TT 227: Who is more reliable - V/Line or Metro?

Especially in the established suburbs that don't depend on it daily, V/Line has long had a better reputation than the metropolitan rail operator. Its trains are smoother, have nicer seats and are staffed with conductors. Some remember times (admittedly about 10-15 years ago) where V/Line trains were visibly better maintained than Metro's then dirty and graffitied fleet.  

The V/Line brand has endured for decades, with particularly high recognition in regional Victoria. No city bureaucrat dared touch it as they pointlessly rebranded metropolitan operations multiple times. As for privatisation, Labor quickly re-nationalised V/Line after the collapse of National Express while retaining private franchising for the metropolitan network. Thus people in the country (more inclined to support parties ideologically disposed to privatisation) got the public operator while those in Melbourne (whose inner north includes a cohort of anti-Labor green and socialist activists) got the private operator(s).   

What do the performance standards say?

V/Line's reliability target is that 96% of trains run and that 92% of services are on time. This is defined as being within 5:59 min for shorter distance services and 10:59 min for longer distance services. Metro has two sets of targets. That in the MR4 franchise is for a 98% delivery and a 90% punctuality (now defined as within 4:59 min). However Metro's Customer Compensation Code has a tougher 98.5% delivery and a 92% punctuality standard.

So despite the lore, V/Line's delivery and punctuality targets are looser than either of Metro's, both in relation to the percentages and the definition of on-time. Even though, as you'll see later, the basis for this may not be strong. 

What about actual performance, which is what really counts? Does this support or debunk the general perception of V/Line being better? And is reliability likely to be improved if outer suburban lines serving fringe areas like Melton, Wyndham Vale and Wallan ever got electrified? 

To find out I got 25 years of delivery and on-time performance from the PowerBI function on the public transport performance statistics website. 

Service delivery

First of all percent of scheduled trains delivered and cancelled. These are separate entries in both V/Line and Metro which I've tabulated below. 

The operator known as Metro (MTM) didn't start until 2009 but here I will use it as short-hand to refer to The Met, Bayside Trains, Hillside Trains and Connex that operated 2001-2009.  

For V/Line the cancellation percent is 100 minus the per cent delivered. For Metro it is around 0.3% less, especially in recent years. Both show excellent delivery until 2002 and a deterioration since.  

A rarely told story is these numbers is the widening divergence between V/Line and Metro. The relativities (ratio number above) are graphed below: 

The data has three phases. Roughly these can be divided as pre-Regional Fast Rail, post Regional Fast Rail and post Regional Rail Link. These were major projects intended to improve the capacity and reliability of rail services.

Before 2006 (about when Regional Fast Rail started) V/Line cancelled the same or a lower proportion of its trains relative to Metro. 

Then V/Line's cancellation rate steadily rose to around 20 - 50% higher than Metro's up to 2011. This was a time when both metropolitan and V/Line rail were under pressure. 

There was a faster rise after 2011 such that by 2016 V/Line was cancelling 3.2% of its services, or three times the proportion of trains that Metro was. This was contrary to the expectation that by providing alternative train paths, Regional Rail Link (which opened in mid-2015) would enable improved V/Line performance. V/Line CEO Theo Taifalos resigned in January 2016 with minister Jacinta Allan saying that the government had some concerns about the operational capacity within V/Line. 

The management turmoil did not stop there. October 2016 saw the appointment of James Pinder as V/Line CEO. Initially it seemed a good choice with cancellations down to 2.3% in 2017. But Pinder's luck didn't last. V/Line cancellations hit 3.8% (or four times that of Metro from which he came) in 2018. Even worse (for him) was being terminated and charged following corruption allegations as part of IBAC's Operation Esperance.   

What's happened since? Ignoring the pandemic and lockdown years of 2020 and 2021, V/Line's 2022 - 2025 cancellation rate has hovered around three times that of Metro and a similar percent to that which preceded Taifalos' departure and government concerns in 2016. As I noted in 2022, this government kept most of its 2014 promises on transport, but improving V/Line service delivery was not one of them.  

Punctuality

25 years of annual results are tabulated below (click on it for better view):   

Like service delivery, punctuality for both operators was good in the early 2000s. Metro were reliably over 95% while V/Line was a percent or two lower. 

V/Line's punctuality fell faster earlier from 2004 while Metro's fall was similarly large but a bit more gradual.

However V/Line did not share in Metro's punctuality rebound, with Metro's proportion of punctual trains often 5 to 8% higher than V/Line between 2012 and 2018. 

The difference narrowed during the pandemic but widened to the 5 to 6% range after 2023. Very roughly you are twice as likely to encounter a late train if catching V/Line than Metro. And this is even without factoring in the slacker V/Line standard (1 minute more for short trips, 6 minutes more for long trips). 

Conclusion

V/Line has had no discernible improvement on service delivery in the last decade. If you narrow your eyes and tilt your head you might discern some progress on punctuality but you need to be a good gymnast to say for sure. It can't be blamed on V/Line being a diesel operator with Metro being electric (except Stony Point) as the early 2000s numbers were good for both. 

This government has become more accepting of sustained low V/Line performance than the current premier was as minister in 2016. This has been a long-term weakening. Rail trouble-shooter Simon Lane noted that rail contract managers in the 1990s were tougher than they were in 2015, something that might have aided the good early 2000s results. 

Fairness requires acknowledgement that V/Line is carrying more passengers than ever before, with service growth far outstripping Metro. Credit should be given to the step-change in V/Line's operations unseen on any other regional railway in the country. Far more passengers are western and northern outer suburban, with Tarneit, V/Line's second busiest station, on a line that did not even exist 15 years ago. 

However V/Line's emergence as a major suburban operator reflects a reluctance to electrify outer suburban lines (eg Melton) that previous government may have done if faced with today's populations. Such delays in electrification have implications for carbon emissions, fossil fuel dependency and (apparently) operational performance.  

The paradox is that although V/Line operations have become much more Metro-like, with suburban-type frequencies to Melton and Geelong, V/Line's cancellation performance has gone from being better to three times worse than Metro in the last 25 years. 

It's fair for people to be asking why.

Especially those on lines like Melton and Wyndham Vale, who could now be enjoying two-thirds fewer cancellations had their lines been electrified and operated by Metro. 

See other Timetable Tuesday items here