@AllNewTypeFace@just_kitten I think this is really only happening on the Albury line - other services have likely seen a decent increase in patronage, but it’s likely going to make rural services more viable in terms of numbers, and on the really popular routes hopefully a real increase in services. In 2019 I took rural PT to a bunch of different places in Victoria, East West and North from Melbourne, and only North was really even half way busy.
I’ve done both of them in the recent months and I found Albury to be busier than the Warrnambool line was. Warrnambool seemed packed, but really it was only the first car. I ended up moving seats because the other 3 or 4 cars were almost empty, it was only really the former first class car everyone really wanted to sit in. Albury I actually struggled to get a ticket on for a while and ended up sitting in a full of a seats with people on all sides of me (not necessarily an issue, just not something I had happen on the Warrnambool line in either direction)
@princessnorah largely the stations that are still technically metro, from memory (and that goes for Ballarat too) beyond that it seems to thin out a fair bit.
You’re not wrong, it does thin out and they really need to electrify to Melton & Wyndham Vale. Still, I don’t think there’s anywhere near enough evidence yet that there’s a problem caused by the fare drop. The article’s main conceit was a service that had its number of carriages cut back. That’s an operational problem caused by an entirely separate issue.
Put it this way. If the service was that empty before that losing half its carriages didn’t cause crowding, if everyone still got a seat, wouldn’t that be a problem? That means that it would have been under half capacity.
If the fare drop means more capacity is being used on services that used to be relatively empty, then I’d say it’s working successfully. The more people it encourages to take the train, that would have just been an empty seat before, the less it will cost the taxpayer. Let alone the environmental benefits. Even if you hate the train, it’ll take cars off the West Gate coming from Geelong & Ballarat.
Sorry, I don’t mean to @ you specifically I just can’t believe how much of a whinge this article is. Oh no! It’s cheaper! The riffraff can afford to travel and they’re taking all the seats! clutches pearls
@AllNewTypeFace @just_kitten I think this is really only happening on the Albury line - other services have likely seen a decent increase in patronage, but it’s likely going to make rural services more viable in terms of numbers, and on the really popular routes hopefully a real increase in services. In 2019 I took rural PT to a bunch of different places in Victoria, East West and North from Melbourne, and only North was really even half way busy.
Have you not been on the Geelong Line? It’s busier than the North by far.
I’ve heard the Warrnambool line has similar issues too (plus it overlaps with the Geelong line)
I wouldn’t call the Warrnambool service busy compared to Albury. But they do get delayed behind Geelong trains a lot.
I haven’t actually caught the Albury line in years so fair call!
I’ve done both of them in the recent months and I found Albury to be busier than the Warrnambool line was. Warrnambool seemed packed, but really it was only the first car. I ended up moving seats because the other 3 or 4 cars were almost empty, it was only really the former first class car everyone really wanted to sit in. Albury I actually struggled to get a ticket on for a while and ended up sitting in a full of a seats with people on all sides of me (not necessarily an issue, just not something I had happen on the Warrnambool line in either direction)
@princessnorah largely the stations that are still technically metro, from memory (and that goes for Ballarat too) beyond that it seems to thin out a fair bit.
You’re not wrong, it does thin out and they really need to electrify to Melton & Wyndham Vale. Still, I don’t think there’s anywhere near enough evidence yet that there’s a problem caused by the fare drop. The article’s main conceit was a service that had its number of carriages cut back. That’s an operational problem caused by an entirely separate issue.
Put it this way. If the service was that empty before that losing half its carriages didn’t cause crowding, if everyone still got a seat, wouldn’t that be a problem? That means that it would have been under half capacity.
If the fare drop means more capacity is being used on services that used to be relatively empty, then I’d say it’s working successfully. The more people it encourages to take the train, that would have just been an empty seat before, the less it will cost the taxpayer. Let alone the environmental benefits. Even if you hate the train, it’ll take cars off the West Gate coming from Geelong & Ballarat.
Sorry, I don’t mean to @ you specifically I just can’t believe how much of a whinge this article is. Oh no! It’s cheaper! The riffraff can afford to travel and they’re taking all the seats! clutches pearls