Rightwing government in Australia

The federal election in Australia has seen the Liberal/Country Party coalition win a majority of seats, displacing the previous Labour Party government.

I wonder what changes a rightwing federal government will have on Australia's railways?

Very little, I would think. In Australia, as in New Zealand, the difference between right and left is pretty minor. Only the minority parties tend to provide more extreme positions.
What could be benefical to the railways, is the greens got another seat in the senate, so hopefully they have some leverage to promote public transport. On the negative side , he is ditching the carbon trading scheme, but replacingit with some other scheme .
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/ar ... d=11121517" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The new PM strikes me as a climate change denialist and therefore thinks no changes to emissions policy are necessary. A pity as Australia has huge resources of solar energy but is also responsible for selling carbon emitting coal. Rail can be a useful lower carbon emitting transport service.

Gentlemen, I would hardly describe the fall of a coalition run almost exclusively by and for a coalition of labor unions and a gaggle of fringe movements which share only a suspicion of a free economy as the rise of what is, by the use of the term "rightwing", a move toward Fascism. Those who advocate further use of the technology of flanged wheels on rails need not necessarily couple their coach to a left-facing loco.

The free interplay of supply and demand on a level playing field will naturally favor the efficient. This fact has already manifested itself here in the United States, and the driving force was not Federal interference (which in recent years, has mostly served to kill coal traffic -- (because the powers-that-be, rather than the markets, called the shot)) but deregulation via the Staggers Act.

Al of us here over the age of fifty have witnessed, over the past four decades, an increased awareness of the ill effects of a carte blanche attitude toward environmental pollution, but environmental consciousness was, and rightfully, directed toward the most visible and directly-addressable portions of the issue. The dimunition of the "global warming" popular hysteria was a result of too much hype, clearly directed toward the impressionable who wouldn't have to pay the biggest part of the bill, and caught in more than a few distortions, if not outright lies.

And the HSR love-feast, again orchestrated mostly toward those more enthused by science fiction than "hard science", needs be redirected toward redevelopment of an exurban system which was cast aside n some at the high-water mark of the automotive age. That approach would have us much better-prepared when the next "oil shock" manifests itself. (Which, of course, it will, but I assure you that politicians seldom plan beyond the next election.)

But within all this, the realization by most of us that the supply of easily-obtainable fossil fuel is both finite and must be stretched over a longer horizon has given rise to any number of emerging alternatives, with rail-oriented technology likely to play an expanded role in most, if not all of them.

Big Brother, PLEASE ......... we'd rather work this out on our own.

But within all this, the realization by most of us that the supply of easily-obtainable fossil fuel is both finite and must be stretched over a longer horizon has given rise to any number of emerging alternatives, with rail-oriented technology likely to play an expanded role in most, if not all of them.

Adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere is the problem, and we have to reduce the emissions to, shall we say Medieval levels, as soon as possible. That means using much less oil and coal.

george matthews wrote:

But within all this, the realization by most of us that the supply of easily-obtainable fossil fuel is both finite and must be stretched over a longer horizon has given rise to any number of emerging alternatives, with rail-oriented technology likely to play an expanded role in most, if not all of them.

Adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere is the problem, and we have to reduce the emissions to, shall we say Medieval levels, as soon as possible. That means using much less oil and coal.

The sensitivity of the atmosphere to more carbon dioxide goes down as you emit more carbox dioxide, to the point of diminishing returns. Plus, ultimately, carbon dioxide is plant food. When it's the limiting nutrient, adding more will just cause more plants to grow. Only in America could plant food be labeled as pollutant!

The sensitivity of the atmosphere to more carbon dioxide goes down as you emit more carbox dioxide, to the point of diminishing returns.

Meaningless. The higher the proportion goes, the stranger the weather. It is at present already too high and is increasing rapidly. That's very bad news. We all have to reduce the amount of CO2 emissions drastically, and as soon as we can. To get back to the topic, under the previous government they were working towards lower emissions, but the new prime minister says that, like you, he doesn't believe anything needs to be done. Bad news.

MODERATORS NOTE: LETS BRING THIS BACK TO THE EFFECT ON THE RAILWAYS IN AUSTRALIA.
You guys are never going to agree on climate change.We all know each others positions on it , I think.
I have to admit, I don't know the track record of each party on railways. There is the proposed HSR, from Melbourne to Sydney, which has never got off the ground.
I'm flat out at the moment,( expecting the arrival of our 2nd child any day now), if somebody could research the policies of each party, and report back that would be great.
My comment at this stage would be, I would judge any political party or politican on what they have done , or will do , rather than the rethoric coming out at election time. By that measure, I think you'll find both parties are pretty close when it comes to railways and the enviroment.

David Benton wrote:MODERATORS NOTE: LETS BRING THIS BACK TO THE EFFECT ON THE RAILWAYS IN AUSTRALIA.
You guys are never going to agree on climate change.We all know each others positions on it , I think.
y matures

Agreed, Mr. Benton, and while I can't offer too much of an observation on Australian or New Zealand politics, I think I can safely say that (1) no sector of the economy is more intertwined with politics than transportation (2) that while alternatives for rail participation in passenger transport are growing, the suitability of rail systems for "ubiquitous" (any amount of anything, from anywhere to anywhere) freight transport diminishes as an economy matures and smaller and more frequent shipments of higher value become the norm, and (3) this makes quasi-privatization of rail freight more attractive for high-volume / long-distance markets -- not only North America, but China, India, Australia and much of the former Soviet Union. Western Europe is not a good fit due to the many distinct nations and the ease of access to tidewater for many of them.

So we can likely agree to that much, and agree to disagree, respectfully, on the implications of an increasingly globalized economy for one of its most efficient infrastructural resources. (My best wishes for your wife and family, BTW.)

I must admit to not knowing a lot of detail on the Australian rail system.
I believe the track is still owned by the state governments,with some sort of federal oversight on the interstate routes. it is pretty much been open access for the last few years, with each states operating railway company seeking work in other states. I think there are a couple of private operating companies as well. This does not apply to the mining railroads , which are privately owned, generally by the mining company.
In New Zealand, we have tried just about every mix.At the moment , its back to government owned track, and government run operating company(to be run at a profit).It appears to be working pretty well, the main problem is lack of capital. The current govt is pro road, although it has invested quite large sums in Kiwi Rail, on the grounds is it is investing towards the goal of been self sustainable. Sort of similar to Amtrak' quest under Warrington, it is not clear what happens if it doesn't become self sustainable.
By self sustainable they mean not requiring any further capital or operating money from the Govt. Generally there is a change of Govt before these deadlines come about. But like I Said, a right wing govt might call it investing towards been profitable, a left wing govt might call it a subsidy , or just a capital investment, but the actual amount , and end effect are usually quite similar.

David Benton wrote:I must admit to not knowing a lot of detail on the Australian rail system.
I believe the track is still owned by the state governments,with some sort of federal oversight on the interstate routes. it is pretty much been open access for the last few years, with each states operating railway company seeking work in other states. I think there are a couple of private operating companies as well. This does not apply to the mining railroads , which are privately owned, generally by the mining company.
In New Zealand, we have tried just about every mix.At the moment , its back to government owned track, and government run operating company(to be run at a profit).It appears to be working pretty well, the main problem is lack of capital. The current govt is pro road, although it has invested quite large sums in Kiwi Rail, on the grounds is it is investing towards the goal of been self sustainable. Sort of similar to Amtrak' quest under Warrington, it is not clear what happens if it doesn't become self sustainable.
By self sustainable they mean not requiring any further capital or operating money from the Govt. Generally there is a change of Govt before these deadlines come about. But like I Said, a right wing govt might call it investing towards been profitable, a left wing govt might call it a subsidy , or just a capital investment, but the actual amount , and end effect are usually quite similar.

Isn't there some track owned by the Federal Government? I had the impression that some of the track on which the Indian-Pacific runs was Commonwealth owned. I think the Nullarbor Plain section was federally owned.

I thought all the interstate railways in Australia are owned by the federal government, but I'm not sure. But I think your right about the Nullabor ,at least.

David Benton wrote:I thought all the interstate railways in Australia are owned by the federal government, but I'm not sure. But I think your right about the Nullabor ,at least.

That connection was originally made when Western Australia joined the Commonwealth (central governmnent). It was a necessary promise to persuade the government there to join the federation. At first it was a narrow gauge link, requiring passengers to change trains, and presumably freight had to be humped from one train to another. That is, although the Commonwealth government provided a Standard Gauge line, Western Australia already had a narrow gauge link to Kalgoorlie for the gold miners. It has since been converted to Standard.

But nowadays, as I have experienced myself, a standard gauge train starts in Perth and ends up in Sydney (or of course Brisbane and Darwin).

David Benton wrote: In Australia, as in New Zealand, the difference between right and left is pretty minor.

That's true of the US (Republicans and Democrats,) and UK (as I see on the internet,) and probably most of the rest of the world.
I'm certainly learning more about the world looking at Worldwide Railfan.