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 ==-----


Well firstly if its such an unsafe operation as you seem to claim , why do 
they have near perfect accident record, there have been some derailments as 
one would expect in this kind of country, and with the stresses it places on 
the rails , but no head ons like Mt Christie, no side swipes like Hines Hill, 
no rear end collisions like beresfield.
Obviously the operation is made to haul iron ore so it will be more efficient 
than a general operation railway that hauls a mixture of commodities, but not 
500% more efficient.
A large number of Queenslands coal lines carry coal and nothing else, no 
passenger trains, so the efficiences of scale and long trains and high loads 
should increase efficiency, but it doesnt for the simple reason that Govt 
owned Railways use their Railways as sources of revenue for other purposes,
ie the charges are deliberately high as they have no competition, ensured thru 
legislation.
Even AN in its last years of operation before it was sold was achieving 
revenues and costs well under QR , (revenues of 3.2 c/ntk and costs of 3.7 
c/ntk) .
I guess that makes them an unsafe railway too.

MD