News & Discussion: Regional Transport

[Heardy_101]

Ever since taking over the SA Regional lines (except for the South East lines and interstate regional lines that are owned by ARTC), GWA have made it, (no) thanks to their access fees (which are nearly 10x what they are in Victoria and NSW), impossible for any other operator other than themselves to operate on their lines.

Not only this but they have deliberately let the Mid North lines and the associated infrastructure rot to the point where if any other operator were to come along, it would be impossible without total rebuild. It is clearly stated in their lease agreement with the SA Govt that the lines and associated infrastructure must be kept in "clean and good condition". They have not done this.

They also demolished the Nuriootpa Railway Station, because local groups were applying to have it restored. They also wanted to demolish and re-develop the Angaston Railway Station and the Angaston Railway Yard, and the only reason they don't is because by law, they can't: the Station and the yard is state heritage listed. They cannot touch it.

The DPTI, meanwhile, knows all of this full well but does not want to act because they do not care either.

[RL306]

Ever since taking over the SA Regional lines (except for the South East lines and interstate regional lines that are owned by ARTC), GWA have made it, (no) thanks to their access fees (which are nearly 10x what they are in Victoria and NSW), impossible for any other operator other than themselves to operate on their lines.

Any proof? Have you approached GWA to run a train on their tracks?
Remember, thay own the Infrastructure, they pay the Maintence bills , so would want a return on there investment. (wouldn't you if you owned it).

Not only this but they have deliberately let the Mid North lines and the associated infrastructure rot to the point where if any other operator were to come along, it would be impossible without total rebuild. It is clearly stated in their lease agreement with the SA Govt that the lines and associated infrastructure must be kept in "clean and good condition". They have not done this.

How would you define "Clean and Good Condition"??.

They also demolished the Nuriootpa Railway Station, because local groups were applying to have it restored. They also wanted to demolish and re-develop the Angaston Railway Station and the Angaston Railway Yard, and the only reason they don't is because by law, they can't: the Station and the yard is state heritage listed. They cannot touch it.

Bollocks. Again please provide proof. Nuriootpa station was stuffed because of white ants (Termites). Have you ever seen the damage that can result from White Ant infestation? Better it was knocked down before it fell down (Maybe on top of someone)

The DPTI, meanwhile, knows all of this full well but does not want to act because they do not care either.

DPTI do take notice, It may just not be apparent to the Average Joe. Plus with all the work happeneing within the DPTI at the moment they have bigger (And better) things to concentrate on.
With the amount of Threads across all blogs, They are watching & Reading (and Laughing, with alot of us), so to gain some Creditability please keep it short and to the point, backed up by credible sources and references.
Alot of people would love to see some form of rural service, but done properly. Not a Fly by Night operator who the government need to bail out in 2 years time.

[Heardy_101]

Any proof? Have you approached GWA to run a train on their tracks?
Remember, they own the Infrastructure, they pay the maintenance bills , so would want a return on there investment. (wouldn't you if you owned it).

How can their be maintenance bills if there isn't any maintenance?

As for the proof regarding the prices, refer to this post:

Also worth noting is the pricing structure used by GWA. It virtually precludes any other company but Viterra from using rail in South Australia easily and cost effectively. There is also an additional rail weighing fee of $2.75 a tonne (2 to 5 cents would be reasonable). (sub. DR64, pg 2)

On their line from Dry Creek to Port Adelaide they (GWA) require an additional pilot; while only a distance of 10km, the charge for the pilot is $2.00 per mt. It has been calculated that for one train carrying 2200 tonnes over 145 km of track, that GWA would charge $59,400, compared with V/Line $6224, ARTC $2482 and NSW Rail $2317.

A recent costing provided to AWB from GWA to run a rake of grain wagons along the Pinnaroo or Loxton lines to deliver grain into the Port Adelaide amounted to $66,000 per train. In comparison in NSW or Victoria, an equivalent grain train movement costs AWB less than $6,000 per train.

How would you define "Clean and Good Condition"??.

A few things:

- Basic track maintenance. Currently there are un-repaired washaways and sinkholes.
- Basic vegetation maintenance. Currently there is overgrowth on and around the lines and the station buildings and platforms that come under the lease agreement (this excludes privately owned infrastructure).
- Basic infrastructure maintenance. Currently the station buildings, platforms and tracks are in disrepair.

Under the lease agreement, GWA at the very least must keep the tracks and other infrastructure in good enough condition for a Light Engine movement.

Bollocks. Again please provide proof. Nuriootpa station was stuffed because of white ants (Termites). Have you ever seen the damage that can result from White Ant infestation? Better it was knocked down before it fell down (Maybe on top of someone)

Not bollocks. There were local groups that were prepared to use their own time and money to restore the station. GWA would not have needed to pay a single cent. They would have paid more to demolish it. It was last restored prior to ARG taking over the lines after the sale of AN, by the same people who wanted to restore it again.

[rhino]

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

Heardy, anyone can do all the stuff you've done, which, basically, is tell us that there is a group of people doing stuff that they can show no evidence of, and hi-light bits out of an annual report that you found and insist that it infers what you want it to infer, even though the same line has been in every report since the Company came here.

The private company can't make a profit running regional rail in SA, the Govt shut regional pax rail down because it was not cost justifiable when the service could be supplied cheaper and more efficiently with buses, but somehow your group has evidence to the contrary. Show us some numbers. Show us some evidence that this group of faceless men even exists.

[Heardy_101]

Heardy, anyone can do all the stuff you've done, which, basically, is tell us that there is a group of people doing stuff that they can show no evidence of, and hi-light bits out of an annual report that you found and insist that it infers what you want it to infer, even though the same line has been in every report since the Company came here.

The private company can't make a profit running regional rail in SA, the Govt shut regional pax rail down because it was not cost justifiable when the service could be supplied cheaper and more efficiently with buses, but somehow your group has evidence to the contrary. Show us some numbers. Show us some evidence that this group of faceless men even exists.

First of all, this hasn't got anything to do with the consortium at all.

Secondly, I have provided sources and links to my claims, while train driver has been unable to do the same for his continued deflection and denial of any Government or GWA wrongdoing. That is not an attack on him or anyone however if he is going to deny everything, then can he at least back it up.

The thing is rhino, regional rail was viable. It was viable when they opened them up in the late 1800s/early 1900s and all but a few were viable when they closed them in the 60s, 70s and 80s. The Barossa line, for example, from it's opening to it's closure always had full trains. Since the closure of that particular line (to passengers) in 1969 I think it was, people have been calling for it to re-open. Countless petitions, public meetings, you name it, but the Government doesn't want to know about it.

The said line in the GWA report infers what it says, that they have not upheld their lease agreements, not what I think or want it to infer. If they didn't infer that, then why put it in those words?

[muzzamo]

The thing is rhino, regional rail was viable. It was viable when they opened them up in the late 1800s/early 1900s and all but a few were viable when they closed them in the 60s, 70s and 80s. The Barossa line, for example, from it's opening to it's closure always had full trains.

Full trains does not mean viable. You need to consider *all* costs of operating the route.

If we built hi-speed rail between here and Melbourne for $40 Billion, and charged $50 a ticket, we would have full trains. That does not mean the route would be viable.

[Dazzeland]

Whether or not they were viable, they were still full which means they were supported by local communities and the government needs to take into account these communities. anyway, I'm sure that they would find some way to make the routes viable.

[SAR526]

Whether or not they were viable, they were still full which means they were supported by local communities and the government needs to take into account these communities. anyway, I'm sure that they would find some way to make the routes viable.

State owned enterprises are rarely cost effective in purely economic terms. That is why they are state owned in the first place. Governments and taxes are there to provide amenities that are needed by the citizens who elect and pay them. Governments in the past did just that, giving us the comprehensive rail and road networks of the recent past despite relatively primitive methods of construction. In our affluent times they apply the 'Will it make a profit?' criterion while they spend money on middle class welfare and other debatable projects. Despite a looming shortage for domestic users, our gas and other mined products are being flogged off cheaply for the benefit of overseas shareholders and we will have nothing to show for it – not even cheaper than world prices for our own collective property.

We need daily trains between the capital cities, at least between Brisbane and Adelaide via Sydney and Melbourne. It is scandalous that we haven't had a uniform double track system for freight and passenger transport long years ago. Australia, in transport matters, is light years behind comparable countries as anyone who has travelled overseas knows. With double track and overtaking sidings, transit times could be greatly lessened. V-line diesel train sets could run right into Adelaide Station, preferably via a re-gauged Ballarat route, but still in much shorter time via the present Geelong track. Anyone who has travelled on the Bendigo and Ballarat trains will know how the patronage has grown almost exponentially, and enjoyed the fast and comfortable journey. Leave GSR to run its luxury trains, but give us daily commuter trains between adjacent capital cities and the not inconsiderable populations between them.

The freight trains could pay for most of the cost if road transport were not so heavily favoured and subsidised by successive governments. The Liberals have promised some major upgrading of roads should they win office this year. There has been no mention of rail improvement schemes. Labor, too, has been quiet on the matter.

It's time to start spending money on what really matters and making the exploiters of our finite resources pay fair prices for the privilege. We may not be able to rely on frequent air transport links for as long as most people now believe. It is a major contributor to green house gas emissions and renewable-energy powered trains may well become a necessary replacement in the very near future.

[Heardy_101]

SAR526 you have hit the nail on the head.

The automatic assumption is these days is that Public Transport must make a profit to be viable yet this was never the case to begin with. I doubt very much that the Belair line, for example, would make a single cent, and I doubt any of the metro lines would either. Could someone define viable again?

[rhino]

The thing is, in the case of the Barossa Line, the area can be serviced more effectively by busses. Sad (from a gunzel's perspective) but true. Until you have the numbers to fill a daily commuter train, it simply isn't worth the expense of trying, when busses can handle the load. When it gets to the point where you need 4 articulated busses leaving Nuri/Tanunda at 5-minute intervals in peak, you might say "we need a train!" and then start weighing up the cost of brining the line up to passenger standard capable of speeds at least comparable to busses. Until then, the "build it and they will come" line doesn't stack up.

[[Shuz]]

Trains are always far more popular and attractive to the everyday commuter than a bus. I believe it comes down to three key things; traffic, passenger safety and effectiveness.

Trains run on rails, therefore they can't get lost - it literally goes from A to B. Whereas a bus, there's always the risk of driver error and the bus going from A to B via M, Y and L- which as we all know happens far too often with Adelaide Metro.

The likelihood of a collision is far lower as there are more comprehensive risk-mitigation strategies put in place to ensure that these things don't happen. Again, the case with buses is that collisions happen far more often, purely because of driver error.

Trains don't have to compete with traffic. They are the traffic. It competes against itself.

[Waewick]

I'm one of those irrational train favouring person,pretty much for those reasons

[rhino]

Trains are always far more popular and attractive to the everyday commuter than a bus.

I'm one of those irrational train favouring person

So am I, just quietly, but the fact remains that a train is much more expensive to run than a bus (all things considered), so the transport providers have to justify that cost. Is putting a train on going to attract enough extra passengers to justify the cost of the service? No. Do the current passengers have alternate, affordable, dependable public transport? Yes. Can said current mode of transport handle an increase in passengers? Yes. Okay, end of story.

[[Shuz]]

However, I should just also point out, the O-Bahn is one of (if not the most) Adelaide's most highly utitlised and popular public transport services, and I would put it down to the fact that even though you are on a bus, it runs very much like a train - fixed track and corridor, effective risk-mitigation features in place for passenger safety and doesn't compete with road traffic (except at either ends of the line).

Perhaps a similar option could be considered for connecting the Barossa Valley to Gawler?

[rhino]

However, I should just also point out, the O-Bahn is one of (if not the most) Adelaide's most highly utitlised and popular public transport services, and I would put it down to the fact that even though you are on a bus, it runs very much like a train - fixed track and corridor, effective risk-mitigation features in place for passenger safety and doesn't compete with road traffic (except at either ends of the line).

Perhaps a similar option could be considered for connecting the Barossa Valley to Gawler?

I would put it down to the fact that it's about 10 times faster than a trip down North East Road.

Is an express bus from Nuri or Tanunda, utilizing Gomersal Road, the Gawler Bypass, and the Northern Expressway to reach Adelaide, going to be quicker than a train on the current track? Because don't forget that the cost of bringing that track up to standard has to be included in the justification of the project, even if the project doesn't have to bring a profit.