Re: QR Moree extension

["M.B. and C.M.McDonald" <Michael.and.Colleen.Mcdonald@xtra.co.nz>]

I'll reply to David and Barry in one message :-

Barry Campbell <campblbm@ozemail.com.au> wrote in article
<6m8j4f$4f$1@news.mel.aone.net.au>...
> 
> David Bromage wrote in message <6m8fjm$r27$1@gruvel.une.edu.au>...
> >M.B. and C.M.McDonald (Michael.and.Colleen.Mcdonald@xtra.co.nz) wrote:
> >>When I visited Charleville last March I thought that support was a bit
> >>thin.  Would dearly love to see a well-filled passenger train.  A loco
> >>breakdown meant that all 16 passengers for the 6 or 7-carriage train to
> >>Brisbane had to be conveyed by mini-bus to Morven.  Maximum loading on
the
> >>train can't have been any higher than 30.
> >
> >I take the point that loading can be a bit light, but it is merely a
> >glorified mixed train. If QR invested in some modern diesel railcars
> >(maybe a version of the Australind) and ran a daylight service things
> >might be different.
> >
> 
> The reason the loading is a bit light is that the people who travel on
the
> train are either pensioners or railway employees on holiday passes.
> Everybody else who travels by public transport to those places travels
much
> more quickly, efficiently and cheaply (to the taxpayer) by McCaffertys.
> 
> 
> Barry Campbell
> >Cheers
> >David

I wouldn't call the trains "mixed" even though they may convey a couple of
box wagons.  It's hard to draw a line because many years ago (in NZ anyway)
the main trunk expresses also conveyed parcels and mail (as did buses). 
The only real sense in which they are mixed is the speed at which the train
travels.  Track conditions limited speed in most cases to 60-70 kph.  (As
an aside, I noted that there was a major resleepering job underway on the
Mt Isa line - stacks of sleepers alongside the track for hundreds of km.) 
The speed and the relative infrequency of the services would not make the
services attractive for people wishing to get from A to B as quickly and
cheaply as possible at a time when they want to travel.  Since my reason
for travelling was the journey and not the end points, I really enjoyed the
trips.

Barry's statement that passengers were either pensioners or railway
employees can't be 100% correct as I don't fall into either category - yet.
 Admittedly, a large proportion of the passengers looked as if they could
have fitted.  Given the choice of an overnight bus trip or an overnight
train trip I know which one I would chose.  I must admit that I now find
night trips in a rail coach a bit more uncomfortable than they used to be. 
In my younger days I had plenty of experience - working in Wellington while
my fiancee worked in Auckland!

As Barry said, it's obvious that the bus is more economical.  With a staff
of 6 or 7 on a lightly loaded train it can hardly be otherwise.  That's
partly offset by catering, which rail can do on board, while the bus has to
make all those lengthy stops at roadhouses.  

If rail costs have to be reduced, the best solution may be seats that are
comfortable for sleeping in (for overnight journeys), as well as improving
speed and frequency.  Full restaurant service (which is very pleasant) may
have to be reduced to buffet service and airline type catering.  Don't get
me wrong - I'm not suggesting that all "full service" trains have to be
downgraded - only those that are not attracting sufficient passengers.  I'd
rather see an "ordinary" train operating than none at all!

So far, the NZ experience is that privatisation hasn't led to a reduction
in passenger services - in fact it is the opposite - and TranzRail are
trying to keep costs down while attracting more passengers.  Have you ever
seen a loco driver in Australia assisting with the loading of passenger's
baggage (the van is the first vehicle behind the loco)?

By the way - do sleeping cars "pay for themselves"?  It seems they might
not, otherwise TranzRail might have put them back on the
Auckland-Wellington trains.

Michael McDonald