>Terry Flynn (terry@cclru.unsw.edu.au) wrote:
>>dbromage@metz.une.edu.au (David Bromage) wrote:
>>
>>>Griffith gets a weekly train of 3 cars. Warrnambool trains are regularly 4
>>>and 5 cars, 3 services on weekdays, 2 on Saturday and 1 on Sunday.
>>
>>Then only one 48 is really needed for this service.
>
>Agreed, but the usual motive power is 42220 and the timetable is written
>for a 422. On two weekends there wasn't a 422 available so a pair of 48s
>ran the train. On the second weekend, an 81 took over at Goulburn.
>
>>A 3 car train one time a week, clearly a political decision to run
>>this service, and run with existing equipment to save new capital
>>expenditure, but the WCR privatisation does not seem to stop this type
>>of inefficency.
>
>No, it's an experiment just like the old Grafton Express was. The weekly
>Grafton Express became a daily XPT. I'd put the weekly Sprinter to Echuca
>in the same category. Note that after only a few weekends of running, the
>empty car movements to and from Echuca became passenger carrying.
>
>>>It's not that WCR is too small. There are much smaller short line
>>>operations around the world making far more money than WCR ever will.
>>>The problem is the 7 year contract isn't long enough to make investment
>>>worthwhile. The British Rail franchises are 15 years long and already the
>>>first order for new rollingstock (8 trains for the Gatwick Express) has
>>>already been let to Metro-Cammel.
>>
>>As far as I know passenger services mostly are run and funded by the
>>US government. Were are the private short lines running profitable
>>timetabled passenger trains.
>
>Amtrak is partly funded by state government. There are private non-urban
>passenger carrying lines in the US such as the Alaska Railroad.
>
>>>>Which indicates the rail operation is cheaper than the buss
>>>>alternative to run, nothing to do with private owernership, but the
>>>>fundamental advantages rail has over road.
>>>
>>>But it's not cheaper due to the larger overheads.
>>
>>What higher overheads? There are less train crew per passenger
>>compared to busses.
>
>Sure there is less train crew, but more managers at 589 Collins St.
Again cost ALL those employed by various arms of government to
design, fund and maintain roads and the staff at collins street become
a reasonable necessity.
But now we have extra mangement costs due to privatisation.
>>Fuel costs are also less using rail compared to
>>road. These are the fundamental advantages rail has over road. The
>>government in both cases foots the bill for the road and rail
>>infrastructure. Road has many costs hidden such as traffic police
>>who's wages are not counted as a cost of road transport.
>
>But road is funded as a whole by governments. Would you want VicRoads
>checking your odometer every week and billing you for the distance you
>travelled?
Try funding all road costs through a realistic alternative user pay
method that is fuel tax. Then rail travel would not appear to be so
expensive. And using more fuel efficent rail transport will lower
green house emissions ect.
>>The wrong decision was made when tenders were called for
>>privatisation.
>
>Maybe so, but it's happened now and anyone with an interest in rail should
>do everything possible to see that it works.
>
>Cheers
>David
Supporting a bad system will only accelerate the contracting rail
network.
Terry Flynn.