Discussion: Options for competitive tendering / privatisation of rail

[#Metro]

Aurizon is doing well if you:

*Are not a staff member of theirs.
*Ignore their reliance on coal
*Ignore the contracts they are loosing.

Might need to choose a different example.

Management and investors have to be responsible and accountable for their decisions.
Running a company does not guarantee success - quite the opposite. The field is littered with failures and bankruptcies etc.
What is left behind are the better ones. It is a process of selection and evolution.

Business is a profit and loss system - and it is the loss part that is the most important because that is what removes bad managers and companies from their job.

Unhappy workers also know this - if you have enough unhappy staff they will (a) leave for your competitor increasing turnover costs, taking company knowledge with them and thus impose losses on you or (b) engage in industrial action temporarily shutting down your operations and imposing massive losses to the bottom line.

[HappyTrainGuy]

Aurizon is doing well if you:

*Are not a staff member of theirs.
*Ignore their reliance on coal
*Ignore the contracts they are loosing.

Might need to choose a different example.

Management and investors have to be responsible and accountable for their decisions.
Running a company does not guarantee success - quite the opposite. The field is littered with failures and bankruptcies etc.
What is left behind are the better ones. It is a process of selection and evolution.

Business is a profit and loss system - and it is the loss part that is the most important because that is what removes bad managers and companies from their job.

Unhappy workers also know this - if you have enough unhappy staff they will (a) leave for your competitor increasing turnover costs, taking company knowledge with them and thus impose losses on you or (b) engage in industrial action temporarily shutting down your operations and imposing massive losses to the bottom line.

Spoken like someone with no idea. Just like Metro in Melbourne. You see what the company wants you to see regardless of what the truth actually is.

[BrizCommuter]

I will spell it out.  Unless Queensland Rail gets its collective act together, they are are finished.

The longer this mediocre service delivery continues, the greater the likelihood that come the next election there will be a new Government.  Layer on more service cuts an impossible situation for the present Government.

A reinvigorated LNP Government, whether majority or in a coalition will use the rail fail scenario as justification of privatising the heavy rail operations.  They might even do the same for the bus - they were going to do that as well.

Privatisation is not something to fear. Queensland Rail's freight division was sent off - Aurizon seems do be doing well. Good luck to them.
It is the same with BCC buses - all other bus operators are privately run and were happy to implement the 2013 bus review. Not Brisbane Transport though (due to political ownership).

Private operators are judged on their performance - the moment any private railway operator trips over with cancellation / delay / whatever, there is a very loud crowd who are quick to denounce the operator and paint it as "failure of private operator" and call for contracts to be ripped up and returned to government ownership. Never mind the details or nuances of the situation.

Publicly owned operators are NOT judged on their performance but the fact that they are "government owned". This overrides everything. The moment any public railway operator trips over with cancellation / delay / whatever, TransLink waives the fines, penalties and any prospect of contract discontinuance, and every apologist imaginable comes out of the woodwork about how another operator cannot / should not run things / won't work here / doesn't work anywhere and waving around a menu of privatisation scare stories while in the meantime service quality gets worse and worse and worse.

It's just an anti-business mindset. One wonders if we will reach peak denial where we have a publicly owned railway with no trains running on it and people still saying that absolutely nobody anywhere ever can come in and do the job well.

Plenty of alternatives to choose from:

* Keolis/SNCF (Runs Boston's Railway, Melbourne trams and GC LRT) (French Gov't Railways operating external to FR)
* TransDev (Runs Auckland and Wellington)
* SMRT (Runs Singapore Railways)
* Metro Trains (Runs Melbourne)
* Abellio (Netherlands Gov't Railways operating external to NL)
* RATP (Paris Metro Railways operating external to FR)

It is very scary to be genuinely responsible for the operation of a company's business knowing that if you make poor decisions, bankruptcy or loss could be just around the corner. And it is true that there are well run railways elsewhere in the world that are gov't owned - sadly that is not the case we are dealing with here.

Keolis are doing a great job running Southern in the UK   

[#Metro]

Spoken like someone with no idea. Just like Metro in Melbourne. You see what the company wants you to see regardless of what the truth actually is.

This is from 2012, before this all happened:

So when performance indicators are met (or not), bonuses rain down, and when performance indicators are NOT met guess what happens - no penalty because it is public!

QUEENSLAND Rail and Translink executives are in line for almost $13 million in "performance bonuses" in 2011-12 despite public transport experiencing one of its worst years on record.

Figures published in annual reports show 1490 staff at Queensland Rail stand to get bonuses totalling $12.7 million - up from $9.3 million in 2010-11.

Each of the staff in line for extra payments, earns an average annual salary of $123,000.

Just three Translink executives shared in $147,000 in sweeteners, based on "Translink targets and key performance indicators".

The pay top ups come despite a series of network meltdowns that stranded and delayed thousands of commuters, prompting a "fare free day" that cost around $2 million.

Big bonuses paid to Queensland Rail and Translink execs despite public transport woes

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/big-bonuses-paid-to-queensland-rail-and-translink-execs-despite-public-transport-woes/news-story/bffc2fe5dcbfce9f6d478221814fc8a5

Keolis are doing a great job running Southern in the UK

I don't know specifics of that situation, other than it seems to be about resisting DOO introduction.

Britain's rail safety watchdog today declared that driver-only operated trains are safe, in a dramatic intervention before next week's planned rail strikes. Inspectors rode in the cab alongside drivers on Southern trains to check union claims that using cameras to monitor doors and passengers is potentially dangerous.

The issue is at the heart of the ongoing dispute, which has caused months of misery for commuters.

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/southern-rail-strike-driveronly-trains-declared-safe-as-fresh-walkout-looms-a3433276.html

In any case:

BrizCommuter thinks that it is time for the transport minister Stirling Hinchliffe (pictured) to also be "cancelled", and also time to again question whether a more competent private company could run QR much better. The worsening train woes are likely to cause the Palaszczuk government to be annihilated at the next election - Queensland voters do not taken fools gladly.

http://brizcommuter.blogspot.com.au/2016/11/stop-press-qr-axe-rosewood-line-weekend.html

[HappyTrainGuy]

And it only took Aurizon for over a 500 million write off (mostly made up of the Aquila flop) that they didn't pay out any bonuses. But hey, scrapping rollingstock, selling rollingstock, closing workshops, losing contracts, terminating contracts, cutting over 3500 jobs (and continuing to do that) wasn't enough to stop those other previous bonus payments all those years before.

But hey. Don't let that get in the way of one of your miss informed rants

Here's a photo of a local Queensland scrap yard.

[#Metro]

But hey. Don't let that get in the way of one of your miss informed rants

My understanding is that Campbell Newman, a democratically elected MP,  fired 14000 from the Queensland Public Service which is 4x what you claim Aurizon let go.

Being a public servant might have guaranteed you job security in the 1980s, that's not the case today.
I detailed elsewhere also that a similar mass staff cull  also occurred in NSW Railcorp, twice.

If we go back further, Brisbanes tram network was ripped up and rolling stock burned and scrapped by democratically elected politicians. Perth's train network was being closed to be replaced by buses.

Job security is guaranteed by steady or growing custom. The way Queensland Rail is being run, patronage will fall. If that continues then a case for train service cuts in evenings etc will occur, and if not resolved, will eventually lead to not needing as many staff.

There is a difference between protecting passenger interests, and protecting a monopolist from competition. They are not the same thing.

Something to reconsider HTG.

[HappyTrainGuy]

You are clutching at straws mate.

And a state government report in the 50's said Queensland Rail should cut all suburban rail services outside of Zillmere to Darra and a second river crossing for freight trains only.

Something for you to consider.

[#Metro]

I don't agree with you and it seems safe to say that my attempts to convince you otherwise have failed. As someone who believes in diversity of opinion, you do not have to agree, and we will just have to disagree on these points.

Queensland Rail has major issues, and Brisbane City Council buses have stood in the way of bus reforms. I think the common root cause in both of them comes from their pubic ownership and the political interference and meddling that comes with that.

I have no doubt that the staff are dedicated, but the politicised management has failed them. It was at political direction that staff were removed from QR as part of a general public servant cull, and it was at political direction that BCC bus staff were instructed not to attend bus reform meetings. All other operators complied.

There is a difference between protecting passenger interests, and protecting a monopolist from competition. They are not the same thing.

[HappyTrainGuy]

Then use the right points to convey your message. You can have your opinions but what annoys me is when you try to use examples that you think are correct because you read a glassy pamphlet created by a marketing department without knowing the actual background. Like this thread. You started it when you got such a hard on for privatising Queensland Rail and when people voiced their opinions and knowledge you went off on massive rants and make another version of a flawed poll. There was also the massive rant you went on about RailCorp the other day because I mentioned how the NSW Government was trying to privatise it and their state run pt using the same methods that it did for QR. I also pointed out that the two operators were different in the way that they managed their rollingstock and you can't split the two. All it takes is someone to disagree with you and you go after them like a dog chasing a car quoting as much information that you can google that most of the time people just get fed up or go tl;dr.

[BrizCommuter]

In any case:

BrizCommuter thinks that it is time for the transport minister Stirling Hinchliffe (pictured) to also be "cancelled", and also time to again question whether a more competent private company could run QR much better. The worsening train woes are likely to cause the Palaszczuk government to be annihilated at the next election - Queensland voters do not taken fools gladly.

http://brizcommuter.blogspot.com.au/2016/11/stop-press-qr-axe-rosewood-line-weekend.html

True, but I don't go on about it continuously, instead of coming across as having a bad case of Aspergers.

[#Metro]

But hey. Don't let that get in the way of one of your miss informed rants

Here's a photo of a local Queensland scrap yard.

I had a look re: scrapped trains. Here is the view of a forum user on another forum (which I will not link to):

I would look at it the other way. I would be congragulating them for getting rid of old dilapidated locos and rollingstock that is not being used and/or is not worth overhauling. and also congragulate them  for the past/current and future investment in new locos and rollingstock. we have to remember that this company is no longer a public service and is there to make money for its shareholders.
regards,
wal.

Further background is given by this article:

Aurizon in $150m asset write-down
http://www.smh.com.au/business/mining-and-resources/aurizon-in-150m-asset-writedown-20131215-2zfx5.html

It seems that they decided to modernise the fleet and get new trains. But really I am not here to defend their business, they can do that for themselves.

''The planned reductions will be achieved through asset disposals and will simplify the fleet, standardise maintenance practices, reduce materials and inventory as well as run a smaller more efficient fleet,'' it said.

Aurizon said its complex and diverse train fleet was a legacy of its long history as a government corporation. The Queensland government floated the business several years ago.

Aurizon chief financial officer Keith Neate said unwanted locomotives would be sold or scrapped depending on their age and type, while wagons would mostly be written down to scrap value.

A look at their website suggests that they are also using optimisation and longer trains rather than many shorter ones:

Record 136 wagon train to new coal port
https://www.aurizon.com.au/news/news/record-136-wagon-train-to-new-coal-port

"We're moving more tonnes, on larger trains, from mine to port as we drive improved efficiency across the coal supply chain," according to Mike Franczak, Executive Vice President of Aurizon Operations.

"This is an excellent outcome for customers, our supply chain partners and the Queensland coal industry generally.

"We have achieved this through innovative operational improvements in Queensland over recent years, including lifting payloads, improving locomotive reliability and better on-time performance. Quite simply, we are getting smarter about the way we use our existing assets.

Anybody who bought a stake in Aurizon would have doubled their money by now as Aurizon's value as a company appears to have doubled (2x) since Labor Premier Anna Bligh offloaded it. Well run companies often do increase in value:

http://www.aurizon.com.au/investors/share-price

[HappyTrainGuy]

wow so you managed to find someone else on another forum to back up your agenda. Good for you. And kudos for buying into another glossy media release. Because glossy media releases never spin the truth.

[#Metro]

Privatisation is not a threat - it is an opportunity to get fresh and experienced management in.

People should be open to better public transport even if it means privately run in some cases (all other SEQ modes have a private operator).

QR SEQ no doubt will go out to competitive tender in 4 years with change of Gov't.



RATP Group run the Paris Metro - they would be very good to have in the running.

As a matter of principle, high-value gov't business contracts should be openly contested anyway.

If Queensland Rail are that good it should be easy to secure the contract. Let them fight off five companies for the job.

RATP - Snapshots from the different countries they work in.

[Stillwater]

Seventy per cent of people who responded to this poll said: "I do not support contracting out Queensland Rail passenger services."  Is it your intention, Metro, to convince the 70 per cent otherwise?

[HappyTrainGuy]

Might be time for another pointless/flawed poll.

[Gazza]

I would say that people don't support privatisation because there is no clear cut case that it always works.

There are good and bad private operators, and good and bad public operators.

If there was consistent evidence worldwide to point to one way or the other, maybe people would be more convinced (And I don't mean cherry picked examples from certain cities where it has been a sucess, because that's not a comprehensive industry wide view)

At this stage, it seems like change for the sake of change.

A fair assessment?

[James]

Personally, I abstained, because the question is pointless. You can't simply walk up to Metro/MTR and say "I want YOU!". You have to go through the tender process. Yes, Metro has done a good job in Melbourne, but there are plenty of crap private operators. And yes, we all know "oh you can give them the boot!" - if done properly, it would be very easy to give the QR exec the boot. Just nobody in the Labor government has yet found the guts to sack the entire ELT/board and replace it.

Personally, I'm all for it. Rip the organisation up. BUT - you don't see me spamming the forums persistently and flooding every thread which mentions #railfail with privatisation remarks. The flood of "Privatise QR" posts is getting old, particularly when Labor and LNP will absolutely not touch the 'P word' with a six foot pole. It borders on spam.

Perhaps LDT needs a car. Cars are lovely things. A car always runs on time, doesn't cancel itself for 'operational issues' and never runs out of drivers... lol

[BrizCommuter]

I would say that people don't support privatisation because there is no clear cut case that it always works.

There are good and bad private operators, and good and bad public operators.

If there was consistent evidence worldwide to point to one way or the other, maybe people would be more convinced (And I don't mean cherry picked examples from certain cities where it has been a sucess, because that's not a comprehensive industry wide view)

At this stage, it seems like change for the sake of change.

A fair assessment?

A very good post. As you mentioned, there are good and bad public and private rail operators. I would suspect that most rail privatisations are due to conservative political ideology than anything else.

[#Metro]

Content Warning - Competitive Tendering Thread


This thread deals with competitive contracting and related issues.

It is highly likely that this issue will appear on the radar in the near future, if not already.


It contains open discussions about the merits and demerits of theoretically opening Queensland Rail to a competitive contracting and

bidding scheme, and removing the requirement that TransLink must always choose Queensland Rail as sole train service supplier.


If you wish to exit this thread: RBOT Forum Index Page https://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php

[#Metro]

Apparently, Metro Trains Melbourne executives are in Brisbane this week. Unconfirmed report.


> https://twitter.com/Truth_Loader/status/833670317197324289

@QueenslandRail i see exec from Melb metro meeting gov this week. Pack your bags,Jim, liam,tim,nicole,marty the gravey train just finished

> https://twitter.com/Truth_Loader/status/833670641995833344

@Robert_Dow @TransLinkSEQ @QueenslandRail @jackietrad @AndrewPowellMP Melb metro execs in town. God bye @neil_scales_tmr #qldpol #railfail

Maybe we might be getting someone Ex-Metro Trains Melbourne as new QR CEO? Possible.

Would have thought it pointless for them to visit QLD otherwise?


Admin:  Embedding of tweets requires html embed which is not enabled, other than admin for security reasons.

[#Metro]

Millions to be saved by privatising ACTION bus network, transport lobby group says

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/millions-to-be-saved-by-privatising-action-bus-network-transport-lobby-group-says-20160228-gn5n7c.html

Be interesting to know exactly where TTF thinks these saving were supposed to be coming from.

The new report, commissioned by the Tourism and Transport Forum, said franchising bus networks in Sydney, Brisbane and Canberra could lead to $1 billion in savings over five years.

The biggest benefit was to be had in Sydney, the report found, with $500 million in savings over five years if Sydney Buses was privately operated.

TTF Report

On the buses - the benefits of private sector involvement in the delivery of bus services
http://www.ttf.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/TTF-On-The-Buses-Report-2016.pdf

^^ Will get around to reading this in more detail.

[#Metro]

(Response to another thread)

https://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=1862.msg189536#msg189536
https://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=12524.msg189542#msg189542

It really is a massive clusterfuk sadly.

The other day, I saw a complaint that a train was delayed 10 minutes for a ticket check.

Systematic late running as for the mains or sub closures through the CBD, often means that connections are missed.

It might mean that a bus connection is missed for example, and the next service is another hour away.

I am being to think that Queensland Rail and TransLink really do not understand the impacts of this stuff.

They prattle on at CRGs, but still after all these years it remains a clusterfuk.  There is really not a customer focus as they claim.

Well, they are a monopolist. Why change - it makes no difference from their side.

There appears to be no penalty or consequence for poor service at Queensland Rail.

What penalties or consequences are there at Queensland Rail if their "targets" or contactual obligations are not met? Are there any??  :conf

Sent to all outlets:

17th March 2017

Queensland Rail still do not get it - failure!

Good Morning,

It does seem that there is a failure by Queensland Rail Executive Staff and TransLink to comprehend the devastating outcomes of the reduced service rail fail timetables i.e. the Monday <> Thursday reduced service timetable, that morphs into even more service reductions on Fridays! This was confirmed sadly at yesterday's CRG meetings with Queensland Rail.

Constant disruptions such as stopping a rail service for 10 minutes to carry out a ticket check means that many passengers loose their ongoing connections.  This might mean an hour wait for some for the next connecting bus.  Systematic late running that occurs when the suburban or main track pairs are closed during the interpeak also causes all sorts of connection issues.  Does Queensland Rail and TransLink really understand the impacts of the ramshackle disrupted services?

We fear not ..

We have highlighted the problems on the Cleveland line, particularly the lack of PM peak services, many times.  Can something be done to sort this fiasco please?

We still struggle that  most of the Executive Leadership Team is still blundering on, and the superfluous Queensland Rail Board remains disconnected from reality.  A measure of the hopelessness is the fact that another bureaucratic layer - the so called CityTrain Response Unit is considered necessary to monitor Queensland Rail's performance! [ http://www.cru.qld.gov.au/ ]

What hope for the average punter?

It is time the Deputy Premier and Minister for Transport gave some serious consideration to getting rid of the failing management, and started putting back rail services that are needed now, not in two years time.  If the present incompetents at Queensland Rail cannot do this, get an operator that will.

What will the rail timetable look like for Easter?  One hour mediocre train service frequency?  Time to spell it out please.

Best wishes,
Robert

Robert Dow
Administration
admin@backontrack.org
RAIL Back On Track https://backontrack.org

Queensland Rail is guaranteed business no matter what.

Sadly, there appear to be no consequences for non-delivery or non-compliance. What will happen if the CityTrain Response Unit determines that there is non-compliance? Then what?

Maybe when Metro Trains Melbourne, RATP Paris, SNCF et al are banging down the door of the minister, then things might change.

[#Metro]

"Who else could run Queensland Rail?"

Might be worth calling for ' Expressions of Interest '.

[HappyTrainGuy]

Will you please stop it with all the constant privitisation. We get it. We all get it. Bloody hell. Rant about something else for once.

[#Metro]

Will you please stop it with all the constant privitisation. We get it. We all get it. Bloody hell. Rant about something else for once.

This is the privatisation thread. It is marked as such.

Positive thinking won't keep ships from sinking...

Queensland Rail is guaranteed business no matter what. Nobody has explained to me why that must be, especially given its most recent history.

What is even worse is that this also includes private bus operators, who also have this guarantee. It makes no sense.

[techblitz]

@htg

ozbob stated in the last couple of days that all options should be on the table including discussion of competitive tendering and/or privatisation of QR and or forming a PTQ authority.....
probably suggest you create some other topics to discuss instead of shooting someone down for discussing their concerns.....its an open forum....

[#Metro]

@htg

ozbob stated in the last couple of days that all options should be on the table including discussion of competitive tendering and/or privatisation of QR and or forming a PTQ authority.....
probably suggest you create some other topics to discuss instead of shooting someone down for discussing their concerns.....its an open forum....

+1

[#Metro]

Response from thread https://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=12524.msg189657#msg189657

And more nails into the Queensland Rail coffin ...

Latest, sources suggest that the #railfail crowd will drop the frequency to one hour on all lines at weekends (assume the Airtrain will still get acceptable frequency but rather pointless connecting into such mediocre frequency) which means the network becomes unusable for many, and when the inevitable ' operational issue ' cancellation occurs be some very long waits for the hapless community and hopeless connections.

If such a travesty is proceeded with, it will be the end of the ALP Government and Queensland Rail no doubt!

Well let's see if this is just rumour or it is actually real first.

I really doubt these unsubstantiated rumours - why cut weekend services when there is no problem running them now?


If true, then we are heading towards peak denial. Peak Denial - where we have a railway with no trains running on it but

everybody defends it just because it is government-owned, even though there are no services on it. 


Something out of Monty Python or Fawlty Towers really. There are plenty of other operators to choose from - I particularly like the idea of

Paris Metro operator RATP or SCNF coming to Australia. They would be a good competitor to MTR Melbourne.

[#Metro]

From: https://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=12649.msg189826#msg189826

Ms PALASZCZUK: And why they stopped recruitment. We know that they were trying to get
Queensland Rail ready for sale. That is what those opposite were doing. They were getting ready to
privatise Queensland Rail. They were stripping it back. They got Peter Costello in—the old mate of the
LNP's. They got Peter Costello in because the then Treasurer could not do the—

Ms. Palaszczuk was a member of Red Team when Anna Bligh *actually sold* the freight division of QR off.

Hypocrites. And that part of QR was net income generating, unlike the loss-making passenger transport operations. Former Peter Beattie

was preparing the ground for QR sale for ages.


Privatisation of QR (Passenger) does not violate the asset sale promise.

Because the sale of gov't land established that Red Team has two definitions of  an asset sale: an asset sale and an asset sale*. And they are

treated very differently! An asset sale* of an non-income generating asset is  permitted. In a competitive contracting environment, the

asset is not actually being sold as well. It is retained by govt and the operations are what gets contracted out.


If they want to maintain their hardline definition, it is going to be a problem for them.

For example, did Red Team not  realise that by engaging external for-profit corporate contractors to assist training drivers, that they have

inadvertently "privatised" parts of Queensland Rail's training program?


The other issue is that if you want to go further, and actually sell, rather than contract it out, it is entirely possible to offload it to a company

without removing it from technical state ownership. The way you do this is you give it to a QLD Gov't owned super fund like QIC - who will get

a return from the business and will thus not tolerate retention of current QR management.



Queensland government accused of breaking asset sales promise
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/queensland-government-plans-land-selloff-for-urban-renewal-20161005-grvyn5.html

But Ms Trad said the land would go into the hands of "mums and dads".

"I know it's easy and simplistic to put it in those terms, but that's not what we're doing," she said.

"To categorise it as a wholesale asset sale is a misrepresentation."

Media statements from Labor prior to the state election made a commitment not to sell "income-generating government-owned assets, such as our ports and electricity companies".

On Thursday, when asked if she had broken an election commitment on asset sales, Ms Palaszczuk said governments - of both persuasions - bought and sold land.

[James]

Something which absolutely needs clarifying is this:

Competitive tendering is not privatisation.

The whole "privatisation" argument with transport in particular is toxic to ensuring a decent operation. Competitive tendering should not be viewed as privatisation. If QR was competently run and had the right leadership systems in place, it would have nothing to fear and would easily win the tender. If a government owned corporation won the tender - that isn't privatisation, is it? The rail operator is still in private hands, just perhaps in the hands of the French government.

Look at Brisbane Transport. It was faced with competitive tendering because of the toxic way it behaved - refusing to co-operate with bus network reform, running buses in competition with trains and an illogical and infrequent network. Fortunately BT has reformed its ways and is more willing to come to the table under the PT alliance model. We are seeing the same thing with QR now. The more #railfail goes on, the more my support for competitive tendering intensifies. The people within QR have no clue, and that the running of an interim timetable through to 2019 says it all.

The LNP were absolutely stripping the organisation back; but the ALP (and QR) have had plenty of time to act on the shortage. Even with the shortage, the network would be much better off by stripping back the Kippa-Ring line to shuttles or peak-only services in the interim. Perhaps allowing some time to fix up the signalling too, if issues remain. A union scare campaign trying to prevent competitive tendering is merely the RTBU and ALP being self-interested, to the detriment of South-East Queensland commuters.

That politicians are already dancing around asset sales and defining things to avoid being caught out "selling things" is really incredibly petty. It is a sad reflection on the kind of people who are running (or hoping to run) this state.

[#Metro]

Nice post James.

CT is privatisation if it results in an external operator winning the contract IMHO.

"On privatization scares" Human Transit Blog
http://humantransit.org/2010/09/on-privatization-scares.html

There are many different ways to involve private enterprise in funding providing transit services, and these are so different that vague talk of "privatization" simply doesn't illuminate what's going on.

At one extreme, you can privatise operations, planning, fleet, public information, branding, and almost everything else.

At the other extreme, you can privatise operations only... In Australia, only Perth takes this approach, but it's very successful there. A public agency answerable to voters keeps full control of planning and owns the fleet and facilities.  Private operating companies are hired only to provide operations and maintenance, under contracts to the agency that are periodically re-opened to competitive procurement.

CT isn't an "asset sale" because the assets remain government owned (land, stations, trains, tracks, buildings).
So it does not violate Red Team's definition of "asset sale" or even "asset sale*". It's not a sale. At worst, a lease with negative rent.

Indeed, it is hard to think of exactly what tangible things are transferred to the private sector in CT. What you are doing is privatising the management. Much of the other staff are transferred over / inherited.

What is attractive about this is that (a) Queensland Rail really really needs new management, (b) fines/penalties actually stick, (c) there are meaningful monetary and non-monetary indicators of performance and (d) you can import external internal experience directly. For example, we could sign up RATP, the people who run the Paris Metro (among a whole heap of other systems). It is not unreasonable to think that experienced people like RATP could run QR better than the current lot.

Oh, and with new management comes new corporate culture. Something also desperately needed.

CT is also reversible. If people want it re-nationalised, they can let the contract lapse and at no additional cost, the operations can return to public operation (or another operator). V/Line in Melbourne is a precedent for that. The threat of contract loss also incentivises performance (unlike failing ca$h bonu$e$ - like we have seen with QR).

So it is in no way a "loss" nor a permanent one at that.

Private management of railway operations may not have been well established in 1999 when the Melbourne system went private, and the instruction manual on what to do and not to do did not exist then. But now there is much experience in this area and we have a better idea of what is likely to work and what is not, unlike the early pioneers of this approach.

For example, paying for passenger numbers is a no-no. Having half the network run by one operator, and another half run by another operator is also a no-no. These lessons were learned the hard way, through experience.

There is another way to do this - essentially "re-GOCify" Queensland Rail, but I will detail that approach another time.

May I just say that people who dismiss the private option for whatever reason and don't consider it further are really denying open exploration and access to a whole suite of potential workable solutions that would be valuable to consider with the current situation at hand.

Not every nail requires a hammer. You might use a nailgun...

[#Metro]

Absolute f******g disgrace. QR have sunk to a new low. 1 week notice for hourly weekend services. Blog post coming...

How ironic this notice is released on 01 April 2017. Happy April Fools!

Oh well, at least it is GOVERNMENT-OWNED and NON-PROFIT.

QR is so great that we could not possibly use any other operator ever. There is no other train operator on the entire planet earth that could do what QR does.

QR4EVA!! 

[verbatim9]

I vote Transdev   to tender for train operations in Se Qld

[#Metro]

I would have RATP the Paris metro operator bid, they have the scale and diversity. They run all sorts of things. METRO also, but I would prefer more competition, so really hoping RATP comes in and bids.

[verbatim9]

^^3 tenders already

Sent from my XT1562 using Tapatalk

[James]

I'd just like to make an important point.

It is not possible for RBoT, or even the government, to go up to particular transport operators and go 'I choose YOU!'. The major point to make with respect to competitive tendering is that it allows the government to choose a better operator, enforce financial penalties on an operator with associated consequences, drive service quality improvements, and allow for a full scale refresh which would simply not be possible with the existing QR management. Competitive tendering is not a silver bullet. In times past, it has generally been done for ideological purposes rather than service improvement, and the jury is certainly out as to whether this will drive service improvements (Look at Connex and Metro for examples).

But can any operator be worse than QR? At least under CT, if they're a disaster, we can just sack the operator and people move on. Whoever makes the choice to sack QR will face a lot more hurdles, not the least from the ideologically opposed union movement.

[#Metro]

CT is reversible. If you don't like it, you can always go back.

James, can you point me to the rules that say Qld govt can't say "I choose you".

I agree with you that fair and full competition should be held, but I will also point out that "I choose you" is what already happens with monopoly bus operators - and they are all for profit private businesses ( except BCC ).

The Melbourne metro contact is also being negotiated on an "I choose you" basis IIRC.

[QLDBUS]

all the contracts for QLD Transport (including far north, Toowoomba) should be ripped up and given to one single operator

what does everyone think?

[#Metro]

^ An interesting idea QLDBUS. An interesting option is to merge the bus contact in Brisbane and the train contact in SEQ. Essentially what will happen in Newcastle with light rail.

[SurfRail]

all the contracts for QLD Transport (including far north, Toowoomba) should be ripped up and given to one single operator

what does everyone think?

Why would that be a good idea?  It would be fantastically uncompetitive behaviour for a start and likely to expose the state to extremely high contract costs.

The only "one" operator of the public transport system we need is a single public sector agency with the ability to properly administer the network without political interference or contractor shenanigans.  How this agency contracts out the operation of the various services is a different story, but let's focus on getting one agency in place first.