List of Australian railway companies - Wikipedia, Photos and Videos List of Australian railway companies NEXT GO TO RESULTS [51 .. 100] WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE Jump to: navigation , search While railways in some states were briefly operated as private companies, railways of Australia have historically operated as Government instrumentalities. The earlier form of a single state government railway department in each state no longer exists - with complex relationships developed by state and federal government corporations operating in multiple locations and across borders between states. They are further divided into 'above' and 'below' rail companies - track owners, and train operators. Some companies are both. Contents Job Specific Requirements - Competency Australia Competency Australia Job Specific Requirements Additional requirements for working in rail depend on the nature of the work you are carrying out, as well as the rail operator. Some jobs require licences and units of competency, where as for others a more formal assessment must be undertaken. Rail Safety Law (Section 117) states "A rail transport operator must ensure that each rail safety worker who is to carry out rail safety work in relation to railway operations in respect of which the operator is required to be accredited has the competence to carry out that work".

This means that rail operations need some way of proving that the individuals working on their network have the appropriate skills and knowledge to carry out the work safely. Generally, rail operators achieve this by only accepting workers who hold specific qualifications. Each job has a different set of requirements, which can be quite confusing. However, many of the rail operators have put together 'matrices' which outline the qualifications and skills required for each job. In some cases, a formal assessment by an approved external assessor is required by the operator. These include roles such as : Signalling Roles Engineering Roles. Competency Australia can perform these assessments. To find out more, click here or Contact Us Some roles require individuals to hold units of competence - these are training courses delivered by Registered Training Organisations (RTOs) to national standards. Some roles may require multiple units.

For example, to operate a Hi-Rail on track for ARTC, you must hold the following units of competence : TLIB1028A Maintain and use hand tools TLID1001A Shift materials safely using manual handling methods TLIE1003A Participate in basic workplace communication TLIF1001A Follow occupational health and safety procedures TLIF2010A Apply fatigue management strategies TLIF2062A Apply awareness of safeworking rules and regulations TLIF2080B Safely access the rail corridor CPCCOHS1001A Work safely in the construction industry TLIU2008A Apply environmental procedures to rail Infrastructure TLIC2059A Propel and operate light on-track equipment Current State Drivers licence TLIC2054A Access rail track to run track vehicle within defined worksite TLIC3045A Operate road/rail vehicle If you are unsure as to the requirements for your job, there are a number of places you can go for help. If you Contact Us we will do our best to assist, however as the rail operator requirements are regularly changing, it is best to contact them directly.

There are many rail operators in Australia, we have listed some of the major ones below.

You can contact the rail operator or view their websites : Rail Operator Website Safety issues and actions Safety issues and actions Mode or modes to filter by Mode: Type or types to filter by Type: Issue, description, who it affects Date, status, type Issue, description, who it affects Issue: RO-2015-009-SI-02 Description: Drivers operating on rail networks using this rule Issue owner: Issue, description, who it affects Issue: RO-2015-009-SI-01 Description: Drivers operating on the V/Line network Issue owner: Issue, description, who it affects Issue: RO-2015-028-SI-02 Description: All rail safety workers conducting work on the rail network Issue owner: Issue, description, who it affects Issue: MO-2015-002-SI-04 Description: All those responsible for navigation Issue owner: Svitzer Australia; Fremantle Ports; Fremantle Pilots Operation affected: Issue, description, who it affects Issue: RO-2014-016-SI-02 Description: Rail Operators on Melbourne Metropolitan Rail Network Issue owner: Issue, description, who it

 affects Issue: RO-2014-016-SI-01 Description: Rail Operators on Melbourne Metropolitan Rail Network Issue owner: Issue, description, who it affects Issue: RO-2015-015 SI-02 Description: All owners and operators of heavy haul freight wagons.

Issue owner: Issue, description, who it affects Issue: RO-2015-015 SI-01 Description: All owners and operators of heavy haul freight wagons Issue owner: Issue, description, who it affects Issue: RO-2014-005-SI-04 Description: Issue, description, who it affects Issue: RO-2014-005-SI-03 Description: Issue, description, who it affects Issue: RO-2014-005-SI-02 Description: Issue, description, who it affects Issue: RO-2014-005-SI-01 Description: Issue, description, who it affects Issue: RO-2015-005-SI-01 Description: Issue, description, who it affects Issue: RO-2013-026-SI-01 Description: Issue, description, who it affects Issue: RO-2013-026-SI-02 Description: Issue, description, who it affects Issue: RO-2013-026-SI-03 Description: Issue, description, who it affects

 Issue: RO-2013-026-SI-04 Description: Issue, description, who it affects Issue: RO-2015-010-SI-02 Description: Issue, description, who it affects Issue: RO-2015-010-SI-01 Description: Issue, description, who it affects Issue: RO-2015-007-SI-03 Description: All rail transport operators throughout Australia Issue owner: Issue, description, who it affects Issue: RO-2015-007-SI-04 Description: All rail transport operators throughout Australia Issue owner: Australian Rail Track Corporation and SCT Logistics Operation affected: Issue, description, who it affects Issue: RO-2015-007-SI-05 Description: All rail transport operators throughout Australia Issue owner: Issue, description, who it affects Issue: RO-2015-007-SI-01 Description: All rail transport operators throughout Australi Issue owner: Issue, description, who it affects Issue: RO-2015-003-SI-01 Description: Issue, description, who it affects Issue

: RO-2014-001-SI-001 Description: Issue, description, who it affects Issue: RO-2014-001-SI-002 Description: Issue, description, who it affects Issue: Issue, description, who it affects Issue: RO-2014-001-SI-004 Description: Issue, description, who it affects Issue: RO-2014-014-SI-01 Description: Issue, description, who it affects Issue: RO-2014-014-SI-02 Description: Issue, description, who it affects Issue: RO-2013-020-SI-01 Description: Issue, description, who it affects Issue: RO-2013-020-SI-02 Description: Issue, description, who it affects Issue: RO-2014-018-SI-01 Description: Issue, description, who it affects Issue: RO-2014-018-SI-02 Description: Rail network managers and owners Issue owner: Issue, description, who it affects Issue: RO

-2014-024-SI-01 Description: All road users and operators of trains on trackage owner or managed by V/Line.

Issue owner: Issue, description, who it affects Issue: RO-2014-007-SI-01 Description: All transporters of rod-in-coil product Issue owner: Issue, description, who it affects Issue: RO-2014-021-SI-01 Description: Users the Sydney Trains Network Rules and Procedures Issue owner: Issue, description, who it affects Issue: RO-2015-002-SI-01 Description: All owners, operators and maintainers of railway infrastructure.

Issue owner: Public Transport Authority of Western Australia Operation affected: Issue, description, who it affects Issue: RO-2012-011-SI-01 Description: Rail operators and rail safety workers Issue owner: Specialised Bulk Rail Pty Ltd Operation affected: Issue, description, who it affects Issue: RO-2012-011-SI-02 Description: Rail operators and rail safety workers Issue owner: Issue, description, who it affects Issue: RO-2012-011-SI-03 Description: Rail operators and rail safety workers Issue owner: Issue, description, who it affects Issue: RO-2013-002-SI-02 Description: Issue, description, who it affects Issue: RO-2014-003-SI-001 Description: All owners of rail infrastructure Issue owner: Issue, description, who it affects Issue: RO-2014-013-SI-01 Description: All rail operators throughout Australia Issue owner: Issue, description, who it affects Issue: RO-2014-013-SI-02 Description: All rail transport operators throughout Australia Issue owner:

 Issue, description, who it affects Issue: RO-2014-013-SI-03 Description: All rail transport operators throughout Australia Issue owner: Issue, description, who it affects Issue: RO-2014-013-SI-04 Description: All rail transport operators throughout Australia Issue owner: Issue, description, who it affects Issue: RO-2014-013-SI-05 Description: All rail transport operators throughout Australia Issue owner: Issue, description, who it affects Issue: RO-2014-013-SI-06 Description: All rail transport operators throughout Australia Issue owner: Issue, description, who it affects Issue: RO-2013-010-SI-01 Description: Owners and operators of rail infrastructure Issue owner: Issue, description, who it affects Issue: RO-2013-010-SI-02 Description: Owners and operators of rail infrastructure.

Issue owner: Issue, description, who it affects Issue: RO-2013-010-SI-03 Description: Owners and operators of rail infrastructure.

Issue owner: Issue, description, who it affects Issue: RO-2014-012-SI-01 Description: Issue, description, who it affects Issue: RO-2014-008-SI-01 Description: All rail transport operators throughout Australia Issue owner: Issue, description, who it affects Issue: RO-2014-008-SI-02 Description: All rail transport operators throughout Australia Issue owner: Issue, description, who it affects Issue: RO-2014-008-SI-03 Description: All rail transport operators throughout Australia Issue owner: Issue, description, who it affects Issue: RO-2014-008-SI-04 Description: All rail transport operators throughout Australia Issue owner: Issue, description, who it affects Issue: RO-2014-006-SI-01 Description: Rail network managers and train operators Issue owner: Issue, description, who it affects Issue: RO-2014-006-SI-02 Description: Rail network managers and train operators Issue owner: Issue, description, who it affects Issue: RO-2014-0

06-SI-03 Description: Rail network managers and train operators Issue owner: Issue, description, who it affects Issue: RO-2014-015-SI-01 Description: Issue, description, who it affects Issue: RO-2013-018-SI-01 Description: Issue, description, who it affects Issue: RO-2013-018-SI-02 Description: Issue, description, who it affects Issue: Issue, description, who it affects Issue: Issue, description, who it affects Issue: RO-2013-018-SI-05 Description: Issue, description, who it affects Issue: RO-2013-028-SI-01 Description: All owners and operators of track infrastructure Issue owner: Issue, description, who it affects Issue: RO-2013-028-SI-02 Description: All owners and operators of freight trains Issue owner: Issue, description, who it affects Issue: RO-2013-028-SI-03 Description: All owners and operators of freight trains Issue owner: Issue, description, who it affects Issue

: RO-2013-007-SI-01 Description: All rail safety workers and rolling stock operators Issue owner: Issue, description, who it affects Issue: RO-2013-027-SI-01 Description: Australian Rail Track Corporation (ARTC) Operation affected: Issue, description, who it affects Issue: RO-2013-027-SI-02 Description: Issue, description, who it affects Issue: RO-2014-010-SI-01 Description: All owners and operators of locomotives Issue owner: Pacific National and Downer EDI Rail Operation affected: Issue, description, who it affects Issue: RO-2013-008-SI-01 Description: Users of B.

McCann Road level crossing Issue owner: Issue, description, who it affects Issue: RO-2013-008-SI-02 Description: Users of level crossings in Victoria Issue owner: Issue, description, who it affects Issue: RO-2013-008-SI-04 Description: Users of B. McCann Road level crossing Issue owner: Issue, description, who it affects Issue: RO-2013-008-SI-05 Description: Users of B.

McCann Road level crossing Issue owner: Issue, description, who it affects Issue: RO-2013-008-SI-07 Description: Stakeholders associated with risk assessment of level crossings Issue owner: Issue, description, who it affects Issue: RO-2013-008-SI-08 Description: Stakeholders associated with risk assessment of level crossings Issue owner: Issue, description, who it affects Issue: RO-2013-008-SI-06 Description: Stakeholders associated with level crossings Issue owner: Issue, description, who it affects Issue: RO-2013-008-SI-03 Description: Users of level crossings in Gannawarra Shire Issue owner: Issue, description, who it affects Issue: RO-2013-017-SI-02 Description: Issue, description, who it affects Issue: RO-2013-017-SI-03 Description: Issue, description, who it affects Issue: RO-2012-006-SI-06 Description: Issue, description, who it affects Issue: RO-2012-006

-SI-02 Description: Issue, description, who it affects Issue: RO-2012-006-SI-04 Description: Issue, description, who it affects Issue: RO-2012-006-SI-03 Description: Issue, description, who it affects Issue: RO-2012-006-SI-05 Description: Rail – Owners and operators of road-rail vehicles Issue owner: Transfield Services Australia, the Office of National Rail Safety Regulator and the Rail Industry Safety Standards Board Operation affected: Issue, description, who it affects Issue: RO-2013-009-SI-02 Description: Issue, description, who it affects Issue: RO-2013-009-SI-03 Description: Issue, description, who it affects Issue: RO-2013-009-SI-04 Description: Issue, description, who it affects Issue: RO-2013-009-SI-05 Description: Issue, description, who it affects Issue: RO-2013-009-SI-06 Description: Issue, description, who

 it affects Issue: RO-2013-009-SI-07 Description: Issue, description, who it affects Issue: RO-2013-009-SI-01 Description: Issue, description, who it affects Issue: All operators of freight trains and infrastructure managers.

Issue owner: V/Line Regional Network and Access Operation affected: Issue, description, who it affects Issue: RO-2013-019-SI-01 Description: All rail safety workers and rolling stock operators Issue owner: Issue, description, who it affects Issue: RO-2013-014-SI-04 Description: All owners and operators of road-rail vehicles Issue owner: Issue, description, who it affects Issue: RO-2013-014-SI-05 Description: Issue, description, who it affects Issue: RO-2013-014-SI-08 Description: Issue, description, who it affects Issue: RO-2013-014-SI-06 Description: All owners and operators of road-rail vehicles Issue owner: Issue, description, who it affects Issue: All owners and operators of road-rail vehicles Issue owner: Issue, description, who it affects Issue: RO-2012-009-SI-01 Description: Issue, description, who it affects Issue: RO-2013-013-SI-01 Description: All rail operators throughout Australia

 Issue owner: Issue, description, who it affects Issue: RO-2013-024-S1-01 Description: Users of Pettavel Road level crossing Issue owner: Issue, description, who it affects Issue: RO-2013-023-SI-01 Description: All local councils and track managers Issue owner: The Australian Rail Track Corporation / Golden Plains Shire Operation affected: Issue, description, who it affects Issue: RO-2013-005-SI-01 Description: RO-2013-005-SI-01:Queensland Rail’s risk management procedures did not sufficiently mitigate risk to the safe operation of trains in circumstances when local environmental conditions result in contaminated rail running surfaces and reduced wheel/rail adhesion.

Who it affects: All owners and operators of rolling stock fitted with electro-pneumatic disc actuated braking systems incorporating wheel slip-slide protection control. Issue owner: Issue, description, who it affects Issue: RO-2013-005-SI-03 Description: RO-2013-005-SI-03:Poor wheel/rail adhesion was not recognised as a risk in any of Queensland Rail’s risk registers and therefore this risk to the safety of rail operations was not being actively managed. Who it affects: All owners and operators of rolling stock fitted with electro-pneumatic disc actuated braking systems incorporating wheel slip-slide protection control. Issue owner: Issue, description, who it affects Issue: RO-2013-005-SI-04 Description: RO-2013-005-SI-04:Despite numerous occurrences of slip-slide events in the years leading up to the accident at Cleveland, Queensland Rail’s risk management processes did not precipitate a broad, cross-divisional, consideration of solutions to the issue including an investigation of the factors relating to poor wheel/rail adhesion.

Who it affects: All owners and operators of rolling stock fitted with electro-pneumatic disc actuated braking systems incorporating wheel slip-slide protection control. Issue owner: Issue, description, who it affects Issue: RO-2013-005-SI-05 Description: RO-2013-005-SI-05:Queensland Rail’s strategic risk monitoring and analysis processes were ineffective in precipitating appropriate safety action to the findings and recommendations of their investigations into the Beerwah SPADs in 2009 which identified wheel/rail adhesion issues. Who it affects: All owners and operators of rolling stock fitted with electro-pneumatic disc actuated braking systems incorporating wheel slip-slide protection control. Issue owner: Issue, description, who it affects Issue: RO-2013-005-SI-07 Description: RO-2013-005-SI-07:Queensland Rail’s strategic risk monitoring and analysis processes were ineffective in identifying safety issues pertinent to their fleet from rail safety occurrences in other jurisdictions involving poor wheel/rail adhesion.

Who it affects: All owners and operators of rolling stock fitted with electro-pneumatic disc actuated braking systems incorporating wheel slip-slide protection control. Issue owner: Issue, description, who it affects Issue: RO-2013-005-SI-08 Description: RO-2013-005-SI-08:The national rail occurrence standard and guidelines (ON-S1/OC-G1) do not include significant train wheel slip/slide occurrences as a notification category/type which has the potential to lead to rail safety regulators being unaware of significant and/or systemic safety issues related to wheel/rail adhesion. Who it affects: Railway safety regulators and railway network owners and operators responsible for the classification and review of railway occurrence notifications. Issue owner: The Office of the National Rail Safety Regulator Operation affected: Brookfield's Asciano takeover sets up a fight for Australian Rail Track Corp (Page 1) / News / Forums / Railpage Brookfield's Asciano takeover sets up a fight for Australian Rail Track Corp x31 Chief Train Controller Location: gallifrey I have some real concerns about the selling of ARTC to Brookfield. Based on their performance in the WA grain sector this is ringing alarm bells for me.

Why would you want a competitor controlling the track you run on. The better model is separation from operators and the track management. LancedDendrite Deputy Commissioner Location: Scoping a preliminary feasibility study Vertical integration works - when you have competition between routes, like the US railroads have. But we don't have the kind of network in Australia to do that. All mainland states have only one connection with any other given state (the only exception to that being Vic-SA, which can go direct or via NSW). The East-West Corridor from Sydney to Perth is a vital asset that lends itself to monopoly ownership (and exploitation if it is privatised). Maybe in the future Australia can privatise the interstate network by selling it to operators that want to vertically integrate. But that would need a heap of investment in new lines to happen first. Alternatively, you could let private companies build new railway lines that partially compete with existing ARTC assets - like Inland Rail. I'm sure Aurizon or a Brookfield-run Asciano would jump at that chance Posted: 20 Aug 2015 14:56 × DalyWaters Chief Commissioner I have some real concerns about the selling of ARTC to Brookfield.

Based on their performance in the WA grain sector this is ringing alarm bells for me. Why would you want a competitor controlling the track you run on. The better model is separation from operators and the track management. x31 Well, up front it is terrible. CBH has had enormous trouble dealing with Brookfield for track access. Now Aurizon and SCT are seeking mediation to overcome track access fee hikes. However, there is a silver lining in some clouds. Remember when Pacific National took over Freight Australia? Due to market dominance, the ACCC forced PN to sell G class, X class and other locos and wagons. this help competitors get established. There is a fair chance that any moves by Brookfield to get ARTC would see the ACCC force the setting up of an access fee tribunal to ensure transparency in those fees. It is happening now in Queensland with Aurizon controlling the tracks. Posted: 22 Aug 2015 11:29 × Sulla1 Chief Commissioner Ultimately an ARTC tied directly to the operational needs of at least one major rail freight operator and an ARTC divorced from the Federal funding cycle should be a better ARTC for the Australian rail freight industry than the one we have now.

Sure, there might be losers, but with appropriate oversight (a Federal regulator with more than just a bark) an industry controlled ARTC is likely to be putting rail industry needs ahead of "lowest cost government funded" infrastructure decisions...something that has imperilled interstate rail freight operations more than once in the last decade. Posted: 22 Aug 2015 15:59 × br30453 Train Controller Ultimately an ARTC tied directly to the operational needs of at least one major rail freight operator and an ARTC divorced from the Federal funding cycle should be a better ARTC for the Australian rail freight industry than the one we have now. Sure, there might be losers, but with appropriate oversight (a Federal regulator with more than just a bark) an industry controlled ARTC is likely to be putting rail industry needs ahead of "lowest cost government funded" infrastructure decisions...something that has imperilled interstate rail freight operations more than once in the last decade. Sulla1 The solution might be a company owned by both major operators as in the USA where in some areas both CSX and NS have what is termed a shared services operation. With smaller operators such as SCT being minor shareholders.

Posted: 22 Aug 2015 16:35 × bingley hall Minister for Railways Location: On a freight train to crazy town Ultimately an ARTC tied directly to the operational needs of at least one major rail freight operator and an ARTC divorced from the Federal funding cycle should be a better ARTC for the Australian rail freight industry than the one we have now. Sure, there might be losers, but with appropriate oversight (a Federal regulator with more than just a bark) an industry controlled ARTC is likely to be putting rail industry needs ahead of "lowest cost government funded" infrastructure decisions...something that has imperilled interstate rail freight operations more than once in the last decade. Sulla1 Given that a "Federal Regulator with more than just bark" does not exist in any industry in Australia I think you are on a loser with that one already. While poor infrastructure is a contributing factor to imperilled interstate freight operations, the ineptitude of the privately owned rail freight operators is a bigger factor. Posted: 22 Aug 2015 19:17 × james.au Chief Commissioner Location: Sydney, NSW OK Firstly, lets not get ahead of ourselves - we haven't seen any report yet!

And O know that to Government is looking at the $4bn and what it can get for it, but i see the following issues: - Previous experience in Australia (e.g. Victoria and Tasmania and South Australia) - Previous experience in the UK (National Rail) - The go forward position. What does it look like for government in the future, if a scenario exists where the rail network is clapped out. It all goes back to road and one of two things happen, the network fails and passes back to government, or some sort of future intervention is carried out to force/entice/incentivise things back to rail. - The state governments. Vic and NSW have leased the network to the ARTC. Not sure they'd like to see the Federal government walk away with a bunch of cash that get the bulk of the value from the assets they still own? - Smaller operators like SCT, Fletchers etc etc etc who are doing a great job at the lower end of the market and keeping the competitive tension alive Lets see how this pans out.

Posted: 23 Aug 2015 10:10 Last edited by james.au on 23 Aug 2015 10:13; edited 1 time in total × bevans Site Admin Location: Melbourne, Australia Personally I think the interstate track owner should be NOT tied with any above rail operator. It might be unavoidable. don_dunstan Why might it be so? I am trying to search my mind to ascertain the benefits of lobbing a network with an operator where there is open access? I can;t quite find the rationale. So if it might happen then what would be the reasons why? Even Queensland is looking at unbundling this for the mount isa line. It failed in Victoria where FA/PN had the track assets. But then again you might also argue Victrack and vline have done a terrible job as the custodians for all access. Posted: 23 Aug 2015 11:07 × don_dunstan Chief Commissioner Location: Adelaide proud Personally I think the interstate track owner should be NOT tied with any above rail operator. It might be unavoidable. Why might it be so?

I am trying to search my mind to ascertain the benefits of lobbing a network with an operator where there is open access? I can;t quite find the rationale. So if it might happen then what would be the reasons why? .... bevans Whoever the buyer is of the 99-year lease on ARTC network (assuming that's what they go with) they will need to have the sufficient capital behind them and they'll need to be 110% sure of a good return. Despite the lessons of Pacific National in Victoria and Tasmania I think that any potential buyer will only come up with maximum up-front cash on the basis of the purchase being as free of regulation as possible. ON this basis I think any privatisation that the Abbott government proposes will by tailored to the buyers' wishes. As Bingley Hall rightly points out, it's unlikely that any buyer will agree to regulations in which they have to share their network at rates that a government regulator wants - why would you pay top dollar for that asset only to be told by some bureaucracy that you have to resell access?

It's likely therefore that we'll get a 'vertically integrated' operator that controls both above and below the rail simply because that's where the greatest profits will be for any private owner/operator and therefore that's what will get the best price in a privatisation. I think its really unlikely that Abbott will privatise ARTC in any other way; or if they do it will be with some window-dressing legislation around open-access (probably at prices to be determined by the owner/operator... and at times that they determine too). Posted: 23 Aug 2015 11:50 × Sulla1 Chief Commissioner Aurizon's coal network operations are for all intents and purposes vertically integrated. It operates, controls and maintains its network in-house. The privatisation process that created Aurizon was specifically modelled on the North American industry so its below rail operations reflect US and Canadian practice. Australia's National Competition Policy requires owners of monopoly facilities to negotiate third-party access agreements with other users, a requirement Aurizon has always met since the splitting of the QR and Aurizon networks.

BMA and PN have access agreements with Aurizon, and PN is currently the primary tonnage mover on the Goonnyella system serving Brookfield's Dalrymple Bay coal terminal. For the 2014/2015 financial year Aurizon generated $718-million through access agreements and has committed to a $600-million annual cap ex spend. Posted: 23 Aug 2015 13:03 Last edited by Sulla1 on 23 Aug 2015 14:00; edited 2 times in total × Personally I think the interstate track owner should be NOT tied with any above rail operator. It might be unavoidable. Why might it be so? I am trying to search my mind to ascertain the benefits of lobbing a network with an operator where there is open access? I can;t quite find the rationale. So if it might happen then what would be the reasons why? Even Queensland is looking at unbundling this for the mount isa line. It failed in Victoria where FA/PN had the track assets. But then again you might also argue Victrack and vline have done a terrible job as the custodians for all access.

bevans The Mt Isa Line has never been part of the Aurizon network. There are two independently owned rail networks in Queensland now, one is Aurizon's comprising the Newlands, Goonyella, Blackwater and Moura coal systems. The other is the QR network owned by the Queensland Government. The QR network includes the Brisbane suburban system, the Western, South Western, Southern Lines and branches west of Brisbane, the North Coast Line and branches north to Cairns (except Aurizon-owned sections between Gladstone/ Rockhampton and Durroburra/Kaili), the Central line west of Emerald, the Clermont branch north of Emerald and the Mt Isa line and branches. Prior to the last election the previous government was planning to lease the Mt Isa line and Townsville Port as a single integrated entity to interested parties (Aurizon and PN were both rumoured as interested parties), but with the new government elected on a policy of "no privatisation", the Mt Isa Line will remain part of QR for a long time yet. Reports of deteriorating track conditions on the Gold Coast line and parts of the North Coast Line and ongoing issues on the Mt Isa line suggests QR's maintenance program may have been underfunded in recent years.

Posted: 23 Aug 2015 13:27 Last edited by Sulla1 on 23 Aug 2015 14:07; edited 2 times in total × @Sulla1 You might also say the Mount Isa line is part of those assets and has since been subjected to under investment by Aurizon. would that be a fair comment? It is now to the point where so much capital is needed it is likely to be split out. I draw your attention to the Federal Court battles over FMG requiring/requesting access to the BHP network (I think it was BHP) in northern Western Australia. bevans As noted, the Mt Isa line isn't owned by Aurizon, it remains a part of the government owned QR network and the lease was stopped by a change of government earlier this year. FMG attempted to have National Competition Policy applied to the Pilbara networks but BHP and Rio argued their rail assets "weren't monopolized assets, but rather a part of their integrated supply chain" - since the same company owned the mines and port at each end. FMG has since used the same argument to prevent access to its own network.

Aurizon could not use the the BHP/Rio defence since it does not own the mines and ports it serves. Posted: 23 Aug 2015 13:54 Last edited by Sulla1 on 23 Aug 2015 14:01; edited 2 times in total × RTT_Rules The Ghost of George Stephenson Location: Dubai UAE Australia is not Nth America, we don't have a large web of interstate lines on multiple routes where operators work with each other to save building their own lines or enable to shutdown their own lines and use others. Nearly all our SG routes are a monopoly with the few alternative routes usually adding hundreds of km or mountains or via commuter rail corridors. Keep the track owner separate, this way you don't need to regulate or monitor the contracts and rates charged to anywhere near the same level. Reduce the number of lawyers and save money. What happens in CQ should never have happened and even so bulk haulage with large longterm contracts is completely different to intermodal operations. This doesn't mean that above rail operators cannot take minority share holdings of the track owner, but I'd limit this to 19.9%.

The track owner has a vested interest to have more trains operate, regardless of who is paying the bill and can have peak pricing if demand is there. Posted: 23 Aug 2015 14:36 × Sulla1 Chief Commissioner Australia is not Nth America, we don't have a large web of interstate lines on multiple routes where operators work with each other to save building their own lines or enable to shutdown their own lines and use others. Nearly all our SG routes are a monopoly with the few alternative routes usually adding hundreds of km or mountains or via commuter rail corridors. Keep the track owner separate, this way you don't need to regulate or monitor the contracts and rates charged to anywhere near the same level. Reduce the number of lawyers and save money. What happens in CQ should never have happened and even so bulk haulage with large longterm contracts is completely different to intermodal operations. This doesn't mean that above rail operators cannot take minority share holdings of the track owner, but I'd limit this to 19.9%. The track owner has a vested interest to have more trains operate, regardless of who is paying the bill and can have peak pricing if demand is there.

RTT_Rules On the other hand, a separated track owner creates a situation where all rail access is a cost to an above rail operator, discouraging marginal or internal traffic. In the case of the ARTC, there's a need to make a profit from all rail users - whereas a vertically integrated rail user can take a cost neutral approach to their own access. Would G&W be making as much money running a single intermodal to Darwin each day if they were paying access costs charged with a profit margin, rather than just paying for their current annual below track costs? Posted: 23 Aug 2015 15:27 × RTT_Rules The Ghost of George Stephenson Location: Dubai UAE On the other hand, a separated track owner creates a situation where all rail access is a cost to an above rail operator, discouraging marginal or internal traffic. In the case of the ARTC, there's a need to make a profit from all rail users - whereas a vertically integrated rail user can take a cost neutral approach to their own access.

Would G&W be making as much money running a single intermodal to Darwin each day if they were paying access costs charged with a profit margin, rather than just paying for their current annual below track costs? Sulla1 If the track cannot earn enough money to pay for its costs, then its subsidised. Doesn't matter what ownership model you throw at it. What you are mostly refering to is the profit margin of the track owner being removed from the equation. The accountants of the world will tell you this will not be the case as the track, which is an asset and has value now belongs to the rail operator and increase their net worth, which means the profit in $ terms must rise to be in proportion or the company will be seen to under perform and hence sold off by share holders. Which is what happened to the NT line prior to G&W. Posted: 23 Aug 2015 16:29 × don_dunstan Chief Commissioner Location: Adelaide proud On the other hand, a separated track owner creates a situation where all rail access is a cost to an above rail operator, discouraging marginal or internal traffic.

In the case of the ARTC, there's a need to make a profit from all rail users - whereas a vertically integrated rail user can take a cost neutral approach to their own access. Would G&W be making as much money running a single intermodal to Darwin each day if they were paying access costs charged with a profit margin, rather than just paying for their current annual below track costs? Sulla1 I agree, I think there's a strong business case to be made for a single owner/operator setting the charges for third party access. It's really unlikely that a potential buyer will sign a contract allowing a statutory authority to determine the value of the assets and their peak times of use and allow other operators in. I just don't see who would be interested in taking on the network under those circumstances; if you are paying big $$$ for ownership of that track then you will want to be able to dictate yourself circumstances under which third parties are allowed to operate on it (and you'll also probably want to take the best paths/times for your own trains). If the terms of sale of ARTC are too arduous then I'd say there's a good chance they won't find anyone to buy it.

It has to be an attractive proposition for whomever takes it on and an 'independent' third party pricing scheme for access will be a major turn-off. Posted: 23 Aug 2015 16:39 × Trainplanner Deputy Commissioner Location: Along the Line Yes there are certainly positives and negatives in all of these models. There is two common threads running through all of this. Firstly the network is doesn't have mulitple routes between City pairs meaning whoever operates trains here shares the same network - multiple operators and secondly outside the Hunter Valley traffic densities are very light compared to North America. The network is still relatively inefficient even after much needed investment and needs a hell of a lot more investment to make it truly efficient, reliable and competitive. The policy settings are still not rail friendly as we know and that's not likely to change dramatically to the extent that the system starts to get volumes to justify big spending so that tells me a separated model will be what its going to be. Getting the infrastructure manager to "behave" in the way you want them is another issue as seen by Brookefield.

To me the route NSW has taken with their model appears at least on the surface to have been reasonably successful, noting NSW initially had ARTC as its infrastructure maintainer and network manager then shifting subsequently to John Holland. The policy setting appears right, the network has had investment, there are a range of operators accessing the network and newer players especially are investing in brand new equipment etc. Posted: 23 Aug 2015 17:09 × Close a6et Minister for Railways - The state governments. Vic and NSW have leased the network to the ARTC. Not sure they'd like to see the Federal government walk away with a bunch of cash that get the bulk of the value from the assets they still own? - Smaller operators like SCT, Fletchers etc etc etc who are doing a great job at the lower end of the market and keeping the competitive tension alive Lets see how this pans out. jamesbushell.au The way the NSW government is going at the moment, they would leap at the chance to get some capital from a leased rail system, would others not be in the same position?

The East West line may not be the great booming railway at the moment, but the potential of it is an unknown size for wise use & operations. What actually gives me doubts as to having an above rail owner in the private market of the below rail sector is their way of controlling things as well as trying to milk clients of their own as well as competitors. The WA grain lines operation is very concerning indeed, & from what I can see of those lines, the market is there,& is it just in a single grain commodity, the old NSW misnomour that grain only stood for wheat when it suited. The East West line, & perhaps that should not just take in the WA/SA component of it either needs to in essence an open access type line. Posted: 24 Aug 2015 09:54 × x31 Chief Train Controller Location: gallifrey Keep the track owner separate, this way you don't need to regulate or monitor the contracts and rates charged to anywhere near the same level. Reduce the number of lawyers and save money. That degree of regulatory oversight will be a significant deterrent to anyone in the private sector taking it on.

It's like trying to sell a time-share house where all the school holidays and the entire summer is booked out to someone else. Who would want to buy it? don_dunstan Can you explain oversight? Do you mean there is regulation and it is not followed or do you mean there is not enough regulation? Posted: 24 Aug 2015 11:36 Australian Rail Track Corporation - Wikipedia, Photos and Videos Australian Rail Track Corporation NEXT GO TO RESULTS [51 .. 100] WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE 1 July 1998; 18 years ago (1998-07-01) Headquarters The Australian Rail Track Corporation (ARTC) is a Government of Australia owned statutory corporation , established in July 1998, that manages most of Australia's interstate rail network.

[2] [3] Contents History[ edit ] ARTC Asset Management South and West offices in Wagga Wagga In November 1996, the federal government announced a major rail reform package that included the sale of government-owned train operators Australian National and National Rail , and the establishment of the Australian Rail Track Corporation to manage the sections of the interstate rail network which had been controlled by the two former organisations. The ARTC was incorporated in February 1998, with operations starting in July 1998 when the lines managed by Australian National's Track Australia were transferred to it. [4] [5] [6] These were the lines from Kalgoorlie to Port Augusta , Tarcoola to Alice Springs , Port Augusta to Whyalla , Adelaide to Broken Hill and Adelaide to Serviceton , and the Outer Harbor line in Adelaide. [4] In 2000, the Tarcoola to Alice Springs line was leased to the Asia Pacific Transport Consortium as part of the project to extend the line to Darwin .

[7] Victoria[ edit ] In 1999, ARTC signed a five-year deal with VicTrack , the rail manager for the Victorian government , to lease the standard gauge track which runs from Albury to Serviceton via Melbourne . [4] This was later extended for another 10 years, and in May 2008 for another 45 years. [8] [9] As part of the lease extension, the run-down and underutilised broad-gauge line from Seymour to Albury, that paralleled the Melbourne to Sydney line, was leased to ARTC and converted to standard gauge . [10] Included was construction of the five-kilometre Wodonga Rail Bypass which eliminated 11 level crossings in that city. [11] In July 2008 it was announced the standard gauge track from Maroona to Portland would be leased to ARTC for 50 years, with $15 million to be invested in the line. [12] [13] The line was handed over in March 2009.

[14] Western Australia[ edit ] In 2001, ARTC was granted rights for 15 years to sell access between Kalgoorlie and Kwinana , Perth , to interstate rail operators under a wholesale access agreement with the West Australian track-owner Brookfield Rail . [7] New South Wales[ edit ] Troy Junction to Merrygoen line As part of this agreement ARTC agreed to the following investment programmes: [17] $192 million to build the Southern Sydney Freight Line , a new dedicated southern access route for freight trains through the south-western Sydney metropolitan area from Sefton to Macarthur . Opened in January 2013. [18] [19] $152 million to upgrade the Hunter Valley network, including track strengthening and $67 million to eliminate bottlenecks, increasing the capacity of the network from 85 million to over 100 million tonnes per year. $186 million to upgrade the Main South line from Macarthur to Albury . The investment will improve signalling, extend the length of crossing loops and replace the Murrumbidgee Bridge at Wagga Wagga .

It will assist in reducing the transit times for freight trains between Sydney and Melbourne by three hours. $119 million for the North Coast line from Maitland to Border Loop including replacement of the 1920s signalling system between Casino and Border Loop. The investment will assist in reducing the travel time for freight trains between Sydney and Brisbane by up to 3.5 hours. $21 million for the Broken Hill line between Parkes and Broken Hill , including funds to raise height clearances allowing the passage of double-stacked container trains. The then NSW Rail Infrastructure Corporation also contracted operational responsibility of the remainder of its country branch lines to ARTC from September 2004. [20] From January 2012 this was transferred to the John Holland Group . [16] [21] [22] In January 2010, the Government of Queensland leased its standard gauge line from Border Loop on the New South Wales border to Acacia Ridge , Brisbane to ARTC for 60 years. [26] In February 2014, the Australian Government and Queensland Government agreed to investigate further incorporating Queensland into the national rail network. [27] This ultimately did not proceed.

Responsibilities[ edit ] ARTC does not operate any trains, but provides and maintains the infrastructure for train operators to run on. The tracks controlled by ARTC are located in five states, and were previously run by six separate state railways in an uncoordinated fashion that gave an advantage to road transport. By combining the infrastructure under one corporation it was expected that a more integrated and coordinated one-stop-shop would be created. It provides its own reporting numbers to trains that operate on its network. ARTC does not control any of the narrow gauge track in Queensland or South Australia , nor broad gauge track in Victoria . However it does control the Albion to Jacana freight line which has been partially converted to dual gauge for use as a passing lane, but is considered a main line on the broad gauge network. Australian Rail Track Corporation - WOW.com Australian Rail Track Corporation 1 July 1998; 18 years ago (1998-07-01) Headquarters The Australian Rail Track Corporation (ARTC) is a Government of Australia owned statutory corporation , established in July 1998, that manages most of Australia's interstate rail network.

[2] [3] Contents History ARTC Asset Management South and West offices in Wagga Wagga In November 1996, the federal government announced a major rail reform package that included the sale of government-owned train operators Australian National and National Rail , and the establishment of the Australian Rail Track Corporation to manage the sections of the interstate rail network which had been controlled by the two former organisations. The ARTC was incorporated in February 1998, with operations starting in July 1998 when the lines managed by Australian National's Track Australia were transferred to it. [4] [5] [6] These were the lines from Kalgoorlie to Port Augusta , Tarcoola to Alice Springs , Port Augusta to Whyalla , Adelaide to Broken Hill and Adelaide to Serviceton , and the Outer Harbor line in Adelaide. [4] In 2000, the Tarcoola to Alice Springs line was leased to the Asia Pacific Transport Consortium as part of the project to extend the line to Darwin .

[7] Victoria In 1999, ARTC signed a five-year deal with VicTrack , the rail manager for the Victorian government , to lease the standard gauge track which runs from Albury to Serviceton via Melbourne . [4] This was later extended for another 10 years, and in May 2008 for another 45 years. [8] [9] As part of the lease extension, the run-down and underutilised broad-gauge line from Seymour to Albury, that paralleled the Melbourne to Sydney line, was leased to ARTC and converted to standard gauge . [10] Included was construction of the five-kilometre Wodonga Rail Bypass which eliminated 11 level crossings in that city. [11] In July 2008 it was announced the standard gauge track from Maroona to Portland would be leased to ARTC for 50 years, with $15 million to be invested in the line. [12] [13] The line was handed over in March 2009.

[14] Western Australia In 2001, ARTC was granted rights for 15 years to sell access between Kalgoorlie and Kwinana , Perth , to interstate rail operators under a wholesale access agreement with the West Australian track-owner Brookfield Rail . [7] New South Wales Troy Junction to Merrygoen line As part of this agreement ARTC agreed to the following investment programmes: [17] $192 million to build the Southern Sydney Freight Line , a new dedicated southern access route for freight trains through the south-western Sydney metropolitan area from Sefton to Macarthur . Opened in January 2013. [18] [19] $152 million to upgrade the Hunter Valley network, including track strengthening and $67 million to eliminate bottlenecks, increasing the capacity of the network from 85 million to over 100 million tonnes per year. $186 million to upgrade the Main South line from Macarthur to Albury . The investment will improve signalling, extend the length of crossing loops and replace the Murrumbidgee Bridge at Wagga Wagga .

It will assist in reducing the transit times for freight trains between Sydney and Melbourne by three hours. $119 million for the North Coast line from Maitland to Border Loop including replacement of the 1920s signalling system between Casino and Border Loop. The investment will assist in reducing the travel time for freight trains between Sydney and Brisbane by up to 3.5 hours. $21 million for the Broken Hill line between Parkes and Broken Hill , including funds to raise height clearances allowing the passage of double-stacked container trains. The then NSW Rail Infrastructure Corporation also contracted operational responsibility of the remainder of its country branch lines to ARTC from September 2004. [20] From January 2012 this was transferred to the John Holland Group . [16] [21] [22] In August 2012, the Government of New South Wales owned RailCorp leased its Sydney Metropolitan Freight Network line from Port Botany to Sefton to ARTC for 50 years.

[24] [25] Queensland In January 2010, the Government of Queensland leased its standard gauge line from Border Loop on the New South Wales border to Acacia Ridge , Brisbane to ARTC for 60 years. [26] In February 2014, the Australian Government and Queensland Government agreed to investigate further incorporating Queensland into the national rail network. [27] This ultimately did not proceed. Responsibilities ARTC does not operate any trains, but provides and maintains the infrastructure for train operators to run on. The tracks controlled by ARTC are located in five states, and were previously run by six separate state railways in an uncoordinated fashion that gave an advantage to road transport. By combining the infrastructure under one corporation it was expected that a more integrated and coordinated one-stop-shop would be created. It provides its own reporting numbers to trains that operate on its network. ARTC does not control any of the narrow gauge track in Queensland or South Australia , nor broad gauge track in Victoria . However it does control the Albion to Jacana freight line which has been partially converted to dual gauge for use as a passing lane, but is considered a main line on the broad gauge network. Owned corridors

Question: Aurizon, VicTrack, Brookfield and John Holland are/were major railway operators of?
Answer: Australia