Re: Bayside,Hillside sale.

["Michael Walker" <walker@hotkey.net.au>]

>Hillside doesn't directly compete with freeways, whereas Bayside does on
>most lines, and especially on its longer distance trunk routes,
>
What about the Eastern Freeway?
(Although I agree with your point)

Other reasons might be to do with growth potential of the systems -
*  Hillside would have more potential for attracting off peak customers
*  Baysides greatest growth potential would be an airport railway but the
deal done with Citylink casts doubt on any real expansion
*  Hillside haven't been committed to any expansion plans under the deal,
Bayside have to extend to Sydenham as part of the contract - the expense
probably isn't worth the return for the short period of the contract.
*  Hillside has high levels of population along each of its lines, Bayside
lines in the west go through industrial areas and open land. This means more
maintenance for less potential return and growth opportunity.

In short, Hillside is the more viable of the two, Bayside has good eastern
suburbs lines but the western lines would significantly reduce the price and
opportunities. Plus the dead weight of a Sydenham extension. A better option
might have been to offer several options for extension eg Deer Park or
Sydenham or even past Werribee to Geelong. A Geelong electrification
partially subsidised by government might have been seen as a better profit
maker (and a cheap electrification for the government who after all still
own the railway under the deal or at least will get it back at the end of
the lease)