Re: Rail chief admits accidents rose when maintenance cut

[pdwyer@my-deja.com]

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.

Think "Protection". If you think you're safe, you don't perform as well
as those who do. Who'll take the extra ten minutes, who don't care
whether there's a train waiting on them.

Commercial pressures on maintenance need not mean that maintenance
suffers. Strict guidelines and inspection regimes can ensure that
maintenance is carried out to the required standard.

It just depends on whose standard you're following.

The asset owner need not be the maintainer, but they'd better be
checking them out constantly.

Seeya!


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.