Discussion: Options for competitive tendering / privatisation of rail

[#Metro]

This is a privatisation discussion thread.

-----

Second poll. 5 day poll. More specific this time.

Vote can be changed until poll expiry. Results available after poll expiry.

[verbatim9]

Why not Veolia/Transdev Transport to manage trains in Queensland? Do you think the timetable would be up to scratch? I remember first service on Sundays were around 8am in Melbourne with Metro. Guess it's changed a bit know with government subsidising 24 hour trains Fri and Sat nights

[#Metro]

Why not Veolia/Transdev Transport to manage trains in Queensland? Do you think the timetable would be up to scratch? I remember first service on Sundays were around 8am in Melbourne with Metro. Guess it's changed a bit know with government subsidising 24 hour trains Fri and Sat nights

You could, but do they run any trains in Australia? Where was the photo taken, it looks like Europe.

METRO has been extremely aggressive with implementing changes in Melbourne and pushing for more services at every opportunity.

When something new is tried, mistakes are made and lessons are learned. This allows future refinement. I wouldn't make a franchise of it - needs to be contract-for-service performed.

They would also bring a different corporate culture I think - something desperately needed!

Let's bring this to Queensland! Fire the board, replace with MTR executives!!



Done by the ALP in Victoria! Don't have to be LNP to make contracts!

Uploaded on Aug 31, 2009
More train services, greater reliability and punctuality, more staff and cleaner and safer trains and stations are key wins for Melbourne train passengers locked into the new operating contract between the Brumby Labor Government and Metro Trains Melbourne

[verbatim9]

Yeah Europe think they still run transport there in some regions. Forgot they did a huge divestment a few years back so may not enter new tender agreements!?

[verbatim9]

QR sounds it needs a shake up give them until 2020 then put SEQ Network out to tender to run the trains?

[#Metro]

QR sounds it needs a shake up give them until 2020 then put SEQ Network out to tender to run the trains?

The Queensland Government is essentially contracting with itself. State agencies cannot sue other state agencies, as the government would essentially be suing itself in its own court. That's how ridiculous this whole thing is.

As you can see, there is no credible way to penalise QR for malperformance.
Fines are just the state fining itself. Sue? Can't do it.

It is the same with Brisbane City Council to a degree also. Didn't meet their obligations for on time buses for years.
Didn't bother turning up to meetings with TransLink on six occasions. Waste and inefficiency galore. They get away with it.

The Queensland Government thus could break its contract with itself. (Perhaps the Queensland Government would then launch legal action against itself to recover its own losses to itself then? Would be interesting to see who the legal team would be as there is only one Attorney General).

[#Metro]

About Metro Trains Melbourne

Customer Service Charter
http://www.metrotrains.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/J000714-CSC-Brochure.pdf

Our Shareholders
Metro, or Metro Trains Melbourne, is a consortium of rail and construction businesses, all of which have unrivalled credentials. The Metro team draws on the strengths and experience of three leading rail industry organisations: Hong Kong's MTR Corporation, Australia's John Holland Group and UGL Rail, a division of United Group Limited.

These shareholders have a long and successful history of working together, bringing their expertise to both local and international rail industry projects. These include the operation of entire rail systems; the successful delivery of long term service supply agreements covering rolling stock supply, maintenance and refurbishment; rail infrastructure maintenance and renewals and the delivery of major capital works programs.

Metro is strongly committed to providing the Melbourne community, and its visitors, with a comfortable, safe and reliable train network as part of an interconnected public transport service, striving to rival the world's best.

MTR Corporation

MTR Corporation aspires to be a leading multinational company with a vision to connect and grow communities with caring service.

The Corporation was established in 1975 with a mission to construct and operate an urban metro system for Hong Kong.  In June 2000 it was re-established as the MTR Corporation Limited and in October 2000 was listed on the Stock Exchange of Hong Kong.  On 2 December 2007 the operations of the Government-owned rail operator, the Kowloon-Canton Railway Corporation, were merged into the MTR, heralding a new era in Hong Kong railway development.

The merged rail network comprises nine commuter railway lines, a Light Rail network and a high-speed Airport Express link. With an average weekday patronage of nearly 5.4 million passengers in Hong Kong, MTR is regarded as one of the world's leading railway operators for safety, reliability, customer service and cost efficiency.

The Corporation is involved in a wide range of business activities in Hong Kong in addition to its railway operations. These include the development of residential and commercial property projects, property management, shopping malls leasing and management, advertising media and telecommunication services in trains and stations.

Today, from its starting base in Hong Kong, the Corporation has expanded into the Mainland of China and taken on a range of railway-related projects and operations internationally. In the Mainland of China, the Corporation has been involved in the construction of and now operates Beijing Metro Line 4 and Line 14, Shenzhen Metro Line 4 (Longhua Line) and Hangzhou Metro Line 1. The Corporation also operates and manages London Overground in the United Kingdom, Melbourne Metro in Australia, Stockholm Metro and intercity service between Stockholm and Gothenburg in Sweden. The Corporation was awarded the Crossrail Train Operating Concession in the United Kingdom in July 2014, and in September 2014 the Northwest Rapid Transit Consortium, of which the Corporation is a shareholder, was awarded the Operations, Trains and Systems public-private partnership contract for the North West Rail Link project in Sydney.

The Corporation also offers worldwide railway consultancy and contracting services. Clients served include metro companies, government authorities and rail system suppliers in the Mainland of China, India, Australia, the Middle East and Southeast Asia.

MTR is a 60% shareholder of Metro. For more information about MTR Corporation, please click here.

[HappyTrainGuy]

Flawed question. Very flawed question.

Metro are just going to perform exactly to what Translink asks to provide and exploit any loopholes in any fixed term contract. That's the reality quite simply.

Also can I ask. Why do you keep bringing/pushing this??? Is there some sort of agenda that you want to push?? It seems like you are just deadset on pushing this like you were with the whole underground CRR/busway metro plans.

And please do not base all your information off what you read in the newspapers. They are just there to report on nonsense, get you angry, sell more whatever and then move onto the next story. And as far as I know MTR are no longer going to be operating loral in a 50/50 joint venture. A few months ago it was confirmed that the company Arriva they had a joint merger with previously had now been awarded a 10 year contract or something to operate it. MTR teamed up another partnership but didn't win the contract. I think it either starts this month or in December.

Time to get down to business and start addressing the real issues with SEQ's public transport. And getting Metro/MTR/Whoever isn't the issue.

[#Metro]

Flawed question. Very flawed question.

Question is perfectly valid and properly put.

Metro are just going to perform exactly to what Translink asks to provide and exploit any loopholes in any fixed term contract. That's the reality quite simply.

The current QR customer charter is a joke, and any contracting and penalties against QR are toothless as the government would have to fine or sue itself in its own court for its own losses to itself, which is never going to happen.

There were some comments to the effect that some would be open to it but didn't want Connex.

So just wanted to see if being specific made a difference, that is all.

And as far as I know MTR are no longer going to be operating loral in a 50/50 joint venture.

What is loral? Never heard of the place.

Also can I ask. Why do you keep bringing/pushing this??? Is there some sort of agenda that you want to push??

I am actually open to the idea of removing Queensland Rail's board, and instead of having it filled with Annastacia Palaszczuk's (politcal?) appointees, to actually have it staffed with MTR executives who have operated a railway before, including in Australia.

MTR has a track record, both in Australia and overseas. I would welcome them.

[HappyTrainGuy]

No, its a flawed question. There are too many variables. MTR might see reason in running the citytrain network but not in maintaining the rest of the QR network and TravelTrain fleet or running the other businesses that it undertakes. Especially when it finds out about the aging rollingstock issues whose shareholders might want to have a word about. So suddenly you now have multiple ventures all in the means of keeping costs down? increasing performance? Look how well that worked out in other places.

LORAL is/was the MTR/Arriva joint group. The Government put out a new tender early last year and Arriva now has exclusive rights. MTR teamed up with another group but they were unsuccessful at winning the bid.

And in regards to the charter as I explained elsewhere. They do not provide you a service. They are providing Translink a service. You are a 3rd party member who happens to use the requested service on Translinks behalf. The same applies to all operators. Do you remember the Caboolture/Nambour service alteration delay?? (the one where it took nearly a month for Translink to sign off on the timetable change). All feedback gets forwarded to Translink straight away. QR only compensates you, offers other mode of transport and handles your feedback if it relates to the Airport line or TravelTrain network. The only time it handles feedback on Translink services is once Translink has assigned it a number and forwarded it back to QR. Remember that. Its teh same for all operators.

As I said before. Address the real issues.

[#Metro]

No, its a flawed question. There are too many variables. MTR might see reason in running the citytrain network but not in maintaining the rest of the QR network and TravelTrain fleet or running the other businesses that it undertakes. Especially when it finds out about the aging rollingstock issues whose shareholders might want to have a word about. So suddenly you now have multiple ventures all in the means of keeping costs down? increasing performance? Look how well that worked out in other places.

I'm not here to convince you, because obviously that is unlikely to happen.

But what I will say is that METRO had to deal with all sorts of serious problems when it took over from Connex and they did manage to turn it around. Aging rollingstock etc.

I trust METRO will do an excellent job, get trains on time, do up timetables properly, provide clean trains, provide good customer service etc. And I expect them to not pay themselves bonuses while the network falls apart.

You will note that in Melbourne, regional services are operated by V/Line which metro handles when trains come into the suburban network. The same set up could be applied here in Brisbane.

As I said before. Address the real issues.

It is addressing the real issues. If you want change, then you actually need to choose change and commit to it.

If you say that something is unacceptable, then you need to back up those words with action and demonstrate so.

Hinchliffe and Palaszczuk have said they are "angry" and "furious". Yep, so angry and furious that they are going to leave everything as it is. Indeed, they seem to be completely clueless with whatever is going on at Queensland Rail.

I don't want to see Queensland Rail's board dismissed and then replaced with a fresh lot of Annastacia Palaszczuk's appointees. That would essentially change nothing.

What I would welcome is an experienced operator like METRO come in as the board and run train services in Brisbane. They would do a good job.

There is even the possibility of a joint operator where the Queensland Government owns a stake of the operating company, as a shareholder. So it doesn't even need to be 100 % private.

I don't expect Palaszczuk et al to make these changes. But then again I don't expect her to be Premier for much longer either.

[ozbob]

Metro is not the Melbourne saviour that some think.  I have a lot of first hand experience with Melbourne

I would suggest that Melbourne has the poorest quality track infrastructure and signalling systems of any metropolitan railway in Australia.  It is really very bad.

Queensland is miles in front in this regard.  When the services were franchised in Melbourne the track rot set in.

Melbourne is really struggling to sort it.  They are embarking on all sorts of rolled-gold projects but the fundamental issues - poor track and signalling remain.  This is the cost of franchising operations - infrastructure tends to get neglected.

Queensland Rail are very good at track infrastructure.

[#Metro]

I wouldn't support a franchise, but I would support a contract-for-service operation.

As for infrastructure etc, a separate budget that can only be spent on maintenance and infrastructure I think would deal with that concern. Could be designed such that you can't make a profit on it.

The infrastructure (track etc) is publicly owned in Victoria by VicTrack https://www.victrack.com.au/ though METRO

does maintain it. I imagine it would be the same if METRO came to Brisbane.

[#Metro]

The Age has an article on this, I am sure others can add also.

Exclusive: the six problems ruining Melbourne's rail network
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/exclusive-the-six-problems-ruining-melbournes-rail-network-20150722-gii8ps.html

1: LACK OF ELECTRICAL POWER
Melbourne's rail network is seriously short of traction power trains need to accelerate, particularly in the inner city, Metro says.

Queensland has a different, more modern power system. Melbourne is running off something from the 1920s (as is Sydney). I would imagine newer trains need more juice to run, particularly with Aircon etc. Don't think this would apply in QLD.

2: OUTMODED SIGNALLING

"Much of the signalling equipment on the network is antiquated and presents significant impact potential on the network's performance," Metro says. Some signals, called interlockings, are 100 years old but have a design life of 35 years.

I think QR's signalling is more modern, but that too might be reaching the end of its design life as there are quite a lot of track/signal faults in the delays TransLink puts out.

Not sure how Metro can be held responsible or be put as the cause for 100 year old signals. If you look at New York, an entirely public operation, it is like stepping into the 1920s. Assets have a lifespan, irrespective of whether the operator is public or private.

Just look at it:

3: INVISIBLE TRAINS

Metro says. A 30-year-old back-up system is more than 10 years past the end of its design life and is deteriorating due to dust contamination.

Not sure if we have "dark territory on the current suburban network". Again, something inherited and really up to the gov't to invest in modernisation.

4: OUTMODED TECHNOLOGY

Metro notes that other "life-expired operational control systems" include public address and passenger information display systems that are so old Metro says they are "no longer supported by the supplier". The neglected Stony Point line still relies on Telstra copper cables installed long ago.

Again, ancient stuff exists on Melbourne's network. It's going to be ancient whether the operator is public or private.

5: COMPLEX RAIL JUNCTIONS

Metro wants to rip out interconnections between rail lines and convert Melbourne's intricate Victorian-era network into five separate and simpler railways.

Don't think we have this issue in QLD. Many years ago Sydney (public operator) had to go through and institute a disentanglement program called rail clearways to unscramble the network. It is good Metro have sectorised the lines and moving to a more metro service.

6: RUN-DOWN STATIONS

"From the mid-80s to 2000 little to no renewal work was done. It was mainly maintenance, Band-Aid stuff," Mr Glover said.

Again, inherited. Network was publicly operated until 1999 by the PTC with the brand "The Met".

As the article says, while publicly owned, they didn't bother with station renewal.

[ozbob]

The fact is in VR days the track etc. was very well maintained and it operated very well.  When VR broken up and privatised that is when the rot really set in.  I am not blaming Metro, or the other operators as such for the infrastructure deficit but the fact remains that private operators are there to make money.  They tend to run things into the ground and move on.

Handing out operations to someone else in Queensland is no guarantee of success, far from it.  You need to understand that.

Adelaide is better than Melbourne in terms of track infrastructure generally!  That's saying something.

My rank is:

Perth, Brisbane  (best)
Sydney
Adelaide
Melbourne - hopelessly last.

[#Metro]

Adelaide's railway is good, but they only got electrification recently. That has come with a package of station upgrades, new trains, etc.

I can't make a comment on the state of the track or infrastructure pre-upgrades, as I didn't live there. But I think it is fair to say that it was neglected for a very long time. Only recently has renewal come.

It is a similar story in Perth. After a very long period of neglect, Perth was actually going to shut down the entire rail network and replace it with buses.

You can see a paper showing the evolution of Perth and Adelaide here

Application of a commuter railway to low density settlement
https://bitre.gov.au/events/.../2009_Infrastructure_Colloquium_Peter_Martinovich.pdf

The " comparable urban city " in slide 2 is Adelaide.  The total boardings for both Perth and Adelaide were just 10 million per year in 1990 / 1991.

The attempted shutdown in Perth caused defeat of the government and renewal in the network. You can see the direct effects that had on patronage. Ten years later, Perth had 3x the patronage of Adelaide.

Adelaide's patronage continued to flatline. Perth's patronage is now around 5x that of Adelaide.

My argument is that the observations in Melbourne vs Perth and Adelaide aren't about government/private but are due to renewal occurring in Perth and Adelaide, and Melbourne having a legacy network.

When you have lots of old ancient stuff lying around, it requires costly maintenance. Some of the stuff might not even be available/made anymore.

Indeed, as the infrastructure is much newer in QLD and in better shape, it should be easier for a private operator to run it, than for example, in Melbourne.

[SurfRail]

The question is basically irrelevant because the government can't just single out one operator to sign a contract with - probity rules would require it to be put to tender.  As such, this question is really just a restatement of the previous poll which was lost.

[#Metro]

Call for expressions of interest.

MTR would be very competitive. Connex would not because of their track record.

I am not blaming Metro, or the other operators as such for the infrastructure deficit but the fact remains that private operators are there to make money.  They tend to run things into the ground and move on.

I'm not opposed to a business making money for providing a service, provided they provide a decent service. It is good enough for the CityCat, Gold Coast Light Rail and all the private bus operators in SEQ.

I have no reason to believe that Gold Coast Light Rail, for example, is running their infrastructure into the ground. They seem to be doing rather well. The same could be said for MTR in Hong Kong - that is a profitable company that is listed on the Stock Exchange there.

Is the Hong Kong network falling apart for want of maintenance? I doubt it.

It is important to figure out not just what happened but also why.

There were two privatisations in Melbourne. The first privatisation, and then the re-privatisation of the services under a new model.

THE FIRST TRAIN-TRAM PRIVATISATION: 1999
http://www.ptua.org.au/campaigns/govern/priv-1999/

The contracts provided for declining subsidies because they assumed patronage on the new privatised services would dramatically increase over the franchise period: by 84% for Bayside Trains, 67% for Hillside Trains, 40% for Swanston Trams and an intermediate figure for Yarra Trams (Mees 2005, Allsop 2007). Much of this increase was forecast to occur in just the first year or two of operation (and before the arrival of new rolling stock), as a result of 'innovations' by the private operators.

It is very easy to see why Hillside Trains left. The Government was turning off their funding supply, and without control over fare levels, the operator was caught between a rock and a hard place. I make the argument that if you said to Queensland Rail, "alright QR, we are going to cut your funding each year until you are self supporting on passenger fare revenue alone", it would eventually cease operation also.

This is why I am so absolutely opposed to a franchise model. A franchise is where you give the rights to collect revenue (or a portion of it) to whoever wins the contract. Is is a very uncertain thing.

Contract-for-service, where operators are paid on a route-km basis is tried in SEQ and works. That I could accept.

[ozbob]

But you have just posted why they failed.  They could not make profits they expected and nothing was really done for maintenance.

Victoria Government had to re-establish V/Line as well - the private experiment ended in failure too!

Flogging a dead horse with this poll I am afraid.

[#Metro]

But you have just posted why they failed.  They could not make profits they expected and nothing was really done for maintenance.

Victoria Government had to re-establish V/Line as well - the private experiment ended in failure too!

But my point was that there is a difference between contract-for-service, which is what we have here in SEQ and franchising where the revenue is dependent on patronage.

If you had reduced funding to a public operator in the same way (cut the subsidies), you would have had the same result.

We have contract-for-service running already in SEQ with Gold Coast Light rail and other operators, and it seems to work well.

An interesting quirk is the CEO of V/Line was Ex-Queensland Rail.

Ms Allan said she was furious about the wheel wear problems, having been given false advice by V/Line last week that a solution to the problem was imminent and that services would begin to return to normal by the end of this week.

Ms Allan said she did not have confidence the change would have gone smoothly given V/Line's current deep problems. She apologised to regional travellers.

"V/Line passengers are furious and so is the government. What has happened is not good enough," she said.

He resigned from V/Line due to wheel wear problems. http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/vline-chief-theo-taifalos-resigns-as-rail-chaos-drags-on-for-regional-travellers-20160128-gmfu08.html

[ozbob]

Dragging up incidents ad infinitum in an attempt to justify a position is not helpful in the end really.

The V/Line wheel wear issue has nothing to do with this poll.  It relates to cost cutting on the Regional Rail Link project and a some shonky wheel sets.  Theo was just a fall guy.

[Gazza]

I don't really see how Metro is much of an improvement on QR.
The network is in noticeably poorer repair, they have their own cancellations and reliability problems.

If it were night and day maybe Id support it...
But id rather just have a strong public operator like Transperth.

Finally, while QR are doing poorly atm, id want to wait till next year to see how things improve with new drivers.

[SurfRail]

The Gold Coast light rail is a turn-key system under the control of one operator in all respects from operation to perway maintenance.  Not in anyway comparable to a legacy heavy rail network with multiple users.

Transperth is better than Metro on a number of metrics as Canstar keeps on confirming.

[Gazza]

This.

For rail, operations and the perway are intrinsically linked.
It's not like buses on a road for example.

So if the operator owns the track that's fine and privatisation works that wat, but I think networks with split ownership do poorly in the long term.

[#Metro]

One of the things I don't understand about Queensland Rail is why, when they had a problem with the signalling, they were more than happy to tell the minister about it. They got a delay and an extension for that. A bit of a downer, but not a biggie.

BUT when they found a problem with the staffing (and GIRO was going on about it) they apparently DIDN'T tell the minister and let it fail.

The fact that the LNP made cuts led to the creation of two problems - signalling and staff. The signalling was caught and a patch worked out. But the staff problem was not.

I just don't understand why two similar situations led to two completely different behaviours by Queensland Rail.

Why not just tell the minister and get the delay extended a bit longer? Just like they did with the signalling.

Advice from public transport software and optimisation company GIRO provided to Queensland Rail in March 2016 warns: "QR's current driver and guard resource levels are not sufficient".

Another report from GIRO dated October 21, 2016 reaffirms the driver shortage.

The letter from GIRO also says unless Queensland Rail can modify some rules, there is little point in attempting another version of the Moreton Bay Rail Link job cards as the results would remain unchanged.

It comes after a report from Indec, provided to Queensland Rail in January, surfaced on Tuesday, showing it knew about driver shortage issues 10 months ago.

Queensland Rail driver shortages: more reports handed to minister
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/queensland-rail-driver-shortages-more-reports-handed-to-minister-20161101-gsfpcu.html

[HappyTrainGuy]

But what I will say is that METRO had to deal with all sorts of serious problems when it took over from Connex and they did manage to turn it around. Aging rollingstock etc.

Did they really? or is it their PR that makes them look like they have. Pretty sure it was their own spokesperson that mentioned that regenerative braking was still in its infancy as an excuse to not rollout refitting the older rollingstock and upgrading substations to reduce power costs. I suggest you look into their mtce and see what has been fixed. And air con isn't the issue. Its acceleration. That draws massive... massive amounts of power - power that is also lost under braking. Some of the trains already have it but infrastructure upgrades to the sub stations and refitting older trains are still needed. Some of the issues Metro had were on one line that had a couple new stations added was that the draw required for trains to use the station was tripping circuits and activating fail safes. So the stations sat dormant and trains ran express past for about 9 months while a couple substations were upgraded and that was only about 4-5 years ago.

The fact that the LNP made cuts led to the creation of two problems - signalling and staff. The signalling was caught and a patch worked out. But the staff problem was not.

Yep. A very leaky applied patch. The signalling problem still remains and a proper fix is still being addressed.

[James]

The current QR customer charter is a joke, and any contracting and penalties against QR are toothless as the government would have to fine or sue itself in its own court for its own losses to itself, which is never going to happen.

There were some comments to the effect that some would be open to it but didn't want Connex.

So just wanted to see if being specific made a difference, that is all.

It is more than that - once it goes out to CT, the operation goes to the most competitive contract. We don't get to "choose" MTR, and even if we "choose" MTR, there is absolutely no guarantee that there will not be other issues.

Hinchliffe and Palaszczuk have said they are "angry" and "furious". Yep, so angry and furious that they are going to leave everything as it is. Indeed, they seem to be completely clueless with whatever is going on at Queensland Rail.

It's because Palaszczuk wouldn't know a decent rail operator even if it put a railway line right beside her house and ran 30tph on it.

Most of the other arguments against CT have already been covered. Taking our focus away from QR and faffing around with 'what ifs' under competitive tender is just useless. The fundamental issue is the incompetents in government and the lack of spending money from successive governments. As a final side note, competitive tender would be considered "privatisation" under Jackie Trad's mantra. Neither the ALP nor LNP will touch this issue with a six foot pole. There's no point putting out hundreds of MRs on it when it won't happen.

We have the plans. We have the ideas. Just build/order/recruit already!

[BrizCommuter]

Why is the poll looking at one company? Privatisation would have to be tendered to suitable consortiums, not just MTR.
Pointless thread.

PS: Having a company logo as an avatar may be in breach of copyright/trademarks.

[#Metro]

It is more than that - once it goes out to CT, the operation goes to the most competitive contract. We don't get to "choose" MTR, and even if we "choose" MTR, there is absolutely no guarantee that there will not be other issues.

Is keeping QR a guarantee that there won't be "other issues"?

If QR were to go to CT, provided that it was contract-for-service and not a franchise, I would not oppose it.

I am also not opposed to a rail operator making a profit. That's just business.

It's not unlawful, it's not unethical, and it happens in other places. I think the new Sydney Metro won't be run by Sydney Trains either and MTR is involved in that.

I would be more concerned about a business that didn't make a profit.

At the end of the day, Annastacia is just going to change a few faces on the board and move on. I think the changes should go further than that.

I would love TransPerth to come and run Queensland Rail. But what changes would you do to arrive at TransPerth's model? (Assuming that they didn't apply in a CT).

I think the situation in Perth (correct me if I am wrong) is equivalent to having TransLink run the trains. Is that how we should do it - merge TransLink and QR together?

Why is the poll looking at one company? Privatisation would have to be tendered to suitable consortiums, not just MTR.

I guess QR would also have to apply to be an operator as well. Then we might be in a position to compare them against the competition. We would finally have a genuine contracting process with teeth.

Like I said earlier, I don't expect the Premier to make these changes. But then again, I don't expect her to be in office for very much longer!

[Gazza]

Even if we did have a private operator, it still relies on a competent government department administering the contract well.
Not a silver bullet by any means.

[bretto82]

There is a hell of a lot more going on the the general public know about what's going on with qr and the hole metro would create a better timetable is crap as well due to the fact TransLink have there hand in the pie as well they have more pull over qr then bcc they create there wish list and qr just work around that to make it happen track work is almost nonexistent daytimes now due to the timetable and getting anything done is a rare sight Monday to Friday daylight hours

[HappyTrainGuy]

I think the situation in Perth (correct me if I am wrong) is equivalent to having TransLink run the trains. Is that how we should do it - merge TransLink and QR together?

Translink??? Faaaarkkkrk no! Translink is hopeless. You thought QR was bad.... woah. I mean there are some good people there but the way Translink is formed and run. Horrible idea that no one would support.

And QR to apply as an operator?? To run its own trains and infrastructure?? What?? Man you are really pushing this agenda.

[#Metro]

And QR to apply as an operator?? To run its own trains and infrastructure?? What?? Man you are really pushing this agenda.

Absolutely. They can make all the arguments you are making in their bid. If they are that good, let them compete against the competition.

Trains and infrastructure are Queensland Government's.

[verbatim9]

Any tender to run trains should be held off until 2020 I reckon. QR restructure definitely before then. As I am aware QR structure review is to be reported back to the government mid 2017. I think  let the recommendations be implemented and tested prior to any tender. Hence 2020?

[Stillwater]

Amid the hubbub, this emerges ....

Stirling Hinchliffe has only just called for all the documentation that flagged the driver/guard shortage that caused the QR rail fail -- amid backslapping by senior executives at getting their big fat bonuses.  Hinchliffe only acting now?!!!  He's proven that he is way behind the game - and he is the Minister.  He is still in catch-up mode.

This need to go to an independent inquiry, even a judicial one.  The witch hunt that state Labor has put in place is out to shaft blame back to the LNP.  In other words, this is still being seen as a political blame game.

This is aweful.  QR, Translink, TMR need to be pulled apart and rebuilt.

[#Metro]

As I am aware QR structure review is to be reported back to the government mid 2017.

Wow, that's the first time I heard of a "structure" review. Wonder what that's all about??

I also noticed that John Mickel is on the board - wasn't he Labor's ex Transport minister at one point?

The board resignations led to former Labor transport minister John Mickel – who himself oversaw several QR bungles when in government – being installed by the departing Mr Klug as the board's acting chair.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/qr-heads-roll-but-commuter-chaos-worsens/news-story/4872097bb512c49d8144dc76d9ffdca8

Interesting history. 2007, 2008:

https://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=273.msg931#msg931

Media Release 23 October 2007

Brisbane:  Minister invited to come for ride on our Citytrain! Commuter compensation scheme needed.

RAIL Back On Track (http://backontrack.org) a web based community support group for rail has said that there is a public transport crisis in Brisbane. Service shortfalls, cancellations and chronic congestion at peak are being endured daily by the long suffering public, and it is time commuters were compensated for the failure to provide timetabled services be they bus, train or river transport services.

We extend an invitation to the Hon. John Mickel MP, Minister for Transport, Trade, Employment and Industrial Relations to come for a ride on the 6.44am Citytrain service from Oxley to the City on any weekday that is convenient. We can discuss with our fellow commuters options for improvement of the Citytrain services as we journey to Central.

Robert Dow said:

"There has been a lot of negative feedback in the press, on talk back radio and to RAIL Back On Track concerning the ongoing and escalating problem of Citytrain service cancellations, particularly in peak times.  A similar situation exists with the buses and to a lesser extent with river transport."

Translink??? Faaaarkkkrk no! Translink is hopeless. You thought QR was bad.... woah. I mean there are some good people there but the way Translink is formed and run. Horrible idea that no one would support.

I know. But if you want to run trains in QLD " like Perth " then that is how they run it. It is a division.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transperth_Trains

Transperth Trains is a division of Public Transport Authority of Western Australia. It is responsible for operating Perth's urban passenger rail system, as part of the Transperth network.

You say it is a horrible idea that no-one would support. Well, you do not have a choice really. Who is the Acting CEO of Queensland Rail right now? Well, it is none other than the DG of Transport and Main Roads Neil Scales. http://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/About-us/Our-organisation/Director-General.aspx

It has already happened! 

[HappyTrainGuy]

I'm not going to bother anymore when you obviously have no idea at all about the internal play of things despite you keep looking for ways to force your personal agenda out there basing things off what you hear in the tabloid media.

[Stillwater]

Metro, increasingly you would appear to be having a conversation with yourself.

[#Metro]

I'm not going to bother anymore when you obviously have no idea at all about the internal play of things despite you keep looking for ways to force your personal agenda out there basing things off what you hear in the tabloid media.

Thanks for the contribution HTG, but like I said, I didn't think I would convince you.

It is an entirely reasonable belief to say "I no longer believe that Queensland Rail should be guaranteed the privilege of operating the SEQ Rail network and it should now be open to all."

It's not new. It's not illegal. It's not unethical. It has been done before and it already happens in other cities.

I don't think I have ever called for competitive contracting of Queensland Rail before. But you just can't cancel 100s of services for months on end, allegedly withhold info from the minister etc and expect to keep public confidence in your organisation.

There are at least five other people on this forum who chose the contract out option in the last poll. I don't expect them to say much given how politically incorrect it seems to be to call for CT on QR.

Some people would be happy to consider it, but want to make sure the operator isn't Connex (or similar). A valid thing.

Maybe when QR is battling its competitor in a CT it will reflect on how it provides services to the people of SEQ.

[Gazza]

Isn't this whole situation playing into the LNPs hand.
Rip the guts out of QR, underfund it, and hamstring its ability to train staff.

Then when it all goes to sh%t, out come the cries to privatize.

Hook, line, sinker.