From: XR8 Sprint on
Michael wrote:

> Whats your point of veiw, can we get more cargo off the roads?
> Mick C

Not without spending billions of dollars, and quite honestly it is not
worth it. The only way that you could have less trucks on the road would
be to put in duplicated tracks all the way from Melbourne to Cairns,
Melbourne to Perth Via Adelaide, and Sydney to Adelaide, and have them
all the same gauge. You'd probably need to include Brisbane to Darwin
and Perth to Darwin in that as well. The cost would be astronomical, and
the return benefit would be negligible. Whilst we don't have the best
system with the amount of trucks that are one the roads, it is in a
sense economical and more reliable. The only place where rail is
excellent is in the transport of raw materials from minesite to port.
That works well, however even recently there are reports that here in
QLD it is not working well with ships paying thousand of dollars in
demurrage because the rail network cannot get enough coal into the ports
to load them. It comes back to poor planning and performance. The rail
crews are not too blame, however management needs to look long and hard
at the decisions they have made, which have taken something that worked
relatively well and is now underperforming. You cannot reduce the
maintenance on the tracks without impacting on the service, and this has
been one of QR's big problems since the early 80's when they reduced the
number of gangs working the tracks.

It is the same in the transport industry, if Darryl or Kev's trucks are
not maintained, then they would be off the road in a short period of
time. The roads are constantly maintained because so many people would
complain if the road was no good. The fact is that the rail system
around the country is poorly maintained and needs billions of dollars
spent on it to make it a competitive player in the transport industry.

It's not likely to happen any time in the near future.

The best we can hope for is that they start paying the truckies properly
and regulating the number of hours they can work. Perhaps have two
drivers on long haul or even work on a roster system like bus drivers.
This of course would almost force the owner driver out of the long haul
industry, which would be a political nightmare for any government trying
to implement it.


From: Noddy on

"Michael" <mickpc(a)> wrote in message

> I should need to say little more.

But you will, and it will make about as much sense as anything you've said
to date unfortunately.


From: John Hudson on

"Noddy" <dg4163@(nospam)> wrote in message
> "Michael" <mickpc(a)> wrote in message
> news:b0sai.10898$wH4.9983(a)
>> Rail is by far the safest.
> There's family of 11 recently departed who might disagree with you at the
> moment.
> --
> Regards,
> Noddy.
Eleven people have died, sure but sixteen hundred will probably be killed on
the roads this year. What would have happened if this was a crossroads, with
a stop or give way sign and the truck T- boned a passenger bus or coach at
the same speed? A railway accident is always news, because railway accidents
are rare. Airliners are by far the safest, but when they crash, sometimes
due to human error, hundreds may die. We all know that at least eleven
people will be killed on Australia's roads this long weekend, and we just
accept it.

From: Noddy on

"reg-john" <al(a)> wrote in message

> this is how it will all eventually be, but until it is you will get
> companies pushing their drivers. and expect the cost of most goods to
> increase in line with the large costs incurred in complying 100% with
> safety regulations.

The sooner it's made law the better.


From: Noddy on

"reg-john" <al(a)> wrote in message

> how about in cars? surely it shouldnt matter right?

It wouldn't bother me at all to be honest.

In fact, I'd be happy to go one step further and have ignition control
devices that police can manipulate from within their cruisers fitted to
*all* road vehicles, purely in the interests of helping to prevent theft and
the deaths of innocents from car chases gone wrong.

> i mean you in your car can legally drive indefinitely, not have a break,
> and if you have an accident, the only law that applies is the one
> concerning the accident.

That's true, but then the average Joe Motorist isn't spending 24/7 behind
the wheel as part of his job, and if he falls asleep behind the wheel his
Falcon isn't likely to rip open a train carriage and kill a bunch of people.