Any ideas on how many more trains are likely to venture out onto those lines before they are shut?Only GWA and Vittera would know the answer.
Thankfully not the case and there have been 3 trains to Pinnarroo in the last week.
Of course there's always the danger of one party or the other spitting the dummy and no more trains running from now on.
I am a little perplexed at these well seems to be line closure's as I thought the idea of Companies like GWA were they were experienced in Short line operation. I was under the impression GWA operate through the full spectrum of heavy haul down to the country branch line and a situation like this meant they could scale down to accomadate the light traffic on offer.
It maybe Vitteria are the real villans in this case?
If this was Australian National the noise of the service decline would be a lot louder.
The Councils whose roads will be effected should talk to GWA to find out how Short Lines can be funded to bring the track up to a higher standard if that is the real issue with them.
The extra money that would be spent on road maintance becomes the loan interest repayment with GWA paying the loan principle back. In this senario at the end of the day the track is there being used and no extra road trucks are on the road compared to today. Given time all parties have a win including Vittera.
Tonnages and averages do not appear to be publically available these days.Thanks,
Were easily accessible in the past.
I was told that Viterra made the decision to use trucks, so it really has nothing to do with GWA or even the track condition. Seems a stupid decision if it is true though! I don't how truthful this statement was though!1. It is fair to assume that Glencore/Viterra have made the decision - who else would be making those decisions on their behalf?
If not a track issue the. What is it ? I still Think it is something GWA have either done or not done.That's a fair assumption.
Are the silos adjacent to the lines to remain open ?It would surely depend on how the road haulage will work. They are all next to roads as well as the rail lines (this is of course how the grain gets there in the first place) so if the new plans are to work essentially as train substitutes the answer would be yes.
I was told that Viterra made the decision to use trucks, so it really has nothing to do with GWA or even the track condition. Seems a stupid decision if it is true though! I don't how truthful this statement was though!
And while GWA's price may have not been competitive, this does not mean it wasn't a reasonable commercial price for them, ie any lower and its not worth the effort.
2. Of course it has everything to do with GWA, if the service was as Glencore/Viterra required and being provided at a competitive price, then there would have been no reason for them to make the decision to take their business elsewhere.
3. Until we are told otherwise by someone who actually knows, it is probably fair to assume that the track is in a suitable condition for the shipment of bulk grain (which does not need to be high - grain is not time sensitive freight!) and that this shouldn't be a direct factor in the Glencore/Viterra's business decision. It may be an indirect factor, if the cost of maintaining it is making GWA uncompetitive.
Ultimately these are now low volume branch lines whose only business is a single commodity supplied by a single customer. If the customer decides to do something different, there's not much the rail operator can do. GWA's grain business in South Australia has the shortest average railing distance in Australia...which means grain haulage profit margins are already pretty thin, even on the ARTC network. Add in the cost of a single customer branchline and that means the customer's product has to pay the full cost of keeping that line open or the rail operator/owner runs trains at a loss. Yeah, sure GWA should be going out there and trying to find other business on these branchlines, but just what other business is there? Fruit from Loxton maybe? What else that could actually fill enough wagons to pay for the upkeep of 250km of track each year?
This is something I will never understand. Why having the shortest railing distances for large bulk traffic a hinderance? This happens every day in various jurisdictions here and around the world. GW (A) are a recognised short haul operator where they should be experts. This should be their bread and butter.Shorter distances means that trucks are more competitive with rail. Shorter distances = shorter transit times, shorter transit times means that you can do more runs in a given day/week/month, which means that the low carrying capacity of trucks relative to rail is compensated for.
We consistently keep hearing here rail does not cost in for short distances which is rubbish.