Re: Some interesting info from NRCs and ARTCs annual reports.

[mauried@commslab.gov.au (Maurie Daly)]

In article <389A15A2.B97DAA8B@primus.com.au> Richard <richard_snook@primus.com.au> writes:
>From: Richard <richard_snook@primus.com.au>
>Subject: Re: Some interesting info from NRCs and ARTCs annual reports.
>Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2000 10:56:18 +1100

>Ok ... for those us not so well versed in some of the finer points!!  I would
>be very interested to know what the considered  anomaly is!! :-))

>>:~)) Richard


OK , having made my original post , I have discovered a few more oddities, 
possibly not anomalies.

The first one is the total freight task of 15 B ntk.
This figure is what NRC actually gets paid for , ie the freight they carry
and at the end of the day is what matters.

If we compare this figure with the figure for loco utilization of 200 M GTK PA
and given by my reckoning that NRC have around 150 main line locos,
120 NRs + approx 10 BLs , 10 DLs and around 10 ANs , not including the 81s 
used for shunters , then NRC have hauled around 30 B GTKs , 150 X 200 M.
GTKs are a measure of the total weight of a train and how far it goes and are 
what the track access fees are based on.
The ratio between ntks and gtks are a measure of the tare weight vs gross 
weight of a train and for most rail wagons the tare weight is around 20% - 30%
of the gross weight.
This means that in an ideal arrangement the total GTKs should be around 20% - 
30% higher than the ntks.
In NRCs case the GTKs are double the NTKs , ie 100% more .
This means that a hell of a lot of NRCs trains are carrying air , ie they are 
empty or partially empty.
Empty trains are a financial disaster as they still cost huge amounts of money 
to run , ie you have to pay fuel charges, crew charges , track access fees , 
but you derive no income.

The next oddity is the figure for loco utilization of 200 M GTK PA.
The question is ,is this a good figure?
Hard to get an exact answer here but we can get a fair estimate by looking at 
a simple example.
Lets assume that all NRC trains run between Melb and Sydney which is a 
difficult route , lots of 1:40 grades and lots of sharp curves between Junee 
and Goulburn.
Maximum loads for an NR class between Melb and Sydney are 1750 tonnes 
Melb to Sydney and 1200 tonnes Sydney - Melb , so for an equal no of trains in
both directions we get on average 1425 tonnes.
Melb to Sydney is roughly 900 km by rail.
This means for a fully loaded NR class we can haul about 1.3 M GTK per trip
or conversly we need 147 trips to haul 200 M GTK.
Since Melb to Sydney is well less than 1 days running time then what is this 
loco doing for the other 218 days of the year.

A number of possibilities.
A lot of NRCs locos spend a lot of time in depots not doing much.
NRC are running a lot of trains at nowhere near full load for the locos 
pulling them.

Probably a bit of both , and to some extent unavoidable , but not good at all
for the bottom line.


The third interesting figure is ARTCs total income from access fees of $84.3 M.
Since ARTCs biggest customer is NRC , ie NRC run most trains over ARTCs tracks
we can assume that the largest component of ARTCs income is coing from NRC.
At least maybe 60 - 70 % or say $50 M .
Given also that NRC has still to pay RAC and Westrail for track access charges 
then we could be looking at another $50 M or so, given that RACs access 
charges are much higher than ARTCs, ie around $100 M for track access charges 
in total.
This amounts to almost 25% of all NRCs income,going in track access charges.
No way any rail company can operate with this kind of expense,given that the 
opposition , namely road , pay no access charges at all.

>From what I can see, NRC are doing most things  right, they are a competetive 
low cost efficient operation, but are still unable to make a profit.
The question is will a privatised NRC be able to do any better, I doubt it.


Heres an  interesting question.
If a Rail company is required to run an unprofitable train , ie a train from 
Melb to Perth where there is no reverse loading back to Melb , should it have 
the right to decline the traffic, and indeed should it decline the traffic.

MD