Re: Coachtrans Versus QR

[ajwright@spam.ozemail.com.au (Ashley Wright)]

On Mon, 13 Mar 2000 05:08:00 GMT, james_ccj@my-deja.com wrote:

  Many months ago a tirade was in the Truck and Bus on this very
subject. The author did cost analysis using the cost of construction
of the line as well as running costs etc, and came up with a figure
that the train price needs to be at least double their current prices.
 They failed to acknlowdge any of the social impacts the line provides
(IMO the government should be constructiong lines even at a cost to
the tax payer for that reason) nor did they factor in the monies spent
building or maintaining the Pacific Highway which should be passed
onto operators like Coachtrans.

  The fairest way to compare road vs rail would be to ignore the
capital cost in the railway construction (as is done for the roads)
and base caculations on access and direct running costs (for rail this
would ignore wages etc that are payed through access fees), again just
like the road transport companies!


>1. QR is responsible and have to pay for for all its
>track/signal/rolling stock/infranstructure/rail-stations maintenance as
>well as electric bill, whereas Coachtrans don't have to worry about
>paying anything to QLD department of transport for running on Pacific
>Highway, highway and bus stops maintenance?
>
>
>

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Ashley Wright, Canberra, Australia                                                         
 www:  http://www.ozemail.com.au/~ajwright                   
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------