Interim rail timetables

[achiruel]

I know it kind of goes against the ethos of this group, but would it be such a terrible thing if services were hourly one day of the year? I'd certainly prefer a reliable and predictable if infrequent service to the clustered**k we had.

[ozbob]

Queensland Rail Christmas Day Report

>> https://www.queenslandrail.com.au/about%20us/Media%20Centre/Media%20Releases/Pages/Queensland-Rail-Christmas-Day-Report-made-public-((Ministerial-media-statement).aspx

[Stillwater]

Is it not strange that QR requires a Ministerial Direction to tell people what went wrong on Christmas Day.  Are 'the people' being addressed as QR customers or Queensland voters?  It is important that the distinction be made.

[red dragin]

Attachment D shows how much went on behind the scenes just to run the services provided on the day.

[HappyTrainGuy]

I know it kind of goes against the ethos of this group, but would it be such a terrible thing if services were hourly one day of the year? I'd certainly prefer a reliable and predictable if infrequent service to the clustered**k we had.

I have no issues with that. And the bus connection issue doesn't fly at all. Mostly because there are no bus connections on Christmas day.

[#Metro]

Hourly trains are perfectly acceptable. People need certainty to plan around, even if it is infrequent.

I would suggest half hourly be retained for Gold Coast - Brisbane Airport so that easy flight access is maintained, but that is about it.

[ozbob]

Couriermail --> Transport Minister continues 'blame-QR' approach following Queensland Rail report into train cancellations

TRANSPORT Minister Stirling Hinchliffe has used the release of a report into Queensland Rail's Christmas Day train fiasco to again sheet home the blame to the rail provider for commuter woes.

QR's report to the Minister, released in full yesterday, lists last-minute sick days, an inflexible union agreement and an antiquated rostering input system as key contributors to the rail fail that left passengers stranded after almost one-third of services were cancelled at late notice.

Mr Hinchliffe, who refuses to resign over the ongoing fiasco despite calls for his head, again blamed QR's management for service cancellations.

"The report again demonstrates that the issues on Christmas Day were foreseeable by those managers who had the responsibility of rostering of train crew on Christmas Day," he said.

"I am committed to the job that the Premier has asked me to do, which is to fix this mess up."

The report, written by QR's acting CEO Jim Benstead, found employment conditions enshrined in the train crews' 2013 enterprise bargaining agreement – including a controversial 20-minute comfort break provided after 2.5 hours of work which was axed three days after Christmas – contributed to crew shortages.

It found that workplace conditions preventing drivers working more than 18 Sundays in a year exacerbated roster problems because Christmas Day in 2016 fell on a Sunday.

The union perks combined with poor foresight by QR management about the potential unwillingness of crew to work on Christmas Day when not rostered led to a critical shortage of drivers and guards and caused 235 services to be cancelled.

Sick leave also was a contributor, with 27 drivers unavailable due to "unscheduled absence".

Mr Benstead also hit back at Mr Hinchliffe's criticism at the initial two-page report delivered last week.

"Our interim report provided you with key factual information in relation to the cancellations and advised that we were finalising a comprehensive report that would specifically address the causative factors that led to the cancellations," Mr Benstead wrote.

Acting Opposition Leader Deb Frecklington said the Labor Government and QR were hostage to the rail unions. ...

[ozbob]

Video

QR should have known

>> http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/video/video-news/video-qld-news/qr-should-have-known-20170105-4p243.html

[Stillwater]

From the QR website:

"We aim to be Australia's best performing railway delivering safe, on time, customer-focused and efficient rail services."

"Queensland Rail is committed to proactively publishing operational performance data."

The words speak for themselves.

[#Metro]

Video

QR should have known

>> http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/video/video-news/video-qld-news/qr-should-have-known-20170105-4p243.html

So there you have it. It is not true that cutting staff automatically makes things cheaper - not if it results in large quantities of overtime to occur, redundancy payments, services to run late or be cancelled (penalties), etc.

[ozbob]

From the QR website:

"We aim to be Australia's best performing railway delivering safe, on time, customer-focused and efficient rail services."

"Queensland Rail is committed to proactively publishing operational performance data."

The words speak for themselves.

I think Transperth actually meet those claims.
They do have some advantages though - relatively new network with genuine frequency and largely free from freight sharing.

[ozbob]

Nationwide media re Queensland Rail ..

Today's Oz paper #qldpol pic.twitter.com/hzc3PkR5w7

— Robert Dow (@Robert_Dow) January 5, 2017

[ozbob]

Hourly trains are perfectly acceptable. People need certainty to plan around, even if it is infrequent.

I would suggest half hourly be retained for Gold Coast - Brisbane Airport so that easy flight access is maintained, but that is about it.

Yo, Christmas Day is one day where one hour acceptable, perhaps with caveats you have mentioned.

You are correct about Transperth MTR - it works and works very well .. 

[HappyTrainGuy]

Video

QR should have known

>> http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/video/video-news/video-qld-news/qr-should-have-known-20170105-4p243.html

So there you have it. It is not true that cutting staff automatically makes things cheaper - not if it results in large quantities of overtime to occur, redundancy payments, services to run late or be cancelled (penalties), etc.

The idea at the time was that it wouldn't be a state problem but the mob now running the privitised railways. And when the drivers are made up of a lot of old blokes who are about to retire that further adds to the problem down the line. It made the business look very lean on paper but it did some serious damage that we are still seeing the effects of and will for quite a while.

[#Metro]

The idea at the time was that it wouldn't be a state problem but the mob now running the privitised railways. And when the drivers are made up of a lot of old blokes who are about to retire that further adds to the problem down the line. It made the business look very lean on paper but it did some serious damage that we are still seeing the effects of and will for quite a while.

I don't think there is any net saving either way.

And like you said, even if you wanted to cut staff (why?) natural attrition from people retiring would have done the job anyway.

Sell QR ---> Price devalued because liabilities (staff payouts) are attached.
Fire people first + then sell QR ---> higher price, but seller (Gov't) has to pay out liabilities attached first.

There is likely no financial difference between the two scenarios. The sale price would not be the same but the total amount of $$
the gov would have collected would be roughly the same in both cases.

Analogy

Consider a car that needs repair. When the car is sold it comes with a future cost of repair attached.
It cannot be sold for such a high price because the buyer will be aware that down the track they need to pay more.
The price thus has to be devalued - at least by the cost of the repair.

Alternatively, the seller could repair the car before sale and then sell the car at full price. However, the seller must now pay the costs of repair.

On balance, I would suggest that the two scenarios are roughly equal. There is likely no net saving.

Politicians think they know how to run a business. I think they often have no clue.

[James]

Sell QR ---> Price devalued because liabilities (staff payouts) are attached.
Fire people first + then sell QR ---> higher price, but seller (Gov't) has to pay out liabilities attached first.

There is likely no financial difference between the two scenarios. The sale price would not be the same but the total amount of $$
the gov would have collected would be roughly the same in both cases.

You're forgetting about a little thing called Goodwill. Goodwill is the excess paid over net identifiable assets (i.e. Assets - Liabilities). It is rare that an investor will pay an amount equal to the NIA in an investment. Often they will pay a premium because staff, corporate culture, contracts (unidentifiable intangible assets) have already been established.

Few forced redundancies took place, so there were minimal additional payouts required by the government. However, the redundancies and recruitment freeze made the organisation look 'leaner', and hence a potential bidder may be willing to pay a higher premium to buy (or operate) QR, making the government money in the long run. The balance sheet generally tells a lot of the story financially, but does not tell the story internally. A company may appear good financially, but there may be a toxic work environment, or an operating crisis looming (as what happened with QR), yet to an outside investor the organisation looks good.

It is very easy to gut an organisation and make it look good - just look at the private equity firm which floated Dick Smith.

[#Metro]

You're forgetting about a little thing called Goodwill. Goodwill is the excess paid over net identifiable assets (i.e. Assets - Liabilities). It is rare that an investor will pay an amount equal to the NIA in an investment. Often they will pay a premium because staff, corporate culture, contracts (unidentifiable intangible assets) have already been established.

Few forced redundancies took place, so there were minimal additional payouts required by the government. However, the redundancies and recruitment freeze made the organisation look 'leaner', and hence a potential bidder may be willing to pay a higher premium to buy (or operate) QR, making the government money in the long run. The balance sheet generally tells a lot of the story financially, but does not tell the story internally. A company may appear good financially, but there may be a toxic work environment, or an operating crisis looming (as what happened with QR), yet to an outside investor the organisation looks good.

It is very easy to gut an organisation and make it look good - just look at the private equity firm which floated Dick Smith.

Sorry, how many staff cuts in total were there from QR and in what breakdown?

[Stillwater]

The Dick Smith Stores analogy is a good one.  LNP cannot walk away from the hidden time bombs it placed within QR before the Christmas Day mess.

If QR is committed to proactively publishing it performance data, why didn't the CEO release the Christmas Day explanation report (the second one)?  QR didn't want to write the report, or release it.  They had to be directed by the Minister.  Hardly pro-active in keeping the customers informed.

The Minister says he is not responsible for operational aspects of QR, yet his office has ordered, against QR wishes, a forensic analysis of what went wrong.  QR didn't know what went wrong until it was forced to find out by virtue of the report the Minister commissioned.

The Minister's office insisted on an 'action plan register', where actions to rectify the problems are listed, fixed and monitored.  Minister will restructure QR once the Commission of Inquiry findings are known at the end of the month.

Certainly, the Minister wasn't watching QR in the lead-up to the mess, but he seems to be central to 'operational fixes' post Christmas Day.

By its actions, or lack of action, QR has shown that it desires to project an image of striving to be Australia's best-performing railway (a PR façade) while falling short of the mark when it comes to provisioning and rostering of train crew.

We should wonder at QR's performance in commissioning NGR trains next.

[James]

Sorry, how many staff cuts in total were there from QR and in what breakdown?

I'm not sure if there were any cuts there, I was just covering my butt in case back-of-house staff had been sacked. No frontline staff were sacked, AFAIK.

[petey3801]

Depends on your definition of 'sacked'. Plenty of 'front line' staff (drivers, guards, tutors/trainers, likely a number of other front line staff also) were given VERS (Voluntary Early Retirement), with others being dropped back from trainer/tutor to driver etc.

[HappyTrainGuy]

Few forced redundancies took place, so there were minimal additional payouts required by the government.

I'm not sure if there were any cuts there, I was just covering my butt in case back-of-house staff had been sacked. No frontline staff were sacked, AFAIK.

As Petey mentioned its what you define as sacked/forced redundancy. When the LNP moved to change QR's classification as a QOC to a statutory authority that changed everything legally speaking and allowed the government to have more direct input in how they control it under the guise of "bringing it closer to the public" (same bullsh%t they pulled on Translink BTW). Now they had more influence over out sourcing contracts (ie under TMR). It reclassified all employees as public servants. As they were now public servants an employment freeze could be applied. ~550 full time jobs was on the table that had to be gone. First to go were those on fixed contracts (apprentices etc). Then came the VERs across the entire business - Front line staff such as drivers, guards, mtce workers and station staff were included and did take the offer. Other workers were transferred/deployed elsewhere. Then natural attrition took its bite out of the aging work force (remember the whole driver issue at the moment isn't over as the workforce doesn't exactly have a low average age). The things you would have noticed very quickly early on in the public eye were the onboard customer service staff that collected rubbish vanishing overnight and station staffing hours being cut dramatically. And remember all of this was going on with a recruitment freeze in place.

Technically there were no government direct cuts to any frontline staff as all the frontline staff retirements were voluntary. Things that were swept under the rug were the LNP government being okay with privitising PT (to the extent they had engaged with some law firm on agreements) despite saying publicly at the same time they weren't. Cuts to contracts/projects such as the NGR/MBRL. All of which made it look really lean.

Sorry, how many staff cuts in total were there from QR and in what breakdown?

Not too sure so don't quote me on this but the FTE I think has dropped by about ~800 or so between 2012 and now.

[Stillwater]

^^ Good insight, thanks.

Interesting articles from the Courier-Mail:

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/national/queensland-rail-insiders-not-surprised-minister-was-kept-in-the-dark-about-driver-shortage/news-story/c99c8a9ec4be8c4b9443fbe98fface05

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/queensland-rail-train-fiasco-has-minister-at-end-of-line/news-story/14e0f6cd0550ada5f62d5482d314ebaa

[#Metro]

Interesting articles from the Courier-Mail:

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/national/queensland-rail-insiders-not-surprised-minister-was-kept-in-the-dark-about-driver-shortage/news-story/c99c8a9ec4be8c4b9443fbe98fface05

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/queensland-rail-train-fiasco-has-minister-at-end-of-line/news-story/14e0f6cd0550ada5f62d5482d314ebaa

Courier-Mail alleges long term culture war within Queensland Rail

The Courier Mail article that Stillwater has just posted shows that there appears to be a culture war going on inside QR management between an old guard defending itself against incoming 'business management' people.

It is this culture war that has some people very upset inside QR it seems, which has been the opening for Paul Pluta leaking.

Queensland Rail's focus isn't the business bottom line (profit) as it is under the direct political control of democratically elected politicians. This means that the behaviour of the organisation is going to be subtly different. It appears that political patronage/connections became a determining factor, not whether the company could be run efficiently or effectively.

For example, the following scenario is impossible in a genuinely private corporation:

In August that year, the LNP overruled the QR board on its appointment of a new chief executive, issuing a ministerial direction to give the $500,000-a-year job to career railway worker Glen Dawe...

Dawe had not been among the top three short-listed candidates... LNP interference came despite a $209,155 global search for a replacement CEO after the departure of former chief Paul Scurrah in 2011.

Why didn't Campbell Newman and the LNP overrule the appointment of a CEO in Woolworths or McDonalds, or cut their back-of-house staff during his reign? Because in a private business, internal management is none of the politicians' business.

The Courier-Mail alleges "patronage" was a deciding factor in hiring

The Courier-Mail then goes on to detail that Campbell Newman personally knew Mr Dawe. The political intervention of democratically elected MPs into the day-to-day operations of Queensland Rail then opened the door to other 'old school' people being appointed/promoted to Queensland Rail.

Former Queensland Rail CEO Helen Gluer (who replaced Dawe) also was a long-time former CFO of Brisbane City Council during the Newman City Hall era, and was also brought in under Newman:

The new under-treasurer, Helen Gluer, who was chief executive of power generator Stanwell Corporation and, previously, Brisbane City Council's chief financial officer.

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/national/public-service/cando-shies-away-from-the-principled-path-of-government-20120430-1xu2h.html

Who should run Queensland Rail

We have had a discussion on this forum about 'who should run Queensland Rail' and that 'people with rail experience should run it', but perhaps that is misguided. Rail people were running Queensland Rail, and an experienced former Labor Transport Minister on the QR Board. The people who should run QR should be those who can do the best job, as measured by the bottom line.

But QR doesn't have a bottom line, and as a unchallenged monopolist, government must engage the services of QR no matter what. Look at all the huge costs that have been generated in all of this mess - massive overtime bills, redundancy payments, training and re-hiring costs, taxis. And during all of this great departure from TransLink's contracted (unenforceable) service standards no penalties on Queensland Rail have been applied... purely through the virtue of its public ownership.

If it were, heaven forbid, METRO that had cancelled 235 trains on Christmas day, I am sure people would be out with the axe and calling for the contract to be terminated immediately. It would be fined to pieces and have a black mark on its contract renewal application.

Indeed, when Melbourne's Connex was having difficulties running trains on time, that was held up as "proof" that competitive contracting didn't work and that the contract should just expire and return it to public operation. A double standard.

Again, another example of something that would be unfavourable in a private company, increasing one of the largest input costs to be even larger:

One former colleague claims Wright had, in 1996, been involved in a train crew agreement that gave big concessions to the unions, including elevating guard pay to just under driver levels.

Train guards currently earn a base wage of $87,016 and drivers $92,574, plus generous overtime.

We have to bear in mind that a recruitment freeze and staff cuts were being applied across the entire government, not just within Queensland Rail. This leads me to believe that the cuts program was incidental and would have occurred anyway whether Queensland Rail was going to be sold off or not.

Cumulative List of Funding and staffing cuts to services, staff, funding and programs by Campbell Newman LNP Government 2012
http://independentaustralia.net/wordpress-opt/wp-content/2013/01/aaaaLIST-of-CUTS-to-PUBLIC-COMMUNITY-SERVICES-JOBS-13-01-13.pdf

LIST: Job cuts by portfolio
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/list-job-cuts-by-portfolio-20120911-25px8.html

Conclusion

Monopoly contracting of our buses and trains must end. And that principle should apply to both public and private operators equally in Queensland, as remember, the majority of bus operators are privately owned monopolies here too.

Contracting would guarantee permanent protection from political appointment of the CEO and finally make TransLink's service standards enforceable through contract rejection and fines. It would also give the organisation a bottom line to monitor, giving a regular and simple feedback mechanism as to the position and direction of the organisation to managers.

It cannot continue.

[#Metro]

Fire Connex, transport expert says
http://www.smh.com.au/national/fire-connex-transport-expert-says-20080819-3y8u.html

RAIL operator Connex should be sacked and management of Melbourne's suburban trains brought back into public hands, prominent transport academic says.

Melbourne University transport planner Nick Low says Connex has performed dismally.

"The Government would be wise to not reappoint Connex to run the suburban railways, and wiser still to bring the whole operation back into public hands," he says.

I wonder what people would think if the article was written thus:

Fire Queensland Rail, transport expert says
http://www.smh.com.au/national/fire-qr-transport-expert-says-20080819-3y8u.html

RAIL operator QR should be sacked and management of Brisbane's suburban trains brought into private hands, prominent transport academic says.

Queensland University transport planner Nick Low says QR has performed dismally.

"The Government would be wise to not reappoint QR to run the suburban railways, and wiser still to bring the whole operation private hands," he says.

I wonder if anyone would ever come out and say that. Taboo!

[Stillwater]

How confident are people that we will continue to have an interim timetable (albeit a different interim timetable to what we have currently) beyond the point when the current interim timetable is set to expire?

[HappyTrainGuy]

We have to bear in mind that a recruitment freeze and staff cuts were being applied across the entire government, not just within Queensland Rail. This leads me to believe that the cuts program was incidental and would have occurred anyway whether Queensland Rail was going to be sold off or not.

Yes, there's laying off public servants and then there is the massive trouble that they went to to lay off some railway employees, having mass VERs, then engaging in a private multinational law firm to work out agreements for outsourcing (rollingstock mtce (same as NGR), infrastructure mtce, traveltrain, citytrain and the artc taking over the NCL), cutting railway projects/out sourcing to tmr all while saying publicly and running a few advertisements that QR wasn't going to be privitised and there was nothing to worry about.

Once "asset leasing" across everything became the headliner it was all over for the blue party. But when the red party came in they pretty much kept the status quo and when they did react it wasn't with lightning speed. And still they are plugging around in 1st gear trying to play the blame game to woooo the public (not really working)/we've been slightly misled/we are very very very angry and here's a picture of a frowny face to show just how angry we are

And please lay off with the Metro privitisation crap. Its every bloody post you make. We get it. You like Metro. Its your new go to thing. You keep saying how good Metro are.... what a stand up job they do. Its a win win. We should have done it ages ago. It's you just falling for their excellent PR spin. People down there still really hate metro. Their infrastructure is the worst in the country. The state government is constantly giving metro money to fix their lack of mtce spending (yes its owned by the state government but Metro are the ones that have to look after it - remember when they built brand new train stations that all trains ran express past for 8 months because of the lack of overhead power). They abuse the hell out of their contracts (some public, some not public) to make money for shareholders. The government can't do anything about Metro exploiting these loop holes until the next contract signing and only then they can only address the issues that they know about.

[#Metro]

And please lay off with the Metro privitisation crap. Its every bloody post you make. We get it. You like Metro. Its your new go to thing. You keep saying how good Metro are.... what a stand up job they do. Its a win win. We should have done it ages ago. It's you just falling for their excellent PR spin. People down there still really hate metro

Diversity of Opinion HTG.

If METRO did a bad job, they would be fired. And I would absolutely support that. Bad operators should be fired. Connex was fired.

It is very clear that there is no limit to what QR can do and still keep the support of those who are opposed to contracting etc. Perhaps QR could close the railway for three months straight with no services and still keep their support. What is the limit for you? Is there a limit?

It is convenient to blame politicians meddling, evil Newman etc - but that is exactly my point. Political control of the internal workings of QR and the lack of genuine independence from government. What is the solution there - vote ALP forever to keep LNP out?

A private QR does not automatically mean METRO. Far from it. It could mean QR being built into a competitor to METRO, just as French Government has built Keolis which runs Melbourne's Trams.

I already said that a separate budget dedicated for maintenance would solve that IMHO.

I have also pointed out that Auckland is also run privately and I haven't heard that the Auckland railway is falling apart.

So it is not a certainty by any means.

But that suggestion seems to have fallen on deaf ears, which leads me to believe that perhaps mtce isn't the true reason for opposing competitive contracting at all. Maybe it is ideological.

Transforming QR into a commission would not protect QR from being ministerially directed in the future - which allows the possibility of a repeat of the current situation. It would also do nothing with regards to enforcing service standards through fines or contract rejection etc.

The TransPerth model has been held up as a model - but that too isn't immune from a LNP gov't coming in and issuing ministerial direction to replace the CEO with who they like. Or enforcing whole-of-gov't staffing caps and cuts. They just haven't had a Campbell Newman yet.

We need something that is going to work regardless of who is in office, and under all political conditions.

It is time to get the politicians out of the internal workings of QR, and off the board - permanently!

At this point in time, this is what I think: Queensland Rail should be privatised.

Edit: Further expanded text. Note: Assets, such as railway track, stations, etc should always be retained by gov't.

[HappyTrainGuy]

I already said that a separate budget dedicated for maintenance would solve that IMHO.

If you say so. 

[#Metro]

I reorganised everything into something more easily readable, enjoy, even if you don't agree.

====

Fictional account.

Transport Minister reflects on Christmas Day 'rail fail'

The Courier Mail
Sat 7 January 2016

James Journo, court reporter

EMBATTLED transport minister Stirling Hinchliffe today appeared in the Brisbane Supreme Court as he launched legal action against Queensland Rail for the Christmas Day 'Rail Fail'.

But in unprecedented scenes, court staff had to hold up a 5 x 5 m mirror during cross examination as the minister appeared in both his capacity for Translink, who is seeking damages, and as the defendant, minister overseeing the operation of Queensland Rail.

Justice John Farsica, overseeing the case, asked why the minister had bothered to come.

"We have a contract and service standards, and I'm just enforcing it" he said.

The Courier-Mail revealed that overtime costs at state rail operator had been escalating for years.

Justice Farsica asked why that had not been noticed earlier. Speaking into the mirror, the minister (in his QR capacity) said that although the overtime was expensive and escalating, QR didn't have a real 'bottom line' and the Queensland Government was more than happy to give it whatever cash it wanted.

"There's no real investors, so nobody's personal finances were on the line if costs went up and profits went down. In fact there isn't any profit metric to monitor the overall health or performance of the organisation."

Queensland Rail was criticised heavily for paying large cash bonuses as hundreds of services were cancelled.

Former Queensland Premier Campbell Newman also made an appearance amid audible boos from the court audience.

Justice Farsica asked why Newman had appointed Mr Glen Dawe to CEO, overriding a $209 000 global talent search for the plum $500 000+ role.

"Er, I was Premier at the time. I could, so I did" raising an eyebrow. "Queensland Rail is a public body, and as a democratically elected politician who won a historical landslide, it was my right to do whatever I wanted with it."

Justice Farsica, asking if Mr Newman would do it again, got a curt reply. "Yeah, of course."

Mr Newman said that Mr Dawe was a "railway man" and that it made perfect sense for a rail man to run a rail organisation, such as QR.

The Courier Mail revealed last week that the appointment of Mr Dawe had set off a chain reaction of executive management promotions inside QR that was widely seen as favoring "the old boys club".

Even though Queensland Rail was now a commission, Mr Newman said there was nothing stopping him from doing it again.

"Yeah, I just write ministerial directive, and override it [the commission]. And if they don't do what I say, I just dissolve it [the commission] with my majority in Parliament."

Former LNP treasurer Tim Nicholls took the stand in the afternoon.

The Minister Stirling Hinchliffe accused Mr Nicholls of prepping QR for privatisation. Mr Nicholls denied this.

" Nah, we were just cutting everything across the board as part of the Strong Choices program."

"I mean there was some interest from this Hong Kong company, but we couldn't have just handed it to them straight."

Queensland Rail cancelled 235 services on Christmas Day.

The trial for damages continues...

[Otto]

I read that and thought WTF.. Then I read it again and saw "Fictional account"

Crikey, you got me on that.. 

[HappyTrainGuy]

Its obviously fake so why post it in this thread? Go post it in that joke thread.

[#Metro]

It could almost be real Otto, it could almost be real.

Sorry, HTG. 


Queensland Rail insiders not surprised Minister was kept in the dark about driver shortage
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/queensland-rail-insiders-not-surprised-minister-was-kept-in-the-dark-about-driver-shortage/news-story/c99c8a9ec4be8c4b9443fbe98fface05

A GROUP of old-school "railway men" recycled from more than a decade ago turned Queensland Rail into a virtual "chamber of secrets" ahead of the collapse of its Citytrain timetable.

In August that year, the LNP overruled the QR board on its appointment of a new chief executive, issuing a ministerial direction to give the $500,000-a-year job to career railway worker Glen Dawe.

Wright joined the railways in 1964 at the age of 15 as a porter. He worked at QR with Dawe in the 1990s before also suddenly departing in 2001.

He was rehired in 2008 and became chief operations officer in 2010.

We actually have the benefit now of identifying the exact moment the entire chain reaction was set off inside of QR, the root cause.

This is all very fascinating.

NEWMAN GOVERNMENT MUST EXPLAIN CHAOS AT QR

Post on 10 January 2014 by Jackie Trad
https://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=10456.msg137280#msg137280

Shadow Transport Minister, Jackie Trad, says the Newman Government needs to fully explain today's exit and re-entry to government service of two hand-picked senior bureaucrats.

"The Newman Government has announced the need to find the fourth Queensland Rail CEO in less than two years," Ms Trad said.

"This senior and pivotal position in government should not be the subject of a game of musical chairs but that's what it has become under the LNP.

"Queenslanders deserve to know why the LNP's hand-picked CEO Glen Dawe has vacated the CEO's job just five months after being appointed and after serving as QR board chair.

"Mr Dawe was parachuted into the CEO's job and paid more than $600,000 a year despite being ranked at least third on the preferred list of four candidates by an independent selection panel.

"The Newman Government threw proper process out the window and made a blatant political appointment in choosing Mr Dawe when the panel wanted an experienced overseas applicant.

"That's why we deserve to be told why he has now gone and what is the size of any severance package he will receive."

Ms Trad said there were also questions hanging over Mr Dawe's replacement as Acting CEO of QR, former Queensland Under-Treasurer Helen Gluer.

"Ms Gluer left the Under-Treasurer's job in November 2013 citing personal reasons for leaving government service," she said.

"Now by again accepting a senior government role Ms Gluer has re-focussed attention on why she left Queensland Treasury. Did she depart willingly or was she pushed and if so why, and could the government have accommodated her circumstances late last year through leave arrangements?

"As it stands Ms Gluer has returned to government within eight weeks of leaving which naturally raises questions.

"Far from being open and accountable the Newman Government is arrogant, secretive and deceptive.

"It is time taxpayers were given answers, after all they are the ones footing the bill for the appointment of LNP mates like Glen Dawe and others.

"They deserve to know why the Newman Government decisions in the Transport portfolio, including the original appointment of Michael Caltabiano as Director-General, always seem to end in disaster," Ms Trad said.

There you go. Wasn't a corporation that made these decisions, it was a democratically elected MP who possessed one of the largest voter landslides in QLD history who did. Also tried to install Mr Caltabiano!

[James]

*snip*

Technically there were no government direct cuts to any frontline staff as all the frontline staff retirements were voluntary. Things that were swept under the rug were the LNP government being okay with privitising PT (to the extent they had engaged with some law firm on agreements) despite saying publicly at the same time they weren't. Cuts to contracts/projects such as the NGR/MBRL. All of which made it look really lean.

This being my point exactly - if the LNP just relied on attrition and not renewing staff contracts, there's no additional cost to the taxpayer. VRs are a little costlier, but it depends how they were taken. IVR (InVoluntary Redundancies) are very pricey - at least double the payout compared to a VR. By 'sacking' I meant IVRs. Nasty, expensive things which lose you votes. There are cost-effective ways to do VRs which in the long run, would have made the government money (as the organisation is made leaner).

[mufreight]

A more logical response to the administration mess would start from the top, Railways would be removed from the transport and main roads portfolio and a Minister for Railways would be appointed.  The Minister would then appoint a Commissioner for railways and would remove the Railways Board.  The Commissioner would then directly control the operation of the railways reporting directly back to the Minister, in his/her role as Commissioner the Commissioner would have replaced the 7/8 person board and the CEO which would remove the road block to operational decisions.  The Railways operated for many years under a Commissioner with slower lines of communication and operated well without the many created jobs filled by seat warmers whose main pre-occupation has little if anything to do with the operation of the railways but is solely directed to justifying there continued employment.
The existing rostering system for train crew needs to be replaced, the present system has become so convoluted and top heavy that actually having crews for trains is more chance than good programming.  With less than 300 crews to roster operating on a fixed roster Monday's to Friday's and a fixed roster for both the Saturday and the Sunday the existing overly complicated computerised system is not justified and is obviously not fit for purpose.

[#Metro]

General comment.

The root cause is that politicians have been able to choose the board members (Mr Dawe was on the QR board before moving into CEO

position) and the CEO. (The current lot have used the same direct appointment mechanism in appointing Mr Scales, even if temporarily).

It was the intercession of Newman & LNP (documented by Jackie Trad) that got Mr Dawe the position over the other candidates, according to The Courier-Mail.

That's how the chain reaction got set off inside QR. The staff cuts were then overlaid on top of that.

Politicians don't always act in the public interest, believe it or not.

A "solution" that doesn't address that isn't a genuine solution in my view, as I illustrated in my fictional article. https://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=12524.msg186294#msg186294

Very easy to hit the OVERRIDE button on commissions etc. In fact, QR was an "independent" GOC and that was dissolved by Newman/LNP

which changed the status of QR and converted its employees back into public servants so that the cuts programme could be extended into it.

So it was never really "independent" in the first place.

The rostering sounds like a complete nightmare - actually it sounds a lot like QLD Health Payroll. Very complex rules, patches on patches.

From that perspective, I can see why relying on "backfill" was seen as the method of choice - it was simple, convenient, and had worked

every other time without fail for years. It was precisely because backfill did not require detailed planning - it was easy to administer-

that it was used.

[ozbob]

Qld de-rail: LNP sharpens attack over trains bungle https://t.co/lJkGEXZ2jC #qldpol
Errr @LNPQLD had a lot to do with #railfail actually

— Robert Dow (@Robert_Dow) January 7, 2017

[Stillwater]

The LNP behaviour is audacious!  It goes to show that the politics of transport in Queensland is more important than the actual planning, administration and delivery.  Until we get that right, we are still going to have the childish antics from both sides of politics around QR and public transport more generally.  Add into the mix the division of responsibilities among the various levels of government (BCC/state government) and the situation is dismal.  We also have agencies and governments believing their own rhetoric -- pushing the PR message beyond the capacity of the organisation to deliver with integrity that which is being promised.  Remember when Brisbane had a 'world class transport system' (Bligh days) and, today, QR still aims to be Australia's best railway organisation.  That might be the aim, but it is starting from a low base.

[HappyTrainGuy]

*snip*

Technically there were no government direct cuts to any frontline staff as all the frontline staff retirements were voluntary. Things that were swept under the rug were the LNP government being okay with privitising PT (to the extent they had engaged with some law firm on agreements) despite saying publicly at the same time they weren't. Cuts to contracts/projects such as the NGR/MBRL. All of which made it look really lean.

This being my point exactly - if the LNP just relied on attrition and not renewing staff contracts, there's no additional cost to the taxpayer. VRs are a little costlier, but it depends how they were taken. IVR (InVoluntary Redundancies) are very pricey - at least double the payout compared to a VR. By 'sacking' I meant IVRs. Nasty, expensive things which lose you votes. There are cost-effective ways to do VRs which in the long run, would have made the government money (as the organisation is made leaner).

That's the thing. That wasn't the intention to minimise costs for the tax payer. They couldn't rely on natural attrition and they needed employees gone ASAP at whatever the cost. They gutted the business. They wanted staff numbers reduced. They cut multiple rail projects. They removed funding from other projects. To have taken the VERs at the time you had to have been employed prior to 1995?? Or around that time and it was based on how many years you had been employed so many of the older blokes/those that didn't want to work there if it was privitised (there was also some shady sh%t going on in regards to workers rights as well as a result of some legal wording changes/proposals) that had been there for decades took it with open arms. And staff on contracts were mostly contract workers and apprentices which was a tiny fraction. Many apprentices that came to the end of their training simply had no job prospect of working in the railways due to the employment freeze. All as a means to make it look very lean.

But why was the LNP moving so fast regardless of the cost? They wanted to privitise it. Same with PT hence all the transferring of different divisions into TMR. They engaged with a law firm for contracts. It was quietly but unlikely rumored that Metro had set up a small office here in Brisbane which I had forgotten all about until a few weeks back when Bob mentioned that Metro did indeed once have a small office set up here.

Had to dig up this circular email from the RTBU. Should give you a little more insight into how and why things kicked off so dramatically.

Attached is a document taken from the LNP Government's website indicating their preference to privatise Queensland Rail through a tendering process. (points 15 & 16) Below the references to Rail you will find the same reference to Bus operations.

The second column displays the Newman Cabinet's position on the Costello Report (Independent Queensland Commission of Audit) recommendations (which is "accepted") The Independent Chair of the Audit was Peter Costello.

In respect of the bus operations the RTBU had meetings in the Transport Ministers office on two occasions last year and was advised on both occasions that the timetable to commence the privatisation process for buses is September, 2015.

However, when it comes to the issues of rail privatisation, even though Government has approved the tendering process at Cabinet level, the Union has continually been advised that they have no plans to privatise QR and would prefer to keep it in the public sector. This has included public statements in the media by the Transport Minister to this effect.

The RTBU has been running an anti-privatisation campaign specifically relating to the bus operations given the commitment provided by the Government to commence the privatisation process in September this year. However, it is difficult to run an anti-privatisation campaign in relation to QR when the Government is publically saying that it is not their intention to do so even though the Cabinet decision to accept the recommendation to tender out rail business is still on their official web site as being "accepted".

However, recently the RTBU has been informed that late last year the Newman Government engaged a company, (namely King & Wood Mallesons) to provide advice on franchising the Queensland Rail business in South East Queensland.

This is of significant concern to this Union as it is not impossible for the Newman Government to change their position after the election as they did when it came to the 14,000 public servants jobs last time round. They would also have in their possession evidence that they had publically indicated that this may occur, namely the attachment to this Circular.

The RTBU is approaching the media to try and get this message out, but given the amount of election based news, it is far from easy to penetrate main stream media.

It is therefore important that members get the message to their family and friends that there is a true potential for even more privatisation to occur in the rail industry if the Newman Government is returned. The RTBU is not asking members to vote for any specific party but are strongly encouraging members to fill all the boxes on their ballot papers ensuring they put the LNP last. There is a whole host of reasons why the RTBU would like to see an end to the Newman Government not only relating to the appalling attack on members' conditions, particularly, job security through State-wide legislation as well as the assault on conditions in recent draft Agreements.

However, the big issue for us is yet another privatisation battle in the rail area in conjunction with the almost certain battle that is going to occur in the Brisbane City Council bus area. Therefore, I re-iterate the position of the RTBU is that we seek members to put the LNP last.

[Stillwater]

Who's up for a challenge?

QR seeks new CEO to sort out the mess.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/queensland-rail-launches-global-search-for-new-ceo/news-story/fe083f19f2fb4d825bde92f0fb5a343c

[#Metro]

Nothing on their Careers Page. 

http://careers.pageuppeople.com/544/caw/en/listing/

There is something there about a Commonwealth Games project manager/controller. I wonder what that is about?