Re: QR restructure coming?

["Rod [comtrain]" <freight_man@hotmail.com>]

MttyQ


by any other name a MONOPOLY is a  MONOPOLY is A "GOVERNMENT MONOPOLY"

only those brainwashed individuals in Joes own Country would have difficulty
with such a simple thing!
p.s. what are you going to do when a real red-neck like Pauline takes Office
:o)))))))))))))
take as little offence as you can mate, I think my tone is,  about the same
as yours.
Rod

MattyQ <mattyq1009@dingoblue.net.au> wrote in message
3a9a5222$0$25519$7f31c96c@news01.syd.optusnet.com.au">news:3a9a5222$0$25519$7f31c96c@news01.syd.optusnet.com.au...
>
> "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?
>
> > 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.
>
> 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.
>
> --
> Matt Smith
> Brisbane, Australia
>
> Email - mattyq1009 at dingoblue dot net dot au
>
> Notice - All comments and opinions made herein are that of the author only
> and do not represent the official view of QR. All text included in this
post
> (and/or reply) is copyright to the author. This message may not be
> reproduced in whole or in part without the express written permission of
the
> author.
>
>