POLL: Should Australia have a National Rail Operator

[#Metro]

France has it, Germany has it... what about Australia?
We have the National Highway... but the national railway??


Long distance train services in WA, Victoria, NSW and QLD--- should they all be bundled up
and incorporated into a single national passenger rail operator?

And is there any benefit to that?
All the ones that are good seem to be public, although I can't see why though...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SNCF
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsche_Bahn

[ButFli]

The only real advantage would be a through-train from Brisbane to Melbourne. Otherwise, what advantage would a national operator bring? Trains in Queensland are still going to radiate from Brisbane. Most NSW and Vic trains are going to radiate from Sydney and Melbourne respectively. The only improvement a national operator would bring is extending the Victorian trains into Southern NSW and possibly continuing the Broken Hill train all the way to Adelaide.

France and Germany don't have good rail systems because SNCF and DB are national operators. They have good rail systems because they spent money on infrastructure. Combining all Government passenger services into a national operator in Australia will not magically make rail a viable alternative to road and air. Britain doesn't have a national operator but they still have a decent passenger rail system.

[Jonno]

The only real advantage would be a through-train from Brisbane to Melbourne. Otherwise, what advantage would a national operator bring? Trains in Queensland are still going to radiate from Brisbane. Most NSW and Vic trains are going to radiate from Sydney and Melbourne respectively. The only improvement a national operator would bring is extending the Victorian trains into Southern NSW and possibly continuing the Broken Hill train all the way to Adelaide.

France and Germany don't have good rail systems because SNCF and DB are national operators. They have good rail systems because they spent money on infrastructure. Combining all Government passenger services into a national operator in Australia will not magically make rail a viable alternative to road and air. Britain doesn't have a national operator but they still have a decent passenger rail system.

Ditto.  Thanks for saving me some typing ButFli

[#Metro]

The British ones are nationally organized through Network Rail aren't they?

[Golliwog]

I'm not sure, but they still have many different operators depending on which region you are in. I would agree with the others though that its not having a national operator that makes it better, but having the actual network available.

[#Metro]

Who is going to build a national network with everything connected if everything is in pieces and operated in pieces?
Probably the reason why we have this bugbear of different rail gauges in different states.

Swiss Federal Railways grew from acquisition in different cities and cantons:

In the 19th century, all Swiss railways were owned by private ventures. The economic and political interests of these companies led to lines being built in parallel and some companies went bankrupt in the resulting competition. On 20 February 1898 the Swiss people agreed in a referendum to the creation of a state-owned railway company. The first train running on the account of the Swiss Confederation ran during the night of New Year's Day in 1901 from Zurich via Bern to Geneva. January 1, 1902 is regarded as the official birth date of the Swiss Federal Railways. In the meantime, the trains were run by the Swiss Confederation on behalf of the private companies.

The following railway companies were nationalised:

    * Aargauische Südbahn (ASB)
    * Bötzbergbahn (BöB)
    * Schweizerische Nordostbahn (NOB)
    * Schweizerische Centralbahn (SCB)
    * Toggenburgerbahn (TB)
    * Vereinigte Schweizerbahnen (VSB)
    * Tösstalbahn including the Wald-Rüti Railway (WR)
    * Wohlen-Bremgarten Railway (WB)
    * Jura-Simplon-Bahn (JS) including the Brünigbahn (the latter in 1903)

Other companies were included later, and the rail network was extended. It is still growing today.

First class compartments were discontinued on 3 June 1956, and second and third class accommodation was reclassified as first and second class.

In 1982 SBB-CFF-FFS introduced the Taktfahrplan ("clockface timetable"), with trains for certain destinations leaving every 60 minutes, greatly simplifying the timetable.

[frereOP]

France and Germany don't have good rail systems because SNCF and DB are national operators. They have good rail systems because they spent money on infrastructure.

Yep, exactly.  If you equate European countries to Australian States then the situation is the same.  Each country builds and owns its own infrastructure and they run their trains on each other's lines.  Problems with signalling standards is a big issue but this is being resolved.

We'll soon see ICE (DB) on the Eurostar Paris to London line (owned and operated by SCNF in France and British Rail in England)  following sorting out signalling issues.  Likewise, TGV operates into Germany (Berlin) and Switzerland (Zurich and Interlaken) on lines owned and operated by those countries.

It's not uncommon to see Swiss, German (ICE) and French (TGV) trains on adjacent platforms at Zurich but there is a high degree of co-operation and co-ordination - especially on development of HSR - and that's what might be needed here.

[ButFli]

The British ones are nationally organized through Network Rail aren't they?

Network Rail owns and maintains the infrastructure, like ARTC does here. The British Rail operators are in cahoots with one another as far as ticketing and rail passes goes. You can buy an Ausrail pass covering all rail operators in Australia, so introduce combined ticketing (like we used to have) and it's the same.

[#Metro]

France and Germany don't have good rail systems because SNCF and DB are national operators. They have good rail systems because they spent money on infrastructure.

I disagree. Someone has to do the timetable co-ordination, there must be dialogue and organisation somewhere, so there must be a level of government involved somewhere, and it turns out there is- The European Commission. I doubt that without this level of supra-national that the liberalization of passenger rail markets between countries could have occurred.

The goals are complimentary- the public sector creates an environment where a market can open up and operate and allow (private or public) operators in to compete, but yet retain that level of co-ordination required.

IMHO, the states do not have the financial clout or organization themselves to make it happen. I have found a directive from the European Commission talking about a single European Railway Area.

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52010DC0474:EN:NOT

Over the last two centuries transport by rail in Europe evolved primarily within national borders, with each State establishing its own rail system on the basis of local considerations and national industries together with railway companies adopting their own technical and operational standards.. Such evolution led to a structural fragmentation of the European railway system which still today is a major obstacle to the development of a single European railway area. This fragmentation leads to serious problems of efficiency, flexibility and reliability in particular for freight transport as well as to high operating costs preventing rail from becoming a credible competitor against other modes of transport and discouraging private investments by new entrants in the rail market.

The level of investment in rail infrastructure development and maintenance remains insufficient in many Member States. In several cases, the quality of the existing infrastructure continues to decline. Cross-border connections, including with rail networks in neighbouring countries, remain insufficient. The situation is particularly severe in Central and Eastern Europe. Poor maintenance, slow modernisation and increasing numbers of bottlenecks on the network have a direct effect on the competitiveness of the whole sector.

The Commission has long considered that the improvement of the functioning of the internal market should stimulate the rail industry to become more efficient and responsive to customers' needs. Thus the development of EU rail market access legislation has progressively encouraged market opening based on a genuine separation between infrastructure management and transport operations. Rail freight transport and international passenger transport by rail have been fully open to competition from January 2007 and January 2010 respectively.

It is not going to happen by itself- someone up the top needs to push it, for it to start rolling.

[#Metro]

You can buy an Ausrail pass covering all rail operators in Australia, so introduce combined ticketing (like we used to have) and it's the same.

That's integrated ticketing though. For example, pre-translink I could get a "south east queensland explorer" ticket
for use on buses and trains. But the services themselves were un-coordinated.  Integrated ticketing is a step in the right direction, but not enough IMHO.

ARTC seems to fit the role, but seems more focused on freight than passenger. Maybe high speed rail will change that.

[Stillwater]

Prefer model where ARTC owns the track and charges operators to run trains over it.  The real issue is to get road use pricing right.  Road pricing should be on basis of axle weight and distance travelled (possible with satellite tracking of trucks).  Then we will even up competition.  As for passenger rail, operator should pay what it costs (with governments putting a cost/subsidy on Community Service Obligations).  That way, a proper cost comparison can be made when, eventually, we get round to looking at cost comparisons of High Speed Rail or VFT.  A faster, more convenient service will command a higher price for travel, with direct comparisons with the cost of air travel.  What's the bet that if governments phase out 'slow interstate trains' if and when high speed trains come on line; then pensioners and senior will complain that they can't afford VFT fares and don't mind a slow alternative, 'cos they have the time for 70-80 km/hr travel.

[somebody]

We don't need a national operator, private enterprise will do this better, and we have a national track owner for the SG.  Ok, there are some SG tracks in NSW that don't come under its umbrella, but all the tracks likely to be used for interstate do outside of the CityRail area.

[#Metro]

We don't need a national operator, private enterprise will do this better,

It's not clear how, Somebody. IMHO each has its place and a role to do, but it needs to be matched right.
IMHO ARTC's remit could be expanded, i'll put it up for discussion on how much involvement or what that would entail
up for discussion.

http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/rn/podcast/2010/09/lnl_20100921_2205.mp3

[somebody]

It is my understanding that PNQ is wresting coal business away from QR at a fair rate, for example.  Government above rail operations do not make sense to me for this sort of traffic. 

I don't think ARTC should expand to above rail operations.  That would make it like NR or AN before them.  Abolishing that practice has been a big success, and returned rail to dominance across the Nullabor.  Look around the world, and I think you will see that public operations really only make sense on marginal businesses.  Not hauling coal.  BHP and/or Rio was also quite damning of east coast government operations when there

[#Metro]

Not hauling coal.  BHP and/or Rio was also quite damning of east coast government operations when there

Yes, I would agree with you on this point. But long distance passenger markets?

[somebody]

Not hauling coal.  BHP and/or Rio was also quite damning of east coast government operations when there

Yes, I would agree with you on this point. But long distance passenger markets?

Is that what you are getting at?  A combined TravelTrain/CountryLink/V/Line and whatever WA calls it + GSR?  You do have to use 2 operators to travel from Bundaberg to Grafton at present, but I don't see a huge advantage from that.  No real disadvantage though.

[frereOP]

IMHO, the states do not have the financial clout or organization themselves to make it happen. I have found a directive from the European Commission talking about a single European Railway Area.

European Directives are legislation from the European Parliament.  The purpose of a "Directives" is to require member countries to do something.  It's still up to individual countries how they interpret and implement those Directives.

In Australia, this is something that needs to be co-ordinated by a Ministerial Council - a collection of Federal and State Ministers for which the issue is relevant. In this case, Transport Ministers.  I'd be surprised if this is not the case already.

[ButFli]

You can buy an Ausrail pass covering all rail operators in Australia, so introduce combined ticketing (like we used to have) and it's the same.

That's integrated ticketing though. For example, pre-translink I could get a "south east queensland explorer" ticket
for use on buses and trains. But the services themselves were un-coordinated.  Integrated ticketing is a step in the right direction, but not enough IMHO.

ARTC seems to fit the role, but seems more focused on freight than passenger. Maybe high speed rail will change that.

Coordinate the timetabling and rail in its current state is still a poor alternative to road and air. A trip from Cairns to Melbourne by rail is going to be bad even if you don't need to overnight in a hotel or catch a bus connection from Brisbane to Casino. It's still a many-day 50km/h trip for more than the cost of a 3hr plane ride.

Creating a national rail operator in Australia will not give us European-standard service. We'd end up with Amtrak-style service or worse (which admitedly is still better than what we have now). No amount of reorganisation and marketing is going to fix passenger rail in Australia without huge below-the-wheel infrastructure to accompany it. So yes, eventually a national operator will be a good idea but right now we're better off canning all long-distance services and saving our money.

[somebody]

Creating a national rail operator in Australia will not give us European-standard service. We'd end up with Amtrak-style service or worse (which admitedly is still better than what we have now). No amount of reorganisation and marketing is going to fix passenger rail in Australia without huge below-the-wheel infrastructure to accompany it. So yes, eventually a national operator will be a good idea but right now we're better off canning all long-distance services and saving our money.

That's exactly right.

[verbatim9]

If Public Transport was centrally controlled by the Federal Government at least it would be Tax deductible