Re: Rail chief admits accidents rose when maintenance cut

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

On Tue, 14 Nov 2000 23:07:19 GMT, pdwyer@my-deja.com wrote:

>In article <3a0c6a35.414813@can-news.tpg.com.au>,
>  mauried@tpg.com.au (Maurie Daly) wrote:
>> 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.
>
>And there is nothing wrong with that, that's what you call private
>enterprise. What is important is that the Authority that regulates the
>Infrastructure Maintainer sets the guidelines that the maintainer must
>follow.
>
>If you rely of the maintainer to set the standards, you won't get
>much :)
>
>You'd also have to implement a regime of penalties for particular
>occasions, like derailments and train delays. That makes private
>operators sit up and implement the minimum required once their wallets
>are on the table :)
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Before you buy.


The above sounds good , but simply doesnt work when both the Rail
regulator and the rail operator are both Govt owned , and in most
cases responsible to the same minister.
Currently all States have a rail safety act of some sort adminstered
by the State DOT.
One would think that safety regimes and minimum standards of
maintenance would be regulated and enforced by the DOTs, but they arnt
,simply because the DOTs are toothless tigers which effectively have
no ability to penalise Govt operators.
Fines and penalties work against private operators but not against
Govt owned ones ,as ultimately all the fines are paid for by the Govt
anyway.
Could you imagine that SRAs or QRs rail accreditation could ever be
revoked by a regulator ,for any reason .
Not a chance.

MD