Railpage

 

ACCC takes action against NSW Ports

About this thread
 
    •   Search thread   Image gallery
      james.au Chief Commissioner

    Location: Sydney, NSW
    https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/accc-takes-action-against-nsw-ports

    ACCC challenging effective limits placed on Port of Newcastle container expansion.  This will be interesting to watch (and may change how rail transport dynamics work, eg Crawfords and Toll Carrington train)
    Posted: 10 Dec 2018 15:47

    Sponsored advertisement

      safeworking Station Staff

    Location: Bungendore
    Historically the Sydney based exporters and importers have worked the limit Newcastle's expansion for their own benefit.  This was often done with political pressure on the NSW government to develop  Sydney-centric transport system to divert trade away from competing ports.  When Newcasstle was seen to be getting all the Northern NSW trade by the 1880s the connecting Central Coast line was completed utilising Australia's largest rail bridge and tunnel, then discriminatory rale freight tariffs imposed to favour Sydney.

    The ACCC is pushing history here.
    Posted: 11 Dec 2018 10:59
      x31 Chief Commissioner

    Location: gallifrey
    What was the bridge and tunnel built?

    I firmly agree the ACCC is right as you cannot penalise someone for lowering costs (Newcastle Port) to facilitate new business and provide competitive container terminal capability.
    Posted: 11 Dec 2018 16:41
      simstrain Chief Commissioner

    I agree and would like to see this limitation removed. It would significantly free up port botany and make port access much cheaper for northern and north western nsw businesses.
    Posted: 12 Dec 2018 12:34
      x31 Chief Commissioner

    Location: gallifrey
    I agree and would like to see this limitation removed. It would significantly free up port botany and make port access much cheaper for northern and north western nsw businesses.
    simstrain

    Are containers loaded and unloaded at Wollongong?
    Posted: 12 Dec 2018 13:59
      simstrain Chief Commissioner

    I agree and would like to see this limitation removed. It would significantly free up port botany and make port access much cheaper for northern and north western nsw businesses.

    Are containers loaded and unloaded at Wollongong?
    x31

    yes, along with cars, grain, coal and other stuff
    Posted: 13 May 2019 18:46
      historian Deputy Commissioner

    I agree and would like to see this limitation removed. It would significantly free up port botany and make port access much cheaper for northern and north western nsw businesses.

    Are containers loaded and unloaded at Wollongong?

    yes, along with cars, grain, coal and other stuff
    simstrain

    Technically correct - three berths in the general cargo terminal are "suitable for container handling". See https://www.nswports.com.au/ports-and-facilities/port-kembla/

    However, there is no specialised container infrastructure at Port Kembla. No specialised container cranes, nor container marshalling yards behind the quays. Handling any quantity of containers at Port Kembla would be far slower than at Botany, and hence prohibitively expensive in ship delays.
    Posted: 13 May 2019 19:14
      RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

    Location: Dubai UAE
    What was the bridge and tunnel built?

    I firmly agree the ACCC is right as you cannot penalise someone for lowering costs (Newcastle Port) to facilitate new business and provide competitive container terminal capability.
    x31
    I think he's referring to the Hawesberry Bridge and Woy Woy tunnel.
    Posted: 13 May 2019 20:01
      james.au Chief Commissioner

    Location: Sydney, NSW
    I agree and would like to see this limitation removed. It would significantly free up port botany and make port access much cheaper for northern and north western nsw businesses.
    simstrain
    It would need to be able to attract enough volumes for ships to warrant calling there.  this might be possible, but it might not either.  I don't know (others might) how many TEUs this is per day/week/month/year etc.

    Also, if NTL becomes a container port, odds are that the current port shuttles ex Newcastle/Hunter (ie Crawfords/Sandgate and Toll/Carrington) will be impacted as might the prospective Werris Creek loading.  With a port in the region, why rail it to Botany?
    Posted: 14 May 2019 09:26
      justapassenger Chief Commissioner

    I agree and would like to see this limitation removed. It would significantly free up port botany and make port access much cheaper for northern and north western nsw businesses.
    It would need to be able to attract enough volumes for ships to warrant calling there.  this might be possible, but it might not either.  I don't know (others might) how many TEUs this is per day/week/month/year etc.

    Also, if NTL becomes a container port, odds are that the current port shuttles ex Newcastle/Hunter (ie Crawfords/Sandgate and Toll/Carrington) will be impacted as might the prospective Werris Creek loading.  With a port in the region, why rail it to Botany?
    james.au
    Ships are far more efficient than trains, but only once they get going. Making an extra port call is extremely expensive, so it would be likely that there would be very few ships, or even none at all, calling at both Newcastle and Sydney.

    So my guess is that some container ships serving Newcastle instead of Sydney would have a net negative impact on rail operations, as splitting loads across two destinations will have the effect of giving a free kick to road for the land transport component.

    If it's restricted to ships loading containerised bulk freight (which may have no other reason to come into Sydney) then it could see a small reduction in tonne.kilometres but without losing anything to road.
    Posted: 14 May 2019 21:56
      james.au Chief Commissioner

    Location: Sydney, NSW
    If it's restricted to ships loading containerised bulk freight (which may have no other reason to come into Sydney) then it could see a small reduction in tonne.kilometres but without losing anything to road.
    justapassenger
    I guess if you can restrict containers coming into Sydney that dont need to go there, and not have any significant increase in transport cost, that would be a good transport policy solution.  Containersisd grain would be a big component.  And perhaps by doing so you might be pushing the same types of (and consignments of?) cargoes that already go to the same place, justifying a ship calling there instead of Sydney?
    Posted: 14 May 2019 22:12
      justapassenger Chief Commissioner

    If it's restricted to ships loading containerised bulk freight (which may have no other reason to come into Sydney) then it could see a small reduction in tonne.kilometres but without losing anything to road.
    I guess if you can restrict containers coming into Sydney that dont need to go there, and not have any significant increase in transport cost, that would be a good transport policy solution.  Containersisd grain would be a big component.  And perhaps by doing so you might be pushing the same types of (and consignments of?) cargoes that already go to the same place, justifying a ship calling there instead of Sydney?
    james.au
    There's the flip side to consider too - that you would probably start requiring some freight to/from the Sydney area to go via Newcastle instead of the perfectly good port in Sydney.  Given the smaller numbers of ships which would call at Newcastle, this freight would probably go by road.

    If this is not handled carefully, the benefits of improved competition could be completely swallowed up by the lost efficiency due to the system becoming too fragmented and small.

    Just for perspective, even the far larger ports of Antwerp and Rotterdam have freight shuttled between them on trains and barges rather than container ships calling at both.
    Posted: 14 May 2019 22:41
      simstrain Chief Commissioner


    Also, if NTL becomes a container port, odds are that the current port shuttles ex Newcastle/Hunter (ie Crawfords/Sandgate and Toll/Carrington) will be impacted as might the prospective Werris Creek loading.  With a port in the region, why rail it to Botany?
    james.au

    That is a good thing. The fewer freight trains using the electric network the better for passenger traffic.

    I personally think that botany should be mostly for Sydney traffic with Newcastle and Port Kembla free for regional NSW. Newcatle port has rail access so why would the spud and carrot traffic transfer to road for.
    Posted: 20 Jun 2019 15:02

    Last edited by simstrain on 20 Jun 2019 15:05; edited 1 time in total
      freightgate Minister for Railways

    Location: Albury, New South Wales
    Does Newcastle really have the capacity to handle containers with all the higher priced bulk ?
    Posted: 20 Jun 2019 18:22
      fzr560 Chief Train Controller

    Does Newcastle really have the capacity to handle containers with all the higher priced bulk ?
    freightgate
    The other issue is the imbalance between loaded and empty boxes. Most boxes coming into NSW would be destined for DCs in the Sydney area. You would never be able to source enough empty boxes in the Newcasle area to supply Fletcher's for instance.
    Posted: 20 Jun 2019 21:30
      freightgate Minister for Railways

    Location: Albury, New South Wales
    Then the idea of Newcastle taking business from Sydney would be silly. More likely to take new business from regional centres to port and back ?
    Posted: 21 Jun 2019 08:06
      james.au Chief Commissioner

    Location: Sydney, NSW
    I think that the key issue here is that a legal barrier has been set up to stop competition.

    Now there may be real, economic ones that stop Newcastle from becoming a container port, however I think we should all be railing against anticompetitive provisions that lead to local monopolies.

    If regulation of ports and their shipment types is a policy outcome that is desirable, then lets just have an open and clear policy and legislation to that effect.  Otherwise, Newcastle could provide a nice threat to Botany and Kembla to help keep their prices in check, and their service cost structures from becoming bloated due to a market imperfection.
    Posted: 21 Jun 2019 10:33
      simstrain Chief Commissioner

    Does Newcastle really have the capacity to handle containers with all the higher priced bulk ?
    freightgate

    Newcastle has so much space it isn't funny. all connected to rail.
    Posted: 21 Jun 2019 15:34
      justapassenger Chief Commissioner

    Then the idea of Newcastle taking business from Sydney would be silly. More likely to take new business from regional centres to port and back ?
    freightgate
    The only way that container ships will call there is if there are enough containers going in/out to make the call worth it.

    A good way to think of a container ship is as a super train. Just like a long intermodal train, a container ship is very efficient once it is cruising (even more efficient than a train) but very costly to stop and start (even more so than trains).

    The volumes needed to justify ships calling at Newcastle are not going to happen if they are restricted to a slow trickle of new business from regional areas, therefore Newcastle needs to be able to reduce their fees to compete with other ports so win business.
    Posted: 21 Jun 2019 16:14
      simstrain Chief Commissioner

    It may very well be the case that Sydney would still get most of the container traffic even if Newcastle gets the right to expand it's container port but the issue here is the restriction of trade and anti competitive practices that NSW state governments have put in place.
    Posted: 22 Jun 2019 17:17

    Sponsored advertisement

    •   Search thread   Image gallery

    Subscribers: fzr560, james.au, RTT_Rules

    Display from:   

    Quick Reply

    We've disabled Quick Reply for this thread as it was last updated more than six months ago.

      Reply