|
|
Action for Public Transport (N.S.W.) Inc. |
(to) Manager,
CityRail Communications Group
Reply Paid K349
Haymarket, NSW 1239.
Dear Sir / Madam,
In September 2005 the Sydney passenger train operator, CityRail, sought feedback from train passengers regarding a draft new timetable for the Eastern Suburbs & Illawarra Line (ESIL). CityRail plans to implement the new timetable in mid 2006. This submission attempts to place the draft in context and does not offer a detailed analysis. We are confident that that will be done by experts in the field and by individual passengers expressing their personal opinions.
APTNSW acknowledges the service improvements offered in the proposed timetable. We also acknowledge the constraints on timetable development, in particular the safety issues arising out of the Glenbrook and Waterfall crashes, and the intermingling of suburban and inter-city train services on the ESIL.
However, we are disappointed that trains have been slowed in the name of increased safety. We do not accept this simplistic link and we do not accept that it is a direct or logical consequence of the findings of the inquiry into the Waterfall accident. We fear that the slowing of trains has come about by an unfortunate mix of political interference (to achieve on-time running), public relations (give the customers only the good news) and a “culprit” relationship with the Rail Safety Regulator.
There is a wealth of anecdotal information, particularly in newspaper opinion pages and on the Internet, of a public perception of slovenly operation of trains on all the other CityRail lines since they were slowed in the September 2005 timetable. “On-time” running has improved, of course, but unremarkable events, as simple as wet weather, continue to disrupt the slower timetable.
It is also disappointing that CityRail has not capitalized on the segregated characteristics of the ESIL. CityRail and the State Government have been promoting the benefits which will flow from the capital-intensive “Rail Clearways” program; the elimination of the interweaving of trains on different routes. The ESIL is already substantially segregated from other routes, and its major “Clearways” project, the Bondi Junction turnback, will have been commissioned before this timetable commences, yet the trains still run slower!
Conclusions.
There is widespread public concern regarding the present state of Sydney’s road and rail network and the way that both are managed. The current method of scheduling trains causes unnecessarily slow running resulting in passenger dissatisfaction. The slowing of the proposed timetable for the ESIL represents a missed opportunity and indicates continuing decline. We predict that community dissatisfaction will determine that someone, or something, will intervene in the short term.
At the same time, there is an increasingly urgent need for all three levels of government to address Sydney’s transport problems if Sydney is to retain its position in the economic ranking of world cities.
Recommendation.
A combination of political interference, public relations hyperbole, historic operational practices and crude safety-risk management has precipitated a passenger railway which is slow, unprofessional, and unsatisfactory for the long term. We recommend a focused Inquiry to analyse these problems, in order to develop a plan for an administrative and operational framework for the transport agencies which will enable them to provide the people of Sydney with a railway reflecting world’s best practice.
Yours sincerely,
Kevin Eadie,
Convener,
Action for Public Transport (NSW) Inc.
f\a22\Illa06TT.doc
3 November 2005.
