Re: DSRM is ....

[Eddie Oliver <eoliver@efs.mq.edu.au>]

Trevor Edmonds wrote:

> My position is based on the investigation our Board carried out. If it was
> as easy as you suggest, we would have jumped at it.

As a totally neutral observer, keen to see the Dorrigo line reinstated
but not involved with any of the organisational politics, I see two
interpretations of this:

1. There is something unique about Dorrigo which makes loco-hiring
unsuitable for it even though it makes money for other organisations.

2. The Board, and/or the investigation carried out by it, were
incompetent and/or inertial.

Perhaps the protagonists in the aus.rail debate can clarify which of
these alternatives apply, or whether there is some other valid
interpretation.

Perhaps the supporters of option 1 can also correct my simple-minded
arithmetic, which says that if it costs $40,000 to move the loco to and
from Dorrigo, and it could earn $2,000 per day, it would only take 20
days hire before those costs are recovered - even if the hirer cannot be
prevailed upon to pay them.

Similarly, I note that the line is being cleared and movements are being
made on the lower end of the line by the Glenreagh group, but there
appears no corresponding action by the Dorrigo group. Again, there
appear two obvious options:

1. The Glenreagh group are far more proactive than the Dorrigo group,
and want to do things instead of complaining about how difficult they
are.

2. The hassles about a road intersection and a bridge are so great as to
justify inaction at the Dorrigo end, while the Glenreagh group have no
such overwhelming hassles (although I seem to remember that there is a
bridge over the Orara River at the Glenreagh end which required some
maintenance effort).

Trevor has been trying to convince us of the latter option, but perhaps
he can expand his explanations to clarify why the wonderful goodwill
existing towards his organisation in the Dorrigo area has not produced
sufficient community involvement to solve these problems.

Eddie