>Terry,
>you're not grasping the idea of what I'm saying here...
>
>> >>So how much does the Warrnambool line now cost the PTC, $2.999million?
>
>It still costs about the same to maintain the Warrnambool track.
>
>Under PTC control, the resources which provided the pass service (being
>the trains, the station staff, train controllers etc) all contributed to
>a loss making venture.
>
>Now the V/Line trains are off the run (take away their maintenance and
>operating costs), the remaining PTC staff are still payed for by the PTC
>- BUT, now WCR pay the PTC for those staff, hence the crews, train
>controllers etc. are now earning the PTC revenue. Similarly, the track
>now generates income, as WCR pay to use it.
The passenger service earned revenu before the WCR privatisation. So
what is different? The way the bean counters do their sums.
>You see, these things which formerly all contributed to a loss making
>business (ie, Warrnambool line services) are now paid for by WCR - yes,
>the PTC don't get the passenger revenue, but by eliminating all of their
>costs (which outweighed the revenue) either by removing the resources,
>or by having WCR pay to use them, the line now generates significant
>income, and hence WCR has become one of the PTC's larger customers.
>
>Hence the loss making asset has become a profit earning asset. No
>propaganda there!
The bottom line still is the Warranabool line overall all still costs
the taxpayer money. Total revenu is less than total costs. The line is
not running at a profit. This claim of making a profit is just fancy
accounting, nothing else. All the improvements could have been
achieved without privatisation.
>> Union power is relatively low today due to high unemployment. If they
>> let the WCR decrease staffing levels, then the PTC could have also
>> achieved the same result. If you think lowering wages for railway
>> workers is the answer, you will end up with the wost people to do the
>> job.
>>
>
>Again, you're not grasping the simply economics -
>a) bums on seats means much greater revenue
>b) greatly reduced overheads means much less costs.
But all this can be achieved under government owenership, thus all
revenue retained by the Government.
>Increase your revenue, and decrease your costs, and your financial
>position improves remarkably! The problem with most Australian
>companies (and government departments) is that they're all very quick to
>try and reduce costs (ie, sack workers), but don't try hard enough to
>boost revenue.
>
>Cheers,
>Craig.
Untill road users subsidies are decreased rail will always run at a
loss, as the fares are kept artiffically low due to the artifically
low cost of motoring. WCR style privatisation is noting but
idealogically driven.
Terry Flynn.