so any sprinter service there would complicate operations, driver training etc. 

Crap.

It would you know.

All drivers currently employed by V/line at the Ballarat Depot are qualified in sprinter operation.  In addition, they are also qualified in the operation of Locomotive hauled trains.
Why do people on here make assumptions, then report them as fact? 

so any sprinter service there would complicate operations, driver training etc. 

Crap.

It would you know.

All drivers currently employed by V/line at the Ballarat Depot are qualified in sprinter operation.  In addition, they are also qualified in the operation of Locomotive hauled trains.
Why do people on here make assumptions, then report them as fact? 

What????   Read what I said in my post before firing off half cocked.

I was specifically saying that by using Vlos on the Geelong to Maryborough service you had extra flexibility to work some of those services with rolling stock that has worked up from Melbourne to either Ballarat or Geelong.  In that way you dont have to have dedicated Sprinter sets and you can vary the amount of rolling stock on the service by time of day.

Furthermore, whatever the current status of driver Ballarat qualifications, having to maintain qualifications in multiple rolling stock classes must always be equal to or greater cost and embuggerance than having to do so for just one type - but it can never be less costly.

That is not an assumption - it is a arithmetic fact.

so any sprinter service there would complicate operations, driver training etc. 

Crap.

It would you know.

All drivers currently employed by V/line at the Ballarat Depot are qualified in sprinter operation.  In addition, they are also qualified in the operation of Locomotive hauled trains.
Why do people on here make assumptions, then report them as fact? 

What????   Read what I said in my post before firing off half cocked.

I was specifically saying that by using Vlos on the Geelong to Maryborough service you had extra flexibility to work some of those services with rolling stock that has worked up from Melbourne to either Ballarat or Geelong.  In that way you dont have to have dedicated Sprinter sets and you can vary the amount of rolling stock on the service by time of day.

Furthermore, whatever the current status of driver Ballarat qualifications, having to maintain qualifications in multiple rolling stock classes must always be equal to or greater cost and embuggerance than having to do so for just one type - but it can never be less costly.

That is not an assumption - it is a arithmetic fact.

Lovely backpeddling, but you are still wrong. 

Do you know what is involved in maintaining qualification in a rolling stock class?  Obviously not, or you would not keep embarrasing yourself.

Lovely backpeddling, but you are still wrong. 

Do you know what is involved in maintaining qualification in a rolling stock class?  Obviously not, or you would not keep embarrasing yourself.

I am clearly an idiot.   Where did I back-peddle?

Please explain to me how maintaining qualification in multiple rolling stock classes is more efficient (or even no less efficient) than doing so on just one class.   I'd really like to know.

Lovely backpeddling, but you are still wrong. 

Do you know what is involved in maintaining qualification in a rolling stock class?  Obviously not, or you would not keep embarrassing yourself.

I am clearly an idiot.

Agree.

  Where did I back-peddle?

You specifically mentioned Driver qualifications.  When I called you on that, you brought up other reasons.

Please explain to me how maintaining qualification in multiple rolling stock classes is more efficient (or even no less efficient) than doing so on just one class.   I'd really like to know.

In normal operations Ballarat drivers are required to operate sprinters from time to time, not often but easily enough to maintain their qualification.  It does not cost V/line any more for Ballarat drivers to maintain sprinter qualification.

If we were having this discussion about Albury drivers then your assumption would have some merit.

You made a statement in an earlier post, I told you and anyone that would listen that you were wrong.  Please don't get upset, a good percentage of what is written on here is crap.  The stuff I see posted here that is just plain wrong is mind blowing.

Now please go and clean that sand out before you get chaffing.

Lovely backpeddling, but you are still wrong. 

Do you know what is involved in maintaining qualification in a rolling stock class?  Obviously not, or you would not keep embarrassing yourself.

I am clearly an idiot.

Agree.

  Where did I back-peddle?

You specifically mentioned Driver qualifications.  When I called you on that, you brought up other reasons.

Please explain to me how maintaining qualification in multiple rolling stock classes is more efficient (or even no less efficient) than doing so on just one class.   I'd really like to know.

In normal operations Ballarat drivers are required to operate sprinters from time to time, not often but easily enough to maintain their qualification.  It does not cost V/line any more for Ballarat drivers to maintain sprinter qualification.

If we were having this discussion about Albury drivers then your assumption would have some merit.

You made a statement in an earlier post, I told you and anyone that would listen that you were wrong.  Please don't get upset, a good percentage of what is written on here is crap.  The stuff I see posted here that is just plain wrong is mind blowing.

Now please go and clean that sand out before you get chaffing.

I did not back peddle.  I gave two reasons in my original message in support of Vlocities on the cross country line being more efficient - one being driver qualification and the other being operational convenience.  I stand by both of those reasons - and have not backed away. 
Again - reread what I said.

On the point of driver qualifications - you are falling into a logic trap I am afraid - conflating what CAN be done with what is BEST done.   Its a common problem and one that's responsible for inefficiencies in all sorts of industries I'm afraid.

The debate we could be having is to what degree would it be more efficient for all current and future Ballarat drivers to be qualified only on Vlocities compared to Vlocities and Sprinters?  Is it a material difference?  It might be or it might not be material.  But it is NOT MORE efficient - and in your explanation it appears you don't claim that it is.

I dont mind being told that I am wrong.  I often am and I appreciate learning where I am wrong. 

I suspect everyone must be sick of this so lets just leave it. 

What???? Read what I said in my post before firing off half cocked.

I was specifically saying that by using Vlos on the Geelong to Maryborough service you had extra flexibility to work some of those services with rolling stock that has worked up from Melbourne to either Ballarat or Geelong. In that way you dont have to have dedicated Sprinter sets and you can vary the amount of rolling stock on the service by time of day.

Furthermore, whatever the current status of driver Ballarat qualifications, having to maintain qualifications in multiple rolling stock classes must always be equal to or greater cost and embuggerance than having to do so for just one type - but it can never be less costly.

That is not an assumption - it is a arithmetic fact.

Please explain what the word embuggerance means, please.

Idid not back peddle.  I gave two reasons in my original message in support of Vlocities on the cross country line being more efficient - one being driver qualification and the other being operational convenience.  I stand by both of those reasons - and have not backed away. 
Again - reread what I said.

On the point of driver qualifications - you are falling into a logic trap I am afraid - conflating what CAN be done with what is BEST done.   Its a common problem and one that's responsible for inefficiencies in all sorts of industries I'm afraid.

The debate we could be having is to what degree would it be more efficient for all current and future Ballarat drivers to be qualified only on Vlocities compared to Vlocities and Sprinters?  Is it a material difference?  It might be or it might not be material.  But it is NOT MORE efficient - and in your explanation it appears you don't claim that it is.

I dont mind being told that I am wrong.  I often am and I appreciate learning where I am wrong. 

I suspect everyone must be sick of this so lets just leave it. 

Please explain what the word conflating means, please.

Can you at least use language, please, that we can all understand?

An embuggerance is a minor irritation. To conflate is to merge.

Not to go off topic, but when you've got the world's biggest dictionary at your finger tips what's the problem with expanding your vocabulary once in a while?

Not to go off topic, but when you've got the world's biggest dictionary at your finger tips what's the problem with expanding your vocabulary once in a while?

I don't have any problem at all, Mr Administrator. I was only asking politely for a meaning. Sorry if I was too nice.

Andat 48 my vocabulary does not need expanding, and even if it does, I will be the judge of that, but thank you for being so concerned.

Billybaxter, thanks for the meanings, now it makes sense

On the point of driver qualifications - you are falling into a logic trap I am afraid - conflating what CAN be done with what is BEST done.   Its a common problem and one that's responsible for inefficiencies in all sorts of industries I'm afraid.

I wasn't using logic or giving an opinion.  I was simply stating fact.  This is how the system currently works.

I suspect everyone must be sick of this so lets just leave it. 

Fair enough.

On a semi-related note, what does a driver need to do to maintain his qualification in a train? Run one on a revenue service every x weeks/months?

Sorry if I'm bringing up a relatively old topic.. well I don't consider March 2012 old but y'know, each to their own.

I think that reinstating passenger trains on the Geelong - Ballarat line would be beneficiary for the public. I've often sat at Geelong Station waiting for a train as the bus from Ballarat has pulled in and almost every time I've seen it, it has been full. People in regional towns along the way (such as Bannockburn) would benefit from this because there is little public transport access in these towns besides the V/line coach and the (infrequent) bus route that McHarry's operates Monday - Saturday. I've got a friend who lives in Teesdale (outside Bannockburn) and often complains that he needs to be somewhere but can't get there due to lack of public transport.

There is almost always a set of three Sprinters stabled behind the train-wash in Geelong Yards, so you could easily put them to use on the line until they're needed on peak duties on the Geelong line (I assume that's why they're stabled there) and as others have said, other sets that are ex-Melbourne could be used on the line. If I had it my way, I would run trains from Southern Cross to Ballarat, from Ballarat to Geelong and then Geelong to Melbourne and continue in that circle, and then the same but in the reverse. I don't know much about railway operations and timetabling but would that ultimately mean more trains for each line, depending on how long it takes to get to Geelong from Ballarat on the train?

Anyway, I think I'm just rambling on...

Thanks,
Mitchul

Mitch - as discussed on this forum previously the Ballarat - Geelong section is the most likely to get the nod mainly because the track already exists in situ and in good condition thanks to lots of use within the freight network; the line would also potentially service those growth corridors west of Geelong as you pointed out and would allow commuting into Geelong and beyond from those towns.

However given the upcoming State Budget next month is set to contain lots of nasty surprises including privatisations and cutbacks I'm not confident that we will have anything being approved any time soon.  The most likely thing to be approved in my opinion is road duplication (dual carriageway) between Ballarat and Beaufort but I can't see anything happening for rail unless the Federal Government can be persuaded to pitch in.

However given the upcoming State Budget next month is set to contain lots of nasty surprises including privatisations and cutbacks I'm not confident that we will have anything being approved any time soon.  The most likely thing to be approved in my opinion is road duplication (dual carriageway) between Ballarat and Beaufort but I can't see anything happening for rail unless the Federal Government can be persuaded to pitch in.

If you are right and there is very little if anything for rail then I think Ted is done. There are vital projects which need to be funded in rail and the government understood this when they came into office.

Regards
Brian

If you are right and there is very little if anything for rail then I think Ted is done. There are vital projects which need to be funded in rail and the government understood this when they came into office.

Would be nice to think this is so, but whatever an opposition says when elected into government means absolutely nothing. The government's sole job is to remain in power, and there are no votes in rail.  Ted has had long enough to announce something, but has done nothing other than continue working on the previous government's projects.

However given the upcoming State Budget next month is set to contain lots of nasty surprises including privatisations and cutbacks I'm not confident that we will have anything being approved any time soon.  The most likely thing to be approved in my opinion is road duplication (dual carriageway) between Ballarat and Beaufort but I can't see anything happening for rail unless the Federal Government can be persuaded to pitch in.

If you are right and there is very little if anything for rail then I think Ted is done. There are vital projects which need to be funded in rail and the government understood this when they came into office.

Regards
Brian

I'd rather our state school teachers get a well earned pay rise instead of a token train running in place of an existing road coach service.

Or perhaps we can throw our current generation of school childen on the scrapheap, and instead of getting jobs, they can spend their days lineside between Geelong and Ballarat taking photos of the passing passenger trains?

In regards to the duplication of the road between Ballarat, and Beaufort; work is well advanced.
It certainly was taking shape rapidly when I last saw it in early February, on my way to Whyalla.

In regards to the duplication of the road between Ballarat, and Beaufort; work is well advanced.
It certainly was taking shape rapidly when I last saw it in early February, on my way to Whyalla.

I noticed this myself when I went to Ararat before Xmas but the main part being completed at that point was between Ballarat North and Burumbeet.  This was to finish off an earlier promise made by Brumby in conjunction with Rudd - I couldn't see much evidence of work being done from Burumbeet to Beaufort but maybe they have made some progress since I last drove through (a local could probably inform us exactly what is happening).  I think the somewhat whimsical aim was to have it complete to Ararat by 2013 but I'm not sure if the Queensland floods might have scuttled that goal?

It would be nice if the rail system was expanded but I can't see much chance of this occurring while there are other pressing areas like public servant pay claims on the table.  Stamp duty receipts have also been stalling since Ted came to office so things aren't looking good on the revenue side either.

I'd rather our state school teachers get a well earned pay rise instead of a token train running in place of an existing road coach service.

Or perhaps we can throw our current generation of school childen on the scrapheap, and instead of getting jobs, they can spend their days lineside between Geelong and Ballarat taking photos of the passing passenger trains?

My point is if you are going to spend money on transport projects then railways not freeways is the answer.  That is my point.

It is how you spend the infrastructure budget.

Regards
Brian

There are not 3 Sprinters stabled on the side of the Geelong Car Wash most of the time.

Three cars are stabled there over the weekends and up to 3 cars overnight on Weeknights.

I'd rather our state school teachers get a well earned pay rise instead of a token train running in place of an existing road coach service.

Or perhaps we can throw our current generation of school childen on the scrapheap, and instead of getting jobs, they can spend their days lineside between Geelong and Ballarat taking photos of the passing passenger trains?

My point is if you are going to spend money on transport projects then railways not freeways is the answer.  That is my point.

It is how you spend the infrastructure budget.

Regards
Brian

Spending scarce infrastructure money on worthless rail projects is not the answer either.

Edward

Spending scarce infrastructure money on worthless rail projects is not the answer either.

Edward

Is this a generalised comment or are you referring to a particular project?

Regards
Brian

Spending scarce infrastructure money on worthless rail projects is not the answer either.

Edward

Spoken like a politician, or someone with either major shares in the oil industry or an employee thereof.

Spending scarce infrastructure money on worthless rail projects is not the answer either.

Edward

Spoken like a politician, or someone with either major shares in the oil industry or an employee thereof.

I'm in two minds about the use of money for a project like this.  

ON the one hand, there's no doubt that Jeff Kennett went way too far in the 90's with closures - it really crippled the capacity of country people to access Melbourne and I think also had a negative impact on tourism.  Nowdays we are living in an age where petrol hovers around $1.50 and is likely to hit $2 in the coming years it's likely that train services will form an important part of maintaining access to and from country locales; the fact that boosted services under 'fast trains' saw patronage sky-rocket was also an important pointer to how people will actually use improved services.  Finally, I don't think anyone would argue against the fact that we really need improved rail services to assist with the decentralisation of population in Victoria - anyone living in Melbourne can tell you how stupidly crowded things have become in the last ten years; having an efficient and fast rail network that takes you anywhere you want to go is an important part of improving amenity in country Victoria and should encourage population growth and business outside of Melbourne.

On the other hand, I think a lot of locals in place like Ballarat worry about their towns becoming part of the commuter belt (if they aren't already) where there are no jobs in the towns but people have to commute to Melbourne to make a living much like the Home Counties around London; fast rail in itself didn't create jobs in these towns but it did make them easier for day tourists from Melbourne.  The majority of people living in the country will tell you that they want improved roads over rail services because after all most trips are done in the car; and as has been debated on these forums ad nausea there are pressing issues for where government money should be used in the coming years and maybe rural rail isn't one of them?

Just some thoughts.  I have to say, as a semi-regular user of V/Line I do feel that things have improved vastly in the last seven or eight years and hopefully things will continue to improve particularly with frequencies; it's so much easier to take the train for a day trip to Ballarat for the day than it is to fight traffic to and from your destination.