Re: April Digest - congrats Max Michell

["Grahame Ferguson" <grahamef@users.mcmedia.com.au>]

Maurie Daly wrote in message <3ade15df.980651@can-news.tpg.com.au>...
>Im not convinced that the only model is to hand the whole show over to
>the Feds ,(as everyone else seems to beleive) .
>Whats really needed is major rail reform , which doesnt also mean
>federal control.
>What is needed is a single common set of rules which all the Railways
>(irrespective of who owns them ) , operate by.
>Given that there is a trend now by each State Govt to privatise parts
>of its Rail network maybe its possible to head in the direction of the
>US rail model.
>In this case the only role of the Feds would be to set national
>standards, which all rail operators ,either State owned or privately
>leased would operate by.
>No one can convince me that having separate rules and differant access
>regimes and differant safeworking in every state is a good thing for
>the country.
>
>How about this as a starter.
>1/ The NSW suburban rail network (ie Maitland / Lithgow / Goulburn) be
>handed back in its entirety to Cityrail, to be run as a vertically
>integrated rail network.
>Cityrail in turn must agree to implement a certified publicly
>accessable track access regime .
>The Feds must agree to build a dedicated goods route thru the suburban
>area.
>
>2/ The parts of the National Network in NSW (as defined by the AROU)
>be LEASED to ARTC .
>ARTC must agree to spend a certain amount of its total income over the
>next 5 years fixing up the worst bits of the NSW country network.
>The Feds must agree to privatise ARTC .(This is rumoured to happen
>anyway after the NRC sale is completed.)
>All the States are permitted as a consortium to bid for ARTC as is
>anyone else.
>The ACCC is given the power to make determinations regarding anti
>competetive within the Rail industry.
>
>3/ The sale of Freightcorp be modified to include a 50 year lease on
>all the NSW track not defined as being either Cityrails or the leased
>ARTC track.
>(This would increase the sale price of Freightcorp.).
>
>Eventually we will end up primarily with either a privately owned
>national rail network , or a State owned national rail network .
>Either way it gets awat from the current problem of each State simply
>wanting to play trains in its own state and not caring at all about
>the National good.
>
>If and when the above is achieved , then the Feds inject 1.2 billion
>into upgrading and improving the worst bits of the Eastern Coast Rail
>Network.(They have indicated they will do this , provided that a
>single network operator for the national network exists.)
>
>
>Comments
>MD

Maurie, your points are valid.

My point is not so much for the Commonwealth to have ownership of interstate
railways, rather a single regulatory control which sections 98 to 104
provide for.

In the US the Federal Railroad Authority and the Surface Transportation
Board are the regulatory authorities, not the owners of the railroads.

The National Transport Safety Board investigates breaches in rail safety.

Common rules, common radios and a single interstate authority allow for a
seamless railway.

A truck owner driver only needs a licence and registration from one state to
drive all over Australia, but a rail operator needs accreditation in every
state, and to pay access fees at each change of track ownership, plus
another radio set.

In the US all locomotives have a common 100 channel VHF radio which allows
them to communicate anywhere in the US.  The individual channels are
allocated by the Federal Railroad Authority to each railroad.

The federal Dept of Communications should ahve originally allocated as per
the US.

Regards,

Grahame