, they’ll all be on time!

Frankston line voters who put Baillieu into power finally get what they wanted: slower trains.

You’re welcome.

8 responses to “If we change the timetable to define slow trains as “on time”, they’ll all be on time!

  1. Surely if trains have been unable to run on time to the previous timetables, and this has been going on for years, then there is an issue with the previous timetables, not the new ones.

  2. That’s like saying if kids at a particular school have been receiving low grades for years because of poor teaching, the solution is to lower the standard required to get an A.

  3. I didn’t know Ballieu voters used public transport (except when the chauffer put in a pay claim).

    vagabond, I availed myself of public transport quite a bit in my yoof (under Cain, Kirner and Kennett)… before Kennett sold it, you could set your watch by the trains (I didn’t use buses, so I can’t say about them). And tickets were reasonable. And platforms were manned.
    And you weren’t fined, arrested, beaten or jailed for not having a ticket… you were just slugged for another all-zone ticket.

  4. Yes, but if you intend to use that analogy, how smart your kids are is how fast trains get from station to station, and good grades are arriving at those stations on time, the question is what is more important? Smart Kids, or good grades. Obviously in that case smart kids is more important. In this case it sounds to me like you’d rather the train be there when you expect it to, even if you are trading off that the trip into the CBD takes a few minutes longer overall.

    It seems to me either:
    a) the trains don’t drive fast enough
    b) the timetables aren’t realistic
    c) the train drivers are crap and can’t drive to the timetable

    I’ve not seen anyone suggest we fire all the drivers and get better ones, so I’m left with the first two options, or am I missing something?

  5. How about (d) – the trains aren’t properly maintained so there are regular failures, and the staffing levels are inadequate for quick turnarounds, there’s not enough stock, and they don’t run enough trains.

  6. narcoticmusing

    Yes, I’d like to see added to that list d) the trains and their supporting systems are inadequate – although this is essenitally an extension of b) – atm the timetables are unrealisitic, particularly for the time taken to board/unload at peak hour – the congestion is so great this is making running on time near impossible – and yet, other jurisdictions manage it quite fine? How? the trains and their supporting systems are adequate.

  7. Yes vagabond, you are missing something – specifically, that VicRail and the Met had no problem holding to similar timetables. My post probably appeared just as you were typing yours.

    I propose we add two more things to the list…

    e) The vetting process was a joke, reducing the selloff to an essentially no-bid tender
    f) no minimum performance standards were laid down in the tender, or at least no consequence for not meeting their undertakings for output

    Either of these would have spawned Jeremys d) option (skeleton crews, zero maintenance, clearance sale of train stocks)
    As happened to the SEC

  8. narcoticmusing

    3 words describe our current system, similar to the plight of private run aged care facilities – conflict of interest.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s