Re: QR going national?

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

> >> 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
>
Seem to claim?? Please re-read what I wrote. My point is that you cannot
transfer their operating practices to a different railroad for the simple
fact what is safe in the Pilbra region can be unacceptably unsafe elsewhere.
That is a known fact in the rail industry. Every rail operation is unique.
Every accident and its causes are unique. It's common for different depots
of the same company to have different variations of company rules and
regulations.

You state numerous accidents in other parts of country and ask why the iron
ore companies don't have the same problems. Please look at the whole
picture. Safe working, training, hours of service, etc. Just because an
accident isn't broadcast on TV doesn't mean they don't happen.

What I'm trying to convey is that you cannot benchmark rail companies by
their haulage and accident rates. It's a hell of a lot more complicated than
that. The public inquiry into the UP meltdown showcased that statistics
quite often hide what is really going on and the underlying potential for
problems to occur.





  -----------== 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 ==-----