Re: Marinus makes headlines again

[mauried@commslab.gov.au (Maurie Daly)]

In article <37cc9c75.5096710@news.enternet.com.au> steam4me@enternet.com.au (Yuri J Sos/Melbourne) writes:
>From: steam4me@enternet.com.au (Yuri J Sos/Melbourne)
>Subject: Re: Marinus makes headlines again
>Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 12:16:05 +1000

>On 25 Aug 1999 16:25:02 GMT, markbau1@aol.comQQQQyuk (MarkBau1) wrote,
>and I selectively quote:

>>OTOH, if these lines were truly viable why does this private operator need
>>money from the govt. to open them? (I understand that the govt. will help pay
>>for reopening costs)

>See my other post -- Jeff promised to fix all flood damage in
>Gippsland, ie the Avon River bridge.  Must try to find back issues of
>"The Age" to confirm his exact quote.

>>Is FV a stand alone private operation or is it just another operator tied to
>>government $$$$$?

>FV is a private operator which has leased infrastructure from the
>Government for the next 15 years.  They receive no other subsidy from
>the Gov save the $36 million to be spent on infrastructure (quoting
>from the original press release)......

>>"Freight Victoria will invest $36 million in the first two years to improve
>>infrastructure, modernise or replace parts of V/Line Freight's locomotive
>>fleet as well as upgrade the Geelong grain loop to include standard gauge."

>As the State Gov is the landlord, they should help to maintain the
>infrastructure they own.

>       
>Regards

>Yuri
>-- 
>==================================
>Yuri J Sos
>Melbourne VIC AUS

>Reply to: steam4me@enternet.com.au

>Web site is now located at
>http://www.railpage.org.au/steam4me
>==================================


Its a bit differant in requiring a landlord to fix infrastructure which was 
clearly broken at the time of the sale , ie Cranbourne - Koala, Heywood - 
Millicent  and Sale - Bairnsdale.
These lines were closed when FV bought the assetts of VLF and its not 
reasonable to now expect the Govt to pay to open them, otherwise the Govt 
could have sold VLF for a higher price based on a promise to re-open new lines.
However , and this clearly demonstrates a fundamental problem with horizontal 
integration ,if FV were to pay the costs of re-opening these lines and indeed 
any other lines whicg are currently closed and for which the owner will not 
pay for, ie Narrandera to Tocumwal (in the case of RAC) then it seems only 
fair that the newly opened line be transferred to FV or whoever foots the bill 
to fix it.
Its very difficult to mount a business case to fix infrastructure which 
belongs to someone else , and then having fixed the infrastructure being 
required to allow other operators, possibly your own competitors to utililise
the re-opened infrastructure at a price set by some one else.
Unfortunately , none of the current rail inquiries address this sort of issue 
which means that lines which could be profitable if re -opened wont be , 
because of lack of certainty of exclusive access.
The only solution that I can see to fix this sort of problem is to require 
rail owners who own closed railway lines to be required to re-open them at the
owners expense,or sell them at auction to the highest bidder who are then 
required to reopen them and are guaranteed exclusive access rights for a 
minimum time period .
This would mean very slowly moving down the path to the US model , where 
railway lines are truly privately owned and can support multiple private rail 
operators.
I currently cant see any of this happening as there is no justification or 
requirement for Rail infrastructure owners to do anything with closed 
infrastructure.

MD