Yeah true. However when asked repeatedly to nominate any country rail projects he supports, there's just silence.
Wrong - I already answered your question back on P22
of the Mildura thread.
However, I think he's answered by stating this :- "If it can't support five return services from the outset, given the expense of the project, then trains are simply not justifiable."
Essentially, by that statement, there should be no pass rail at all. Period. The reason is that there is no pass rail service that does not require a subsidy. Including Metro.
Again, wrong - I can't see how one could arrive at that conclusion from a comment directly attributed to "the project" (ie. Maryborough).This project
is building new stations and tying up rollingstock at a cost of $50 million
, and I would sure hope that $50 million would amount to more than a pathetic single service each way per day. Given it will already use up one set, a shuttle should be capable of five return trips per day, and given the expenses have already been made, that's exactly what I want to see. One service per day will carry nothing but geriatrics, the carless, and the poor - a drain that will have no effect on reducing highway traffic.
And it's incredibly bogus, juvenile thinking to assume that any loss is equated as the same (you're not the only one doing it). Using rail where rail is not the most economical method (ie. where single coaches would suffice) is only adding unnecessarily to expenses, and increasing those subsidies (which means less many to spend on actual service quality). To use the analogy I posted earlier, if you were a freight operator, would you route a semi for a punnet of strawberries?
By that statement, the only rail pax services (outside of) metro) that should run are Geelong, Seymour, Ballarat, Bendigo and maybe Traralgon. But that's your EcoRat opinion. Yes? There should be no XPT either, presumably.
Completely one dimensional thinking - why would you extrapolate my Maryborough response to other, markedly different, lines?
Take Swan Hill for example - being a longer line, the tipping point as extra services are added before extra rollingstock is required is different. Journey length also means different responses to speed, frequency, hours of operation, etc. Other lines may see freight usage that is keeping rail to high standards or have passenger loadings spread differently. In common though, all are 'existing' with no new infrastructure cost (bar maintenance) to keep open (ie. no new platform building costs).
Regardless, my general thinking is that service frequency should increase on Vline's longer routes (including its coach network).