If you were to drop the number of services from three to two per week, at the same time as increasing the length of each train to accommodate any resulting increased demand for the remaining services, it would reasonable to expect a 30%
decrease in costs such as track access or perhaps even hook and pull. If I was a commercial train operator that sort of cost decrease, in the face of otherwise marginal or declining revenue, would be something that I would actively seek.
Passenger rail is a political thing. While ARTC is a corporate entity, it is still beholden to political masters. Consequently, if the viability of passenger rail services was actually threatened by such an increase in track access charges I would expect to see the link between viability and access cost increase being explicitly made in press releases, news commentary and the like, in order to deflect blame (GSR), stir up interest (media), create political discomfort (opposition) and bring some pressure to bear through the political system for the cost increase decision to be changed (people that want to see the previous frequency retained).
That hasn't happened. At all.
Even if there was a material change in the hook and pull component of the costs for the service (less political because it is a commercial service provider), I would expect that to get an indirect mention in the press release, simply to make GSR not seem like the bad guys. Instead, the only hints of explanation are:
Great Southern Rail continues to work with the Victorian and South Australian Governments to ensure The Overland continues to serve as an important transport link between the two states.
We remain committed to proactively doing all we can to provide affordable, reliable transportation for our guests, just as they have always expected and received from The Overland.
Reading between the lines (always subject to error and interpretation bias)... "working with government" => trying to get more funding. "affordable ... transportation" => ticket revenue isn't sufficient. Absence of any explicit explanation for the change (plus lots of words about accommodating affected passengers) => it was our decision, made for our benefit in some way.
Indicative track access charges are publicly available. The pricing regime for interstate track access is approved by, regulated by and published on the ACCC website. Supporting evidence for rumour from a "reliable source" does not appear to me to have the same level of accessibility or transparency.
