Re: Latest news on Speedrail

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

On Sat, 30 Sep 2000 19:31:31 +1000, david <david@nmit.vic.edu.au>
wrote:

>
>
>Maurie Daly wrote:
>
>> >Probably not, when it still has to be moved by truck at each end.
>> >
>> >
>> Yes, the double handling costs of having to transship goods from rail
>> to road at each end in order to deliver to the final customer makes
>> rail even less attractive than it could be.
>> Ive often wondered why rail operators dont also own truck fleets so as
>> to eliminate part of this problem.
>> It doesnt solve the double handling,but it does solve the hassle of
>> the customer having to deal with both a trucking company and a rail
>> company.
>>
>
>Yes, employ these truckies in the cities doing the transfer work, and let the
>railway carry the goods : )
>- but seriously you are correct in the double handling. Containers help - but
>the time to transfer them to/from a truck  adds a lot of the time.
>
>
>
>> Currently , there is very little incentive for anyone to use rail,as
>> the differantial between road freight rates and rail freight rates are
>> so low , especially on the eastern coast..
>> This is due to mainly extreme competition in the trucking industry,and
>> the fact that trucking doesnt pay its way.
>> As neither of the major political parties seem in the slightest bit
>> interested in fixing the 2nd problem,the only fix for rail is for the
>> track owners to abolish their access fees.
>> Fat chance of that hapenning either.
>>
>
>How cheaper would the rates be ???
>Yes, Can the rail operators block the roads  to demand equal ( cost of travel )
>with the road and truckkies ??
>
>Regards,
>David
>

Its hard to precisly know , as some track owners ,(RAC for example)
refuse to make public what their rates are .
In the case of NRC , around 30% of their total expenses are track
access charges , so its a significant amount .
NRC charge on average 2.5 c/ntk , whilst ordinary 42 tonne GVM semi
trailers can achieve 3 c/ntk and Bdoubles a bit less,so theres not
much in it , and not enuf to move much freight onto rail.

There are many problems in making trucks pay their way.
the most obvious one being just how would you determine how much each
truckie should pay.
To be fair , they should pay based on total tonnage carried and total
distance travelled, but tonnage carried is hard to measure.
You would need a mass of weighbridges scattered all around the country
on every major road , and staff to run them 24 hours a day.
ie the costs of enforcing some sort of regime to make trucks pay would
be in itself expensive.
Even assuming that you could get all of this up , which would require
bi partisan support , then there is the gauntlet of S92a of the
constitution to cross, (this is the bit that guarantees free trade
between the states.)
Past precedents have seen the High Court disallow virtually every law
which seeks to impose additional taxes or charges on heavy trucks
which are involved in interstate freight, which are the ones which
compete against rail.
I beleive that the only answer is for a rail operator to challenge the
legality of track access charges in the High Court.
So far , no rail operators seem to have the guts to try .

MD