Re: Rail lobby - enlisting Joe Average.

["Andrew Honan" <ahonan@wr.com.au>]

I to agree with both arguments.
'The squeaky wheel gets the oil'. So it is important to get the message to
the community of the advantages of rail public transport, especially from
environmental, economic and social viewpoints.

In order for rail to realize its full benefits especially economic benefits
it needs to be accountable and efficient. This means reforming track access
regimes, safety standards, infrastructure standards and logistics support at
freight terminals, and freight operations.

The use of different rail gauges is a legacy that will stay with us for
ever-more. Once the different states went their own way, it was never going
to be economical to re-gauge.


Andrew Honan

Maurie Daly wrote in message ...
>In article <36942248.0@news.camtech.net.au> "David Martin"
<d_martin@mountains.net.au> writes:
>>From: "David Martin" <d_martin@mountains.net.au>
>>Subject: Rail lobby - enlisting Joe Average.
>>Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 12:13:14 +1030
>
>>It is obvious that rail & road do not compete on a level playing field, &
>>have not done so for decades. A major cause, I suggest, is that the road
>>transport lobby, both freight & passenger, has far more political clout
than
>>the rail lobby.
>
>>By "rail", I refer to both heavy & light (trains & trams).
>
>Dead right, but at the risk here of being labelled the devils advocate I am
>going to ask an obvious question that no-one seems to want to ask and its
this.
>Who actually wants a level playing field between rail and road.
>
>Obviously the trucking industry doesnt want any of the current rules
changed
>unless its in their favor.
>Lets look at the rail industry in this country.
>For the last 100 odd years or so railway administrations have run trains on
>the basis of their own little empires, with absolutely no consideration of
>whether their trains were in any way competitive with trucks , or indeed
>whether their trains were competitive with anything.
>Each state rail administration dreamed up more and more idiotic rules and
>regulations for their trains and showed in just about all cases a total
>unwillingness to cooperate with each other in any way.
>This gave us such idiotic practices of changing locos and crews at state
>borders for no good reason other than the rules say so.
>Whilst this particular practice has fortunately dissapeared in the last 15
>years or so, other idiotic practices like requiring that a train must have
a
>particular type of radio in it before it is allowed to cross a state
border.
>We also have track access regimes in every state with differant rules and
>secrecy conditions which simply make it hard for any would be rail operator
to
>operate an interstate train.
>A constant argument that was put to the Neville inquiry by most interstate
>operators was that the costs of complying with all the differant state
rules
>and regulations was the major problem in running interstate trains.
>One private operator (see if you guess which one) had been trying for 2
years
>to get a satisfactory track access agreement ratified.
>
>The point of all of this , is that I dont beleive that currently the
various
>State Railway administrations give a stuff about the non level playing
field
>and are deliberately continuing to do what they have done for the last 100
>years or so , simply playing trains in their own little states.
>To level the playing field needs a couple of things.
>
>1/ Uniform rules and regs and comm systems across the whole country.
>2/ A uniform and publicly accountable track access regime.
>
>After we have the above , then we can look at improving the rail corridors.
>Both of these requirements get  tacit approval from State Transport
>Ministers every time such matters are discussed,but never get any support
from
>the individual rail administrations , I wonder why.
>
>cheers
>MD
>
>
>A constant point that was put to the neville inquiry into