Re: National Rail Corp

["Exnarc" <gwrly@netspace.net.au>]

<ahonan@zipworld.com.au> wrote in message
3833d62e.3850296@news.zipworld.com.au">news:3833d62e.3850296@news.zipworld.com.au...
> On Sun, 14 Nov 1999 21:59:23 GMT, mauried@commslab.gov.au (Maurie
> Daly) wrote:
>
> >In article <382e88ab@nap-ns1> "Grahame Ferguson"
<grahamef@users.mcmedia.com.au> writes:
> >>From: "Grahame Ferguson" <grahamef@users.mcmedia.com.au>
> >>Subject: Re: National Rail Corp
> >>Date: Sun, 14 Nov 1999 20:18:47 +1100
> >
> >
> >>Grahame Ferguson wrote in message ...
> >>>
> >>>The point that we are all missing is that the creation of the NRC was
> >>>supposed to be the start of seamless, one stop shop for rail freight to
> >>>effectively and collectively to compete with road transport.  Instead
we
> >>now
> >>>have a mongrel hybrid of a national rail system.
> >>>
> >>>The NRC are in competition with other rail operators.   They do not own
any
> >>>rail lines.  For them to operate a train from Sydney to Perth, they
have to
> >>>negotiate with 3 Rail Access Authorities, and has to comply to 3
different
> >>>Accreditation authorities.  Hardly an integrated system designed to
beat
> >>>road transport.
> >>>
> >>>In Victoria we have the Department of Infrastructure, responsible for
rail
> >>>safety accreditation.  Victrack the owners and operators of the track.
> >>>Freight Victoria who have a lease on their rail infrastructure, and are
> >>>resposible to maintain it.  National Express who run the country
passenger
> >>>trains, half the suburban trains, and half the Trams.  Hillside Trains
who
> >>>run the other half of the suburban rail network.   Confused??
Victoria
> >>is
> >>>home to the mongrel hybrid.
> >>>
> >>>Governments are trying to promote competition.  But the bottom line is
that
> >>>Rail is competing against itself.  The Road Transport Lobby must have
been
> >>>the policy makers for the Federal and Victorian Governments.  The
Road's
> >>>competition (the Railways) has been reduced to an unco-ordinated
> >>>self-destructing industry.
> >>>
> >>>If Rail Freight is to survive it must be run by one or two major
players.
> >>>If Queensland Railways bought the NRC, well at last they will be backed
by
> >>>pro-railway management who run an integrated railway. If FreightCorp
bought
> >>>it, then it would have a railway with assets and experience, and then
it
> >>>would have reduced competition by buying it , not by eliminating each
other
> >>>through bunkruptcy.
> >>>
> >>>Its true that all Governments stand accussed, and the slack stagnant
> >>>attitude of past State Railway Bureaucracies, dug railways into a very
deep
> >>>pit.  But the new counter measures are counter productive and
destructive.
> >>>
> >>>We have taken an unprooved model from the British at our peril.   In
the
> >>US,
> >>>Freight Railroads own the tracks that they run on.  Mega - Mergers are
the
> >>>trend in the US, not downsizing, and they are doing this to increase
their
> >>>profits, and fight the common enemy - The Truck.
> >>>
> >>>Passenger Railroads are Government subsidised, as they provide a low
> >>>pollution efficient mode of transporting the masses.  US cities are now
> >>>rebuilding their urban railroads, reversing a 40 year trend.  As we are
20
> >>>years behind in the trend.  We still build Freeways as the answer to
our
> >>>transport problems.  Who would want to be an asthmatic in Los Angeles
> >>today,
> >>>or Melbourne in 20 years.
> >>>
> >>>For National Rail to be a force in transport, it has to own and control
the
> >>>tracks over which it does its business.
> >>>
> >>>Imagine what would have happened if the NRC had of been given ownership
and
> >>>control of its tracks.  Imagine further if the NRC board had head
hunted
> >>>overseas for someone like Ed Burkhart as its first CEO.  But I don't
want
> >>to
> >>>think of, is its probable politically expedient sell off, left to
uneven
> >>>market forces.  Would any of the NRC sale money be directed to new
> >>>interstate trackwork?- Fat chance!!
> >>>
> >>>In the end, the question we must all ask, is possibly how, can the
array of
> >>>non-integrated large and small Rail operators, who face a wall of
access
> >>and
> >>>accreditation bureaucracies ever survive in a limited market,
especially
> >>>when road has had all the advantages.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Regards, GF.
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> >
> >Absolutely spot on Graham, you have summarised the problem perfectly.
> >Too many Rail Administrations administering what by world standards is a
very
> >small Rail system,and its getting worse not better.
> >In NSW where we used to have the NSWGR (New South Wales Govt Railways) we
now
> >have SRA,Cityrail,Countrylink,Freightcorp,RAC and RSA , all to do the
same
> >thing.
> >Whilst I have problems with privatization , I now firmly beleive that
this is
> >the only hope for rail in Australia , as we have to get Govt out of the
Rail
> >business.
> >One of the current problems with the sale of NRC at the moment is
argument
> >about whether it can be sold to a Govt operator , (ie QR).
> >The VIc govt arnt keen on this (dunno why).
> >
> >cheers
> >MD
> >
>  I think that the rail transport sector needs to integrate more into
> the supply chain in order to regain its competitive edge. It must be
> run as a compelete transport logisitc operation with  integration to
> road terminals and wharves. I would like to see someone like aTOLL and
> Patricks as transport operators
> There needs to be more investment in the infrastructure by the Govt.
> and pricing neutrality between road and rail but after that have rail
> as an arm of an enterprises' transport needs.
>
> Regards
> Andrew Honan

What do you mean???

Goverment pays the costs and Toll's and Patricks reap the profits???

What we need to do (if we have to have private operators) is ensure that
freight forwarders do not have a monopoly of transportation, ie: No Tolls,
Patricks etc controlling the show.

Rail is another form of transport, what we need is a rail operator, (maybe
two) to go out and hunt for business, also we need a level playing field.
eg: the government owns the roads so why not have (Feds) the government own
the rail infrastructure, this would require a rail lobby group, as exists in
the States to ensure the level playing field is maintained.

Private ownership of the infrastrucuter in Britain has proved a failure, the
recent safety concerns have indicated that profit is more important than
safety there, so if this is the case, government (which is accountable to
the people not  shareholders) should have this responsibilty.

Of course the railways did run in this country for 150 years without a cent
of private ownership money, but I guess this suggestion is a little bit to
radical for some, to suggest that the government should control all
transport???

Bob.