1. The Federal government wants to eliminate it's involvement in rail operations rather than increase expenditure. The sale of AN and intended sale of NR supports this position.
2. No private consortium will fund the project without a government guarantee to underwrite any losses. Note the "double speak" currently being used by both sides. Consortiums want Fed involvement (money) and the Fed's offer infrastructure (the CAR).
Some consultants seek to justify the financial viability of the proposal by suggesting that Darwin to Adelaide would be land-bridging and then by sea to NZ.
An analysis of the sea -v- rail options indicates the following:
Rail (best case)
1 day to land the container in Darwin and move to rail head where it's loaded
2 day to travel to Adelaide by rail
1 day to collect from rail head and take to port for loading
Total of 4 days
Sea (using 17.5 knot ship)
5 days from SEA to Adelaide
Therefore everything going properly rail will beat sea by one day. However, rail is more expensive than sea so how many shippers will pay the extra to move by rail to gain one day? Alternatively, 5 days operating costs for the ship are saved (what cost?).
No double if sea saw the rail option as a competitive threat they could substitute a 22 knot ship for the existing 17.5 knot and make the rail option uncompetitive. I suspect that's why any consortium wants a government guarantee....... and that's precisely why they won't get one.
The only sure way of guaranteeing the line be constructed is on the basis of national defence. In the current regional political climate I can't see any government doing that.
Regards,
Tom
--- | Fidonet: Tom Jones 3:800/846.526 | Internet: Tom.Jones@sawasdi.apana.org.au