Should QueenslandRail passenger services contract be opened up to competition?

[#Metro]

Melbourne had a go at competing operators, and they went back to one operator. That should tell you something.

Yes. You box the entire system up, rather than individual services.

You can have
1. Competition within the market (what Melbourne started off with in Privatisation I)
2. Competition for the market (what Melbourne ended up with in Privatisation II)

[mufreight]

How many shares do you have in MTR? every Queenslander has a share and vested interest in QR.

So let me see, if I own QR, why can't I sell it? Pretty low utility...

and for the record, I don't own ANY shares in MTR (or any other rail operator for that matter).

QR can stay a GOC if it wants to. My point is, I just don't see what the special reason or purpose is to have the contract between QR and TransLink unchallengeable by any other party who may want to supply services there.

While they are under the political thumb of both Translink and Queensland Transport no private operator would want bto take it on.
Even in Melbourne the operators there were give a contract to operate services to a minimum level BUT they were not restricted in changes to those services or adding additional services where they were justified either by public demand or operational convenience, the difference being that they were free to operate their contract without being micro managed by an oversight body that had more interest in the red line than the service line.

[ozbob]

Queensland Rail is a different outfit than Queensland Passenger IMHO.  There is a already a cultural change underway from my observations.

I think there might be some changes flowing from the state budget next week. I would like to see more service planning/changes/operational control back to the operator level.  For example, if Queensland Rail wanted to put on a sweeper ahead of the 4.48pm ex Richlands they could if that was their judgement (just notional, hold on to the straps folks).  It would not necessarily have to be cleared at a higher level which seems to be the case now.

[#Metro]

While they are under the political thumb of both Translink and Queensland Transport no private operator would want bto take it on.
Even in Melbourne the operators there were give a contract to operate services to a minimum level BUT they were not restrictrd in changes to those services or adding additional services where they were justified either by public demand or operational convenience, the difference being that they were free to operate their contract without being micro managed by an oversight body that had more interest in the red line than the service line.
   

Disagree. Did the Gold Coast LRT not have a healthy number of bidders, one of them including MTR Hong Kong somewhere in there? I fail to see how there would be a shortage of interest. And again, it does not go to the heart of the argument which is : what is the special reason why the contract may only be between QR and the QLD Government (TransLink)

And if there were no interest, surely there would be nothing to fear? And how would you know if you didn't try in the first instance?

[Golliwog]

Is there actually anything preventing going above what TL pays for? How does the Sunshine Coast buses work with the transport levy they have up there that funds some routes? As I understand it, passengers still pay for trips with go card.

[ozbob]

Is there actually anything preventing going above what TL pays for?

No, not that I am aware of.  For example I have been told more than once from reliable sources that the extras Queensland Rail oft puts on during a track closure are not TL funded as for other timetable services.  To explain this, during a track closure from say Corinda to Rosewood prior to Richlands the trains started at Corinda as they would running through Corinda on the normal timetable. On a Sunday timetable the frequency is only hourly to around 9.30am.  Now Queensland Rail would put 'extras' leaving Corinda at the half hour. They did this because of the complications of the bus connections not always making the hourly train.  If it missed it was a long wait. So Queensland Rail went that extra step and put these 'unfunded extras' on.  They had Valley Destos.  Mrs Ozbob and I often deliberately caught the extras for something different.  I have a photograph of one of them somewhere here on the board.

With respect to the Sunshine Coast levy, I think it would just go into the collective pool of funds for all services from all sources, but notionally identified for funding services x y and z ...

[petey3801]

Duplication to the North alone won't fix the petrie-Caboolture bottleneck. Not to mention soon all Traveltrains (Excluding the outback train) would have 150-160 kph running vs CityTrain 100-120 vs freight 100kph on the most recent duplication/straightening part.

Caboolture-Beerburfum has 140km/h signboards for suburbans and 160km/h square signboards for Tilts, get your facts right!

As HTG clarified, a lot of CityTrain stock is 100km/h limited. It is only the ICE (120km/h), older IMU (140) and 160/260 (130km/h) that are permitted to travel above 100km/h where posted.

[justanotheruser]

There were actually two phases to Melbourne...

1st phase was "yardstick" competition where they split the network in half- dumb idea
2nd phase was the boxing up of the entire network and contracting for the whole thing as one unit.

Possibly... but Andrew Lezala has become a frequency crusader...
Trains every 10 minutes on the Frankston line all day.

I think the cash should be kept at a fixed level and perhaps the winning bid chosen on who can run the most services...

only problem I reckon would be that other areas suffer. Could be wrong but generally if you say this is the thing we will measure against eveyone focuses on that. Good example is one company I worked for had a promo where the store that had biggest increase in sales of coke got free concert tickets for all staff. One manager decided to stock fridge with nothing but coke. So if you wanted a bottle of water then it was tough luck. She won. Coke sales increased but nobody looked at the drop in sales from other drinks not being available. Same with rail. They will focus on providing more services but perhaps have no cleaners.

[justanotheruser]

I agree with what ozbob says.  The best performing urban rail operator in Australia is, and always has been, a Government operator.  I refer of course to TransPerth / Public Transport Commission of Western Australia.

If you privatise without fixing the cultural problems first, you will not achieve anything other than some interesting livery changes to amuse the photographers.

Hmm.  I would have said that privatisation was a way to change the culture.  Get some external management in which can actually change something.  I think TransPerth only actually become a good operator from the mid 90s though.

In QLD though, service standards have never really risen above 30 minute frequency.  It has always (in my memory) been better than that on CityRail for certain lines, such as the North Shore especially.

many CEO's will tell you the way to change a culture is to get new staff. Over six years I know some railway workers in Sydney who had to apply for their own job four times. Yes they were permanant full time staff.

North shore isn't really a fair comparison as it is a feeder line. That is the trains came out of the sheds at hornsby and would either go to blacktown or penrith or back to hornsby via the main line.  A better comparision would be looking at waterfall/cronulla line.

[justanotheruser]

It seems that there is a conceptual gap here that most are overlooking.
1. QR is more than capable of running its own race provided it is funded to do so.
2. Translink and the current government are not prepared to adequately fund the actual operator, be it QR, BT or a private oprtator to operate the services that the public requires.
3. If the funds presently being sucked up by the Hydra like Translink and its ever expanding bureaucracy which attempts to micro manage the provision of services as a duplication of the operators management rather that be a co-ordinating and oversight mechanisim was redirected into the provision of services by the actual operators then the operators would be able to provide a better standard of service and frequency.
All of which having been said supports the comments by colinw and SurfRail and the point that lhere is no point in privitising QR Passenger.

So why was westside buses so crap before translink existed if it is all translinks fault?

Take Translink out of the picture, replace it with an office of the Transport Department that will collect the revenue and act as a co-ordinating authority, redirect the money saved by the elimination of one bureaucracy to the actual service providers and then have them run their own race, both QR and BT are more than competent to do so if funded to provide the required levels of service, the other service providers would be given a minimum levels of service provided contract and again the better the standards of service provided the more they are paid for the provision of those services, this would provide incentive to provide not only a better standard of service but also better levels of service more attuned to the needs of commuters rather than the present inflexible bureaucratic situation with Translink attempting to micro manage everything while completely disconected from the needs of the commuters.
A vastly preferable operating system to that currently existing under Translink.
The LESS that Translink has to do with the operation of the PT services the better for commuters and the community at large.

How much would actually be saved? In reality very little. You would find 95% of the workforce would just be transfered over. Or perhaps I've been watching too much of Yes Minister!/Yes Prime Minister

[dwb]

Is there actually anything preventing going above what TL pays for? How does the Sunshine Coast buses work with the transport levy they have up there that funds some routes? As I understand it, passengers still pay for trips with go card.

CEO QR Passenger stated on 612 breakfast prior to the new timetable launch, in response to a question about whether QR might be interested in running additional services to the airport, that QR is a commercial operation and under its remit can only do things that are commercial in nature, and offering services that are not paid for are probably deemed non commercial (given that Transfield would have to agree to pay QR to run extra airport services).

Of course, in the full corporate world you'd call this marketing and competitive behaviour (competitive with the car) to induce new trips/passengers/clients, but I'm guessing not in QOC land!

[SteelPan]

Re Competition, probably not, most major population centres seem to have a single authority.  What we do need to do, is turn "Translink" into a serious SEQ Met style operation.  New mangement, no more excuses, some serious dollars.  Sadly, Santa only comes once a year.   

[dwb]

Honestly, I don't see what everyone's problem with "management" is, unless it's the political management you're talking about?... if it is then we all know the alternative is WORSE for public transport than the current lot!

[somebody]

Honestly, I don't see what everyone's problem with "management" is, unless it's the political management you're talking about?... if it is then we all know the alternative is WORSE for public transport than the current lot!

Well, can you blame the "political management" for route 88?

[Jonno]

Rather than it being a sale of very old trains and lines as it was in Melbourne. Could operators be invited to add additional services using new trains thus accessing private investment rather than draining Govt purses.  Translink manage QR service levels today why not a third party.

[ozbob]

Rather than it being a sale of very old trains and lines as it was in Melbourne. Could operators be invited to add additional services using new trains thus accessing private investment rather than draining Govt purses.  Translink manage QR service levels today why not a third party.

That is happening for freight eg. PN because money can be made.  But the issue with suburban and interurban passenger is that still requires significant subsidies, eg. Metro in Melbourne. There was a lot of consideration in Victoria of returning the trains back to a GOC prior to Metro.  Could still happen as Metro continues to get pounded.  Not their 'fault' to be caught on a stuffed network.  Looking at in my simple economic framework.
Lets say it costs 10 dollars to operate the network and trains.  Of that say services is 5 dollars.  If there was a private operator the government gives the operator 5 dollars. The operator says ok, we can run the services for 4 dollars and we will take one dollar as profit.  The government says the service levels are the same because the old chestnut 'private operators are more efficient' is rolled out.  What happens is that the service degrades as the network maintenance and provision is neglected, and the private operator says we need more and more money (happening in Melbourne) because they cannot keep their 'profit' output up. The end results is a worsening of service levels unless more and more money is pumped in.  This goes around in circles.  It is basically what has happened here in Queensland with electricity and urban utilities.  It is run away expense.  That is why I really expect Metro to walk away one day in Melbourne.

Privatisation/franchise operations additional to the GOC only dilute and disperse already scarce resources - profit is the motive for a private operator.  Far better to do it right as in Perth. Queensland Rail is well on the way, the fundamental issue is resource the network at the appropriate levels which in turn then leads to greater operational efficiency and returns.  And I will go as far as to suggest that during the Queensland Passenger days the network was actually neglected, routine maintenance often delayed or scoped to 'failure maintenance' ....  that is changed of late.  But there is a catch up price to pay, and we have some lingering impacts from the floods too.

[dwb]

Honestly, I don't see what everyone's problem with "management" is, unless it's the political management you're talking about?... if it is then we all know the alternative is WORSE for public transport than the current lot!

Well, can you blame the "political management" for route 88?

What exactly is your problem with route 88?

[somebody]

Honestly, I don't see what everyone's problem with "management" is, unless it's the political management you're talking about?... if it is then we all know the alternative is WORSE for public transport than the current lot!

Well, can you blame the "political management" for route 88?

What exactly is your problem with route 88?

It's not an axiom?  Basically, it sucks up resources that would have been better used elsewhere, and was only ever required due to amazing incompetence regarding the city stop locations.

Putting that to one side, even if you say we need a "route 88", then why doesn't it serve Indooroopilly interchange heading towards 8 mile plains?  Because of their notion that if you don't serve it O/B, you can't serve it I/B.  In this case (and others) this does nothing but degrade the quality of the bus system.  Further, running via Captain Cook Bridge but not serving Parliament is a missed opportunity.  That part of town has poor PT, and a direct connection to Buranda via the CC Bridge would be a positive, which is wasted in this case.

Going back to the first problem: City-Indooroopilly had a weekday daytime bus frequency of 16/hour, if you ignore the all stops routes it is 14/hour.  Problem was that almost everyone on this corridor was using the 444 O/B, leading to congestion.  Didn't they think something should be done to try to get pax onto the other routes?  Or onto trains (especially on weekends)?

It is similar to the above on the SE Busway portion of the route O/B where everyone was using the 111, in spite of the 160 and 555 also providing service, although this part of the service has merit in going via the CC Bridge instead of South Bank.

I could go on some more but I think I've captured it there.

If you think the above isn't incompetence, then I wouldn't employ you.  No offence.

[HappyTrainGuy]

Give QR a few years. Since they've lost their freight division they now have alot more money available from the government instead of buying freight contracts in NSW/VIC.

[mufreight]

So why was westside buses so crap before translink existed if it is all translinks fault?

How much would actually be saved? In reality very little. You would find 95% of the workforce would just be transfered over. Or perhaps I've been watching too much of Yes Minister!/Yes Prime Minister

I could be wrong here but Westside took over the service contract for the Ipswich region from Sunbus when Translink took the contract off Sunbus, Westside was an improvement over Sunbus only marginal and the service provided by Westbus has been constrained by Translink since that time and remains so.

As to how much would be saved, probably better than 80% as at most only 15% to 20% of the staff would be transfered from Translink to Queensland Transport not the 95% that it has been suggested and they would be workers not senior management as QT already has the management structure in place that is presently being replicated by Translink with its senior mismanagment on astronomical salaries so the first savings would be on those salaries, the reduced numbers would not require the present office space so there would be further savings there all of which could be redirected into the provision of actual services.

[#Metro]

I could be wrong here but Westside took over the service contract for the Ipswich region from Sunbus when Translink took the contract off Sunbus, Westside was an improvement over Sunbus only marginal and the service provided by Westbus has been constrained by Translink since that time and remains so.

As to how much would be saved, probably better than 80% as at most only 15% to 20% of the staff would be transfered from Translink to Queensland Transport not the 95% that it has been suggested and they would be workers not senior management as QT already has the management structure in place that is presently being replicated by Translink with its senior mismanagment on astronomical salaries so the first savings would be on those salaries, the reduced numbers would not require the present office space so there would be further savings there all of which could be redirected into the provision of actual services.

All this would do is re-arrange deck chairs, possibly send TTA (TransLink mach II) back to TransLink Mach I. What's the point?
I don't have an issue with TL, they are the co-ordinating authority and with all the demands made on them have enough job on their hands.

[somebody]

I don't have an issue with TL, they are the co-ordinating authority and with all the demands made on them have enough job on their hands.

They have enough work on, but they just aren't doing it.  IMO.

[Arnz]

Mufreight, if I recall Bus Qld (parent of Westside and Park Ridge) bought the Ipswich runs off Transit Australia (parent of Sunbus and now Surfside) in the pre-Translink days.

[justanotheruser]

Mufreight, if I recall Bus Qld (parent of Westside and Park Ridge) bought the Ipswich runs off Transit Australia (parent of Sunbus and now Surfside) in the pre-Translink days.

this is my understanding as well.

Also you had westside with rules that other companies did not enforce yet they claimed it was a legal requirement (funny how BT didn't have those rules!) You had drivers not completing their runs. That is if they were empty at a certain point on the last run of the night then they just went to the depot. This ended up costing us so much in taxi fares we moved house. Even with the higher rent it works out cheaper over all.

[dwb]

Honestly, I don't see what everyone's problem with "management" is, unless it's the political management you're talking about?... if it is then we all know the alternative is WORSE for public transport than the current lot!

Well, can you blame the "political management" for route 88?

What exactly is your problem with route 88?

It's not an axiom?  Basically, it sucks up resources that would have been better used elsewhere, and was only ever required due to amazing

No I do not think it is an axiom although I haven't used it yet and don't know much about it. Perhaps when I do ride it I will think it is a complete waste of resources, however my initial thoughts are that it exists to enable southerly destinations interchange-less access to Indooroopilly and the Milton, Taringa, Toowong corridor. From a land use perspective this is very noble. From a practical perspective currently it is difficult to enforce interchange in the city either on rail or bus... that is why Cultural Centre is such a mess, it is meant to be the single place all BUZ routes can interchange.

If you think the above isn't incompetence, then I wouldn't employ you.  No offence.

I'm not a transport planner, nor do I pretend to be nor was I seeking employment. And if I was I'd prefer to work for management that respected an enquiring mind and differing opinions. Indeed under my normative view of good management the boss doesn't necessarily have all the answers and certainly doesn't enforce them on staff rather assists staff to realise their potential and further the organisations ambitions.

[somebody]

I'm not a transport planner, nor do I pretend to be nor was I seeking employment. And if I was I'd prefer to work for management that respected an enquiring mind and differing opinions. Indeed under my normative view of good management the boss doesn't necessarily have all the answers and certainly doesn't enforce them on staff rather assists staff to realise their potential and further the organisations ambitions.

I think I've given you enough reasons to see the problems with route 88 though.