|
|
Action for Public Transport (N.S.W.) Inc. |
In December 2004 the Sydney passenger train operator, CityRail, invited public comment on its proposed timetable changes for September 2005. This submission from Action for Public Transport (APTNSW) does not address services on particular train lines, but rather comments on the overall timetabling process.
Action for Public Transport believes that CityRail's current timetable planning process, which justifies slower running times on the ground that it will make trains safer, is ill conceived, politically influenced, and contrary to the public interest. The claim that running trains more slowly will make them safer is just too simplistic.
In the 2005 timetable, train journey times will be increased by two means - longer dwell times (at stations) and longer running times. Neither of these actions can be justified in the across-the-board manner in which they have been implemented. Longer dwell times at stations will not reduce the likelihood of people running to board trains whilst the doors are closing. Contrary to the reported claim by RailCorp Chief Executive, Mr Vince Graham, "We've slowed the trains down at stations because of the safety incidents ... with passengers being caught in the doors" (Sydney Morning Herald, 6 Nov 2004), APTNSW believes that no matter how long trains wait at platforms, there will still be some passengers who may run toward the closing doors. This problem would be better addressed by a public education campaign.
Sydney commuters have suffered through many years of weekend (and even weekday) trackwork shutdowns. It would have been reasonable to expect that journey times would become faster as a result of this extensive and expensive upgrading, but to now find that running times will instead become slower is both illogical and unacceptable.
All existing speed restrictions should be critically reviewed. Some could be relaxed or removed where track has been upgraded. Others could be better sign-posted to reduce the length of the restricted section, thus increasing train speeds. Better driver training would ensure more consistency in driver behaviour and reduce tardiness in resuming line speed after restricted areas have been passed.
Premier Carr has reportedly acknowledged management's "overzealous application of new safety rules that arose from the Waterfall disaster" for the city's rail crisis (SMH 13 Nov 2004). By implication, the Premier is acknowledging that some of the slowdown applied to the system has arisen from the way in which CityRail management has interpreted the Waterfall Inquiry findings, rather than by the implementation of practices based on improved safety, as such.
CityRail has not provided any proof (from experience on other systems) that further slowing of our already slow system will make trains safer. Rather, slowing the trains further in the new timetable risks entrenching any inefficient work practices that already exist. Even under the slower July 2004 timetable, and with drivers under the vigilance of the new speed recorders (data-loggers), some trains are already departing stations early. The further slowing planned in the September 2005 timetable is sure to result in more trains departing early, or trains having to wait at platforms for the timetable to "catch-up", frustrating passengers already on board.
The July 2004 timetable halved the effective weekend frequency on many routes and slowed travel times on most lines, yet the evidence is that this has not resulted in better on-time performance, despite the longer running times.
We fear that a similar slowdown now planned for weekdays will be just as ineffective.
The recent stroke-of-the-pen redefinition of late running by the Transport Services Minister, from 4 minutes to 5 minutes, might encourage less attentive driving, and whilst it may "improve" on-time statistics, it will not improve driver performance, quality of service or credibility with passengers.
APTNSW accepts those necessary timetable reductions which were a direct result of the shortage of train drivers. We will tolerate such reductions only up until such time as sufficient drivers are available. However, the 2005 timetable has not only continued with the weekend cuts previously made, it has extended those cuts to include the weekday off-peak, a time when Sydney's motorway network is relatively uncongested, which we believe will only encourage more travellers to switch to cars.
APTNSW insists that when the driver shortage is overcome, train services must be restored to the pre-shortage frequencies.
CityRail's approach to the 2005 timetable - running trains slower in order to improve safety - is too simplistic by far. We recommend a detailed review of all speed-related work practices, especially variations in driver behaviour, all speed restrictions, and the definition of on-time running. The review should be carried out by railway experts external to CityRail and its parent, RailCorp. The review must be unfettered by the history and culture of its predecessors, and should take into account world's best practice as used on other railway systems. The review should initially focus on the Illawarra Line, as it is already essentially isolated from the rest of the CityRail system. This line has the potential for entirely new work practices and operating procedures, even to the extent of operation under a separate government corporation or private company, as has happened with the freight railways.
The review should be completed within six months. Any profound preliminary
findings should be applied immediately to the current planning process for
the 2005 network-wide timetable.
