Re: QR going national?

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

In article <37e349bb@dnews.tpgi.com.au> "Jeff Schmidt" <jschmidt@tpgi.com.au> writes:
>From: "Jeff Schmidt" <jschmidt@tpgi.com.au>
>Subject: Re: QR going national?
>Date: Sat, 18 Sep 1999 17:24:33 +1000

>> Its a bit odd then that the railways in this country with the
>> lowest accident rate,the best track , the most powerful locomotives , the
>> longest and heaviest trains in the world  and also the lowest effective
>> freight rates,(1 c/ntk) and also the highest energy efficiency (10 nt km
>> /M) are all private railways.
>> Also said railways operate according to the best US practice, indeed
>> one could say that they are US railways operating in Australia.
>>
>> Id say there is something a bit wrong with the Govt Railways.
>>
>> MD
>>
>Nothing odd about it at all. I assume you are referring to the iron ore
>companies in the Pilbra region. The very nature of their operations force
>them to be efficient. Here's why:
>1. Specially built right of way. No sudden changes of road gradient. No
>adverse steep descending grades. Their trains are right on the limit for
>drawgear stress, air brake performance and tractive power even on very train
>friendly road profiles. Occasionally they do have problems running trains
>like that. They can get away with it while other companies can't because...
>2. They are an isolated system. No passenger, no general freight. They can
>afford to run an operation without having to worry about a 26,000 tonne
>train going through the middle a passenger train. Not only is their
>equipment on the limit but also their drivers in a fatigue management point
>of view. There safe working systems are geared for a light traffic densities
>and one type of train. It's called risk management. Trouble is the
>definition of safety.
>3. One company owns the whole operation. Less resources required to
>co-ordinate 1 or 2 mines with the railroad and port than it is with a 30 or
>more coal mines all funnelling their product into 2 or 3 ports. Add into the
>equation other rail traffic, the myriad of different coal types, breakdowns,
>etc.
>4. Iron ore is appox. 3 times heavier than coal.
>5. Train crews often have previous experience. And when their staff is
>sourced from within their own operation the time required for training is
>greatly reduced because it is a specialised rail operation. Big savings in
>training.

>That's only scratching the surface why they are efficient. It's all well and
>good getting on ones soapbox and quoting haulage rates and figures. But the
>reality is are you willing to risk the lives of people to save money.






>  -----------== 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 ==-----