Re: Federal Budget- Nothing for the Nation's Railways!

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

On 24 May 2001 21:19:45 +1000, "Bradley Torr"
<truenorth@one.net.au.SPAMTRAP> wrote:

>
>
>Maurie Daly <mauried@tpg.com.au> wrote in article
><3b0c504b.1067408@can-news.tpg.com.au>...
>
>> The problem is AFAIK not RIC per se , but the fact that it is Govt
>> owned corporation , but not an incorporated company.
>> Govts like turning their agencies into Corporations because they can
>> then pretend that the Corporations are more efficient as they have to
>> operate in a businesslike manner,and MAKE PROFITS , which then means
>> paying dividends to the shareholders , and guess in the case of RIC
>> who the shareholders are .?
>
>That's the reason why I said in my post to which you replied, "No wonder
>Bob Carr and the NSW ALP mafia don't want to turn over any railway control
>to the Feds!" Because RIC and its outrageous track access charges are
>nothing more than a nice big fat cash cow for the NSW state government.

But this is what I dont understand ,they dont have to lose money.
In Victoria , ARTC leases (note the word leases) the Interstate Rail
network from Victrak.
They dont get the track for nothing.
Monthly lease payments have to be made and the lessee (ARTC) also has
to pay to maintain the track.
Victrak simply sits back and collects the money ,and doesnt have to do
anything to get it.
>
>> There have been several instances in NSW where the Minister has
>> directed RIC to operate in a certain way which has increased their
>> costs .
>
>I'm interested in examples, do you have any? Not to contradict what you're
>saying, I'm just interested in the political and economic arrangements of
>railways.
>
I know of 2 .
One was when RIC was RAC , and the Minister intervened to prevent RAC
from letting a contract to a private company for track maintenence ,
and directed that RSA get the contract.
The other is current.
RIC as the track owner in NSW , is responsible for train control, but
isnt  allowed by the Minister to do it .
Instead , the function is contracted out to the SRA and SRA charge RIC
for the function.
There is a fundamental conflict of interest here , in that SRA are a
rail operator and provide all the train control for both their own
trains and other operators.
There is also the problem of operations .
To run  a train from Sydney to Albury in NSW , takes 3 train
controllers plus 18 signallers .
As a comparison , to run a train from Melb to Adelaide takes 3 train
controllers and 0 signallers .
Pretty obvious which line has the higher costs .




>> Also , the dividends are usually set by the NSW Treasury and dont
>> reflect any concern about what impact higher dividends (means higher
>> track access charges) will have on the rail industry as a whole .
>
>I think NSW Transport Minister Carl Scully doesn't know whether the
>railways are Martha or Arthur - i.e. should they be a much need
>government-controlled social service, or a for-profit trading enterprise?
>NSW at the moment seems to be a bizarre mixture of the two.
>
>Personally, I think the RIC should be controlled by a semi-independent
>chartered board, much like the ABC or the old M&MTB. The charter should
>state the goals and parameters for the operation of the RIC - safe,
>efficient rail transport worked for the general benefit of the people of
>the State while being fiscally responsible. Charges set by the RIC for
>usage of its infrastructure should be reasonable and prudent, and there
>should be provisions for revenues to be re-invested into improving the rail
>infrastructure of NSW.

The problem is defining what is reasonable and prudent .
Even defining that charges should cover costs is vague , if the costs
are inflated by over manning.

>
>> In other words , the NSW Govt is simply using RIC as a tax collection
>> agency,and this is one reason why the Feds wont put any money into
>> rail which is under State control ,as its simply an indirect form of
>> additional payment to the State .
>
>Exactly.
>
>BTW, you're probably aware of the National Highway Act 1974, brought about
>by Gough Whitlam, which allows the Government to select various roads
>(namely, roads that serve as direct links between capital cities) as part
>of the National Highway to be entirely funded by the Federal Government.
>Did Gough Whitlam have any such plans for the railways? I think the Federal
>Government should have a 'National Railway' network controlled by the ARTC
>or some such body, which shall be entirely funded and controlled by that
>federal body and consist of standard-guage links between the capital
>cities. But there's probably some Constitutional clause against such a
>thing.

Yes , at least 3 times the Feds have offered to fund the National Rail
Network on the same basis that they fund the National Highway network 
provided that a reasonable amount of rail reform occurred.
This included the concept of a "1 stop shop" for rail operators
seeking access to the national rail network.
1 stop shop = Single Network Operator 
Whilst all Transport Ministers agreed in principle , in practice only
Victoria co operated in leasing their SG track to ARTC.

In reality now , its all too late .
WA have sold their national SG track to a private company for the next
50 years , the Feds will give Tarcoola to AP to another private
company for 50 years , we really now cant have a National Rail Network
except in name only.


>
>> In my view track access charges should be completely abolished.
>
>Well I think it's fair for train operators to be charged for the track they
>use, as long as their charges contribute to the upkeep, maintenace and
>re-alignments for that track.

The trouble is that most of the track access charges dont actually go
to maintain the track.
They go to pay salaries and costs of Track owners as well.
Maintenance costs for track vary according to the state of the track
and for 47 KG/M CWR on concrete the cost is approc 0.08 C/GTK.
(This figure taken from feasability studies into the AP to Darwin line
to establish cost estimates.)
The other problem is that track maintenance costs vary enormously from
state to state .
Where a state has deliberately let its rail infrastructure run down ,
is it fair to then demand that rail operators pay more to maintain the
track , compared to where the track has been well maintained .
eg from the VIC / SA border to Kalgoorlie we have continuous 47 KG/ M
CWR on concrete , (best track in the country ) but in the states we
have lesser grade track on wood .
 
>
>> Road users dont have to pay road user charges, 
>
>Apart from registration costs, and petrol excise - petrol excise being
>directly linked with the distance you drive (the more you drive, the more
>excise you pay), and linked to weight of the vehicle (the heavier the
>vehicle, the more petrol you use per kilometre, the more excise you pay per
>kilometre, and also the more wear and tear the vehicle does to the road
>because of heavier axle loadings).

Again , its not that simple .
There is very little differance between the fuel consumption of a B
double (62 tonnes GVM ) and a normal , but older semi (40 tonnes GVM) 
even though the B double does much more road damage.
Even with the fuel excise (22 cents / litre) the equivalent road usage
charge works out at around 0.18 c /gtk , compared with rails access
charges which range from anywhere between 0.4 c /gtk up to around 0.9
c /gtk.

I wouldnt mind at all if rail had to pay fuel excise in the same way
as do road users ,as long as the trackmaccess fess were abolished.

>
>> the shipping industry
>> doesnt pay water usage charges
>
>Berthing fees? 'Water' also doesn't require maintenace and new construction
>projects. Railways and roads do.
>
>> and the aviation industry doesnt pay
>> air usage charges .
>
>Airlines pay Air Services Australia for the right to use a particular
>flight path, am I correct? Again, 'air' doesn't need to employ thousands of
>people to keep it maintained, and new 'air' doesn't need to be constructed
>to facilitate air travel. Only airports and traffic control needs to be
>staffed and maintained, and they're paid for by landing/take-off fees.
>
>> Its fair to charge for Terminal use where the terminals are provided
>> by 3rd parties .
>
>The only problem with that is, say my Bradley Railway Company wants to take
>two trains hauling 30 containers full of dog food from a dog food factory
>to two supermarket distribution warehouses. One terminal at the supermarket
>warehouse is 100km away from the dog food factory; the other terminal is
>1,000km away. Yet the two terminals charge the same, and apart from loco
>crewing and diesel and loco maintenance, my out-of-pocket expenses to third
>parties are the same - despite the fact that I used ten times as much track
>with one train than the other.

You may be using the track , but are you damaging it ?
Not very much .
The great advantage of rail over road is that railway lines last a
very long time.
Concrete sleepers have a 25 - 30 year life span , steel rails 50 years