News & Discussion: Adelaide Metro Trains

[muzzamo]

Deutsche Bahn is the state rail operator of the Federal Republic of Germany. If they win the contract, what the Liberal Government is essentially telling you is that it's fine for any efficiency savings to go to the German state, instead of the state of South Australia. We've been through all this before back in July, but there's absolutely no evidence that any of the outsourced rail and tram networks work any better than state operated ones in Australia (Adelaide and Perth in particular have very high punctuality and satisfaction ratings), and any efficiency savings for the overseas operators are always made by increasing fares and cutting staff.

Cutting staff - absolutely will happen. But they will have no control over fares - these are set by the government.

The State of South Australia is incapable of eking out efficiency gains due to the baked-in inefficiency of the public service and this is one of the reasons that the operations are being outsourced.

[Eurostar]

Deutsche Bahn is the state rail operator of the Federal Republic of Germany. If they win the contract, what the Liberal Government is essentially telling you is that it's fine for any efficiency savings to go to the German state, instead of the state of South Australia. We've been through all this before back in July, but there's absolutely no evidence that any of the outsourced rail and tram networks work any better than state operated ones in Australia (Adelaide and Perth in particular have very high punctuality and satisfaction ratings), and any efficiency savings for the overseas operators are always made by increasing fares and cutting staff.

Cutting staff - absolutely will happen. But they will have no control over fares - these are set by the government.

The State of South Australia is incapable of eking out efficiency gains due to the baked-in inefficiency of the public service and this is one of the reasons that the operations are being outsourced.

I wouldn't be surprised if we see single diesel railcars at night on lines like Grange and two set max during interpeak on lines like Outer Harbor and Belair

[Llessur2002]

I wouldn't be surprised if we see single diesel railcars at night on lines like Grange and two set max during interpeak on lines like Outer Harbor and Belair

Since the Libs came to power the Grange line has been routinely running single cars off-peak, as has the Outer Harbor line on occasion (unless there are events in the city).

I'm all up for improving efficiency but I feel that the single cars come at the expense of making the service look like a second-rate afterthought. It projects a fairly low-rent image of the services on these lines and I doubt does anything improve the attraction of public transport to potential users.

I've never been anywhere else in the world where you can be at a main line station 3km out from the heart of the city at 6pm and a single rail car rocks up. They might as well go whole-hog and paint them up like Thomas the Tank Engine to make them a real novelty.

[Spotto]

I wouldn't be surprised if we see single diesel railcars at night on lines like Grange and two set max during interpeak on lines like Outer Harbor and Belair

At least they won't be able to play any games like that on the Gawler line once it's electrified. Sets fixed at three cars. Outer Harbor and Grange will be the next to be electrified (Belair line isn't even duplicated) but I can't see it happening with this government.

[SBD]

I wouldn't be surprised if we see single diesel railcars at night on lines like Grange and two set max during interpeak on lines like Outer Harbor and Belair

Since the Libs came to power the Grange line has been routinely running single cars off-peak, as has the Outer Harbor line on occasion (unless there are events in the city).

I'm all up for improving efficiency but I feel that the single cars come at the expense of making the service look like a second-rate afterthought. It projects a fairly low-rent image of the services on these lines and I doubt does anything improve the attraction of public transport to potential users.

I've never been anywhere else in the world where you can be at a main line station 3km out from the heart of the city at 6pm and a single rail car rocks up. They might as well go whole-hog and paint them up like Thomas the Tank Engine to make them a real novelty.

Why are single rail cars "bad"? Some of the 3000-class railcars are double-ended to enable single running. A single car provides higher perceived security as any security staff can see the entire space. If it's less than half full anyway, why spread the passengers across two or more vehicles?

[Llessur2002]

Why are single rail cars "bad"?

As I said above:

I feel that the single cars come at the expense of making the service look like a second-rate afterthought. It projects a fairly low-rent image of the services on these lines and I doubt does anything improve the attraction of public transport to potential users.

I've never been anywhere else in the world where you can be at a main line station 3km out from the heart of the city at 6pm and a single rail car rocks up.

Perception matters with regards to improving public transport patronage. Running single cars gives the impression that no one uses the line - if people think no one uses it then they're less likely to want to use it themselves. Ultimately single cars don't look like a train - they look like a bus on rails. They're also very uncommon in major cities from my experience - another bit of ammunition for those who joke about Adelaide being 30 years behind the eastern cities.

I also suspect that the Libs see single car running as a precursor to cutting services or closing lines - "look - we're only running single cars so we might as well be running a bus".

[rubberman]

Why are single rail cars "bad"?

As I said above:

I feel that the single cars come at the expense of making the service look like a second-rate afterthought. It projects a fairly low-rent image of the services on these lines and I doubt does anything improve the attraction of public transport to potential users.

I've never been anywhere else in the world where you can be at a main line station 3km out from the heart of the city at 6pm and a single rail car rocks up.

Perception matters with regards to improving public transport patronage. Running single cars gives the impression that no one uses the line - if people think no one uses it then they're less likely to want to use it themselves. Ultimately single cars don't look like a train - they look like a bus on rails. They're also very uncommon in major cities from my experience - another bit of ammunition for those who joke about Adelaide being 30 years behind the eastern cities.

I also suspect that the Libs see single car running as a precursor to cutting services or closing lines - "look - we're only running single cars so we might as well be running a bus".

Indeed. But running two vehicles is more costly. So that makes the figures look even worse. Basically, we are trying to make heavy rail do something that light rail, and/or buses can do cheaper. So, yeah, it's either going to be light rail or bustitution. The Grange and Outer Harbor lines simply don't stack up as heavy rail. The only reason they are still heavy rail is because the rail unions were dictating to the previous government. The business case doesn't exist. Light rail can do it cheaper and likely quicker.

By all means, have a preference for heavy rail, but facts is facts.

[cmet]

Bit of a tangent, but does anyone know the chances of rail heading north east in either the medium term or long term future? I’m guessing the o-Bahn corridor would make the job somewhat easier, and from what I understand the obhan is approaching the end of its estimated useful life. The service is relatively slow and just feels dated. I do see how it would be difficult for rail to move as many people as the busses do however, there is a bus every few minutes in peek times. Anyone know if there’s been any actual word from the relevant powers on this? Cheers

[TrebleSketch]

Bit of a tangent, but does anyone know the chances of rail heading north east in either the medium term or long term future? I’m guessing the o-Bahn corridor would make the job somewhat easier, and from what I understand the obhan is approaching the end of its estimated useful life. The service is relatively slow and just feels dated. I do see how it would be difficult for rail to move as many people as the busses do however, there is a bus every few minutes in peek times. Anyone know if there’s been any actual word from the relevant powers on this? Cheers

The chances are very low, as it would require lots of tunnelling and lots of re-structuring of the current system. Wouldn't mind that happening, but it's no doubt more "fantasy rail" than a possible future opportunity without strong leadership and public support. Before the O-Bahn was conceived/built, it was originally going to be "Modbury Freeway"; as part of the MATS Plan. Conceived back in 1968 and was later modified into a tram line before turning into the O-Bahn we know today.

> I do see how it would be difficult for rail to move as many people as the busses do however

Also, this won't be the case if there are enough people being fed into the interchanges/stations. It is quite possible to have trains running in enough frequency, be at the right size to have more capacity than current peak O-Bahn capacity.

I don't know much about future plans for the current stretch of O-Bahn, but there has been talks and discussions with local councils and state government on the extension to Golden Grove. With the plans for it being delayed again and again. It "works" alright, though I feel like that the tunnel is a bit too packed at peak times.

As an out-there concept, this could work with the City Loop in the future as a more integrated rail/bus network

[Aidan]

Bit of a tangent, but does anyone know the chances of rail heading north east in either the medium term or long term future? I’m guessing the o-Bahn corridor would make the job somewhat easier, and from what I understand the obhan is approaching the end of its estimated useful life. The service is relatively slow and just feels dated. I do see how it would be difficult for rail to move as many people as the busses do however, there is a bus every few minutes in peek times. Anyone know if there’s been any actual word from the relevant powers on this? Cheers

The O-bahn is better at what it does than a railway would be, and has plenty of useful life ahead of it. The service is relatively fast, and two years ago a new section of it opened: a tunnel between Grenfell Street and Hackney Road. I'm pretty sure there are no official plans for rail to head east as yet — but when it does, it's safe to say that it won't go the same way as the O-bahn.

BTW even though the O-bahn's peak headways are less than a minute, rail can shift many more people quite easily.

[dbl96]

The State of South Australia is incapable of eking out efficiency gains due to the baked-in inefficiency of the public service and this is one of the reasons that the operations are being outsourced.

Or maybe the Government of South Australia is unwilling to eke out efficiency gains due to their baked-on ideological commitment to neoliberal economics.

Privatisation of transport and utilities generally doesn't work. It has been shown again and again to produce inferior, more expensive services.

The only thing which can make private enterprises more efficient than the public service is competition. Competition is what drives companies to be efficient and deliver the best services. If there is no competition, there is little incentive to find inefficiencies. If you have a monopoly, it doesn't matter how badly you deliver the service, because people are unable to vote with their feet by choosing a better performing competitor.

Government monopolies are inefficient. However these inefficiencies are generally moderated by the fact that the public service exists to serve the public. The government monopoly's ultimate objective is to deliver a public service, so its efforts go into serving the public, even if it is inefficient at doing so.

On the other hand, the ultimate objective of private monopolies is to make profits for their shareholders. If providing an inferior, more expensive service for customers allows the private monopoly to generate larger profits, then it will provide inferior, more expensive services. This is especially the case for services that people need rather than want, like transport and utilities. People need to travel to work, and so they will continue to do so even if ticket prices are raised or service quality reduced. Privatised transport operators know this, so they will raise prices and reduce service quality to increase their profits. Customers are unable to fight back because they are unable to hit the extortionist company's bottom line by choosing a competitor.

The reason the Liberals are privatising trains and trams is because they have an irrational ideological belief that privatisation and the reduction of the size of the public service are good things. They do not have any coherent, rational argument as for why privatisation actually benefits the people of South Australia.

[SBD]

The State of South Australia is incapable of eking out efficiency gains due to the baked-in inefficiency of the public service and this is one of the reasons that the operations are being outsourced.

Or maybe the Government of South Australia is unwilling to eke out efficiency gains due to their baked-on ideological commitment to neoliberal economics.

Privatisation of transport and utilities generally doesn't work. It has been shown again and again to produce inferior, more expensive services.

The only thing which can make private enterprises more efficient than the public service is competition. Competition is what drives companies to be efficient and deliver the best services. If there is no competition, there is little incentive to find inefficiencies. If you have a monopoly, it doesn't matter how badly you deliver the service, because people are unable to vote with their feet by choosing a better performing competitor.

Government monopolies are inefficient. However these inefficiencies are generally moderated by the fact that the public service exists to serve the public. The government monopoly's ultimate objective is to deliver a public service, so its efforts go into serving the public, even if it is inefficient at doing so.

On the other hand, the ultimate objective of private monopolies is to make profits for their shareholders. If providing an inferior, more expensive service for customers allows the private monopoly to generate larger profits, then it will provide inferior, more expensive services. This is especially the case for services that people need rather than want, like transport and utilities. People need to travel to work, and so they will continue to do so even if ticket prices are raised or service quality reduced. Privatised transport operators know this, so they will raise prices and reduce service quality to increase their profits. Customers are unable to fight back because they are unable to hit the extortionist company's bottom line by choosing a competitor.

The reason the Liberals are privatising trains and trams is because they have an irrational ideological belief that privatisation and the reduction of the size of the public service are good things. They do not have any coherent, rational argument as for why privatisation actually benefits the people of South Australia.

Is there a coherent argument for why it is "good" to outsource Adelaide Metro bus services but not the trains and trams? Does this provide the efficiency of competition at the expense of higher interoperability?

If trams and trains are privatised, then either it is to a different company than the nearby buses, creating competition, or it is to the same company, creating opportunities for better integrating feeder services.

[NTRabbit]

The State of South Australia is incapable of eking out efficiency gains due to the baked-in inefficiency of the public service and this is one of the reasons that the operations are being outsourced.

Or maybe the Government of South Australia is unwilling to eke out efficiency gains due to their baked-on ideological commitment to neoliberal economics.

Privatisation of transport and utilities generally doesn't work. It has been shown again and again to produce inferior, more expensive services.

The only thing which can make private enterprises more efficient than the public service is competition. Competition is what drives companies to be efficient and deliver the best services. If there is no competition, there is little incentive to find inefficiencies. If you have a monopoly, it doesn't matter how badly you deliver the service, because people are unable to vote with their feet by choosing a better performing competitor.

Government monopolies are inefficient. However these inefficiencies are generally moderated by the fact that the public service exists to serve the public. The government monopoly's ultimate objective is to deliver a public service, so its efforts go into serving the public, even if it is inefficient at doing so.

On the other hand, the ultimate objective of private monopolies is to make profits for their shareholders. If providing an inferior, more expensive service for customers allows the private monopoly to generate larger profits, then it will provide inferior, more expensive services. This is especially the case for services that people need rather than want, like transport and utilities. People need to travel to work, and so they will continue to do so even if ticket prices are raised or service quality reduced. Privatised transport operators know this, so they will raise prices and reduce service quality to increase their profits. Customers are unable to fight back because they are unable to hit the extortionist company's bottom line by choosing a competitor.

The reason the Liberals are privatising trains and trams is because they have an irrational ideological belief that privatisation and the reduction of the size of the public service are good things. They do not have any coherent, rational argument as for why privatisation actually benefits the people of South Australia.

Is there a coherent argument for why it is "good" to outsource Adelaide Metro bus services but not the trains and trams? Does this provide the efficiency of competition at the expense of higher interoperability?

If trams and trains are privatised, then either it is to a different company than the nearby buses, creating competition, or it is to the same company, creating opportunities for better integrating feeder services.

It wasn't good to outsource the bus services either

[Eurostar]

At least SA Labor Party whilst in government had vision to improve and extend our railway network. Knoll has shown no vision of what his government is going to do with the rail network besides privatisation. The only projects SA Liberals have commenced is ones proposed by the previous government.

[SBD]

At least SA Labor Party whilst in government had vision to improve and extend our railway network. Knoll has shown no vision of what his government is going to do with the rail network besides privatisation. The only projects SA Liberals have commenced is ones proposed by the previous government.

Not quite true. GlobeLink is a vision with a rail component. How it stacks up economically is still being determined, but I have no problem with the idea that it should be tested for value rather than being built for purely ideological reasons.