Originally Posted by ME
You also have Governments that have sold off railways left, right and centre, railways that while costing money to run, also provided Governments with tidy profits at the end of the financial year that made them a worthwhile investment, but they were sold off to make a quick buck, run into the ground, and now require massive expenditure from the various Governments who've brought them back again to return them to their pre-sale state.
Originally Posted by RailRevenue
That's not exactly true. You're talking about some of the freight operations, but don't forget that there are lots of freight operations that have been started by the private sector. I think we're up to about five private operators running trains from Perth to Melbourne. They have massively increased the amount of freight on train. If your objective is to get more freight onto rail, then you need more private operators involved who can then provide end to end solutions.
It's true. Victoria, run by Freight Australia, bought out by PN, asset stripped, the track run into the ground and then the track only was bought back by the Victorian Government for as much as PN paid for the entire operation. Tasmania, same deal.
As for private operators Melbourne to Perth, I count SCT, QRNational, and PN. Who are the other two?
Let's also not forget the privitisation of the track, as well as the trains. ARTC, while spending a few dollars in the Hunter Valley and re-sleepering the eastern corridor, also managed to put the two most high-profile trains in the country nose to nose at Tarana last year. But for the XPT noticing the points were set against his train we'd have had a hell of a big bang. They've also employed contractors who wouldn't know a dogspike from a tailstrike, have managed to derail quite a few trains recently through simple negligence and at best, do things half-arsed and at worst downright dangerously. Sure it might be their contractors they're employing, but at the end of the day, they're responsible for them, and it's only a matter of time before there's a godalmighty prang.
Freight operations started by the private sector? Hardly... Most of those are carried over from Government days in one way or another. The private operators, by and large, are not interested in small parcel freight as was the old Government railways. That being said, the rise of 40+ tonne B-doubles killed that off too.
Originally Posted by ME
It's all well and good to suggest private industry involvement in such an endeavour, but, private industry in rail is a nightmare. Training is limited or non-existent, equipment is barely maintained in an operational state, yet alone a
safe state, and most operators seem to be screwing everyone over in an attempt to make money by saving money, with these same opearators being the same people who'd tender to run such a railway.
Originally Posted by RailRevenue
I don't think there's any evidence for this in the Australian context at all. Rail operations are heavily regulated. The same arguments were used in relation to aviation for years. Doesn't make them true.
Because of
course a rail operator wouldn't send out a train with a defective brake valve. Nor would they allow a train to run around for
8 days while it's overdue for a weekly brake examination. And
of course a rail operator in Australia wouldn't tell its' crews that "You don't have to abide by the TOC Manual, it's a guide only..." Because the rail industry is so heavily regulated this won't happen. But it does, and with frightening regularity, and not just by those operators who carry the nickname of "Dodgy Brothers".
Originally Posted by RailRevenue
There will always be good and bad operators - in both rail and aviation, but to suggest that there are systemic problems would be hard to justify. Personally, I'm more nervous when travelling on RailCorp services than those provided by many private rail companies
If only you knew just
how deep these "systemic problems" run in reality, you would retract that comment in a heartbeat. Look at my location for confirmation if you want...
Originally Posted by OZBUSDRIVER
Even with the north south freight corridor there is still the issue of getting the goods on to the train and then shunted off and road freighted to destination. Trains kill trucks on bulk freight grain coal and ore. Anything else? the train is just too damn slow. Even the grain needs a truck to get from the farm to the land port with maybe a couple of silo transfers before it is loaded on to the train.
Not quite true, but in the context of general freight fairly accurate. The East-West corridor between Adelaide and Perth has about 85% of the freight on the back of trains, and the same applies for Adelaide-Darwin. However, for intrastate parcels, priority freight and non-bulk loads, rail can never hope to compete now, due to the rise of heavy-haul trucks and the differential between government spending on roads and rail.
Originally Posted by OZBUSDRIVER
Freight??? Unless the subsidy is pretty steep trains cannot ever compete. Rail needs government to put impediments like hours and weights to even up the playing field. Current crop of the NTA have made the most economical piece of equipment currently working the highway..b-doubles..horrendously expensive to register as compared to single deck semi-trailers.
As compared to trains (and planes) that operate in a User-pays, full cost recovery model, trucks don't. Just because it is expensive to register does not mean it covers the costs it requires. I think you'll find trucks, even single-trailer semi's, are rediculously under-priced if you look at them in a cost-recovery model.
I'd love to see the day when all heavy trucks are banned from Sydney roads during the AM/PM peak periods. Why? Because freight trains are banned from the Sydney metrop during the same time...Level playing field? Whazzat?