| 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 31/10search |
| |
| Author |
Message |
409
Minister for Railways
Joined: Jul 25, 2004
Last Visited: Oct 11, 2008
Location: "Well, we sorta hit a little snag when the universe sorta collapsed on itself."
contact
|
post
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 13, 2008 9:56 pm
|
| 12CSVT wrote: |
Woops, my mistake. (yes, I did confuse the current ARG with the old G&W run version) I thought it was odd to think G&W might have expanded out of SA, as it was always my understanding, as well, that they were contracting and trying to exit Aus.
So the thought that QR(N) had ceded the Great Northern is a furphy on my part! 
Cheers,
SZ |
You have another furphy in that post as well. There has been no mention by anyone in the SA forum (which includes a couple of loco drivers from GWA) about GWA leaving. Indeed, the traffic task in SA is steadily growing. Iron ore from Whyalla is growing, the Mindarie mineral sands traffic is slowly getting upto speed and if everything goes ahead, trains will run to Penola once again with one train a day, 5 days a week planned according to all the info here.
While I don't think it would be the strongest contender for the Tassie traffic, I'd still keep my eye on GWA. All I can say is that PN's only good decision in Tasmania was deciding to leave.
 LINK TO YOUTUBE PROFILE
"I'd use an 830 for my respirator!" |
|
 |
Z1NorthernProgress2110
Chief Commissioner
Joined: Nov 30, 2004
Last Visited: Oct 11, 2008
Location: Burnie, Tasmania
contact
|
post
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 13, 2008 10:14 pm
|
| 409 wrote: | | All I can say is that PN's only good decision in Tasmania was deciding to leave. |
Don't what to cause a fight, but what does this mean, happy to see rail leave Tasmania or, happy to see a new comer and take charge?
|
|
|
GeoffreyHansen
Minister for Railways
Joined: Apr 13, 2004
Last Visited: Oct 11, 2008
Location: Waiting for the next commuter service to Bathurst
contact
|
post
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 14, 2008 1:35 am
|
| derwentparkjunc wrote: | Yes, the picture in the ABC news story is at the end of the line in Hobart, viewed from the direction of the former Hobart railway station (now ABC Hobart headquarters).
|
So the Railway station building remains but with the ABC in it. Any pictures of the building in its present day form.
Any would there be merit in the Tasmanian government taking over the operations and employ consultants eg QR. ISTR reading that the New Zealand government was buying back its above rail operations so would the same be an option for Tasmania?
Bring the 3900s back to Brisbane
Bring Karlsruhe Tramtrains to Australian cities
Extend the proposed Metro to Taylor Square
Extend the Gold Coast line to the Tweed
|
|
|
RTT_Rules
Chief Commissioner
Joined: Jun 23, 2004
Last Visited: Oct 12, 2008
Location: Gladstone Qld
contact
|
post
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 14, 2008 7:38 am
|
Doubt we will see a rebirth TGR and I doubt further it would be succesful if it did. In reality the Tas govt has as much experience and expertise in running a railway as my grandma and it would probably loose more money under the TGR as my grandma is a tight smeg. Remember the Tas govt bailed out of the TGR just like PNT, have to wonder which left it in worse condition.
Really at the end of the day, anyone can buy it and run it. They just have to employ the right people who do the Managing and Operating the people and get the right sales people.
Tasrail has now burned Tas Govt, Fed Govt, Yanks and PN. I'm sure a buyer will be difficult and as such the price will be very cheap. For above rail only with PNT basically telling many of its customers to # off or send more reliable trucks in lieu of trains, they don't even have a lot of "good will" to give a buyer much to build on.
As for GWA, well why did they get out of WA and its growing mineral traffic? Suprisingly they kept the Eyre network (something I thought would have been a natural to sell, unless QR said not interested) and it will be amazing if we go the full circle and have SA based/focused GWA and Tas under the one banner again. issue will be the ongoing problems of where do they get locos/wagons for a suitable price?
South Spur, El Zoro or small similar operator? Well I'm sure they are all doing their sums right now, this really is a perfect setup. Isolated, not chance of rail competion, reasonable size compared to their current operations, ie not too big, but a reasonable size just the same. Short haul focus, multi-mode wagon operations so lots of flexibility, probably a keen workforce wanting to work for a "can do'er". Track owned and maintained by state, existing customer base keen for good operator... We will see. Again, are they just going to patch up the existing fleet of locos and wagons?
QRN/ARG, This will also be very very interesting. They would in some ways be perfect as they have the gear and support systems to rekit Tasrail and at least provide some semi modern gear. They also have staff to bring in and out as needed. They could take over the track MTCE without issue under contract. Now does QR corp want to take the punt? $ wise I'm sure they could do it easily, but do they want to? Also QR is a big time operator, not small short haul. They are heavily critised in Qld pages for focusing on the big stuff and walkng away from small short haul stuff, mostly as the QT subsidy is directed I'm sure, but I'm not a believer QR is in this sort of traffic for the long haul. QRN/ARG will however I'm sure run the mainline box services well and likewise the western line mineral and coal. But I would not expect much expansion into other traffic unless they have a carrot.
If PNT's above rail is sold for more than $15-20m I'd be surprised.
Regards
Shane
|
|
|
BP4417
Junior Train Controller
Joined: Jan 14, 2007
Last Visited: Oct 10, 2008
Location: Launceston, Tasmania
contact
|
post
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 14, 2008 9:35 am
|
Fact is Pacific National Tasmania has been paranoid about everything except its existing customers and fails to attract new customers, Its been apparent that PN have been matching freight to existing loco availability.
They have turned the Fingal Valley Line coal haulage into an unprofitable farce.
Governments have known for decades there needs to be reform in the land transport industry taking into account the following.
Differences in pricing and infrastructure user charges.
Differences in taxation.
Differences in public contribution and subsidies.
Differences in social regulations, safety regulations, enforcement and compliance.
Differences in public liability insurance requirements.
Differences in external costs generated. eg. The environment, the cost of accidents.
Should not Government Departments, Federal, State or Local be given the task of calculating before extra carrying capacity is granted to the road transport industry whether the productivity benefits of the extra capacity be outweighed by increased infrastructure costs, road safety impacts, environmental impacts, effects on the public and the effect on railroads particularly those with shorter routes like Tasmania. i.e.Will the increase in road transport cause modal shift from rail to road. Will cost generated be recovered by income.
Until the above are addressed Railways particularly shorter haul railways will always have profitability problems.
Maybe Government owned railways are the only sensible answer then both forms of land transport will be subsidised by the Public Purse.
|
|
|
austrain
Train Controller
Joined: Dec 17, 2006
Last Visited: Oct 11, 2008
Location: tassie
contact
|
post
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 14, 2008 11:29 am
|
| Quote: | Another major Tasmanian player, Chas Kelly, also confirmed his interest in the network.
"Rail is a very difficult business to run and the only way we would be interested is if it is economically viable and that may mean Government subsidies," Mr Kelly said.
He believed the 2.8 million tonnes of rail freight carried each year could be safely carried by road. |
hope he keeps away!
|
|
|
rjaygee
Assistant Commissioner
Joined: Jul 26, 2003
Last Visited: Oct 9, 2008
contact
|
post
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 14, 2008 12:00 pm
|
Due to the small taxation base of Tasmania it cannot afford both road and rail haulage. Consequently a decison has to be made where to spend the limited funds available in the most economical and effective way. Unfortunately, I rather suspect that road haulage will be the winner in Tasmania, particularly if the government does not want to pay subsidies to prop up a cronically bad rail system.
Cheers
Rod Gayford
|
|
|
12CSVT
Chief Train Controller
Joined: Nov 26, 2006
Last Visited: Oct 8, 2008
Location: In a dark tunnel
contact
|
post
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 14, 2008 12:52 pm
|
| Quote: |
Unfortunately, I rather suspect that road haulage will be the winner in Tasmania, particularly if the government does not want to pay subsidies to prop up a cronically bad rail system.
|
And why should taxpayers want the Govt to pay subsidies to prop up a chronically bad trucking system? There have been at least three truck crashes in the past week. How many train crashes? None.
Cheers,
SZ
|
|
|
DQ2004
Assistant Commissioner
Joined: Oct 11, 2005
Last Visited: Oct 10, 2008
Location: Hobart -where the rain has lumps in it
contact
|
post
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 14, 2008 1:26 pm
|
I don't think Tasmania has that small a tax base to have only road or rail.
Bulk freight is always more efficient than road, even on a short distance, Railton cement being an excellent local example.
There will always be trucks on our roads but it would be nice if the government showed some backbone and legislated heavy vehicles off the roads, and gave rail a competitive advantage, instead of the huge disadvantages it has at the moment, which most of us here all know about I'm sure.
I'm not confident about the state of the rollingstock (particularly after seeing that photo of the lengthened container wagon broken in half in TRN) to expect that anyone will want to come into ownership of a rail network where they must spend millions on new rollingstock on their first day, to give it any chance at viability.
Only the Tas Gov can do that, and they had $122 million surplus.
That should just about cover it...
|
|
|
409
Minister for Railways
Joined: Jul 25, 2004
Last Visited: Oct 11, 2008
Location: "Well, we sorta hit a little snag when the universe sorta collapsed on itself."
contact
|
post
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 14, 2008 3:41 pm
|
| Z1NorthernProgress2110 wrote: | | 409 wrote: | | All I can say is that PN's only good decision in Tasmania was deciding to leave. |
Don't what to cause a fight, but what does this mean, happy to see rail leave Tasmania or, happy to see a new comer and take charge? |
The latter option, a new comer entering the field and (hopefully) run things properly.
LINK TO YOUTUBE PROFILE
"I'd use an 830 for my respirator!" |
|
|
RTT_Rules
Chief Commissioner
Joined: Jun 23, 2004
Last Visited: Oct 12, 2008
Location: Gladstone Qld
contact
|
post
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 14, 2008 5:00 pm
|
| DQ2004 wrote: |
I'm not confident about the state of the rollingstock (particularly after seeing that photo of the lengthened container wagon broken in half in TRN) to expect that anyone will want to come into ownership of a rail network where they must spend millions on new rollingstock on their first day, to give it any chance at viability.
Only the Tas Gov can do that, and they had $122 million surplus.
That should just about cover it... |
There is nothing wrong with taking over a business knowing you need to have deep pockets for a while to be in it for the longterm. Happens all the time when the parent company or ownship no longer has the funds to run the business and they have to sell or go broke. New owner just doesn't pay as much, RioTinto just bought out Alcan on this basis and Rio is fighting off BHP to its hare holders by saying we will deliver more value.
Basic rule of thumb is that for every $1 probit you hope to make longterm , you pay $10 in capital. Now if to make that dollar you need to spend $5, then you might pay $5 for the business. Hence my belief that PNT will sell for less than $15m as they have a poor customer base with rotten locos and rolling stock. Now if you know you have to spend say $30m in capital to buy say 8 new locos + a few million in wagons, you would only do this if you believe that you can work this new gear enough o either make a proit with current operations, unlikely, or expand the customer base, more likely. With modern track, locos and rolling stock, the new operator should have a more reliable operation, more capacity and flexibility. With the right approach I'm sure they can probably double the loadings. Question will be is this profitable? Just because the Tas govt ran a surplus, doesn't mean they are willing to risk taxpayers money or should do it.
Regards
Shane
|
|
|
austrain
Train Controller
Joined: Dec 17, 2006
Last Visited: Oct 11, 2008
Location: tassie
contact
|
post
|
|
|
|
12CSVT
Chief Train Controller
Joined: Nov 26, 2006
Last Visited: Oct 8, 2008
Location: In a dark tunnel
contact
|
post
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 5:18 am
|
| Quote: |
or maybe this then?
|
No thanks! Whats the point of exchanging one un-interested operator (PN) for another (G&W)? We have already seen G&W pull out of W.A. and whilst it has been stated they are staying in SA, they are hardly a dynamic expansionary operation. There has been a number of operations in North America that G&W have been involved in that not only have they shut down but put up big obstacles for other interested parties to take over. Their conduct on Vancouver Island was quite poor and they are also (I stand to be corrected) involved, I think, in the Central Oregon & Pacific debarcle.
Cheers,
SZ
|
|
|
benscaro
Deputy Commissioner
Joined: Jan 04, 2005
Last Visited: Oct 11, 2008
contact
|
post
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 9:09 am
|
| RTT_Rules wrote: | | Doubt we will see a rebirth TGR and I doubt further it would be succesful if it did. In reality the Tas govt has as much experience and expertise in running a railway as my grandma |
Umm, the Tasmanian government had about a hundred years of running railways in the end . . . not insignificant.
Of course, I don't know your grandma to compare to . . .
I think you might say that by the late 60s the Tasmanian government probably didn't have much will to run the railway any more, but that's a different issue.
In reality, TGR was run to achieve different social and economic aims, not all of which were spelt out, and some of which probably never even came up on the radar of its management anyway.
For a start, it was designed to open up previously inaccessible areas of land.
From the 1920s through to the 40s it was employed to support both heavy industry through the era of hydro-industrialisation, and smaller more widespread industries like farming and forestry, by providing cheap transport.
And it was configured, especially in the post-Depression era, to keep large numbers employed, probably because back in those 'unenlightened' times it was thought that providing low end jobs for people is ultimately cheaper than stopping them committing crimes and paying for other forms of expensive social engineering to remedy the ills that inevitably arise when people are deprived and bored.
So, to judge it according to purely commercial imperatives is wrong in the first place, IMHO. It was more of a social and corporate welfare system on wheels.
Ben
President, Bring Back Rail to Yinkanie Committee
Hmmm . . . why isn't there an emoticon for schadenfreude ?
1447: The Year China Put a Knight Templar on Mars.
Last edited by benscaro on Wed Jun 18, 2008 12:39 am; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
bingley hall
Chief Commissioner
Joined: Nov 09, 2005
Last Visited: Oct 11, 2008
Location: gone fishin
contact
|
post
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 11:07 am
|
| 12CSVT wrote: | | Quote: |
or maybe this then?
|
No thanks! Whats the point of exchanging one un-interested operator (PN) for another (G&W)? We have already seen G&W pull out of W.A. and whilst it has been stated they are staying in SA, they are hardly a dynamic expansionary operation. There has been a number of operations in North America that G&W have been involved in that not only have they shut down but put up big obstacles for other interested parties to take over. Their conduct on Vancouver Island was quite poor and they are also (I stand to be corrected) involved, I think, in the Central Oregon & Pacific debarcle.
Cheers,
SZ |
If you are going to slag someone off make sure you get your facts right first before posting.
Both the Vancouver Island closure and events on the CORP were associated with Rail America and had NOTHING to do Genesee & Wyoming.
The withdrawal of GWA from Western Australia was a commercial deal when Wesfarmers dropped out of the ARG consortium and GWA were made a financial offer they couldn't refuse by QR and BBI. Had they refused it, they would have probably been sued by their shareholders for negligence.
Bing
Life is just a bowl of All Bran...you wake up every morning and it's there
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
