Should QueenslandRail passenger services contract be opened up to competition?

[#Metro]

Ok, this question has been bubbling a while now...

Should TransLink open up their contracts to allow Melbourne-style competition for who operates QueenslandRail's passenger services?

[#Metro]

  Voting now open

[ozbob]

After seeing what happened in Victoria, no way. 
VLine is back in government control and is roaring along.  The complicated franchise arrangements just cost more than they otherwise would. 

[#Metro]

There were actually two phases to Melbourne...

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

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

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

[#Metro]

Would be nice to know what "other" entails...

[BrizCommuter]

No, the government just needs to give QR more money to run more services!

...Although there could be some efficiency improvements.

[somebody]

It's cost more in Victoria, but service levels have also increased.

[mufreight]

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

[somebody]

The LESS that Translink has to do with the operation of the PT services the better for commuters and the community at large.

Under its current management?  Indeed.

[#Metro]

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

I disagree. It seems that some people are on an anti-TransLink crusade. In fact I would NOT consider any form of competitive contracting WITHOUT TransLink there. Now I don't see why railways should be a sacred cow when bus services and ferry services and tram services are happily contracted out.

The way I see it, the sooner MTR Hong Kong comes to Brisbane, the better.

[#Metro]

No, the government just needs to give QR more money to run more services!

...Although there could be some efficiency improvements.

Yes it did that... by putting up fares 15% annually.
The government has no money of its own- its your own cash.

[somebody]

Brisbane PT is provided very expensively, even compared to Sydney and Melbourne for the service level and per trip, even though the former is rather disgracefully expensive.  A fact not highlighted by the opposition, which just amazes me.

[#Metro]

Brisbane PT is provided very expensively, even compared to Sydney and Melbourne for the service level and per trip, even though the former is rather disgracefully expensive.  A fact not highlighted by the opposition, which just amazes me.

I don't mind paying, I just get upset when I pay through the nose and then get dished up rubbish!

[dwb]

There were actually two phases to Melbourne...

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

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

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

It just means the company under bids to win the contract then fails later on.

Privatisation in London for instance proved rather disastrous.

[dwb]

PS, MTR in Hong Kong makes most of its money as a developer selling 100yr leases to apartments it builds on state land on a very efficient linear land use pattern. I'm sorry but it just doesn't compare to Brisbane.

[#Metro]

Privatisation in London for instance proved rather disastrous.

What, and trains every 10 minutes on the Franskston line all day is a disaster?

[SurfRail]

Most of the criticism of privatisation seems to rest on the fact that it hasn't saved the government money.

I don't really care about that.  The system has required more investment because it is falling to bits, was not delivering the services that people required and in particular required more rollingstock to modernise the fleet and expand capacity.

Putting the management of the system in the hands of an organisation not afraid to identify and fix those problems and demand better resources to do so is a good thing.

[colinw]

Isn't this discussion a touch pointless when it is TransLink setting the service standard, not QueenslandRail?

There is no point handing over CityTrain to Veolia or MTR if TransLink is still only going to set a lousy half hourly offpeak service standard.

All we would end up with is an expensive re-branding exercise, spending money that could be spent on services on new uniforms, paint jobs and signs.

QueenslandRail are prefectly capable of running the service we need, if given the mandate and funding to do so.

[SurfRail]

Isn't this discussion a touch pointless when it is TransLink setting the service standard, not QueenslandRail?

There is no point handing over CityTrain to Veolia or MTR if TransLink is still only going to set a lousy half hourly offpeak service standard.

All we would end up with is an expensive re-branding exercise, spending money that could be spent on services on new uniforms, paint jobs and signs.

QueenslandRail are prefectly capable of running the service we need, if given the mandate and funding to do so.

Very salient points.  TransLink needs to demand 15 minute services and require the operator - whoever it is - to report back on how that can be done and if not, why not, so the capacity constraints can be eliminated.

However, I am not confident QR would advocate for those service standards to be raised.  MTR would. 

[mufreight]

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

[#Metro]

Very salient points.  TransLink needs to demand 15 minute services and require the operator - whoever it is - to report back on how that can be done and if not, why not, so the capacity constraints can be eliminated.

However, I am not confident QR would advocate for those service standards to be raised.  MTR would.  
Logged

We DO have TransLink, Melbourne does not. Important difference there- I would not consider this idea without TransLink present. Second thing- you could design the bid in such a way that the amount of money is fixed but instead of taking the lowest bid, you fix the bid amount and simply say "bidder who offers the most services" gets the job. This is not unlike a scheme I heard in Victoria to build a toll road where the bidder was chosen on the ability to offer the lowest toll, not the lowest construction price.

What incentive does QR have to advocate for more frequency? None as I see it.

[#Metro]

Voting closes Today

[somebody]

However, I am not confident QR would advocate for those service standards to be raised.  MTR would. 

+1.

I voted yes, for this reason.  One of the main reasons why the Melbourne train service has increased significantly over last decade or so is this exact reason.

So, while Translink are an obstacle, a private operator has an incentive to try to overcome it, but it seems like QR do not think that way.

[#Metro]

MTR has also set up standby teams of electricians as I hear it positioned around the train network to respond rapidly to signal faults and the like... does QR do this?

QR can stay a publicly owned GOC if it likes, I hear that Keolis is a French government GOC, I just think QR should have to work to earn its keep.

[ozbob]

MTR has also set up standby teams of electricians as I hear it positioned around the train network to respond rapidly to signal faults and the like... does QR do this?

Yes, how do you think the regular signal/track/power/level crossing faults get fixed generally very promptly?

[ozbob]

The fundamental issue with all rail systems in Australia is not whether the operator is a GOC or a private franchise IMHO, it is the fact that the rail systems were essentially neglected for a long period.  That is now starting to turn but we are left with many residual issues.  The OTP and network reliability in Melbourne is actually far worse than SEQ (believe it or not).  That was exacerbated by privatisation for the rail network by the Kennett Government.  I used to go back regularly and once VR went the system went backwards, big time.  It was very obvious.  Fortunately it does seem to be getting back on track to some degree of late. V/Line is a GOC again and booming. If MTR cannot get OTP out the doldrums in Melbourne, it is a sign of how serious the network issues actually are.  VR QR and MTR would all have the same issues IMHO.  

[colinw]

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

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

[somebody]

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

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

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

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

[colinw]

Yeah, fair enough - I was thinking of since electrification & construction of the Joondalup line.  Before that the railcar services in Perth were positively awful (think Auckland).

The point is, cultural change can and does occur even in Government organisations.  You do not need to privatise to change these things, nor does privatisation necessarily change the attitudes.

[HappyTrainGuy]

MTR has also set up standby teams of electricians as I hear it positioned around the train network to respond rapidly to signal faults and the like... does QR do this?

Every rail network has them 

[ozbob]

The poor frequency is not going to fixed overnight either.  The reality is that off peak there has to be paths for freight this is a factor on both the Northern and Western Lines and connectors, Travel Train stuff on the Northern line.  Some track amplifications are needed.  Rolling stock is finely balanced at the moment, an aging fleet in bulk, maintenance demands restrict fleet availability.

[HappyTrainGuy]

The poor frequency is not going to fixed overnight either.  The reality is that off peak there has to be paths for freight this is a factor on both the Northern and Western Lines and connectors, Travel Train stuff on the Northern line.  Some track amplifications are needed.  Rolling stock is finely balanced at the moment, an aging fleet in bulk, maintenance demands restrict fleet availability.

Freight can also effect the east (Cleveland) and the southern lines if there is freight heading to fishermans island at the same time freight is returing but its scheduled not to/very limited. The northern line is going to need more than duplication. Duplication to the North alone won't fix the petrie-Caboolture bottleneck. Not to mention soon all Traveltrains (Excluding the outback train) would have 150-160 kph running vs CityTrain 100-120 vs freight 100kph on the most recent duplication/straightening part.

[somebody]

Why's the CityTrain not up to 140km/h?

[HappyTrainGuy]

Not all trains are capable/able of it mixed with the full benefits not enabled yet I guess.

[Arnz]

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

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

[mufreight]

MTR has also set up standby teams of electricians as I hear it positioned around the train network to respond rapidly to signal faults and the like... does QR do this?

QR can stay a publicly owned GOC if it likes, I hear that Keolis is a French government GOC, I just think QR should have to work to earn its keep.

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

[#Metro]

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

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

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

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

[Gazza]

Now I don't see why railways should be a sacred cow when bus services and ferry services and tram services are happily contracted out.

The issue is that Rail is more of a 'system' where its not just about the running of the system, but how well overhead lines, tracks, points etc are maintained, wheras buses and ferries run on pre existing roads and waterways.
In Victoria there was a non stop blame game about the infrastructure and who was at fault.

[#Metro]

The issue is that Rail is more of a 'system' where its not just about the running of the system, but how well overhead lines, tracks, points etc are maintained, wheras buses and ferries run on pre existing roads and waterways.
In Victoria there was a non stop blame game about the infrastructure and who was at fault.

Not convinced. TransLink manages the busway, private operators drive on it.
Not saying that it is a comparable level, but did MTR not do an audit of the system before they took over? What is stopping a franchise operator performing the same things?

QLD Government own the tracks etc, QR maintain them etc. So don't really see a difference there actually. And now that QR and QR National are separate, well they also run over QR owned track.

[somebody]

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