Re: QR going national?

["Jeff Schmidt" <jschmidt@tpgi.com.au>]

> Sorry , QR will not let anyone in.

Far as I know a number of companies have applied for access on QR track. I
apologise but I can't remember why that access was denied. I think it was
because they couldn't meet either service or safety requirements. Anyone
care to elaborate??

> Whilst they have a track access unit, no-one sofar has been granted any
track
> access on the NG track,and plenty have tried.
> In the case of the coal traffic their rates are as high as NSWs , around
5c
> /ntk and they have no effective access regime registered with the NCC,
> something that all States that are signatories to the Hilmer competition
> reforms are supposed to do.
> Have a look at the PCs inquiry into the black coal
> industry in Australia and you will see that QRs charges, and NSWs for that
> matter are around 2 to 3 times higher than worlds best practice and 5
times
> higher than the private iron ore railways.
> Natural monopolies dont benefit anyone , except maybe the regime that
promotes
> them.
>
> MD

The catch cry "Worlds Best Practice" is quite common in the Rail industry. I
'm all for increased efficiency, and for all QR's good points there is
always room for improvement. But how is best practice measured Maurie? There
is lot more to best practice then the bottom line.

Lets say a certain Class One Railroad in the States holds the distinction of
"Worlds Best Practise". What obligations does that company have to the
community and it's employees? I know it's a broad question but have a very
close look at US rail companies and their work practises, the safe working
systems employed, the infrastructure required to support a safe and
efficient operation, the training and accreditation of their work force,
etc. It would be safe to say the general consensus is that North American
companies are very efficient when measured by the bottom line. But they do
so at a price. Those large spectacular derailments you see on television are
the result of loopholes in their safety systems. I'm not saying similar
accidents cannot happen in this country but the fact is the possibility of
them occurring is reduced. To put it simply Australian rail companies cannot
afford the implications of a major accident. US companies have considerable
political clout to avoid or delay safety improvements even though the
technology and money is available. I suggest you invest the time and money
to study how different rail companies do business. Understand the different
safe working systems, their cost and areas where they are deficient. Read
accident reports and follow up what changes were made to prevent a similar
reoccurrence. Have a look at the minutes of meetings between the FRA and
NTSB with rail companies. Understand how accident data is collated. Do that
for as many companies and countries you can find. Compare apples with
apples.

Question for you Maurie. Why is a road train in the Northern Territory more
cost efficient than a courier van in the Sydney CBD? They are both road
vehicles after all.







  -----------== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
   http://www.newsfeeds.com       The Largest Usenet Servers in the World!
------== Over 73,000 Newsgroups - Including  Dedicated  Binaries Servers ==-----