Sensational-Adelaide.com

I would like to thank everyone for their feedback so far.

I am also running a petition both online and on paper, if anyone here is interested.

It is available here:

https://www.change.org/en-AU/petitions/ ... r-services

I have googled the results of the most recent Census, which appears to be from 2011, so I'll add these for everyone's interest:

Nurioopta: 5,704
Angaston: 1,909
Tanunda: 4,672
Lyndoch: 1,909
Williamstown: 2,646

I have also included the population of the next most viable line, which is the Kapunda line:

Kapunda: 3,152
Freeling: 1,927
Roseworthy: 1,216

Heardy_101 wrote:

Almost every part of SA could accommodate more people, but until we get high speed rail (which is unlikely to be any time soon) there are very few areas where rail services would attract many more people to settle there.

I don't think high speed rail should be a pre-requisite. HSR isn't all that viable in Australia. Even between Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane, where the sheer expense of the infrastructure involved, which would include a separate right of way, new signalling and the same electric system Adelaide used (25 kVa), it would take a significant amount of years for $$ to be re-couped. Only solution I can think of that would help this would be making the Hume Highway a Tollway from Sydney - Melbourne, with cheaper rates for cars, with heavy trucks paying a higher rate.

It may well take many years to recoup the money, but you're making the mistake of seeing that as a problem. It isn't. Of course you're not alone — most of the population make the same mistake, and until fairly recently so did I.

It probably could in the Barossa, the Fleurieu Coast (NOT the Encounter Coast) and the Mid North, and possibly the Upper Yorke Peninsula. But everywhere else the lines are too indirect for rail to be competitive with roads.

Well using the above population statistics, I firmly believe there is enough to justify peak services from Gawler - Barossa. With the major centres on the line having a combined population of 11,557, if we assume that 25% of the population used peak or weekend services, that equates to 2889.25. Given each Jumbo railcar holds 64 passengers for a Power car, and 104 for a trailer car (keep in mind this does not including standing passengers), how many Jumbo sets would be needed? More than what were made, I'm thinking.[/quote]
25% is a ridiculously high figure — I don't know if you can rely on that many going anywhere at all, as most people living in country towns work locally. And many of the rest go to places not on the railway or need their vehicle for work. So the numbers are far lower even before you consider that many people who could use their train are likely to prefer to drive (mainly because of convenience).

At weekends the AFL crowds going to Adelaide Oval by train greatly exceed the normal number of passengers, despite being only abut 5% of the population. So it's fairly safe to say we won't run up against passenger capacity constraints for ages. Line capacity is a much bigger constraint. 'Tis all single track beyond Gawler, so how many trains could we run?

However I do think there is some potential for feeder rail services linking Whyalla, Port Pirie and Mount Gambier with our interstate train services.

I fully agree with you. The combined population of the three majot cities in the Spencer Gulf - Whyalla, Port Pirie and Port Augusta, are high enough to justify a service, even if it terminates at Keswick. Now yes, it is quicker to drive, however lets look at it this way. A service would not have to be an every day one. Three days a week, with a motorail service available for passengers to take their cars, would easily be viable.

Forget motorail — it's very expensive to run, our roads are mostly clear, and the distance is too short for it to be that attractive anyway. And rather than running all the way to Keswick as AN halfheartedly did, I'm saying connect with The Ghan at somewhere like Crystal Brook, run the railcar ahead of the Ghan, let the Ghan overtake it when it does to Port Pirie (which the Ghan bypasses), and it would catch up again at Port Augusta, exchanging passengers before heading off to Whyalla.

Mount Gambier is the same story.

Similar (but simpler) concept, connecting at Bordertown or Wolseley (the former more attractive for passengers, the latter easier to set up).

BTW please attribute your quotes next time!

Aidan wrote:It may well take many years to recoup the money, but you're making the mistake of seeing that as a problem. It isn't. Of course you're not alone — most of the population make the same mistake, and until fairly recently so did I.

I don't see it as a "problem" per se however how much would you be prepared to be paying

Aidan wrote:25% is a ridiculously high figure — I don't know if you can rely on that many going anywhere at all, as most people living in country towns work locally. And many of the rest go to places not on the railway or need their vehicle for work. So the numbers are far lower even before you consider that many people who could use their train are likely to prefer to drive (mainly because of convenience).

It was an example, but even still - the numbers are there and even if 5% per town used the train, and assuming the "build it and they will come" theory", there is still enough to justify a passenger train.

Aidan wrote: 'Tis all single track beyond Gawler, so how many trains could we run?

There is a crossing loop at Nurioopta, and there is room for a double platform at Lyndoch (in fact I think there is already).

Aidan wrote:BTW please attribute your quotes next time!

Why? You should all know what you wrote originally. It's easier for me just to use the quotes without having to triple check which user wrote what.

Heardy 101, if you haven't already you should post the link to railpage as I'm sure heaps of the guys over would get behind it, and probably spread it around. It's a good thing that you're doing mate (:

I would have thought the impact of nexy would diminish the desire of train services?

For instance I think prior to the nexy announcent Freeling had around 400 people. The new development there has changed the town but how many want a train?

How about adding a passenger line to the freight line that goes through Mallala? could have stations in Burton, Virginia, Two Wells and Mallala. Maybe even have it loop back down to Gawler, or have a line from Two Wells through Lewiston to Gawler

Dazzeland wrote:Heardy 101, if you haven't already you should post the link to railpage as I'm sure heaps of the guys over would get behind it, and probably spread it around. It's a good thing that you're doing mate (:

You obviously don't know Railpage. They attacked and vilified me, and still do, for my efforts.

GoodSmackUp wrote:How about adding a passenger line to the freight line that goes through Mallala? could have stations in Burton, Virginia, Two Wells and Mallala. Maybe even have it loop back down to Gawler, or have a line from Two Wells through Lewiston to Gawler

That's an idea, could even run it as a shuttle from Salisbury.

To supplement the Railway Petition and to also try and create more public interest and involvement, I have created SARRA - the South Australian Regional Rail Alliance. Hopefully a website will be launched sometime this year. I have also created a Facebook page.

https://www.facebook.com/SARegionalRailAlliance

Here are some facts regarding regional rail in SA, the lease of State Assets to GWA etc

Fact 1: The regional railway system in South Australia was sold/leased by the then Federal Liberal Party in 1997 to the American rail company Genesee & Wyoming Australia (GWA) who at the time were known as Australian Southern Railroad (ASR).

Fact 2: The land is leased to Genesee & Wyoming Australia Pty Ltd (GWA) for a term of 50 years commencing 7/11/97 & for the first 5 years of the lease the regional rail network in South Australia was leased to GWA for $1 per annum

Fact 3: The lease to GWA provides that GWA must "to the extent necessary to avoid nuisance to neighbouring properties, to safeguard public safety and to maintain the Lessee's ability to conduct Railway Operations" .... "keep the Lessee's Property clean and in good repair and condition" ... "keep any buildings on the Land clean and in good condition"...

Fact 4: In their own annual report from 2010, GWA have stated:

“Our concession and/or lease agreements in Australia could be cancelled, and there is no guarantee these agreements will be extended beyond their terms. These concession and lease agreements are subject to a number of conditions, including those relating to the maintenance of certain standards with respect to service, price and the environment. These concession and lease agreements also typically carry with them a commitment to maintain the condition of the railroad and to make a certain level of capital expenditures, which may require capital expenditures that are 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”

Fact 5: In a response letter dated 13/8/14 from the Minister for Transport & Infrastructure, the Hon. Stephen Mullighan MP stated that: “The rail infrastructure is not a South Australian Government asset, however Geneese & Wyoming Australia is obligated to maintain it to a requirement to ensure the network is in such condition that trains could be operated at two weeks notice”.

Fact 6: We know that according to the facts and documents, and according to the their own admission, 3,4 & 5 of these lease agreement have not been upheld, especially when one takes a look at the condition of these lines, which include overgrowth and in one instance a washaway. AN made it possible to make sure that the regional passenger rail system made a loss by doing two things,

Fact 7: A document released in 2007 by Chris Hall from Bluebird rail states that:

“The AN Board was not happy about the positive performance of the passenger business. The Board’s aim was to get rid of the business at any cost, and for political reasons, it was considered that the electorate would oppose the sale of a profitable Government owned business. The aim therefore was to make the passenger business appear unfavourable and to be making a substantial loss. When an advertising campaign was launched over a Christmas period, Chris was called in to explain why the Business was being advertised. The Board made it clear that there was not to be any advertising of the AN Passenger trains.”

Fact 8: AN made it possible to make sure that the regional passenger rail system made a loss by doing two things:

1. They changed the time table of the trains so that it became inconvenient for the public to use the services. For example, the Victor Harbor trains were arriving back into Adelaide station at 1:10am in the morning to make sure that the trains ran empty.

2. When running trains to Mt Gambier, Broken Hill and Whyalla for example, AN ran less carriages as to make sure the train was not able to pay it’s way and lost money on these service.

Fact 9: We also understand that in a released document by the productivity commission report in 22/3/2010, it was stated that “SAFF Grains were given details of how Genesee & Wyoming Australia Pty The South Australian Farmers Federation (SAFF) Ltd, who have a five-year agreement with Viterra have put unreasonable controls on their rail-lines in South Australia and are charging exorbitant fees, This pricing structure virtually precludes any other company but Viterra from using rail in South Australia easily and cost effectively”

Fact 10: In a emailed letter dated Wednesday, 20 August 2014, we have asked the Govt and effectively putting them on notice in relation to the breach of the lease agreement when we asked a series of questions relating to GWAbreaches of the regional railway. These questions were:

1) Is the Government aware that GWA have not been doing this, that GWA have not been maintaining the rail infrastructure to "ensure the network is in such a condition that trains could be operated on within two weeks notice."?

2) At what efficiency are the trains expected to operate on these lines? Would the infrastructure need to be reopened that the trains could be run at a reasonable speed or, could the clause in the agreement be interpreted in such a way that GWA would only need to reopen the infrastructures even if it meant that the trains could only operate at very low speeds but the lines are usable?

3) Who would have to pay the cost of these repairs so that the infrastructure could be operated on within a two week period?

4) In relation to the productivity commission report in 22/3/2010, has this type of action been rectified to make sure that other operators can use the infrastructure at a cost that is not considered to have a detriment to the operator? And

a) Is it incorporated in the clause that any charges to reopen the infrastructure dose not go to the incoming operator but is charged only to the lease holder that being GWA, who are responsible as stated that “GWA is obligated to maintain the rail infrastructure?

b) And does the clause address the issue to make sure that these costs are not hidden in the track access fees charged by GWA?

5). Will the State Government hold GWA accountable for the condition of the rail infrastructures and bring them back to the standard to which they were before GWA took them on in a lease agreement in 1997? And as specified in the ministers response letter that GWA is “obligated to maintain the rail infrastructure to ensure the network is in such a condition that trains could be operated on within two weeks notice”.

We are still waiting for a response to these questions. These were asked to Patrick Conlon, Tom Koutsantonis, Chloe Fox and now Stephen Mullighan

***

We have also uncovered that, as of 2009, 13 separate, taxpayer-funded surveys were conducted into the possibility of rail passenger services to and from the Barossa. These surveys and reports have not been release, in fact they are been kept secret.

In relation to the GWA Lease Agreement we have also gained a copy through Freedom Of Infomation, thanks to The Hon Dan van Holst Pellekaan (Stuart MP).

Evening all

A few months ago we wrote to the Minister for Transport in relation to the Burra railway station and regarding a possible hand back of some of the states closed railway infrastructures. We have received a response which was promised to post once we got one back, for those of you who can't remember the original questions, I have reposted these for your convenience along with the response.

(1) When is the Burra railway station going to be handed over which did not happen on the 21st April as stated by Minister Koutsantonis?

(We wrote to the late Dr. Bob Such regarding the Burra railway station and that it was according to the Government going to be handed back to the State last June, Bob wrote to Minister Koutsantonis in relation to the Burra station and the delay on itss hand over, Minister Koutsantonis responded to Dr. Such and said that the Burra railway station was going to be handed back to the state from GWA on the 21st of April 2014)

(2) Besides this building, is GWA going to handover any or all closed lines that they are not going to operate on back to the state govt in the near future?

Ministers response This response came from Mr. Stephen Mullighan

Thank you for your letter regarding the rail infrastructure. I apologies for the delay in responding to you.

Geneese & Wyoming Australia leases land from the minister for transport and infrastructure throughout South Australia for its rail operations, following the privatisation of the states railway lines by the then Federal Liberal Government in 1997. The lease commenced on 7 November 1997 for a 50 yr term with a right of renewal for a further 15 years.

I have been advised by the department of Planning, Transport and infrastructure that Genesee & Wyoming Australia has not approached the South Australian Government regarding the surrender of any rail land.

The rail infrastructure is not a South Australian Government asset, however Geneese & Wyoming Australia is obligated to maintain it to a requirement to ensure the network is in such condition that trains could be operated at two weeks' notice.

Thank you for your interest in this matter
Your sincerely
Minister for Transport And Infrastructure

Also I would like further reiterate that:

In their own annual report from 2010 GWA have stated

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

These concession and lease agreements are subject to a number of conditions, including those relating to the maintenance of certain standards with respect to service, price and the environment. These concession and lease agreements also typically carry with them a commitment to maintain the condition of the railroad and to make a certain level of capital expenditures, which may require capital expenditures that are 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

Also, it is also worth further pointing out:

however Geneese & Wyoming Australia is obligated to maintain it to a requirement to ensure the network is in such condition that trains could be operated at two weeks notice.

This simple statement has told us a lot more than what we have tried to find out in the last few years. It was not long after this that we received, through Freedom Of Information (FOI) the GWA Lease Agreement.

If the above statement by Mr Mullighan is true, then GWA are most certainly in breach of their lease, as it would take a lot more than two weeks to maintain the lines to a minimum standard, in fact the section that runs through Hanson alone would take two weeks, as would the section through Stockport.

********

In addition to the Minister's reply some futher questions have been put forward to the Government regarding the Lease Agreement that "Geneese & Wyoming Australia is obligated to maintain it to a requirement to ensure the network is in such condition that trains could be operated at two weeks notice."

(1) Does this lease condition include all rail infrastructures that are leased by GWA or only certain lines and buildings?

(2) If the lease conditions cover all the rail infrastructures, then is the Government aware that some of these lines may not have be maintained in such a way as to ensure the network is in such a condition that "trains could be operated on within two weeks notice"?

(3) At what efficiency are the trains expected to operate on these lines? Would the infrastructure need to be reopened that the trains could be run at a reasonable speed or, could the clause in the agreement be interpreted in such a way that GWA would only need to reopen the infrastructures even if it meant that the trains could only operate at very low speeds but the lines are usable?

(4) Who would have to pay the cost of these repairs so that the infrastructure could be operated on within a two week period?

****

We received a response from the Minister the Hon Stephen Mullighan, it appears that he did not get the memo.

Thank you for your recent letter regarding correspondence regarding the lease agreement with Genesee & Wyoming Australia, unfortunately, neither my office nor the Department of Planning, Transport and infrastructure, have any record of receiving correspondence, dated 20th august 2014 matching your description

We have since resubmitted the aforementioned questions, as well as additional questions in response to the GWA Lease Agreement which we now have:

(1) In the copy of the GWA Lease Agreement it states:

RENT, AND OUTGOINGS
3.1 Rail Corridor Rent
Rent for the Rail Corridor is:
3.1.1 $1.00 per annum; and
3.1.2 after the expiry of 5 years after the Commencement Date, in respect of
any portion of the Rail Corridor which is sublet, Commercial Rent.
3.2 Balance of the Land Rent
Rent for the Balance of the Land is:
3.2.1 for the first five years of the Term $1.00 per annum; and 3.2.2 for the balance of the Term, Commercial Rent.

Can you please provide us with what GWA are paying in rent to the public/Government of South Australia given the first 5 years of $1 per annum started on the 7th of November 1997, and ended on the 7th of November 2002 , what is the current rate GWA are now paying in rent from the 7th of November 2002 for the rail infrastructure in South Australia?

(2) In Section 9 of the lease agreement

9. TERMINATION

9.1 Events of default
9.1.1 The Lessor may terminate this lease forthwith and re-enter and take
possession of the Land or, subject to clause 9.1.2, convert this Lease to a monthly tenancy if any of the following events occurs, is not remedied and is not waived by the Lessor:

It states in the agreement that if the lessee

9. TERMINATION
(e) (Fails to provide Minimum Services) during the first five years of
the Term, the Lessee fails:.

And in clause

9. TERMINATION
(F..(Railway ceases) the Lessee ceases to conduct Railway
Operations on the entire Rail Corridor for a continuous period of eighteen (18) months.

Many of these lines have not seen movement for several years, and it also appears that several other breaches have been made in relation to the agreement.

Why hasn’t the Government therefore terminated the lease agreement as stated in these and other clauses?

In Comparison, & to give some examples

When one person or company hires, rents or leases property from another, it is often written in a clause that the property, or equipment must be returned in the same or better condition, such as Government Housing Trust homes, this should be no different to the lease agreement with GWA and the railway infrastructure in South Australia.


(3) What if any procedures has the Government made to ensure that GWA is held accountable, that also makes sure that the rail lines and other rail infrastructures are kept, and maintained that ensures that the people of this state are getting the most out of the lease agreement, and that insures these states infrastructures are maintained to the extent, that ensures the network is in such a condition "that trains could be operated on within two weeks notice” this would not only be in the State Governments best interest, but the people who they represent in this state?

*****

Additional information...

In a statement by the productivity commission report in 22/3/2010, it was stated that SAFF Grains were given details of how Genesee & Wyoming Australia Pty The South Australian Farmers Federation (SAFF) Ltd, who have a five-year agreement with Viterra have put unreasonable controls on their rail-lines in South Australia and are charging exorbitant fees, This pricing structure virtually precludes any other company but Viterra from using rail in South Australia easily and cost effectively

“On their line from Dry Creek to Port Adelaide they require an additional pilot – while only a distance of 10 km, 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 Genesee & Wyoming Australia would charge $59,400 compared with V/Line $6,224, Australia Rail Track Corporation $2,482 and NSW Rail $2,317”.

This sort of price gorging is a result of privatisation, something we have seen in many other areas in infrastructures that have also been privatised in SA, the massive price difference being charged for rail freight in South Australia compared to the other states, could, and has had a negative impact to the rail industry in SA, Privatisation was supposed to create competition and lower the cost, this clearly has not happened, and the govt needs to be asked why private companies are being allowed to get away with holding the monopoly by charging exorbitant fees that discourages other operators from using many of the rail lines in our State.

Privatisation never creates price efficiency because governments always set up operators in monopoly or near monopoly positions.

monotonehell wrote:Privatisation never creates price efficiency because governments always set up operators in monopoly or near monopoly positions.

Which is exactly the case with GWA here, they have basically been allowed to get away with having a monopoly and ensuring no-one else but them can either use or think about using their tracks.

Great Southern Rail (GSR) will reduce services on the Ghan and Indian Pacific as Federal Government subsidies have been chopped. Fare rises will result in reduced demand, thus reduced services.

This has serious implications for the GSR workforce, especially in SA, and will impact on regional tourism.

Concession fares will rise and services on The Ghan and Indian Pacific trains will be halved as Great Southern Rail (GSR) prepares for an expected 20 per cent downturn in passenger numbers.

GSR chief executive Chris Tallent said $9 million in funding from the Federal Government that subsidised the travel costs of pensioners, veterans and seniors taking the train journeys would end by July next year.

Although the company would still offer a 20 per cent discount to concession passengers, Mr Tallent said the company was expecting fewer people to take the rail journey.
A company spokesman confirmed the drop in demand was expected to be 20 per cent.

ABC News:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-08-06/g ... ic/6676174