Sensational-Adelaide.com

train driver wrote:No hissy fit, no tantrum, a realist who has worked in the rail industry for decades, and in many capacities, including as a senior public servant prior to retirement.

Clearly.

Define Realist.

It it realistic to just say "No, it won't and can't work blah, blah and blah" all the time because it's the easiest option (as clearly shown on the forums and by Government responses), or is it realistic to say "Well, why won't it and why shouldn't it and what possible solution should be offered in the short term?", whilst discussion the pros and cons as well as possible short term solutions.

train driver wrote:I have been in a position that allowed me to investigate and probably respond to some of the misunderstanding that some people have about our rail network, the most common thread with all of these misunderstanding is that when you provide the evidence they just don't want to believe it for some unknown reason.

Same can be said for you. I have provided evidence. Despite your so-called knowledge you still haven't backed it up, experienced or not. Where is your counter evidence to suggest that the State Governments and GWA/ARG have done the right thing by the states railways since been sold not once but twice?

train driver wrote:You talk about leases you know nothing about, I bet your boss at the service station doesn't say to you, "please give all our customers a copy of my lease so they know why I have to charge the prices I do in the mid north."

I'm sorry, I'm going to have to call you on this. I know exactly what I am talking about when it comes to that lease agreement. If I didn't know what I was talking about, I wouldn't talk about it.

Prices? Please, we've been told we're cheaper than most places in Adelaide. HMMMMMM........

By the way, he owns the place. No lease.

train driver wrote:The main protagonist behind this regional rail rubbish have been peddling the same line for 15 years, they have no credibility and look out for you people to use as their fronts, they encourage young people to establish multiple identities and use multiple forums to push the story, whether it's Nuriootpa, Burra or the South East.

Really. What a load of rubbish. Again, WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT SUCH ACCUSATIONS?

I'm not a con artist nor do I have multiple identities or Aliases. Unless of course, you can prove it?

Sure, I post on the forums but again it has come down to a personal and attitude issue when it comes to what gets posted on there.

train driver wrote:Just look back and think, the railways were sold in 1978 then again in 1997 a lot of letters have been written, a lot of media headlines have been made from all sort of people and Polly's and various governments have come and gone, and you know what not one railway line has been reopened, not one. I say it again, what is peddle around is in correct, the letters and email circulating are misleading as was the letter with the letterhead "Gateway Rail" that was used recently.

I have no idea what you are talking about in regards to "Gateway Rail" (perhaps you could provide some details?), but the rest could be regarded as true. Because they have just ignored the issue.

Nice deflection, by the way. Well played.

train driver wrote:Next thing the consortium will be wanting is that we all put in $100,000 each to save what ever the faceless consortium the dreams up next.

Again, don't flatter yourself and certainly don't bother trying to flatter me. You're obviously cracking. Don't like the cold hard truth do you? Government types never do.

Heardy_101 wrote:
It it realistic to just say "No, it won't and can't work blah, blah and blah" all the time because it's the easiest option (as clearly shown on the forums and by Government responses), or is it realistic to say "Well, why won't it and why shouldn't it and what possible solution should be offered in the short term?", whilst discussion the pros and cons as well as possible short term solutions.

My thoughts exactly

It's true.

Most people on the Railway forums say it can't work/won't work, because they say so, only citing it isn't viable. That is all well and good but back it up. Why isn't it viable? If it was viable when they closed the lines, why isn't it viable now? The Angaston service was always well patronised prior to it's closing, so why won't it be now?

The following is an excerpt from the Genesee & Wyoming Incorporated 2010 Annual Report. They openly admit that they have not upheld their end of the Lease Agreement and admit it could ultimately cost them should action be taken.

It is on page 26 and 27 of the Annual Report, found here: http://phx.corporate-ir.net/External.Fi ... BlPTM=&t=1 (In Adobe, it will say 40 - 41 at the top).

"Our concession and/or lease agreements in Australia could be cancelled, and there is no guarantee these agreements will be extended beyond their terms."

"Through our subsidiaries in Australia, we have entered into long-term concession and/or lease agreements with Governmental Authorities in the Northern Territory and South Australia. Our concession agreements for the Tarcoola - Darwin Railway expires in 2054 and our lease agreement for our South Australian railways expires in 2047. These concessions and lease agreement are subject to a number of conditions, including those relating to the maintenance of of certain standards with respect to service, price and the environment. These concession and lease agreements typically carry with them a commitment to maintain the condition of the railway and to make a certain level of capital expenditures, which may require capital expenditures in excess of our projections. Our failure to meet these commitments under the long-term concession and lease agreements could result in the termination of those concession or lease agreements. The termination of any concession or lease agreement could result in the loss of our entire investment relating to that concession or lease agreement. Further, the expiration of these agreements and the end of their term would result in the loss of the associated revenues and income. Either of these events could have a material adverse effect on our operating results, financial condition and liquidity."

While it is over 2 years old now, it is still relevant as they have openly admitted to breaching their lease agreement with the SA Govt, with neither party caring any less about it.

What can I do to help start these services again? Who do I write to, and what else can I do?

Local MP (Both State and Federal), also Chloe Fox.

But I can tell you there is a group working on all this as we speak.

Heardy_101 wrote:The following is an excerpt from the Genesee & Wyoming Incorporated 2010 Annual Report. They openly admit that they have not upheld their end of the Lease Agreement and admit it could ultimately cost them should action be taken.

It is on page 26 and 27 of the Annual Report, found here: http://phx.corporate-ir.net/External.Fi ... BlPTM=&t=1 (In Adobe, it will say 40 - 41 at the top).

"Our concession and/or lease agreements in Australia could be cancelled, and there is no guarantee these agreements will be extended beyond their terms."

"Through our subsidiaries in Australia, we have entered into long-term concession and/or lease agreements with Governmental Authorities in the Northern Territory and South Australia. Our concession agreements for the Tarcoola - Darwin Railway expires in 2054 and our lease agreement for our South Australian railways expires in 2047. These concessions and lease agreement are subject to a number of conditions, including those relating to the maintenance of of certain standards with respect to service, price and the environment. These concession and lease agreements typically carry with them a commitment to maintain the condition of the railway and to make a certain level of capital expenditures, which may require capital expenditures in excess of our projections. Our failure to meet these commitments under the long-term concession and lease agreements could result in the termination of those concession or lease agreements. The termination of any concession or lease agreement could result in the loss of our entire investment relating to that concession or lease agreement. Further, the expiration of these agreements and the end of their term would result in the loss of the associated revenues and income. Either of these events could have a material adverse effect on our operating results, financial condition and liquidity."

While it is over 2 years old now, it is still relevant as they have openly admitted to breaching their lease agreement with the SA Govt, with neither party caring any less about it.

They do not say --- "They openly admit that they have not upheld their end of the Lease Agreement" -----and admit it could ultimately cost them should action be taken.

What they are saying to their Shareholders in that annual statement is -- if we don't honour these commitments under the long-term concession and lease agreements -- it could result in the termination of those concession or lease agreements."

Look on pages 25-26 of the 2011 Annual report and you will see the same words,it will also be in the 2012 report as it probably was since the first report in 1997 (I can't remember).

That is a big difference to the emphasis that you put on it.

Heardy_101 wrote:Local MP (Both State and Federal), also Chloe Fox.

But I can tell you there is a group working on all this as we speak.

The group haven't done any think yet and they have been going at it for a while, when do we see something creditable from them?

train driver wrote:They do not say --- "They openly admit that they have not upheld their end of the Lease Agreement" -----and admit it could ultimately cost them should action be taken.

What they are saying to their Shareholders in that annual statement is -- if we don't honour these commitments under the long-term concession and lease agreements -- it could result in the termination of those concession or lease agreements."

That is a big difference to the emphasis that you put on it.

I thought you weren't going to post in this thread anymore?

Right, I have come to the conclusion that you are obviously Government and/or with GWA as once again you have deflected and denied something which even they have clearly outline.

This:

GWA wrote:Our failure to meet these commitments under the long-term concession and lease agreements could result in the termination of those concession or lease agreements

Is clearly an admission that they have not upheld their part of the deal, not, as you put it, an "if." Read between the lines, they know they've f**ked up and whether you like it or not it is clearly written there. It is not an "If we don't do this then we'll be in the sh!t", it's a "We haven't done this and we could very well be in the sh!t for it down the track.".

Dissect that!

train driver wrote:The group haven't done any think yet and they have been going at it for a while, when do we see something creditable from them?

*anything.

They've been doing plenty, thank you very much.

I haven't spoken to them recently but I will hopefully be able to post something more informative in the next week or so. They are also working with DvHP as well with his investigations as far as I know. I have been working on other projects at home and haven't had much time to delve more into these things.

Dazzleland, what I was going to say in my previous post was (because I was on my phone at the time and couldn't be bothered writing more than a sentence) that it is not a simple case of ringing or writing to someone. I still haven't got any more correspondence back from Ms Fox myself.

There is currently an investigation being conducted by Dan van Holst Pellekaan as we speak, I don't know the exact full details but he is going to look at as to why GWA haven't been held accountable for not upholding their end of the bargain (despite openly admitting so) and as to why the Government have not made them accountable either. He isn't going to leave any stone unturned from what I hear (I haven't spoken to him yet personally, but will be in the coming week or so) and when I find out more details from either him or his people I will let you all know.

Also, feel free to share the facebook page around: http://www.facebook.com/RegionalTransportInSA and also pass on this email address: [email protected] to those who want to receive info via email.

train driver wrote:

Heardy_101 wrote:The following is an excerpt from the Genesee & Wyoming Incorporated 2010 Annual Report. They openly admit that they have not upheld their end of the Lease Agreement and admit it could ultimately cost them should action be taken.

It is on page 26 and 27 of the Annual Report, found here: http://phx.corporate-ir.net/External.Fi ... BlPTM=&t=1 (In Adobe, it will say 40 - 41 at the top).

"Our concession and/or lease agreements in Australia could be cancelled, and there is no guarantee these agreements will be extended beyond their terms."

"Through our subsidiaries in Australia, we have entered into long-term concession and/or lease agreements with Governmental Authorities in the Northern Territory and South Australia. Our concession agreements for the Tarcoola - Darwin Railway expires in 2054 and our lease agreement for our South Australian railways expires in 2047. These concessions and lease agreement are subject to a number of conditions, including those relating to the maintenance of of certain standards with respect to service, price and the environment. These concession and lease agreements typically carry with them a commitment to maintain the condition of the railway and to make a certain level of capital expenditures, which may require capital expenditures in excess of our projections. Our failure to meet these commitments under the long-term concession and lease agreements could result in the termination of those concession or lease agreements. The termination of any concession or lease agreement could result in the loss of our entire investment relating to that concession or lease agreement. Further, the expiration of these agreements and the end of their term would result in the loss of the associated revenues and income. Either of these events could have a material adverse effect on our operating results, financial condition and liquidity."

While it is over 2 years old now, it is still relevant as they have openly admitted to breaching their lease agreement with the SA Govt, with neither party caring any less about it.

They do not say --- "They openly admit that they have not upheld their end of the Lease Agreement" -----and admit it could ultimately cost them should action be taken.

What they are saying to their Shareholders in that annual statement is -- if we don't honour these commitments under the long-term concession and lease agreements -- it could result in the termination of those concession or lease agreements."

Look on pages 25-26 of the 2011 Annual report and you will see the same words,it will also be in the 2012 report as it probably was since the first report in 1997 (I can't remember).

That is a big difference to the emphasis that you put on it.

Heardy, I don't work in Government or GWA, I just went to their web site (http://www.gwrr.com) and looked up their Annual reports, it's that simple and there is the answer, it's in every one of them, since 1997 when they brought the Railways from the Federal Liberal Government and which was supported and signed of by the State Liberal Government, so what is DVP going to do, over turn what his Liberal colleges put in place, I don't think so. Once again that is the facts.

PS; if they were breaching their lease agreement do you think they are stupid enough to put it in print.

Heardy_101 wrote:I thought you weren't going to post in this thread anymore?

I wasn't until I saw what I believed I was miss leading.

You two are like 2 old ladies battering each other with their handbags. Normally I wouldn't even bother with this forum, but like a car crash, I cant turn away. Very funny

mattblack wrote:You two are like 2 old ladies battering each other with their handbags. Normally I wouldn't even bother with this forum, but like a car crash, I cant turn away. Very funny

train driver wrote:Heardy, I don't work in Government or GWA,

Oh bullcrap. You are denying and deflection absolutely EVERYTHING that I or anyone else mentions, including my own posts and quotes from other posts, that lay claim that GWA and the Government must be made accountable for the mess that our State Railways are in. F**k the past, this is the present. The Present Railways are in a mess due to mismanagement by GWA and the DPTI. It's a cold hard fact, and unless you can prove to me otherwise (which so far you haven't) then I will continually call your bluff. It's like Chess, ever played that? I'd probably have you in Checkmate in 5 moves or less.

train driver wrote:I just went to their web site (http://www.gwrr.com) and looked up their Annual reports, it's that simple and there is the answer, it's in every one of them, since 1997 when they brought the Railways from the Federal Liberal Government and which was supported and signed of by the State Liberal Government, so what is DVP going to do, over turn what his Liberal colleges put in place, I don't think so. Once again that is the facts.

Pfft, and what does going to their website prove? Anyone can do that. Anyone.

If it is in every AR as you say, then they have clearly been in the knowledge that they have been in the wrong for years. "It's that simple and there is the answer."

I don't personally think Dan wants to overturn what his predecessors did as a whole, but he wants these wrongs to be righted, as do I and as would everyone else. The Regional lines were sold and closed on the basis of lies. They were viable, so why aren't they viable now? No-one so far as been able to answer that.

You claim to post the facts yet you can't even prove them or better yet post the sources. Like I have clearly done in previous posts, you need to quote or post sources.

train driver wrote:PS; if they were breaching their lease agreement do you think they are stupid enough to put it in print.

Well obviously they are.

Heardy_101 wrote:

train driver wrote:I thought you weren't going to post in this thread anymore?

I wasn't until I saw what I believed I was miss leading.

How is it misleading?

If GWA had indeed meant what you claim they meant, then why didn't/don't they write this:

Any failure to meet these conditions in the concession and or lease agreements could result in the termination in the concession and or lease agreements

Instead of:

Our failure to meet these conditions in the concession and or lease agreements could result in the termination in the concession and or lease agreements

If it is misleading, they are the ones that are misleading, not me.

Again, nice attempt at a deflection from any wrongdoing by GWA and/or DPTI. Keep trying; like your spelling and grammar, you may actually succeed!

Eventually.

mattblack wrote:You two are like 2 old ladies battering each other with their handbags. Normally I wouldn't even bother with this forum, but like a car crash, I cant turn away. Very funny

Yes, well if Mr twain_dwiver could just accept the fact that his beloved Government and Genesee & Wyoming Australia have actually been in the wrong (in GWA's case, for the last 10 years now at the very least, then we'd all be getting along fine. But no, any attempt to prove or say that GWA or DPTI have been letting our regional lines rot gets deflected and denied without any proof or backup as to why.

At leasy my handbag has proof, his is full of denial.

mattblack wrote:You two are like 2 old ladies battering each other with their handbags. Normally I wouldn't even bother with this forum, but like a car crash, I cant turn away. Very funny

Where's the Like Button when you need one

Heardy, So what exactly do you want from GWA? . I'm struggling to see what all the fuss is about.