RTSA Point of view - slowness of CityRail

[somebody]

http://rtsa.com.au/assets/2011/05/newsletter-2011-may-v1.pdf

POINT OF VIEW – MAX MICHELL
Back nearly 20 years ago, in January 1992 to be exact, the last loco hauled train was retired from the Newcastle line leaving the comfortable double deck ,,V‟ sets to run the whole through service. Back then the timetable was recognizably similar to today, apart from the absence of the local ,,Tinkerbell‟ trains between Newcastle and Morisset However trains in 1992, using identical trains on the same track as exist today, were on average 12 minutes faster than now – that is trains on average have been slowed by nearly 8% over a period when just about everything else in society has gained pace and increased efficiency. The fastest trains (the headline trains) were timed at 2h 21m for the journey compared to 2h 37m down and 2h 30m up today. The regular semi- fast times that apply during much of the between peak periods were as fast as 2h 31m in 1992 but now are typically 2h 42m. What exactly has been going on?
For a start it has to be said that the many of the wearers of the Transport Ministers robes had a passion for micro-managing the rail system in some sort of perverse attempt to wins voter plaudits. I well remember one of these Ministers standing up at a learned conference and waffling on about all the good things he was doing for the Railways, how many dollars were being poured in and so on, but at the end of his speech he simply commented "the first thing I want to see on my desk each day when I arrive at work is the trains are all on time". The ,,On Time‟ mantra had a direct influence on the Railway culture such that ,,On Time‟ ahead of Safety was seen to be a significant causal factor in both the Glenbrook and Waterfall disasters. The end reaction by the railways, in response this micro-management from Macquarie St was to do the obvious and slow trains down.

Trains times selectively adjusted to allow better on time running would be one response but the alternative of simply slowing all run times (and therefore train times) across the board was adopted. Given that On Time running seems to be only measured in the peaks and at the end of journey even this sloppy approach could have been a bit more focused.
As a long time observer of train timetables and timing I have to say that there are a number of deep rooted downsides to the practice of slowing train timetables. For a start it reduces the capacity of the track by having trains in any section for a longer time – an example today was an up Wyong local waiting time at Woy Woy (for the timetable to catch up), blocking a following Brisbane – Melbourne Superfreighter which in turn stopped a following regional container train. In a section where headways would normally be around 4 minutes (allowing for stops) the timetabled delay to the Wyong train actually used up a whole additional path by the time all these trains cleared. Maybe it doesn‟t matter when the line is running well below capacity but it should matter when the State is putting its hand out for $7.9 billion to increase capacity on the line.
A second issue is the de-skilling of drivers. On the Short North (or Southern line to Novocastrians) there are some very good drivers who can precisely keep time and easily make up time when needed. However the flip side is that there are frequent cases where there are no obstructions or impediments to quality running and the train still manages to lose time. I don‟t know whether it is inexperience, boredom or what but the ability to run late on the slowed down timetable would seem to be a classic case of a downward spiral.
A third issue seems to be the proliferation of permanent slow speeds on a main line, presumably driven by the knowledge that impositions on train running are quite capable of being absorbed in the torpid timetables. An example is on the journey north from Sydney. Once clear of Wells St there are a number of significant impediments to good running – some difficult to avoid and some simply due to parsimony or indifference - Strathfield slow 25 km/h junction, West Ryde 50 km/h turnout, Epping 60 km/h track speed half way to Cheltenham, Hornsby relief 60 km/h turnouts half way along, Berowra 50 km/h turnouts through loop (de facto main line), 60 km/h for a kilometer entering Gosford yard, various 90/95/100 km/h speeds between Tuggerah and Wyong north on near tangent track – all of these things have an impact on the ability to run efficiently on a track that is otherwise reasonably good. The point about all these impediments to good train running is that they seem to have been created with little or no reference to train running or to the end game of customer satisfaction. For instance the Berowra Loop, as part of the local Clearway project, could well have been given marginal re-alignment to make the loop the through track with the centre road on an alignment suited to a terminating track. Is it no thought, no money or no imagination that drives these fractional projects?
For a suburban line with impediments have a look at the Bankstown ,,loop‟. It appears that Bankstown has the slowest suburban trains in the country, apart from a couple of minor branch lines, hardly a good recommendation for a system trying to get into the 21st century.
There is a valid argument that capacity expansion expenditure cannot be justified until the actual and latent capacity of the existing system has reached its zenith. Projects, such as some of the Clearway projects, never seem to deal with the issue of ,,low hanging fruit‟ but move straight to big money solutions that often turn out to provide marginal benefits. In many cases there would seem to be a number of smaller scale projects which would provide incremental gains at far lower cost, which would satisfy immediate and short term future needs.
Let‟s start with a proposition that things should always improve, however little, as the years roll by. Why then can‟t we better what our forbears (who must have been made of much sterner stuff than we are) achieved in 1929 between Sydney and Newcastle, using 1891 steam locomotives and being limited to 60 mph (95 km/h) maximum track speeds?
It would be great to see the CityRail system making an effort to selectively improve train timings toward something equal to or better than those of the past, while at the same time taking active steps to pay much more attention to alignment and track speeds as part of the solution.
With the devolution of power to the Transport Department there has to be qualms about achieving the latter, but at least the new service delivery orientation of RailCorp might just get something done toward the former.

[somebody]

For those who haven't read it already, there is also the comments on CityRail here: http://schwandl.blogspot.com/2011/03/tour-down-under-2011-sydney-cityrail.html