Hansard 5/8

[arthur marsh <marsh@ties.itu.int>]

       Australian House of Representatives Hansard for 8th February 1999
                                       
                           PRIVATE MEMBERS BUSINESS
                              Rail Infrastructure
                                       
                        This document has DRAFT status
   
   Mr FORREST (Mallee)(1.02 p.m.)--It is very pleasing to stand and
   support the excellent motion on rail infrastructure moved by the
   member for Hinkler, and also to endorse the remarks made by the
   previous speakers, the members for Throsby, Corangamite and Port
   Adelaide. As someone who knows a bit about transport I am not all that
   forthcoming when I talk about the Australian rail system to
   engineering colleagues of mine. Unfortunately, we have the
   legacy--which should prove to be an example to us as a nation that
   aspires to great things--of lack of vision.
   
   The dilemma we face is the lack of a comprehensive national rail
   system. Although we owe a lot to our founding fathers, they did not
   think very far ahead when they deliberately decided to have different
   gauges in each state. Of course each state is based on the colonial
   system at the time, radially into the state capitals, and that does
   not suit the needs of a modern nation now--the need to transport from
   west to east and from north to south. The absence of a nationally
   coordinated grid system is another deficiency. This has been the
   reason for a lack of infrastructure investment. It is a sad reflection
   that road transport is more efficient. This has occurred because the
   transport system has not been up to the modern needs of our nation.
   
   I am little embarrassed also, because the members for Hinkler and Port
   Adelaide have both made reference to some very poor standard gauge
   track in Victoria that happens to run right through my electorate,
   right through the spine of the Wimmera. It is the source of many
   complaints from my constituents, who like to use the various railways
   stations along there as passenger ports but make the decision, as many
   trucking operators do, that it is better to go by car.
   
   I think the member's motion is a timely one for the parliament to make
   sure that the momentum that is being gathered continues. The member
   for Corangamite paid credit to the previous Keating government. I was
   very pleased to see those initiatives. I now at least have two
   standard gauge rail tracks running north to Yaapeet and Hopetoun in my
   electorate, which is very important in order to get grain down to both
   the Melbourne and Portland ports. Mallee being a very strong grain
   area, that is where the freight should stay--on the rail system and
   not on the road.
   
   I have a reflection on the lack of vision by our founding fathers from
   the 1995 report referred to by the member for Port Adelaide. In it I
   found a quote regarding Earl Grey at the time:

With broad gauge equipment already ordered, the irritated Victorians asked
London to veto the New South Wales' about-turn. But Earl Grey was in the
process of giving the colonies more freedom to make their own mistakes. . .

   It is what looks in hindsight like a simple mistake which is having
   profound effects on our rail system. From my further reading I thought
   I might offer some light-hearted reference to the standard gauge. It
   is actually a standard which is four feet, 8.5 inches, which is an
   exceedingly odd number. Why was that gauge used? Because that is the
   way they built them in England, and many of our engineers at that time
   were English expatriates.
   
   Why did the English people build them like that? Because the first
   rail lines were built on the same principle as the tramway system, and
   that is the gauge they used. Why did they use that gauge? Because the
   people who built the tramways used the same jigs and tools that they
   used for building the wagons, which used that wheel spacing. Why did
   the wagons use that spacing? Well, they tried to use the same spacing
   as the wagons, which corresponded to the same distance as the wheel
   ruts at the time.
   
   Where did the long distance roads in Europe come from--and why were
   there ruts? They were built by Imperial Rome for the benefit of their
   legions. They were the roads used to expand the great Roman Empire.
   The roads were that width, because that was the width of the chariots.
   Thus we have an answer to our question. The standard gauge distance of
   four feet, 8.5 inches derives from the original specification for the
   width of an original Roman chariot.
   
   It proves that we should stick to the original specification, not
   divert from it. So the next time we are tempted to wonder what horse's
   backside came up with this odd gauge we will be exactly right, because
   the Imperial Roman chariots were made to be just wide enough to
   accommodate the back end of two horses. It just proves that we should
   not divert from an original specification. (Time expired)