News & Discussion: Public Transport Contracts, Service & Policy

[Somebody]

Good points monotonehell.

Harvey (or is that Greg Norman now ), don't use stupid arguments - transport infraustructure costs megabucks, and the O-Bahn already works well.

Use whatever is the most appropriate for that service, not "run trains everywhere coz theyre nicer than buses and i dont want that place to only have dirty buses :wank: "

[jk1237]

monotonehell, are you under the control of a o'bahn spell? My goodness, I guess NY, London, Paris and Tokyo should replace their train systems and go for buses, so they can run every 15 secs. Ever thought of the employment of all these bus drivers compared to a few train drivers.
and 1 train carriage only fitting 10 more people than an artic bus, whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat, and what % of the fleet are artics.

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrgggggggggggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

I must admit, your very sophisticated style of writing is trying to make us appear like dimwits, and you of a professor, but really!

[Norman]

Good points monotonehell.

Harvey (or is that Greg Norman now ), don't use stupid arguments - transport infraustructure costs megabucks, and the O-Bahn already works well.

Use whatever is the most appropriate for that service, not "run trains everywhere coz theyre nicer than buses and i dont want that place to only have dirty buses :wank: "

Unless they find a suitable artic or even a suitable rigid bus, I won't support the O-Bahn. They say the O-Bahn has 25 years or so left in it, then you have to rebuild the entire thing or convert it to rail.

New artics aren't being ordered because they are too expensive for the Volvo ones, and the Scanias are just shithouse. This also explains why the new rigid buses don't get my support, the new ones (K230s) are just too awkward and run like a poodle in a greyhound race.

The fact that they won't order artics reduces your capacity calculations, so you may want to adjust those. Oh, and a train car can carry more than 110 people, that's just the people sitting down. Try doubling that for a real peak loading.

[monotonehell]

Well, you have your position, and I have mine. I won't argue more into this topic as it's getting too complex. I guess it just comes down to preference, and I just prefer trains because I think they are cleaner, more comfortable and encourage higher localised density close to stations. They are also easier to drive and handle for the staff.

Translation: "I can't counter your facts."
Cleaner: How? On the outside; Have you looked at the fill between railtracks? They rail lines cut great scars across the urban landscape. They take up more room. On the inside; that depends on how well maintained and cleaned they are.

Comfort: Depends on who outfits the internals. The ride is just as smooth on the OBahn (smoother if the rail is not well maintained).

ToDs: Yes rail lines do encourage ToD style development. But so did the OBahn. I wish I could find the link to the paper on the subject I read. Non guided busways don't encourage ToDs because of their perceived non-permanency. But the OBahn has tracks and tracks seem permanent to developers.

Easier to drive and handle: What's the stopping distance for a metal wheel? Bzzt!

Fail.
(I do love you Norm, but I'm just calling you on BS)

Face it - trains are sexy. That's pretty much the only argument.

Oh my god. You keep saying how its a problem that trains rely on feeder buses (which I cant find a problem with at all), yet you have now turned it right around saying the o'bahn has the best of both worlds caus it has feeder buses in non-peak, even though it was said just before that was a furphy that the o'bahn has loads of feeder buses. Now Im confused.

It's very simple:

Trains can never provide a door to door service. You need to run feeders into the stations all the time. During peak, trains need to deal with a huge amount of people coming in from the feeders and transferring to the train. It's well documented in all the literature that one of the barriers to people getting out of their cars and onto PT is the lack of a door to door service and the need to transfer.

During peak period there's many more passengers than off peak, thus you have a lot more revenue, thus you can provide a bit more service.

On the OBahn you can provide a door to door service all day if you wanted. But to save a bit of money, instead of running buses with only 6 passengers all the way into town, you can transfer them onto routes that are more patronised.

Thus you get the best of both worlds. You get everything a train can do, PLUS you can offer door to door service, PLUS you can offer no transfers during peak. - If you can't understand that please tell me which words you are having problems with and I'll look them up in a dictionary for you.

Therefore, a train line to the NE suburbs would have worked almost identical to this current o'bahn, except in peak hour

See my answer to Norman above to see how misguided you are. The OBahn services close to destination sprawl in a much better way than rail. Similar capacity, better frequency and door to door. Rail also costs much more to run out of peak period.

Deepest apologies for my poorly thought out non arguments. I am very stupid

It's obviously not your argument, otherwise you would have thought it through. Sorry for being short with you, but I've had to explain this many times and no one is listening. Getting frustrated repeating myself.



Somebody: You're not making any friends here. I love and respect these guys, I'm just trying to get them to open their eyes that Rail has its place, trams have their place as buses have their place. Ease off on the abuse. Although I could take that advise myself today - sorry everyone you know I don't mean it.

monotonehell, are you under the control of a o'bahn spell? My goodness, I guess NY, London, Paris and Tokyo should replace their train systems and go for buses, so they can run every 15 secs. Ever thought of the employment of all these bus drivers compared to a few train drivers.
and 1 train carriage only fitting 10 more people than an artic bus, whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat, and what % of the fleet are artics.

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrgggggggggggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

I must admit, your very sophisticated style of writing is trying to make us appear like dimwits, and you of a professor, but really!

No way - NY and London have the population where underground works. We don't. Simple as that - rail for when it's appropriate.

Regarding employment. The bus drivers are already employed running the feeders; the capital, maintenance and running costs of a train line far outweigh the employment of a few extra drivers.

Regarding the capacity - do the math - no wait you don't need to I did it for you already. It's to do with headway. One train with 600pax every 3 minutes is less capacity than one artic every 15 seconds.

Percent of the fleet is irrelevant since I was generous and calculated on a 6 car set, when most trains are 4 cars max.

By sophisticated do you mean, well read, and in possession of some facts?

*hugs all round* You guys love trains a little too much ( I have the videos to prove it... and if you don't pay the ransom they're going on youtube)

[monotonehell]

The fact that they won't order artics reduces your capacity calculations, so you may want to adjust those. Oh, and a train car can carry more than 110 people, that's just the people sitting down. Try doubling that for a real peak loading.

This is a problem I agree, what are the (comfortable not sardine) crush loads of a 3000 class and a Custom coach rigid? Let's do the math!

[Somebody]

Somebody: You're not making any friends here. I love and respect these guys, I'm just trying to get them to open their eyes that Rail has its place, trams have their place as buses have their place. Ease off on the abuse. Although I could take that advise myself today - sorry everyone you know I don't mean it.

I can't maintain one personality for SkyscraperCity and one personality for Sensational-Adelaide, hence I will use the same personality on both sites.

As to O-Bahns: I don't care for them, but now that you have one that is working fine you might as well keep it. I wouldn't support building any more tho.

[jk1237]

m-tone you have now lowered your train capacity from 660 to 600. is it gonna be even lower next post.

Newsflash: feeder buses from railway stations also serve door to door. If people can walk a few metres from a connecting train to a bus, (or from an o'bahn bus to another bus) in non-peak, why cant they do it in peak also?

[monotonehell]

m-tone you have now lowered your train capacity from 660 to 600. is it gonna be even lower next post.

Oh pish posh - typo. 660 is what I meant.

Newsflash: feeder buses from railway stations also serve door to door. If people can walk a few metres from a connecting train to a bus, (or from an o'bahn bus to another bus) in non-peak, why cant they do it in peak also?

They can, but the literature says that once they are on their local bus, they would rather stay on that bus instead of being disgorged into a station were they have to fight for a place on the next train, or wait 10 minutes for the next one.

Transfers cost time. A transferring service can add 5 to 10minutes to the total trip time. This can be the difference between winning over a private driver or not.

The name of the game is to get people out of their cars. In order to do that we need to make PT as attractive as possible. Barriers to this include:
* Comparative costs (for example two people in a car sharing the cost of parking and fuel is currently marginally cheaper than two multitrips)
* Length of trip (an obahn or rail corridor can reduce travel time compared to roads)
* Comfort (crowded smelly PT compared to your own car)
* Stress (driving yourself, compared to fighting other passengers to get on)

If you can win the objective cost / benefit calculation in a potential passenger's head you have a bum on seat and another car off the roads.

[Norman]

Translation: "I can't counter your facts."

No, the translation is "I have better things to do than continuously argue my points over yours". But here I go again

Cleaner:

I meant environment-wise. Diesel will eventually run out, and electrifying the O-Bahn would mean electrifying all the roads and whatnot.

Comfort: Depends on who outfits the internals. The ride is just as smooth on the OBahn (smoother if the rail is not well maintained).

Well, the current batch are quite comfortable on the road, but not on the track (The vibrations make my bum wobble around too much, and my arse ain't big ) The vibrations and the bus wobbling around from side to side is not comfort to me. Try the Glenelg tram,, now that's smooth (but not as smooth as the Melbourne-Geelong line)

Easier to drive and handle: What's the stopping distance for a metal wheel? Bzzt!

By that I was comparing to holding down a foot pedal to... well, either holding down a stick or sitting back. Stopping distance is safety related. Yes, the O-Bahn does have a stopping distance advantage, but I have not heard of a single case where that was ever useful.

And, yes, trains are far sexier and much more efficient. It takes so long for a bus to fill up, the trains can have numerous doors all over the vehicle.

Trains can never provide a door to door service. You need to run feeders into the stations all the time. During peak, trains need to deal with a huge amount of people coming in from the feeders and transferring to the train. It's well documented in all the literature that one of the barriers to people getting out of their cars and onto PT is the lack of a door to door service and the need to transfer.

Thing is though it's not a to-your-door service. It's still a normal bus route that doesn't go off it's normal route unless under extreme circumstances. My bus has never taken me to my door, and I doubt it ever will.

And to Somebody, I don't have exact crush load figures, but I think a Rigid is about 60, with a normal train to be about 200-250 per car.

[Somebody]

Well, the current batch are quite comfortable on the road, but not on the track

O305s are good on the track though

(but not as smooth as the Melbourne-Geelong line)

I take it that you have never been on that line in an H set carriage (old 1950s suburban cars converted to interurban stock in the 1980s). They bounce a lot even on good track. Try riding one on the Seymour Line - I had one back from Tallarook in Dec 07, and it bounced like hell. I had one on a Marshall service on a weekend in August and it was quite bad.

[Norman]

Well, the current batch are quite comfortable on the road, but not on the track

O305s are good on the track though

Yes, but they have to be retired very soon.

(but not as smooth as the Melbourne-Geelong line)

I take it that you have never been on that line in an H set carriage (old 1950s suburban cars converted to interurban stock in the 1980s). They bounce a lot even on good track. Try riding one on the Seymour Line - I had one back from Tallarook in Dec 07, and it bounced like hell. I had one on a Marshall service on a weekend in August and it was quite bad.

I was on a Z-Set on the Warrnambool line, and it was smooth. European standard smooth. Well, the Melbourne to Geelong section anyway, the rest was OK. The Overland was pretty shithouse in the Victorian section though.

[monotonehell]

I meant environment-wise. Diesel will eventually run out, and electrifying the O-Bahn would mean electrifying all the roads and whatnot.

Granted. But you wouldn't have to electrify the roads. They have hybrids for that in Europe. Trolley/biodiesel.

Well, the current batch are quite comfortable on the road, but not on the track (The vibrations make my bum wobble around too much, and my arse ain't big ) The vibrations and the bus wobbling around from side to side is not comfort to me. Try the Glenelg tram,, now that's smooth (but not as smooth as the Melbourne-Geelong line)

Easier to drive and handle: What's the stopping distance for a metal wheel? Bzzt!

By that I was comparing to holding down a foot pedal to... well, either holding down a stick or sitting back. Stopping distance is safety related. Yes, the O-Bahn does have a stopping distance advantage, but I have not heard of a single case where that was ever useful.[/quote]
That's because any accidents were avoided by the shorter stopping distance.

And, yes, trains are far sexier and much more efficient. It takes so long for a bus to fill up, the trains can have numerous doors all over the vehicle.

They only need more doors because they hold more people. Don't confuse greater capacity with more efficient. If those bodies aren't there to fill a train then the train becomes less efficient. Trains cost more than buses outside peak periods.

Thing is though it's not a to-your-door service. It's still a normal bus route that doesn't go off it's normal route unless under extreme circumstances. My bus has never taken me to my door, and I doubt it ever will.

Again another logical fallacy. Buses don't take you to your door (unless you're in a roamzone lol) but they take you closer than the train can. Unless you live in the train station, your point is moot.

And to Somebody, I don't have exact crush load figures, but I think a Rigid is about 60, with a normal train to be about 200-250 per car.

That sounds about right. I think the capacity of a Custom Coach rigid is about six. I hate those things.

Crush loads this time:
Train(6 cars): 225pax X 6 cars X 3mins = 27000
Bus(artic): 120 X 1 artic X 10secs = 43200

Train(4 cars): 225pax X 4cars X 3mins = 18000
Bus(rigid): 60pax X 1 rigid X 10secs = 21600

Bus averages to 32400 but it depends on the mix of artics and rigids.

That said we were originally talking theoretical maximum capacities. All 6 cars trains, compared with all artics.

[jk1237]

My point is that people are very prepared to transfer, if they know the train will take them right into the heart of the city, and not get into traffic congestion from Hackney, so it will be quicker, even after transferring.

Many people are willing to get off their o'bahn bus, walk 100mtrs under the bridge to the o'bahn carpark and drive home, and make the buses 60% less people as they continue from TTP to the suburbs, so something is not right there.

My other point is that I find it much more efficient to have an extensive network of feeder buses from the outer suburban sprawl to main railway stations. Therefore a large amount of people (from these buses) at each railway station makes the 6-car train a ar more efficient mover, and it doesn't waste all these buses time, driver employment and energy as they all separately try and get all the way into the city fighting with the cars every 15 secs. Instead they go and collect more people from the sprawl and drop them at the train stations. If you get the low density people to a main connecting point, then suddenly the final (5-10km) part of the journey is a high-density commuter corridor where the train will be more efficient.

This wont work in the eastern suburbs as they dont sprawl, but for the northern, NE, southern, it would work

Now broadguage cant argue with this, because this is also his argument for last few years.

The literature also asks how to get people out of the cars and onto PT first, and yes, the bus is not sexy, so they are not a magnet for people to swap their cars for.

[monotonehell]

My point is that people are very prepared to transfer, if they know the train will take them right into the heart of the city, and not get into traffic congestion from Hackney, so it will be quicker, even after transferring.

We've proved in the past that this is not true in practice. Also Grenfel street is far more central than the train station, so you incur a walk to your destination negating any (non existent) extra time.

Many people are willing to get off their o'bahn bus, walk 100mtrs under the bridge to the o'bahn carpark and drive home, and make the buses 60% less people as they continue from TTP to the suburbs, so something is not right there.

Choice. There are people who get off and drive to their homes (perhaps they are like my friend and live far away from a bus route). But there are also those people who stay on the bus and get the to door service. If this was a train you'd still have people choosing to park and ride or to catch a connecting bus.

Did you know that not everyone who gets on the train at Adelaide travel all the way to Gawler? Some people get off beforehand...

Your point is moot.

My other point is that I find it much more efficient to have an extensive network of feeder buses from the outer suburban sprawl to main railway stations. Therefore a large amount of people (from these buses) at each railway station makes the 6-car train a ar more efficient mover, and it doesn't waste all these buses time, driver employment and energy as they all separately try and get all the way into the city fighting with the cars every 15 secs. Instead they go and collect more people from the sprawl and drop them at the train stations. If you get the low density people to a main connecting point, then suddenly the final (5-10km) part of the journey is a high-density commuter corridor where the train will be more efficient.

This wont work in the eastern suburbs as they dont sprawl, but for the northern, NE, southern, it would work[/quote]
Actually it's the other way around, where you don't have sprawl rail is much better. It would be more like a ToD. Rail corridors best service narrow population areas. Where as OBahns are best at collecting and funnelling a vast sprawling population.

The literature also asks how to get people out of the cars and onto PT first, and yes, the bus is not sexy, so they are not a magnet for people to swap their cars for.

But the OBahn is - the stats showed that the OBahn had a similar effect on the increase in ridership that a light rail would have. Ridership increased by 55% when the OBahn opened. (33% in stage one and a further 17% in stage two)

People in this debate (not you guys but the opinion pieces out there) often directly equate busways to OBahns - they're really not the same.


I should be in bed two hours ago! Work in the morning. You guys are just too interesting!

[ozisnowman]

It will be great when this one gets going. The way the world financial crisis is going and
the way Rann and Fooley are playing around with the budget it would be a disaster
if Public Transport which is 30 years out of date is put on the back burner for any longer.

The state of Public Transport at the moment warrants precedence over Prisons, Schools
and even the Marj, but definitely not the Desalination Plant.