Re: QR going national?

["Switched On" <yaropolk@hotmail.com>]

< Tell > <telljb@OZozemail.com.au> wrote in message
38032ee2.2140608@news.ozemail.com.au">news:38032ee2.2140608@news.ozemail.com.au...
> "Switched On" <yaropolk@hotmail.com> wrote mobs of
> stuff about why QR is perfect:


> The ONLY thing that has kept QR afloat is the
> exorbitant prices it charges to haul coal.

Exhorbitant? If they are exhorbitant, how come Queenslanders pay less for
their electricity than anyone else in the country? Hmm? If our coal haulage
prices are higher than anyone elses or are uncompetitive, then why is this
the case? Are our mines selling coal to the electricity boards cheaper than
any other state? Mines are mines, they don't grossly undercut each other
because it would pull the plug on the market, and no one wants that to
happen. I would put it to you, quite seriously, that the reason why  QR
makes so much money out of coal is because it has a very efficient and
businesslike operation, and any other competitor is welcome to try, but they
won't last long without the kind of specialised knowledge that QR has in
this area.

I would further refer you to the post by John McCandless attached below just
in case you aren't closely following the entire thread.

For anyone genuinely interested the success of the rail transport to be
bagging QR for its success is really quite amazing. It's the only railway in
the country to be genuinely well-positioned for any sort of commercial
achievement, and it has remained whole and undissected. All of its
employees' jobs have remained intact. It has developed some of the most
advanced train control and information systems in the country - and it owns
all of the intellectual property for these systems. It has thankfully
avoided the costly train control fiascos of Sydney (even though it has not
avoided upgrading all of its train control systems for the entire state),
and the farce that is Bayside and Hillside.

Having visited the offices of both the RSA and the former PTC, I was shocked
to see what sort slash-and-burn economic "reforms" had been forced on them,
all because of mismanagement and years of short-sighted economic policy. You
see, it doesn't matter if your railway is private or public - it just
matters how it is managed.

QR is still here, and will soon be in your neck of the woods in some
capacity or other. Maybe one day, it will provide employment to some of your
compatriots. I hope that day is soon, especially since the alternative is
for your railways to be completely foreign-owned.

A.


Maurie Daly <mauried@commslab.gov.au> wrote in message
mauried.436.37F01084@commslab.gov.au">news:mauried.436.37F01084@commslab.gov.au...

> Carpentaria Transport , (a wholly owned subsidiary of TNT) tried in Dec
1996
> to gain access to the Cairns - Brisbane line for the purposes of running
its
> own trains from Cairns to Brisbane using 8 locos and 200 wagons.
> QR totally opposed the access.
> As there was then , and currently still is no effective access regime in
place
> in Queensland, there is no mechanism for any 3rd party operators to run
trains
> in Queensland unless QR will let them.
> Dont hold your breath.
>
> MD


I found 2 articles on this, both taking differing viewpoints.

They were both in the October/November 1997 issue of "Network Rail" (since
ceased publication) Vol34, No.5

p.22 "TNT SETBACK IN DEEP NORTH:

CANBERRA -  Following a National Competition Council (NCC) determination,
Queensland Premier Rob Borbidge has denied an application by TNT Ltd to
operate freight services on the Brisbane - Cairns corridor.  The Premier's
ruling retains
Queensland Rail's monopoly on all its routes.  Carpentaria Transport, a TNT
subsidiary, was seeking to free-up rail competition in Australia's
northenmost State.  The NCC said that, although Carpentaria's presence would
promote competition, its application failed to meet two of the six criteria
under section 44 of the Trade Practices Act.  A service cannot be declared
until it meets all criteria."


The phrases "Queensland Rail's monopoly", and "free-up rail competition"
would seem to indicate the reporters point of view
fairly clearly.  Fair enough, everyone is entitled to their view.  I (being
a QR employee) make no apology for being pro QR, and I would love to see QR
being the only operating railway in state (all's fair in love and war - I
have a job to protect!)

In the same issue of "Network Rail" (p 8) in a column by "The Sleeper -
keeping a bleary eye on rail's passing parade"

"COMPETITION MEANS NEVER SAY NO

Elsewhere in the issue our indomitable reporting staff tell how TNT failed
in its attempt to break QR's monopoly over line haul services in Queensland.
What isn't as well known is that TNT's application sought to compel QR to
provide it with trains, full management personnel and full crewing as well
as handling, loading and storage facilities.  Rumour has it that earlier
this year, before striking a deal with National Rail, TNT was heading in the
same direction.  Specialised Container Transport now has an application
before the National Competition Council seeking something similar from
Westrail.  These demands are made under the Trade Practices Act which
apparently allows open access to 'nationally significant infrastructure to
facilitate competition'.  Chastise old Sleeper if you must - he never having
been much of one for business, budgets and bottom lines - but shouldn't the
word INVEST appear here somewhere?  After all, if I lend my putter to a
bloke, he and I aren't doing much for the golf equipment industry are we?
'Shoot through.'  Sleeper would say.  'Invest in yer own!'"



In this case, it was the NCC which made the decision, not QR.  And the NCC
is not averse to getting on the wrong side of the states - remember not long
back when Peter Beatty ran into grief with them over a dam at St George, sw
Qld.

Naturally, QR would oppose someone running on their rails - who wouldn't?  I
imagine Telstra would have liked to do the
same with Optus and Vodafone!  But the point is, QR is not the final
authority on who runs on it rails.  The Queensland
Department of Transport has some level of influence as well.
(Interestingly, when the former Gympie-Brooloo line was handed over to the
Mary Valley Historical Railway (MVHR), QR notes the line as "Surrendered to
DOT")

And the last (but by no means the least) factor.  Queensland's taxpayers.
2 events come to mind:
October 1990:  A proposed scheme with 23 freight centres is proposed for QR.
There was a public uproar, and after some
rearranging, a system with over 40 Freight Distribution Centres is formed -
later renamed Q-Link.

August? 1993:  A large number of branch lines, and western lines are
proposed to be closed as a cost-saving measure.  The uproar over this far
exceeds that of 1990, and IMHO, contributed to the eventual downfall of the
Labor Goss government.
(Our beloved Yaraka branch was one of the ones which was threatened).

Queenslander's (especially in Western Qld) would seem to be very protective
of their railways.  IMHO, the goverment which was to weaken QR would be a
very brave government indeed.


--
John McCandless
Never play leapfrog with a unicorn...
Cloncurry Qld Au