Re: QR restructure coming?

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

On Mon, 26 Feb 2001 22:50:43 +1000, "MattyQ"
<mattyq1009@dingoblue.net.au> wrote:

>
>"Maurie Daly" <mauried@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
>3a998a1a.346920@can-news.tpg.com.au">news:3a998a1a.346920@can-news.tpg.com.au...
>> On Mon, 26 Feb 2001 09:22:40 +1100, Greg Rudd <grudd@mail.usyd.edu.au>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Are you arguing that QR be split up into several  coal carring companies,
>a general freight company, several
>> >passenger companies and of course the mandatory track access company all
>competing against each other while the
>> >Road Transport industry is laughing all the way to the bank.
>> >
>>
>> No , Im simply stating that coal companies in Queensland shouldnt be
>> forced to use QR simply because noone else is allowed to haul coal.
>
>Maurie, I am sorry to say you are WAY wrong here.
>
>Firstly, if QR does not permit 3rd party operators to haul coal, then
>explain to me the recent contract from Ensham Mine that was awarded to
>Freightcorp. Secondly, in reference to general traffic, explain to me how
>CKSR are about to operate in direct competition to QR's Kuranda Tourist
>Train on QR metals?
>

Freightcorp have a contract to haul coal in Queesland .
Their contract us between themselves and the mine.
Theere is currently NO track access agreement with QR.

And I didnt say that QR are stopping all 3rd party operators, jusr 3rd
party coal operators.

>> If QR are a efficient coal carrier as they claim they are , then they
>> should not fear competition from other rail operators .
>> To achieve this requires an independant and more importantly NCC
>> certified track access regime which the Qld Govt and QR have refused
>> to have anything to do with.
>
>Oh what ROT!!! Why do you think Network Access was set up? Who do you think
>is constantly watching? Try the ACCC as well as the QCA not to mention QT,
>all of which are working hard to ensure QR presents a level playing field to
>3rd party operators. And don't tell me Network Access is part of QR which
>creates bias. It's no different to RAC or ARTC, both government owned access
>corporations, just like Network Access.

Wrong again.
Under National Competition Principles, the ACCC has no role to play
until there is a certified track access regimie in place .
Such certification is granted by the NCC and QR has refused point
blank to co operate in reaching agreement on certification.
Simply setting up a body and calling it a track access unit ,or
calling it a track access regime is meaningless unless the regime is
certified.
ARTCs regime is certified , but RACS is not.

How about you tell us what exactly QR charges 3rd party operators for
access to its tracks , or is such information "secret".



>QR's number one focus is safety. The reason most 3rd party operators have
>lost contracts to date is because they've not been up to QR's government
>approved safety standards. Simple as that. They try to cut corners on safety
>measures to underbid a tender which QR will not abide. It's a simple
>theory - if you wanna shoot pool in MY house, you play by MY rules. Easy.

Of course , what a great way to keep 3rd party operators out .
Simply claim that their operations are unsafe.


Not your house Matt.
Your Govt signed the National Competition Principles .



MD