Re: Judge doubts rail reforms

[Bruce Greening <bgreeni@attglobal.net>]

Maurie Daly wrote:

> On Sat, 16 Dec 2000 10:00:42 +1100, Bruce Greening
> <bgreeni@attglobal.net> wrote:
>
> >>
> >> Bruce , I wonder whether you could comment in whether the change from
> >> RAC being a Govt owned Corporation to now being a Rail Infrastructure
> >> Austhority means that the Authority doesnt have to operate with a
> >> profit motive and whether it is still required to pay annual dividends
> >> to the State Govt.
> >> If this is the case , there should be some scope for a reduction in
> >> track access charges.
> >>
> >> MD
> >
> >The New corporation, Rail Infrastructure Corp. will be a Govt. owned corp, not an
> >authority as recommended by the commissioner. It however has been set up
> >differently from other GOC in that the minister can issues instructions that
> >relate to expenditure, with the boards only appeal to the treasurer. I have not
> >got a copy of the legislation in front of me, but basically the aims are safety
> >and reliability, with commercialism second. Interestingly for the rail freight
> >industry passenger services are to have absolute priority. Responsibilities such
> >as regional development, environment, etc. in the old legislation are also
> >downgraded in importance.
> >
> >The structure gives the minister almost as much power as in an authority.
> >
> >My main concern that there will be no incentive to drive down track maintenance
> >costs, and to pass this onto freight operators.
> >
> >--
> >Bruce L. Greening
> >bgreeni@ibm.net
> >
> >
> Yes , I can see that this approach will produce the safest railway in
> the world which unfortunately no one wil be able to afford to use ,
> freight wise at least.
> In so far as driving down track maintenance costs, how about driving
> down some of the day to day operational costs.
> Does for example Albury really need 2 fully manned 24 hrs a day signal
> boxes,given that most of the northern yard is now unused.
> Ditto for places like Harden and Cootamundra, (which has 3).
> Currently there are 19 manned signal boxes between Cambeltown and
> Albury, really a bit of overkill.
>
> It wouldnt be too hard at all to get rid of the remaining double line
> block sections and remote places like Medways from Goulburn or Moss V,
> much in the same way that Yass J was done.
>
> MD

In fact a project to eliminate Albury South is about to commence work, and planning to
replace others is underway, subject to negotions with unions etc on the redundancies
involved. The ultimate plan is to do away with most pf the boxes on the south.

--
Bruce L. Greening
bgreeni@ibm.net