Re: NRC

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

In article <37df8cba.21088043@news.ozemail.com.au> telljb@OZozemail.com.au (< Tell >) writes:
>From: telljb@OZozemail.com.au (< Tell >)
>Subject: Re: NRC
>Date: Sun, 12 Sep 1999 11:21:33 GMT

>Rod Gayford <rjaygee@smartchat.net.au> wrote:
>>
>> As we always appear to be about 20 years behind the USA I believe
>> nothing will be done about freight railways in Australia until a point
>> of almost no return occurs as was the case with US railways about 20
>> years ago. Even the worlds most powerful country decided it couldn't
>> continue to spend unlimited funds on road transport. Only time will tell
>> in Australia. I cannot understand why the Liberal Party philosophy is
>> opposed to spending money on rail when its willing to throw huge sums of
>> money at airports. Taking market force philosophy to the extreme, if
>> Qantas wants to run an airline service then why shouldn't it be made to
>> pay for airport infrastructure. Why shouldn't truck companies be forced
>> to pay for their own roads or at least pay the same access charges to
>> the State Government as it would if rail was used?


>Well, I have seen and continue to see what is still
>being done.  Australian National were NEVER twenty
>years behind, more like twenty years ahead of the
>Australian States, they were fighting a losing battle,
>thanks to the said states.  AN lost, due to politics.
>  
>National Rail Corp running on the base that AN set,
>along with their own ideas have made rail a very viable
>alternative up here in the Northern Territory and
>across the Trans Australia Railway.  When you see NRC
>double stacks, which road transport will NEVER be able
>to compete with, running fast and on time, you will
>know what I mean. 

>Great Southern, despite some of its short comings has
>made long distance rail travel still a viable option,
>once again on the base that Australian National set.
>  
>As for trucks, it would appear the majority of people
>who want to move goods think they have the best
>solution in these expensive times.
>It would appear from posts in this group the answer is
>simple, make trucks pay for their use of the roads in
>relation to rail.

>Anybody care to explain how, with details.

>Lifetime Labor voters exempted.

>----Terry Burton
>[clear OZ in address for email reply]



The answer to make trucks pay more is an obvious but very difficult one to set 
up and administer.
Currently some trucks are paying their way (usually small non articulated 
trucks that are used in the cities) but most of the large semi trailers that 
utilize the highways arnt.
The difficulty with charging them a realistic rate is all based around 
enforcement, ie how do you determine how many GTK per annum a particular truck 
carries.
You would need a major army of enforcement police plus a national grid of 
weighbridges on all major highways to simply enforce any mass - distance 
charging regime.
I dont think anything should be done to the trucking industry as its simply 
too late, there are already far too many trucks on the roads and simply 
legislating them away with higher fees will be extremely unpopular 
(politically wise) , and the truckies will, as they have done in the past with 
their blockades of the highways will get a lot of sympathy.
Its also not clear that any increase in trucking taxes will cause any great 
movement back to rail , the additional taxes will simply be passed onto the
end user in the form of higher costs for the things we buy.
Its much better to let market forces fix the problem , ie we fix the Rail 
Access Regimes which increases the competitiveness of trains. 

Its imperative however that the charging regime for trains be fixed.
Simply charging track access fees which are based around arbitrary cost 
structures set by various state govts is totally unacceptable.
Even ARTCs charges based around flagfalls and GTK essentially favor 
larger rail companies who can afford the flagfalls .
Rail costs are primarily fixed , around 80% with only 20% variable which means 
that the more trains that run ,the cheaper it should get per train.
Its pretty obvious why this is the case , especially on lines that have a high 
required staff density.
Train controllers are needed as are signallers whether we have 1 train per day 
or 100 trains per day.
Its also worthwile from a track owners perspective to distribute train load 
over their tracks in a uniform manner and not to have a lot of trains all 
leaving around the same time of the day and then nothing for many hours.
Unfortunately this is exactly what we have on the National Network.
Most trains arrive early in the mornings and leave late in the afternoons so 
that there is very poor utilization of the track during the day, even worse 
utilization at the weekends.
If one looks at the utilization of the Hume Highway one sees that at night 
there are a lot of trucks ,but still quite a few during the day and 
importantly they still run at weekends,the trucking industry doesnt stop at 
weekends like the rail industry does.

I beleive there are two scenerios to the charging regime.
1/ Something similar to the existing ARTC regime with a flagfall + a GTK 
component,but with an allowance for the time of day, ie we try to encourage use
of the rail facility by a reduction in rate during times when the network is 
underutilised, eg a weekend reduced GTK rate.
The flagfall component needs to be just enuf to cover the costs of producing 
the timetable for the trains.
Operators could , if they so wished pay a higher flagfall to allow priority 
over trains running with a lower flagfall.
This would benefit operators like Countrylink who currently have to pay a 
premium flagfall simply because they run a hi speed train.
On weekends , especially Sundays where there arnt many other trains priority 
isnt such a problem and Countrylink could save by paying a lower rate.

2/ We treat railways like we treat the road freight industry.
A registration charge is levied on every locomotive which is accredited to run
over the National Network.
The charge would be payable annually and be based on a locos weight,max speed 
and HP .
There would still be a minimal flagfall , but no GTK component.
This would encourage railroads to haul as much as possible with a minimum loco 
fleet and would discourage hoarding of locos.


The feds allocate a fixed percentage of road funding per annum to rail, to get 
the above scenerio up and running , and  to improve all the National Track 
to at least 60 kg/m on concrete.
After this is done , I beleive that Rail can fund itself simply from the 
revenues received.


Comments?
MD