Transport Administration Amendment (Transport Entities) Act

Sydney / New South Wales Transport Discussion
tonyp
Posts: 12348
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 2:31 am

Re: Transport Administration Amendment (Transport Entities) Act

Post by tonyp »

Transtopic, you have no evidence to support any of that speculation. And the mundane, non-political reason the Sydney Trains network won't be expanded is the huge advantages of capacity, line separation and automation that come with the metro. There are no advantages in reverting to the old system.
Linto63
Posts: 2809
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2016 3:44 pm

Re: Transport Administration Amendment (Transport Entities) Act

Post by Linto63 »

Whatever the official reason given for the formation of TAHE, it was clearly done to mask the true position of the state's finances. The stench is undeniable. It should be getting more coverage, but more salacious scandals about our beloved state government seem to be the focus of other media outlets.
User avatar
rogf24
Posts: 1186
Joined: Thu May 09, 2013 4:20 pm

Re: Transport Administration Amendment (Transport Entities) Act

Post by rogf24 »

TAHE is like VicTrack or ARTC and they're both corporations.
Transtopic
Posts: 1490
Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2011 10:10 pm

Re: Transport Administration Amendment (Transport Entities) Act

Post by Transtopic »

tonyp wrote: Sun Oct 03, 2021 10:08 am Transtopic, you have no evidence to support any of that speculation. And the mundane, non-political reason the Sydney Trains network won't be expanded is the huge advantages of capacity, line separation and automation that come with the metro. There are no advantages in reverting to the old system.
Yes, it is speculation on my part, but there is nonetheless an element of truth in what I'm saying. It is undeniable that the structure of TAHE in splitting the infrastructure provider from the operators creates a serious safety risk on the rail network and it would be repeating the mistakes of the past which led to two fatal rail accidents. The Ministers had been warned, but chose to push ahead anyway, even when opposed by Transport for NSW, which finished Secretary Rodd Staples tenure. What roles have Gladys Berejiklian, former Transport Minister, Treasurer and Premier, and current Treasurer and possible Premier Dominic Perrottet played in this?

Transport for NSW has acknowledged that even with the completion of the current metro projects, the existing Sydney Trains' network will continue to provide 80% of rail patronage in the Sydney region for the foreseeable future, not to mention Intercity, Regional and Freight services which use its tracks. It is essential that there is continuing investment in upgrading the network with amplifications to improve line separation and where warranted, line extensions, as distinct from whole new lines. Automation to ETCS - Level 2 is already being trialled and will be rolled out across the whole network over the next decade and will probably be completed before Metro West opens.

The only line extensions for the existing network that I could envisage would be the SWRL from Leppington to St Marys via Western Sydney Airport and to Macarthur in place of the metro, which was the original intention; the ESR from Bondi Junction to North Bondi/Rose Bay and the Richmond Line from Richmond to North Richmond. You don't need whole new incompatible metro lines to achieve these outcomes and can be provided at a far more modest cost by extending existing lines and maintaining connectivity without the need to interchange to reach the CBD. New metro lines should be focused on providing services to areas which aren't currently serviced by rail, such as cross-regional links, and can operate independently of the existing network.

The problem with the current Bankstown Line metro conversion and the apparent reluctance to consider branching, is that the inherent capacity of 30tph for the new metro cross harbour link is wasted. As a single line, the Bankstown metro is never likely to warrant a capacity of 30tph, even if extended to Liverpool, which is by no means certain. You could say the same for Metro Northwest. In the meantime, the opportunity to maximise capacity and reduce congestion through the CBD on the existing network is denied without access to the new cross harbour rail link, which had always been its intended purpose. Contrary to the metro protagonists opinions, the exclusivity of the metro cross harbour rail link doesn't fully address the issue of congestion on the existing rail network through the CBD, which will continue.

Even Metro West won't fully address congestion issues on the Western Line, particularly west of Parramatta, where the availability of paths to continue through to the CBD is limited without further amplification of the Homebush to Granville corridor. At best, I'd regard it as being a useful addition to the rail network servicing a new corridor between Parramatta and the CBD.
User avatar
jpp42
Posts: 1377
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2011 8:27 pm

Re: Transport Administration Amendment (Transport Entities) Act

Post by jpp42 »

It is undeniable that the structure of TAHE in splitting the infrastructure provider from the operators creates a serious safety risk on the rail network and it would be repeating the mistakes of the past which led to two fatal rail accidents
Can anyone explain why TAHE, which amounts to an "accounting trick," should have any material impact on safety? There are implications in terms of the budget but I don't see how this will trickle down to how the rank and file do their jobs?

How does the underlying ownership of the asset have any relation to the WHS practices of Sydney Trains (as infrastructure owner) and their responsibilities to both the WHS Act and the National Rail Regulator?

We have an Open Access rail network; Sydney Trains is not the only operator on the suburban Sydney infrastructure and we also have multiple infrastructure owners/operators in NSW. NSW Trains for example operates on both the Sydney Trains network and on ARTC. Numerous freight operators run on multiple networks, including the country network which is not even state operated at all, but contracted out to John Holland, a third party contractor. While there's no doubt that open access networks create complications, it's hardly new and I don't understand why it's a *fundamental* safety problem to have TAHE, particularly when the day to day infrastructure operations of Sydney Trains won't change in practice anyway.

The only argument I've seen so far is "because the unions say so" and while I can support the unions when they have a coherent argument, I'm skeptical of the connection here.

Note - I am not expressing any kind of support for TAHE here. I'm just trying to understand this safety argument in more detail.
Transtopic
Posts: 1490
Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2011 10:10 pm

Re: Transport Administration Amendment (Transport Entities) Act

Post by Transtopic »

jpp42 wrote: Tue Oct 05, 2021 2:31 pm
It is undeniable that the structure of TAHE in splitting the infrastructure provider from the operators creates a serious safety risk on the rail network and it would be repeating the mistakes of the past which led to two fatal rail accidents
Can anyone explain why TAHE, which amounts to an "accounting trick," should have any material impact on safety? There are implications in terms of the budget but I don't see how this will trickle down to how the rank and file do their jobs?

How does the underlying ownership of the asset have any relation to the WHS practices of Sydney Trains (as infrastructure owner) and their responsibilities to both the WHS Act and the National Rail Regulator?

We have an Open Access rail network; Sydney Trains is not the only operator on the suburban Sydney infrastructure and we also have multiple infrastructure owners/operators in NSW. NSW Trains for example operates on both the Sydney Trains network and on ARTC. Numerous freight operators run on multiple networks, including the country network which is not even state operated at all, but contracted out to John Holland, a third party contractor. While there's no doubt that open access networks create complications, it's hardly new and I don't understand why it's a *fundamental* safety problem to have TAHE, particularly when the day to day infrastructure operations of Sydney Trains won't change in practice anyway.

The only argument I've seen so far is "because the unions say so" and while I can support the unions when they have a coherent argument, I'm skeptical of the connection here.

Note - I am not expressing any kind of support for TAHE here. I'm just trying to understand this safety argument in more detail.
I think because of the evidence arising from the experience of the previous split of Railcorp into the Rail Infrastructure Corporation and the Rail Access Corporation, there was a disconnect with regard to safety issues between the infrastructure provider (RIC), which was also responsible for operational control and maintenance, and the operators under the access regime (RAC), i.e. CityRail and Countrylink as well as freight operators. Why that would happen, I'm not sure.

However, following the outcome of the inquiries with regard to the Glenbrook and Waterfall accidents, it was decided that infrastructure and operating entities should be brought back under the single control of Railcorp. Hence the criticism of the TAHE model, which is basically being dictated by the bean counters, who appear to ignore past experience.
User avatar
jpp42
Posts: 1377
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2011 8:27 pm

Re: Transport Administration Amendment (Transport Entities) Act

Post by jpp42 »

But the fundamental difference here is that TAHE has an accounting function only and no operational responsibilities, with Sydney Trains still being the infrastructure operator. That's why I don't understand why that comparison has any validity.
moa999
Posts: 2923
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2012 3:12 pm

Re: Transport Administration Amendment (Transport Entities) Act

Post by moa999 »


jpp42 wrote:
It is undeniable that the structure of TAHE in splitting the infrastructure provider from the operators creates a serious safety risk on the rail network and it would be repeating the mistakes of the past which led to two fatal rail accidents
Can anyone explain why TAHE, which amounts to an "accounting trick," should have any material impact on safety? There are implications in terms of the budget but I don't see how this will trickle down to how the rank and file do their jobs?
Agreed. I can't see anyone saying ARTC or Victrack are unsafe.

The only accounting 'trick' I can see is that with the popularity of infrastructure assets globally the entity may be able to borrow more cheaply than a loss-making/ government subsidied operating entity.

If it is truly setup as an arms-length entity then the annual fee paid for access should be the same as what it cost before, just with any lumps and bumps smoothed (as is common for infrastructure)
Transtopic
Posts: 1490
Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2011 10:10 pm

Re: Transport Administration Amendment (Transport Entities) Act

Post by Transtopic »

moa999 wrote: Wed Oct 06, 2021 8:17 pm
jpp42 wrote:
Can anyone explain why TAHE, which amounts to an "accounting trick," should have any material impact on safety? There are implications in terms of the budget but I don't see how this will trickle down to how the rank and file do their jobs?
Agreed. I can't see anyone saying ARTC or Victrack are unsafe.

The only accounting 'trick' I can see is that with the popularity of infrastructure assets globally the entity may be able to borrow more cheaply than a loss-making/ government subsidied operating entity.

If it is truly setup as an arms-length entity then the annual fee paid for access should be the same as what it cost before, just with any lumps and bumps smoothed (as is common for infrastructure)
Regardless of the operational responsibility, the fact remains that the government was warned against the structure of TAHE and it was vehemently opposed by Transport for NSW, which led to Secretary Rodd Staples dismissal. There's more to this than meets the eye and hopefully the LC Inquiry will expose the truth.
Last edited by Transtopic on Thu Oct 07, 2021 12:56 am, edited 1 time in total.
moa999
Posts: 2923
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2012 3:12 pm

Re: Transport Administration Amendment (Transport Entities) Act

Post by moa999 »

I don't disagree.

The question is
"If it is truly setup as an arms-length entity" paying an arm's length fee every year.
Linto63
Posts: 2809
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2016 3:44 pm

Re: Transport Administration Amendment (Transport Entities) Act

Post by Linto63 »

moa999 wrote: The only accounting 'trick' I can see is that with the popularity of infrastructure assets globally the entity may be able to borrow more cheaply than a loss-making/ government subsidied operating entity.
Government of NSW has a AAA+ credit rating, so it already borrows at the lowest rate.
Linto63
Posts: 2809
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2016 3:44 pm

Re: Transport Administration Amendment (Transport Entities) Act

Post by Linto63 »

User avatar
boronia
Posts: 21566
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 6:18 am
Favourite Vehicle: Ahrens Fox; GMC PD4107
Location: Sydney NSW

Re: Transport Administration Amendment (Transport Entities) Act

Post by boronia »

Preserving fire service history
@ The Museum of Fire.
Transtopic
Posts: 1490
Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2011 10:10 pm

Re: Transport Administration Amendment (Transport Entities) Act

Post by Transtopic »

User avatar
boronia
Posts: 21566
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 6:18 am
Favourite Vehicle: Ahrens Fox; GMC PD4107
Location: Sydney NSW

Re: Transport Administration Amendment (Transport Entities) Act

Post by boronia »

Ipart: TAHE Compliance – Hunter Valley Coal Network - 2018-19 & 2019-20

https://www.ipart.nsw.gov.au/documents/ ... =13682&q=1
Preserving fire service history
@ The Museum of Fire.
User avatar
boronia
Posts: 21566
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 6:18 am
Favourite Vehicle: Ahrens Fox; GMC PD4107
Location: Sydney NSW

Re: Transport Administration Amendment (Transport Entities) Act

Post by boronia »

Auditor-General signs off on NSW accounts after concerns with controversial $40b rail entity

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/nsw/aud ... 59qa1.html
Preserving fire service history
@ The Museum of Fire.
User avatar
boronia
Posts: 21566
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 6:18 am
Favourite Vehicle: Ahrens Fox; GMC PD4107
Location: Sydney NSW

Re: Transport Administration Amendment (Transport Entities) Act

Post by boronia »

NSW Treasury accused of cover up over controversial rail corporation

[/b]https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/nsw ... 59uy7.html
Preserving fire service history
@ The Museum of Fire.
Transtopic
Posts: 1490
Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2011 10:10 pm

Re: Transport Administration Amendment (Transport Entities) Act

Post by Transtopic »

boronia wrote: Wed Feb 09, 2022 2:48 pm NSW Treasury accused of cover up over controversial rail corporation

[/b]https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/nsw ... 59uy7.html
Little wonder why Treasury Secretary Mike Pratt fell on his sword. Another example of ideology getting in the way of prudent governance, when they fail to acknowledge the mistakes of the past following the Waterfall and Glenbrook rail accidents. The previous Labor government can be accused of many failures in transport planning, but to their credit they brought back all of the rail assets and operations under the single control of Railcorp, which the current government is now undoing, no doubt with the intention franchising the rail network on the altar of privatisation.
In Transit
Posts: 385
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2012 12:13 am

Re: Transport Administration Amendment (Transport Entities) Act

Post by In Transit »

The TAHE story is extraordinary, and it’s amazing that it’s not receiving more prominence. It goes to the very heart of competency, accountability and trust in government - both the public service and the executive.
User avatar
boronia
Posts: 21566
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 6:18 am
Favourite Vehicle: Ahrens Fox; GMC PD4107
Location: Sydney NSW

Re: Transport Administration Amendment (Transport Entities) Act

Post by boronia »

‘I absolutely stand by it’: Premier defends rail entity after damning report

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/nsw/i-a ... 59vd2.html
Preserving fire service history
@ The Museum of Fire.
moa999
Posts: 2923
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2012 3:12 pm

Re: Transport Administration Amendment (Transport Entities) Act

Post by moa999 »

In Transit wrote:The TAHE story is extraordinary, and it’s amazing that it’s not receiving more prominence. It goes to the very heart of competency, accountability and trust in government - both the public service and the executive.
Doesn't get much coverage because its fairly technical accounting..

Conceptually the TAHE is a good idea. A bit like a sinking fund for a body corporate. You put in the same or an inflation grown amount each year and the fund ensures you (or in this case the state budget) ride the bumps of lumpy infrastructure costs, rather than it being a +/- $1bn amount.

It becomes more difficult when you've got a railway that's already well behind and you are seemingly trying to reduce budget (or annual contributions).

Now as it turns out it seems a few key people have stood firm and we've ended up with a seemingly appropriate outcome.

Otherwise it could well have become a ticking underfunded time bomb.
(Much as some poorly managed stratas run out of money from underfunding or badly predicting future costs and have to issue special levies, but for the majority it works well)
User avatar
boronia
Posts: 21566
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 6:18 am
Favourite Vehicle: Ahrens Fox; GMC PD4107
Location: Sydney NSW

Re: Transport Administration Amendment (Transport Entities) Act

Post by boronia »

Rail entity pushes for fancy headquarters as fresh budget concerns emerge

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/nsw/rai ... 59ve4.html
Preserving fire service history
@ The Museum of Fire.
User avatar
boronia
Posts: 21566
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 6:18 am
Favourite Vehicle: Ahrens Fox; GMC PD4107
Location: Sydney NSW

Re: Transport Administration Amendment (Transport Entities) Act

Post by boronia »

Ex-Treasury secretary pockets over $434,000 after contract terminated

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/nsw/ex- ... 59ybu.html
Preserving fire service history
@ The Museum of Fire.
User avatar
boronia
Posts: 21566
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 6:18 am
Favourite Vehicle: Ahrens Fox; GMC PD4107
Location: Sydney NSW

Re: Transport Administration Amendment (Transport Entities) Act

Post by boronia »

Safety, budget risks spark call to dismantle NSW rail corporation

https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/saf ... 5abtw.html
Preserving fire service history
@ The Museum of Fire.
User avatar
boronia
Posts: 21566
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 6:18 am
Favourite Vehicle: Ahrens Fox; GMC PD4107
Location: Sydney NSW

Re: Transport Administration Amendment (Transport Entities) Act

Post by boronia »

Secret plans to sell, rezone and develop land across Sydney railways
https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/sec ... 5atiw.html


Secret report reveals controversial NSW rail corporation told to ‘reframe’ its battered image
https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/sec ... 5atva.html
Preserving fire service history
@ The Museum of Fire.
Post Reply

Return to “Discussion - Sydney / NSW”