| home |
|
| news |
|
| discussions |
|
| content |
|
| site |
|
|
| technical support | Need Help? Lodge a support ticket!
Note: This is for technical support only. General questions about railways should be posted to the Forums.donation 
Please Donate!photo comp Have YOU voted yet on Photo of the Month?
Click Here!
Voting Closes 31/12search |
| |
| Author |
Message |
Hendo
Train Controller
Joined: Jun 11, 2006
Last Visited: Nov 30, 2008
contact
|
post
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 04, 2008 9:40 pm
|
DQ,
You are correct, the fees RailCorps wanted for use of the overhead was the killer. PN wasn't going to pay that and therefore wouldn't use them.
They must have seen Silverton over a mile away! Not enough SG diesels to develop a strong business and 48 electrics they wouldn't be able to use and couldn't immediately afford the under wire fees. Would PN have given the 86's up if Silverton was a business with a reasonable Newcastle or Wollongong freight stronghold?
The NSW government (RailCorps) and the ACCC really did themselves proud over that one.
At least if we still had them the Newcastle-Wollongong-Lithgow triangle could be somewhat more flexible.
cheers,
Chris
|
|
 |
RTT_Rules
Chief Commissioner
Joined: Jun 23, 2004
Last Visited: Nov 30, 2008
Location: Gladstone Qld
contact
|
post
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 05, 2008 6:25 am
|
| Hendo wrote: | DQ,
You are correct, the fees RailCorps wanted for use of the overhead was the killer. PN wasn't going to pay that and therefore wouldn't use them.
They must have seen Silverton over a mile away! Not enough SG diesels to develop a strong business and 48 electrics they wouldn't be able to use and couldn't immediately afford the under wire fees. Would PN have given the 86's up if Silverton was a business with a reasonable Newcastle or Wollongong freight stronghold?
The NSW government (RailCorps) and the ACCC really did themselves proud over that one.
At least if we still had them the Newcastle-Wollongong-Lithgow triangle could be somewhat more flexible.
cheers,
Chris |
Lets all not forget that the 85/86 were probably on their way out anyway, even Freightcorp had cut their use a far bit before NR days. There were also reports of the 86 structually having problems and the low voltage O/H was making modern length and weights difficult. A 1500V is not suited to running trains of up to 10,000HP.
PN or not with less than 200km og O/H in any one route, the 85/86's were doomed and fuel prices would not stop it when you dealing with trains that have to run 1000+km in their jouney. Coal was the main pratical user, but weight killed that. Afterall look at QR, 650km of modern 25KV O/H on its main trunk route, modern locos to use it and despite diesel hitting +180c/L for the moterist, as QR even hinted at bring back the 3900's to the NCL?
I would have thought if anything would save the 85/86's it would be the Cowan Bank and Blue Moutains? But with Cowan the rail operators seem to be happy running a fixed loco lash up the entire route, probably because Cowan bank is not the only steep part and less freights use the Mountains leg heading west, prefering to go via the southern route.
In the end it was the NSW govt that made the decision for PN, not PN by charging excessive rates for using the O/H. A while back in a similar discussion on these loco in a NSW group I suggested PN should have stuck power meters in the locos and paid track access, O/H access fees + for the power they used by the MW. Someone posted PN tried this but was rejected. I wonder how receptive QR would be to this, or would they charge by access only approach meaning the operator has no control over their energy costs, unlike diesel.
Also with the electricty market now open to competetion, why couldn't I just pay for the infrastructure acces cost of the O/H and buy the power from the supplier of my choosing. ie my customers may be happy to have their goods hauled by re-newable energy only and pay the higher costs so I pay for green energy.
As for PN in Tassie and other short haul routes, do you blame them from walking away with the respective govts throwing billions at the roads that run parrellel to the railways and if were lucky they throw millions at the railway. Rails demise has been due to the road system advancing with technology and funding and rail to running 19th century routes and in some cases signally. Out of date work practices due to govt/union intevention haven't helped either, read NSW southern line signally was kept in the 19th century to protect jobs.
"Governments administer. They run all sorts of things from power stations to banks to drop in centres for transexual soccer players. That's what they're there for."
Doesn't mean they are good at it and in many cases the various operations were run to get short-term votes and/or unions, not longterm best interest of the users. Hence why govts have been getting out of this world wide. Ideally I agree, but in realitity it hasn't worked well and Australia has been better off with better and cheaper choices. See previous paragraph.
"In the 1970s, the let out was that Whitlam wanted to take over rail federally, so the state didn't have to make hard decisions. That isn't to say they could not have made those tough choices if there hadn't been another option."
Its a pity the other states didn't follow Tas and SA, we would be alot better off now. The ARTC would have effectively been formed in the 70's preventing the NSW and Vic govts from running their networks into the ground. Although no guareentee the feds would have been perfect, but at least they have a history of standardisation and development, unlike the states, especially the interestate routes, ie NSW-Qld crossing, Vic to SA/NSW.
I said Tas govt was running the railway well because they were so desperate to get rid of the railway, I do not believe the two state govts of the day was thinking of the country longterm, just how do we stop the bottomless pit without pissing off the unions and voter backlash. I doubt TGR had run a profit for a very long time as prior to ANR, they were cutting services continously since mid 50's to keep up with road.
Regards
Shane
|
|
|
Hendo
Train Controller
Joined: Jun 11, 2006
Last Visited: Nov 30, 2008
contact
|
post
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 05, 2008 8:02 pm
|
Shane/RTT,
Everything you have just said is correct and yes the best palce for the 86's would have been the Newcastle line and Blue Mountains, though my understanding is that freight aviods the lue mountains more because of the exceptionally small number of trains paths and the shorter time window due to metro restrictions.
You are quite correct that the nationalisation saga meant states abrogated their responsibility and avoided the clashes with the unions during the modernisation and rationalisation process.
You are also correct in your observation of road versus rail funding, such a pity they haven't looked at things like the Hume and Pacific Highway upgrades and in this case the primary Tasmanian Highways and A roads, as integrated infrastructure upgrades and pooled the infrastructure funding, in conjuction with new rail alignments and so on.
cheers,
Chris
|
|
|
RTT_Rules
Chief Commissioner
Joined: Jun 23, 2004
Last Visited: Nov 30, 2008
Location: Gladstone Qld
contact
|
post
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 06, 2008 5:58 am
|
| Hendo wrote: | Shane/RTT,
Everything you have just said is correct and yes the best palce for the 86's would have been the Newcastle line and Blue Mountains, though my understanding is that freight aviods the lue mountains more because of the exceptionally small number of trains paths and the shorter time window due to metro restrictions.
You are quite correct that the nationalisation saga meant states abrogated their responsibility and avoided the clashes with the unions during the modernisation and rationalisation process.
You are also correct in your observation of road versus rail funding, such a pity they haven't looked at things like the Hume and Pacific Highway upgrades and in this case the primary Tasmanian Highways and A roads, as integrated infrastructure upgrades and pooled the infrastructure funding, in conjuction with new rail alignments and so on.
cheers,
Chris |
Thanks Chris,
Not sure I'm right or wrong just my 2.2c worth.
Have to agree with some other statements though, privatisation is Australian rail has been far from perfect, but I believe its only the various state govts and in some cases the feds that have no one to blame but themselves. They tried to treat the regional low density and seaonsonal rail services as hot property and them dumped the whole lot, then dumped more money to the roads along side. PN was forced to get ride of ASCINCO due to ACCC, in reality the ACCC maybe expecting too much in rail competetion thats simply not possible.
We once had a 2 airline policy, we got rid of it and then a sucession of failures that followed, Compass, Compass Mk2 (for those who didn't loose enough money the first time), OzJet, ? flying 717's sold to Qantas, Ansett etc. Until Tiger started (note: its funded by the heavily govt subsided Singapore Airlines) we still had two airlines (Jetstar, just being the cheap brand of Qantas) and in regional areas of Qld we went from 2 to 1 after Ansett's subsidary folded. Outside the Major rail truck routes, how much competition does the ACCC expect in one of the lowest density developed countries in the world?
Overall I think the various govts taking back the track will be a major longterm break through that privatisation needed to get the confidence, competition and entice "cando" players into investing and having a go at above rail infrastructure. After all its easy to make a service profitable, "simply lower the access fees". The service still operates as an overall subsidy, but you will have competition in those wanting the work.
Off soap box
Regards
Shane
|
|
|
DalyWaters
Deputy Commissioner
Joined: Oct 31, 2006
Last Visited: Nov 28, 2008
contact
|
post
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 06, 2008 12:37 pm
|
| Quote: | | ? flying 717's sold to Qantas |
Impulse.
| Quote: | PN was forced to get ride of ASCINCO due to ACCC, in reality the ACCC maybe expecting too much in rail competetion thats simply not possible.
|
Toll bought out Patrick which owned 50% of Pacific National with them. That left Toll owning clearly too much dominance of Australian rail with 100% of PN.
It was bizarre that the ACCC was snookered by Toll, who then split into two companies, Toll and Asciano. Asciano then ended up with 100% of PN, leaving the dominance of rail still with one company.
Since listing on the stock exchange at around $11 twelve months ago, Asciano have nose dived to close on Friday at $3.52. They are heavily in debt and losing money in the last half year.
As other companies move in to run rail where PN can not manage a profit, this would have to be one of the best "market forces at work, despite the ACCC" stories going round.
Getting back more closely to the topic, is Don River Railway in any way in a position to look at short haul (like Railton cement, etc.,) that could lead to a Lachlan Valley - IRA type development?
|
|
|
Z1NorthernProgress2110
Chief Commissioner
Joined: Nov 30, 2004
Last Visited: Dec 1, 2008
Location: Burnie, Tasmania
contact
|
post
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 06, 2008 1:30 pm
|
|
What can DRR use? Alco 866 is the only air brake loco they have, the rest are vacuum braked. Also, DRR don't have the funds.
|
|
|
DalyWaters
Deputy Commissioner
Joined: Oct 31, 2006
Last Visited: Nov 28, 2008
contact
|
post
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 06, 2008 1:53 pm
|
| Quote: | | What can DRR use? Alco 866 is the only air brake loco they have |
Maybe Chicago (CFCLA) could buy the existing PN locos, wagons, etc., They have been the backbone (and the bane sometimes) of expansion for small and not so small operators on the mainland.
Its more the accreditation, preparedness to have a go and that sort of thing I was thinking of.
It would be great to see operators that are dedicated to both Tasmania and rail.
|
|
|
4001firstdiesel
Locomotive Fireman
Joined: May 11, 2008
Last Visited: Dec 1, 2008
contact
|
post
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 14, 2008 5:47 pm
|
QR/ARG would probably be the best option, given that large amounts of money are being spent on ordering the Siemens 3800 class locos. If they took their operations into Tasmania, then they might even bother to install overhead wiring or order some additional 4000 or 4100 class locos (passenger services as well?)
ARTC should take responsibility for infrastructure maintenance, as there would be some noticeable improvements
|
|
|
austrain
Train Controller
Joined: Dec 17, 2006
Last Visited: Nov 24, 2008
Location: NSW
contact
|
post
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 14, 2008 8:16 pm
|
Our system cant handle the big heavy axle weight locos with out some major track improvements, but agree QRN would be great. I have a feeling it wont be them. i would love to be proved wrong though.
passengers trains lol, cant even get a viable freight service running let alone wasting money on pass.
electric o/h, never happen
ARTC have stated they have no interest in Tasmania at all.
|
|
|
RTT_Rules
Chief Commissioner
Joined: Jun 23, 2004
Last Visited: Nov 30, 2008
Location: Gladstone Qld
contact
|
post
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 16, 2008 6:11 am
|
| 4001firstdiesel wrote: | QR/ARG would probably be the best option, given that large amounts of money are being spent on ordering the Siemens 3800 class locos. If they took their operations into Tasmania, then they might even bother to install overhead wiring or order some additional 4000 or 4100 class locos (passenger services as well?)
ARTC should take responsibility for infrastructure maintenance, as there would be some noticeable improvements |
YEs, but remember all this capital is provided by the Qld taxpayer and many of these projects don't have a normal commerical viability.
Most likely this QRN would do is ship down some 2300's and new container flats and other wagons as required.
Regards
Shane
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT + 10 Hours
|
You cannot post new threads in this forum
You cannot reply to threads in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB 2.0.6 © 2001 phpBB Group
Theme images and concept © 2004 by Michael Greenhill and Railpage, All Rights Reserved.
Version 2.0.6 of PHP-Nuke Port by Tom Nitzschner © 2002 www.toms-home.com
|
|
