Re: Rail chief admits accidents rose when maintenance cut

[mauried@tpg.com.au (Maurie Daly)]

On Sat, 11 Nov 2000 12:33:46 +1100, Bruce Greening
<bgreeni@attglobal.net> wrote:

>
>
>Maurie Daly wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 10 Nov 2000 12:23:12 GMT, pdwyer@my-deja.com wrote:
>>
>> >In article <3a0bb2c0.34517517@can-news.tpg.com.au>,
>> >  mauried@tpg.com.au (Maurie Daly) wrote:
>> >
>> >> Its hardly surprising when the function of rail maintenance is given
>> >> to a Govt owned Corporation ,as distinct to a Govt Authority.
>> >> There is a classic conflict of interest in a Corporation in that it is
>> >> required to make profits and pay dividends to the shareholders on the
>> >> one hand ,and then it is supposed to shell out heaps of money to
>> >> maintain the track.
>> >> These two requirements are totally in conflict with each other.
>> >> The only way that this can be fixed is to set minimum standards for
>> >> track maintenance that must be complied with and ensure that there is
>> >> a regulator that can ensure that this happens.
>> >> Of course ,this doesnt work if the regulator is also a State Govt
>> >> appointed body,as it wont have any teeth.
>> >> Ther new arrangenment of mergng RAC with RSA is simply window dressing
>> >> that wont fix anything.
>> >
>> >I don't know about that. Up North, we seem to do it a lot better. The
>> >basic problem with trying to wall off track maintenance from the
>> >commercial costs of maintaining the infrastructure is that those doing
>> >the maintenance tend to slack off.
>> >
>> I presume by up north you mean QR.
>> QR is still a totally vertically integrated railway, ie
>> the rail infrastructure maintainer also is the rail operator.
>> In this case its in the interest of the operator to maintain the
>> infrastructure, but in the NSW case where its horizontally integrated
>> the rail infrastructure maintainer doesnt run trains.
>> Their only interest is collecting money for their shareholders.
>>
>> MD
>
>Having worked in both QR and NSW I am in a position to judge both. The
>problem in NSW is not the structure, but rather the culture, and the fact the
>Govt cannt keep its hands of and let the organisations get on with the job
>thy have set.
>
>There is also the huge complexity in NSW (which is again the culture). The
>safe working alone is much more complex (and not safer) than QR
>
>Unfortunatly I don't believe that this current change will make any
>improvement, and may be a step backwards as far as cost and cukture change
>are concerned.
>
>--
>Bruce L. Greening
>bgreeni@ibm.net
>
>
It could be fixed if the NSW State Govt was prepared to structure RAC
/ RSA whatever it will be as an incorporated company, in the same way
as ARTC or NRC .
In the same sense as Govt owned entities as the ABC ,Telstra,etc.
That way the majority shareholders dont have any say in the way the
company is run and cant meddle in the day to day operation.

If they didnt like the way the company was being run they could sack
the board at the next AGM.
Its not a perfect solution ,but much better than having Scully
meddling on an almost daily basis .

MD