Re: QR going national?

[telljb@OZozemail.com.au (< Tell >)]

Spot on Ian.  There are political and resource rich
reasons why QR is in the position it is today.

To suggest, as have some dyed in the wool QR fans, that
QR are so efficient nobody else can compete with them
is laughable.  Nobody denies that the Queensland rail
system is in great shape, nobody denies that in recent
years QR management have worked hard at making their
system better, but they were able to afford that under
a state enforced monopoly and price regime.

Other systems in Australia were not so fortunate.

----Terry Burton
[clear OZ in address for email reply]


>Ian Harvey <ian_harvey@do.not.spam.me> wrote:
> 
> Qld power is cheap because the state has a significant chunk of the
> world's quality steaming coal reserves in the Bowen Basin, not because
> it has efficient rail systems.  These days most of the new base load
> power stations are connected to a dedicated coal mine by conveyor (e.g.
> Tarong).
> 
> QR may well have efficient coal haulage but unfortunately I doubt these
> efficiencies are passed onto the coal mining companies as reduced
> freight rates.  There's a historical reason.  When the large, efficient
> Bowen Basin mines started to produce coal it looked like it would be the
> death of the existing coal mining industry in the Ipswich area.  In
> order to give the Ipswich coal mines a chance the state govt of the day
> substituted higher freight rates for part of the royalty payments across
> the industry.  This benefited the Ipswich mines which were closer to
> port than the Bowen Basin mines and has continued to present day despite
> most of the Ipswich mines closing anyway.
> 
> In short, the Qld Govt use high coal freight rates to collect royalties
> from the mines.  Read a few annual reports for the major coal companies,
> and you'll find its a point that they've been squealing about for
> years.  Royalty collection is fair - hiding it as freight charges is
> not.  One advantage though is that it has given QR the resources to
> build the best public owned railway system in the country (I am a little
> biased here :).  
> 
> As for competition, BHP and Rio Tinto both have extensive experience
> with heavy haul rail systems for bulk commodities within Australia. 
> There are differences (density of coal versus iron ore, rails are a bit
> closer together) but nothing that seems too dramatic.  I imagine that
> they would be absolutely delighted with the opportunity to set up their
> own rail operations for their coal mines in Qld.  However I suspect that
> their mining lease agreements with the state govt prevents it, granting
> QR a monopoly.