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

[ahonan@zipworld.com.au (Andrew Honan)]

Well  Maurie i think, that if you ever run for Chairman of either NRC
or ARTC you would have my vote!!!!

The ARA is trying to set up Infrastructure Planning and Investment
Groups...I look forward to seeing you there.

(By the way have you seen the IIR conference on 'Rail Competition and
Access' in Sydney on 17 Feb 2000, but it is very pricey -$1,800 for 2
days. Some very high powered people are talking and you would enjoy
it. i can't afford it myself. site is www.iir.com.au contact David
Stewart)

One of the points that you alluded was Loco utilization. I would
really like to see the figures directly from NRC.

regards
Andrew Honan

On Fri, 4 Feb 2000 02:59:39 GMT, mauried@commslab.gov.au (Maurie Daly)
wrote:

>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
>