The railway pincer movement
Heh, maybe we’ll finally get national railway connected back together by attacking it from the ends rather than the middle? Down in Dunedin the Otago Daily Times says today:
Organisers of rail excursions to and from Dunedin today hope they will promote suburban rail as a transport option for Dunedin commuters. Taieri Gorge Railway chief executive Murray Bond said bookings for suburban “rail revival” trips between Dunedin, Port Chalmers and Mosgiel were “going through the roof, to almost embarrassing levels”.
Extra afternoon excursions between Dunedin and Mosgiel have been added after about 250 (of 500 seats) had been booked since last Wednesday.
Metiria is also in the paper supporting the call for commuter train services in Dunedin. Meanwhile up in Whangarei the Northern Advocate reports:
With the price of petrol continuing to soar, Green MP Keith Locke wants the Auckland-to-Whangarei passenger rail service re-opened as an alternative to road travel.
It last operated in 1976, but the list MP says it is time to reinstate the Northland line.
Mr Locke’s call has the backing of Northland Regional Council chairman Mark Farnsworth.
Slightly irrelevant but beautiful photo of a steam train at Dunedin Railway Station courtesy of setev
July 16th, 2008 at 5:55 pm
Time for us all to have a reality check - if this is the Green Party’s Public Transport Plan, then I would give it an F. Here are some of the reasons why:
You know why the rail services to Northland were cancelled in 1976? A simple comparison might help you out
Auckland to Whangarei (Newmans Coach Lines): 2h 45m
Auckland to Whangarei (1959 Fiat Timetable): 4h 25m
Why is this true? Quite simple; the rail alignment is extremely indirect and adds nearly fifty kilometres to the journey. Even if the line were improved to allow for higher speeds; I doubt that rail would be able to get below 3h 30m on the current route. What we would need is a new line through the North Shore that connects with the NAL to make any passenger services to Northland viable. It would be far better if you were advocating for Auckland to Hamilton services, which could be viable and would take a time that would be competitive with the bus and car.
Secondly, Dunedin suburban services should not be considered until Auckland and Wellington have been fixed up and Christchurch has gotten services. It could be somewhere where we could retire the SA/SD carriages once Auckland has sufficient EMU rolling stock.
My final comment - try again!
July 17th, 2008 at 1:08 am
john-ston, I can see only one flaw in your argument. The assumption that Auckland and Wellington are more important than Dunedin. Why? Is petrol a lot more expensive in Auckalnd and Wellington, or in shorter supply, or costing a bigger percentage of regional GDP or household budgets. Are you forgetting that these rail improvemnts are being funded from the land transport fund from which Auckland and Wellington are already receiving more than $1.40 for every dollar contributed whereas Otago only receives 75 cents and Canterbury is receiving only 45 cents. In fact Canterbury is the only region that has never ever received 100 cents in the dollar.
Don’t even think about sending Auckland’s hand-me-downs to Dunedin (or Christchurch).
If we must have our petrol taxes spent on suburban rail then at least spend the money properly on reliable, attractive carriage’s. They are going to be judged against the comfort levels of a JUC not a Morris Oxford, so the job needs to be done right.
July 17th, 2008 at 4:47 am
Is that the station hiding behind the smokescreen? Here’s a photo that illustrates a further reason why rail is more fuel efficient than roads, and more expensive too, unfortunately.
http://www.petroltax.org.nz/images/MakohineViaduct-1.jpg
July 17th, 2008 at 5:37 am
At the height of the 1979 oil crisis, then Railways Department General Manager Trevor Hayward put out a document called “Time for Change” which highlighted some frank economic realities about railways and what they are good for. One point he made was that rail was not economic until it started carrying regular loads of around three full bus loads. Frankly unless the bus routes parallel to rail in Dunedin are operating at frequencies of at least 5 mins at peak times, and are full, it isn’t even a starter.
Why oh why are the Greens worshipping this rail fetish? Trains can be great fun, but let’s separate being a rail enthusiast from hard economics. Taeri Gorge Railway should, of course, be free to organise excursions and if it sees a business case for commercial rail services in Dunedin then good on them.
By the way the last Auckland-Whangarei passenger rail service was NOT the railcar john-ston describes as taking 4hr 25 min, it was a mixed train (freight train with passenger car attached), which as I understand it easily took as much as an hour or more longer (and was unheated).
Of course if you believe the propaganda of the left about privatisation, you’ll think it was only after 1993 that the railway network ran things to the ground. The truth is the Railways Department for decades and decades ran down many passenger services and branchlines because politicians didn’t want them to die, but also didn’t want to commit precious taxpayers’ funds to revive or spend on them. There is a very long list of these.
July 17th, 2008 at 6:44 am
Liberty
The “worship” you speak of has at least one real motive. Rail is EASY to electrify (as opposed to roads). It is also more efficient in terms of space in a given transit corridor, which becomes important in NZ because the topography here isn’t so amenable to flatland hungry modes of ANYthing, including transit.
There’s also a very long history of rail and public transit being a substitute for the personal car for the poorer members of the society. This motivates a number of us to espouse making it continue even if it is “unprofitable” in some way. I’d fall in that category.
There are some other motivations which are less charitable, but I think that most of us just see the ones I just mentioned without feeling the need to explain them.
respectfully
BJ
July 17th, 2008 at 7:30 am
People don’t worry about rail just keep the labour government in power and eventually they will screw up the economy so badly that everyone will be out of work. Once everyone is out of work we can put them all to work on some good old fashioned Rob Muldoon think big projects
July 17th, 2008 at 8:08 am
Muldoon wasn’t wrong about all those projects though. He may not have understood the dynamic completely (who does) but HE was trying to make a decision. This is “not acceptable” behaviour in New Zealand…. we have to debate everything for 3 decades and then when everyone is so weary of the subject the project is forgotten it slides through into production barely noticed or dies of neglect.
New Zealand has to, as a country, decide what it is going to be. Either it manufactures some things and has an industrial base of some description which is supported by government and NOT privatized or sold overseas no matter that it would be cheaper to do that -OR- it becomes an agrarian third world economic dependency of Australia.
Muldoon recognized the choice to be made and he made a decision. New Zealanders may not agree with the need to decide but the decision will be made with or without their participation.
We are too small a market too far from the rest of the planet to have an independent industrial base resting solely on pure free-market principles. Those principles DEMAND that any successful industry or corporation move overseas. That movement at the corporate level attracts the movement at the individual level. Our best and brightest technically trained graduates and experienced engineers go where the work is, and follow those corporations. Our money follows those corporations. As a country we are exsanguinating rapidly. We can’t pay the same as the Aussies because only the start-ups and the unsuccessful remain here to work for… and the government run agencies and companies. Consumer service arrangements like the Telecoms and Power operators. Stuff-all else.
So we either send our money and our best and brightest and most successful people and industries to Australia or elsewhere or we build some reasons for them to stay here on the back of a societal commitment to be something more than a country of sheep and cattle.
“Not to decide is to decide” - Whitehead.
respectfully
BJ
July 17th, 2008 at 10:47 am
“Trains can be great fun, but let’s separate being a rail enthusiast from hard economics. ”
Why? Hard economics isn’t a very useful tool. Trains are fun, as Lib points out. This attracts people, you can’t compare them to buses which don’t (bus enthusiasts do exist, but they’re pretty thin on the ground). This means more cars and buses off the road, how much is that worth? Also means people who do need to take cars find it easier to park, how much is that worth? Kids (and others) like seeing trains go past, how much is that worth? I reckon taking a train to work is much less stressful than driving/parking, how much is that worth? If the train is late, I get to spend more time reading, so we have a more educated/literate population, how much is that worth? Trains also encourage people to see themselves as part of a collective (if a train breaks down, people think “we’re all in this together”, if your car breaks down it’s your problem), with needs and responsibilities outside of the individual, how much is that worth?
July 17th, 2008 at 12:17 pm
bj,
You’re conflating two things:
“We are too small a market too far from the rest of the planet to have an independent industrial base resting solely on pure free-market principles.”
Nothing to do with “free-market principles”. We’re too small to have an independent industrial base at all. Unless we want go back in time to the 70s and stay there. Modern industry is computerized, and becoming independent in creation of chips, chip dyes, operating systems, etc, etc, etc is beyond the abilities of a nation of a mere 4 million.
“Those principles DEMAND that any successful industry or corporation move overseas.”
Nonsense. They demand that we do what we’re good at and don’t do stuff we’re bad at. There are lots of successful NZ industries and corporations.
“As a country we are exsanguinating rapidly.”
No, we aren’t. Our population is booming - too fast in my not-very-humble opinion.
“We can’t pay the same as the Aussies because only the start-ups and the unsuccessful remain here to work for…”
Our pay rates compared to the Aussies vary wildly as the two currencies fluctuate, based mostly on the current commodity rates for metals.
If you want something that’s likely to drive our successful NZ businesses overseas, then Muldoonist style policies are it. He wanted the govt to pick the industries that would be winners and back them, and (surprise!) it turned out that the govt is really, really bad at doing that.
July 17th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
So Icehawk if there is no industry in NZ then what do people do for jobs and more to the point what does NZ look like in 2025 or 2050 when oil is a lot more expensive to get out of the ground but NZ is still dependent on the rest of the world for everything.
I find it dangerous that NZ is putting all its eggs in the international globalisation effort, what guarantees can you give Icehawk that globalisation will still be with us in say 2025 or 2050. As a country New Zealand is giving up a lot of sovereignty with its embrace of globalisation.
I support a free market but what we have in NZ is a free market that is outside the influence of the people through parliment how can that ever be good in the long term.
July 17th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
if only the usa was more like us - no iraq invasion!
all the checks & balances that were intended to restrain the government didn’t work, while we apparently simply have it in our national character - no need for constitutional constraints!
here’s something i can’t understand. i always thought of nz as the sort of country quite capable of attracting skilled, experiences nautical & astronautical engineers & the like from overseas. surely we have something here that such types consider more valuable than what they can get amid the bright lights & big cities of the rotw.
July 17th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
“john-ston, I can see only one flaw in your argument. The assumption that Auckland and Wellington are more important than Dunedin. Why? Is petrol a lot more expensive in Auckalnd and Wellington, or in shorter supply, or costing a bigger percentage of regional GDP or household budgets. Are you forgetting that these rail improvemnts are being funded from the land transport fund from which Auckland and Wellington are already receiving more than $1.40 for every dollar contributed whereas Otago only receives 75 cents and Canterbury is receiving only 45 cents. In fact Canterbury is the only region that has never ever received 100 cents in the dollar.�
There are several reasons why Auckland and Wellington are more important than Dunedin. The first thing is that they are larger cities, and therefore deserve more attention when it comes to infrastructure as they need more for their larger population. Furthermore, Wellington is the capital of New Zealand, while Auckland is the economic powerhouse of New Zealand, so the infrastructure needs to reflect their position (especially for Auckland, which is competing against cities that have significant levels of infrastructure).
Also, Auckland is already paying for 40% of its rail improvement, and that could increase to 68% if Aucklanders have to pay for the infrastructure element of electrification. Wellington is the city you really want to get angry at, they are only paying 7% of their rail improvement. Personally, I would suggest that Christchurch should have commuter rail services looked at ahead of Dunedin, simply because Christchurch is larger and is the economic powerhouse of the South Island.
“Don’t even think about sending Auckland’s hand-me-downs to Dunedin (or Christchurch).�
If Aucklanders had that attitude, our railway system would have been converted to busways years ago; we got the hand-me-downs of Perth, Brisbane and Great Britain. Considering that the SA carriages would still have fifteen years left in them around 2015, why shouldn’t Christchurch and Dunedin get them? At least if commuter rail fails, you have not lost that much money.
“If we must have our petrol taxes spent on suburban rail then at least spend the money properly on reliable, attractive carriage’s. They are going to be judged against the comfort levels of a JUC not a Morris Oxford, so the job needs to be done right.
The comfort level of an SA is very good thank you very much; it is certainly comparable with the comfort level on commuter rail services in Australia. Also, the SAs are reliable and attractive (the average Aucklander doesn’t even know it is second-hand)
“One point he made was that rail was not economic until it started carrying regular loads of around three full bus loads. Frankly unless the bus routes parallel to rail in Dunedin are operating at frequencies of at least 5 mins at peak times, and are full, it isn’t even a starter.�
If you agree with that idea, then perhaps you might agree with a suggestion to construct a railway line through to Howick/Botany Downs; along Dominion Road and perhaps the North Shore too. In fact, that comment would pretty much justify the rail network that rail advocates in Auckland have been advocating for (baring the Avondale to Southdown and Airport routes).
“By the way the last Auckland-Whangarei passenger rail service was NOT the railcar john-ston describes as taking 4hr 25 min, it was a mixed train (freight train with passenger car attached), which as I understand it easily took as much as an hour or more longer (and was unheated).�
Of course, my point was that even with the best equipment, the services to Northland were not that fast at the best of times. The only reason why mixed services remained in Northland was due to the quality of the roads (similarly along the SOL, which saw mixed trains until the mid 1980s). The Auckland Harbour Bridge, and the poor quality of the Fiat engines, pretty much sealed the fate of passenger services to Northland.
Rail in New Zealand can work, so long as we think of services that are worthwhile and not idiotic and follow indirect routes. The Australians don’t even run railway services on every piece of track and are very selective of what routes they have. Had Keith Locke proposed an Auckland to Hamilton service, I would have been the first to applaud such a suggestion – instead, he chose the most idiotic route possible. If it were possible, I would have posted a map of the two routes and a picture of a bus about now.
July 17th, 2008 at 3:12 pm
There was commuter rail between Mosgiel and Dunedin as late as 1982, I believe. The population then was much the same as it is now.
The population composition is probably somewhat different though, I don’t imagine many Otago uni students feel the need to commute to factory work in Mosgiel
There also seems to be a thinking here of “it is all so complex and expensive”. What about simply using a railcar?…hell stick a Prius on railway bogies…after all railway jiggers are human powered, and they work on the tracks just fine.
As for the Auckland-Northland proposal, why is everyone debating it talking about the 1960s…surely we can do better 50 years on?
Auckland-Hamilton is a brilliant idea…anyone have any information about the previous Waikato Connection service from a few years ago?
July 17th, 2008 at 3:32 pm
“There was commuter rail between Mosgiel and Dunedin as late as 1982, I believe. The population then was much the same as it is now.
The population composition is probably somewhat different though, I don’t imagine many Otago uni students feel the need to commute to factory work in Mosgiel”
That is right; it was the last commuter rail service outside of Auckland and Wellington. I would also have to agree with your final comment, the population composition is much different, plus buses have a far more direct route now with the Dunedin Southern Motorway (that was only opened in the late 1970s I believe). Prior to the opening of that motorway, rail services were eons faster than buses.
“There also seems to be a thinking here of “it is all so complex and expensiveâ€?. What about simply using a railcar?…hell stick a Prius on railway bogies…after all railway jiggers are human powered, and they work on the tracks just fine.”
Problem with that idea is that services in Dunedin would need rolling stock, and we do not have suitable spare rolling stock in New Zealand - there are not the railcars available that you think there are. Any new commuter service would need new rolling stock, and that would likely be of the BR Mk II type.
“As for the Auckland-Northland proposal, why is everyone debating it talking about the 1960s…surely we can do better 50 years on?”
Because, there is very little difference. The alignment is still the same between Auckland and Whangarei, and that is the main reason why the services failed in the first place. To do better, as you put it, would require a deviation that would cost several billion dollars (remember the terrain north of Orewa is extremely nasty, and a rail line would require several tunnels, and you would probably need a deviation including a several kilometre long tunnel through the Brynderwyns). That, for a service that would be at the most once return daily.
“Auckland-Hamilton is a brilliant idea…anyone have any information about the previous Waikato Connection service from a few years ago?”
That service managed to attract thirty commuters on average south of Pukekohe. Certainly, it should be possible to utilise the Silver Fern railcars and the services they presently operate for an extension of services down to Hamilton. It would just mean that Manurewa would need to be dropped as a stop. Further to that, this was with Beach Road Station - we could easily double it now with Britomart.
July 17th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
I think turnip raises some valid points. We don’t want to be in a position where we are totally vulnerable to world events.
I think we should be wary of globalisation because we are the most geographically isolated nation on earth. We need to start thinking about this stuff now, and at some stage railway will gradually become more viable. There is nothing wrong with forward planning for that to happen, but it has to happen in a logical fassion, I think labour buying the railways back now was the wrong decision. This has been a problem in NZ throughout our history, a lack of proper forward thinking.
July 17th, 2008 at 4:02 pm
Thanks john-ston, you have cleared up some points there.
I did suspect the Dunedin southern motorway had affected the commuter trains, but wasn’t sure.
It sounds like an Auckland-Hamilton service could become viable again, I’d be interested to know how many cars commute between Auckland and Hamilton each day. Was the Waikato Connection used for “Inter-Hamilton/Ngaruawahia” travel much? It also strikes me that part of the problem is still even you took the train from Hamilton north for business travel, you’d still need to get around within Auckland.
As for the Auckland-Whangarei, I was thinking more in terms of better trains, (rather than unheated carriages or 1930s vintage Fiat railcars), but obviously if the track is that bad…
Your point about a limited number of carriages was interesting…where are the new carriages coming from? I mean New Zealand used to build its own trains…
July 17th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
Shunda-burunda, I’d dispute your “This has been a problem in NZ throughout our history, a lack of proper forward thinking” somewhat.
The initial investment in rail by by Vogel et al is an example of forward thinking, as was the growth of the Wellington network post-WW2. Another good example would be the New Zealand Forest Service post WW1 and Kinleith post-WW2. Even “Think-Big” was an example of forward planning…although it was based on forecasts of increased rather than falling oil-prices.
I think the rail network could be a brilliant opportunity for long-term forward planning and investment. Unfortunately we already know that National are going to kneecap that - mostly on ideological grounds as far as I can tell.
You are mistaking the symptoms for the cause….the major lack of long-term planning has most conspicious in the last 25 years of right-wing “let the market sort it all out’ ascendency. This has had the very intentional result of becoming a self-fulfiling prophecy where people such as yourself tend to give on long-term planning “because it has NEVER been done”.
July 17th, 2008 at 4:17 pm
PS, I still find it very telling that one of the first government organizations the right-wingers eliminated in 1984 was “the Commission for the Future”
July 17th, 2008 at 4:24 pm
If large corps are a product of the market then letting the market sort things out has to be the stupidest thing ever.
After having installed and configured software inside most of the worlds largest corps all I can say is these guys are so inefficient it isn’t funny.
July 17th, 2008 at 4:30 pm
“It sounds like an Auckland-Hamilton service could become viable again, I’d be interested to know how many cars commute between Auckland and Hamilton each day. Was the Waikato Connection used for “Inter-Hamilton/Ngaruawahiaâ€? travel much? It also strikes me that part of the problem is still even you took the train from Hamilton north for business travel, you’d still need to get around within Auckland.”
As far as I am aware, the Waikato Connection was almost exclusively used for Hamilton/Waikato to Auckland travel. I wouldn’t be sure about the numbers commuting between Hamilton and Auckland, but it could be a few hundred.
“As for the Auckland-Whangarei, I was thinking more in terms of better trains, (rather than unheated carriages or 1930s vintage Fiat railcars), but obviously if the track is that bad…”
Even that wouldn’t help; new trains would speed up the services slightly, but not enough.
“Your point about a limited number of carriages was interesting…where are the new carriages coming from? I mean New Zealand used to build its own trains…”
Our SA/SD/SW/SE carriages are all ex BR Mark 2 stock - we are getting 1960s/1970s era carriages from Britain and remodelling them. The newest passenger rolling stock we have in New Zealand is ADL805/ADC855-ADL810/ADC860 which was built in 1985 (and that came to New Zealand as second-hand rolling stock)
“You are mistaking the symptoms for the cause….the major lack of long-term planning has most conspicious in the last 25 years of right-wing “let the market sort it all out’ ascendency.”
The problem was that Think Big nearly bankrupted New Zealand and directly resulted in Rogernomics. Government tended to stray away from long-term planning after that, not because of market considerations, but because they did not want to repeat Muldoon’s mistake and bankrupt New Zealand again.
July 17th, 2008 at 9:21 pm
Icehawk
I seldom disagree with you so fundamentally, but in this case I must object that the simple numbers of immigrants who are barely able to be assimilated and the raw immigration increase does NOT give me any comfort when I know the people who have left for Oz and the talents and training they took with them.
My experience has been that successful companies leave. Their production leaves. I don’t see examples of anyone building a business and staying and I repeat the assertion that if you have a successful company you take the production to where the bulk of your consumption is and avoid making that long trip with a lot of product. If you aren’t smart enough to do that you probably aren’t that successful to start with.
If a country of 4 million wants to build cars or refrigerators or trucks or tractors it can do it. If it wants to build 747’s and space shuttles it is in a bit of difficulty. If it wants to compete with a country of 100 million at producing those cars and refrigerators and shifting them a thousand nautical miles to get to the larger market it will not make money as fast here as it will there. The successful business succeeds by making money efficiently. and when I say that the successful businesses move I am dead serious. What we are “good at” is exporting skilled people, fully trained and educated people and the businesses that employ them.
We have Rakon still (for a wonder) and we have a couple of others who have not left… yet. We lost Fischer-Paykel, we don’t make cars or trainsets or trucks or tractors or consumer electronics of any description. We do make buzzy-bees. We have a start-up building wind turbines. We have the telecoms and the power companies and the hospitals and the other services that support our principle occupation of selling each other houses at inflating prices and proclaiming the GDP is rising. This doesn’t actually work as an economic model and its failings have been noticed…. finally.
Probably part of my problem is that I don’t know all the things Muldoon did. He got us an Aluminium smelter and some dams. Seems to me we are ahead on those. Maybe someone should tell me the rest of the story?
I want to hear about the successes and failures both, because if this “we can’t do it” is a reflection of a real limitation it’s something unique in my experience. Perhaps someone could point me at a good link where I could learn what Muldoon did and how the country was “Rogered” in the effort to get rid of him.
At the moment I don’t know enough to tell you flatly that you’re wrong about him… but the situation we are in? It is what I described. I don’t know what is growing apart from government.
respectfully
BJ
July 17th, 2008 at 11:05 pm
jing yang
I said a lack of PROPPER forward thinking. You mistakenly assumed I was being critical of our previous left wing govts.
Using forestry as an example is proof of our countries lack of forward planning, disbanding the forest service was a big mistake, as was the unsustainable way our forests were managed. I personally feel both sides of the political spectrum have relied to much on our relativeley low population and high resources as an excuse for poor long term management. It is on a national scale and a regional scale.
July 18th, 2008 at 12:29 am
BJ, We do make trucks and trailers and buses in New Zealand. RUCs act as a de facto tariff. Unless a foreign manufacturer is prepared to customise their equipemt with extra axles they won’t find any customers for their products in New Zealand. Fitting twin steer isn’t something that Freighliner is prepared to do at their US factory but the quality of NZ engineering design and manufacture means they are prepared to certifiy local modification with a factory warranty.
Why import somebody else’s traditional ideas of how carriages and wagons should be designed when RUCs have created some of the most innovative heavy transport designers and manufacturers right here in this little country of ours.
July 18th, 2008 at 1:29 am
if that was true there’d have been a global exodus of companies to the usa. instead they’re all going to asia. it’s the cheap labour they’re going for, not the customers
July 18th, 2008 at 5:09 am
I have to agree with Andrew. A perfect example is Steelbro’s purchase of it’s German competitor Klaus. The Klaus factory was shipped to NZ even though it’s main market is Europe and the product is a semi-trailer.
http://www.steelbro.co.nz/net/news/article.aspx?id=6
An important component to any post peak oil multi-modal fright system.
BJ, ever ride on New Yorks fast ferries? The waterjet units are made in NZ and almost all of their production is sold overseas.
July 18th, 2008 at 5:54 am
BJ,
One of the Think Big projects that has been hugely successful is New Zeland steel. Think Big expanded the casting ability and put in rolling mills. Prior to this the coiled steel come from Japan (some will remember those coil trains from the Mount to Glenbrook).
New Zealand steel is expending its mine site into the production of Titanium Dioxide. This is the high quality “blue” grade used in sunscreens, paint, cosmetics, etc.
One of the problems we face is the fact that raw material manufacturing like Tiway (aluminium) and Glenbrook (steel) will not be built in New Zealand again until the RMA is amended. Somehow the process has to be speeded up to allow raw material manufacturing like the Tio2 plant to progress at better then snails pace.
July 18th, 2008 at 6:26 am
Andrew may have a point. I said market, but that isn’t the whole of it, the cheap labour with easy access to the market is the most accurate way to think about it. I see some very small volume niche markets being thrown back as examples of our successes.
Truck trailers with extra axles and ferry sized waterjet propulsion units are miniscule niche manufacture. The last 2 trucks I saw were Scania. Not a New Zealand brand. Fischer-Paykel is a classic example of the sort of loss I was talking about. The abandonment of automobile manufacture of any sort (how the heck are we going to make that electrovolkswagen?)
My point is that for a manufacturing enterprise to survive here it has to have something more going for it than ingenuity. The tyranny of distance and our small market make it imperative that we take some control of the market forces at work if we wish to give our technically trained people a reason to stay here, and that we will pay a little extra, either in tax or for the products themselves, to do that.
I’ve seen too many ingenious people and good healthy companies, leave. The reasons have to do with money, labor costs, profit margins and the difficulties of distance. The Aussies can protect their high-wage workers more easily than we can. Why is that? Part of the reason is because they can (in simple terms) sell rocks to China. Which isn’t about manufacturing but about the flow of money. Part of the reason is that there are enough Aussies to make a market that can support some actual manufacturing volumes.
We’re not part of that market the way Holden or Ford are, and there’s not much difference between a Holden and a Chevy or a Ford and a Ford.
Not really.
respectfully
BJ
respectfully
BJ
July 18th, 2008 at 11:33 am
Bj- Yes rail is easy to electrify, but expensive to do so and only useful for high density/high frequency operations. Hey almost all lines in NZ aren’t even double track, so hardly high frequency/high density. Yes trains are an alternative for non-car owners, but car ownership isn’t that expensive at the bottom end. A friend of mine had a car worth hundreds, used it economically and ran it into the ground keeping it safe for WOF, and buying third party insurance. Cars aren’t exactly transport for the wealthy and haven’t been for a couple of generations now.
Sam Buchanan says “This attracts people, you can’t compare them to buses which don’t (bus enthusiasts do exist, but they’re pretty thin on the ground). This means more cars and buses off the road, how much is that worth? Also means people who do need to take cars find it easier to park, how much is that worth? Kids (and others) like seeing trains go past, how much is that worth?” All of these have value, it isn’t infinite, and apparently isn’t enough for people to be willing to pay. I like pretty girls going past, but if there aren’t any in town, should the government pay for them to do so? What nonsense. Traffic congestion and parking are a function of poor pricing and investment decisions, building railways is a bad way of resolving the more fundamental issues of mismanaging roads.
Then Sam said “Trains also encourage people to see themselves as part of a collective (if a train breaks down, people think “we’re all in this togetherâ€?, if your car breaks down it’s your problem), with needs and responsibilities outside of the individual, how much is that worth?” Absolutely nothing - the USSR thought the same, and Russians spent years on waiting lists for cars. If you want to be philosophical trains require you to share space, air, sounds, smells with other people who you might not want to. It’s a mode of transport, not a social engineering tool FFS. Except of course in Europe where fortunately, most trains have first class, so that one can choose to avoid the unwashed.
My fundamental point is that, despite nostalgia and personal feelings, trains are not special enough to force other people to pay for. People can make arguments for health care, police and education, but trains? I love trains, I probably know more about NZ railways than most people on this thread (john-ston can certainly rival my knowledge easily methinks though), but I do not understand why the movements of freight by businesses should be subsidised by the taxpayer on the basis of emotion, not reason and evidence. I’d LOVE an overnight sleeper train between Wellington and Auckland, because i enjoy sleeper trains, but why should anyone else pay for my fun?
and the real point of my comment was that Keith Locke showed emotion over reason in pushing for the insane idea of a passenger service from Auckland to Whangarei. It would’ve taken any half bright analyst a couple of hours to check whether or not that was a clever idea.
July 18th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
Rail still has a potential advantage over the motorway from Mosgiel to Dunedin, in that it is flatter. The motorway has to go over two moderately steep hills, which is no big deal for cars, but they probably slow down the rickety old Dunedin buses a bit. And rising fuel prices will make the energy use in going up and down steep hills more of an issue.
And has the population really not changed since 1982? At the Dunedin end it hasn’t changed much, but at the Mosgiel end it has increased quite a lot (by Mosgiel standards), largely because of sunseekers being attracted to the better Mosgiel climate.
Is this enough to make it viable? I don’t know
July 19th, 2008 at 3:04 am
BJ, Fisher & Paykel left because it competes with dozens of other whiteware companies and to stay competitive it had to do what its competitors have done - go where the labour is cheap. Distance from markets is definitely a barrier for cheap no-frills products but for more expensive products like whiteware transport is still an insignificant cost compared with paying six times the going rate for semi-skilled factory workers. In an industry with too many competitors and imitators you can’t afford to pay first world wages.
It’s a different story for cutting edge transport products. Not many competitors or imitators trying to cut each others throats. Skilled workers are crucial and you can still justify paying first world wages to skilled workers. Weight and size per dollar of export value is generally low enough to make transport costs a very small part of the price. Steelbro’s $45 million in export sales is miniscule compared with Boeing but not compared with Pratt & Whitney/Air New Zealand’s $150 million in jet engine overhauls. Hamilton Jet’s export earnings are between those two.
I am making two counterpoints to your argument.
First, New Zealand has a long history of excellence in innovative high value transport engineeirng. We actually have hundreds, if not thousands, of these miniscule niche manufacturers. I suspect you may have arrived after the focus of the “knowledge economy” debate was shifted to “we should become the new silicon valley”. In fact our success with these small transport engineering companies is the knowledge base and innovation attitude forced on us by our former isolation from the rest of the world, before we had container shipping and 747s.
Second, we get more economic security from having many companies in many niche markets than having a few companies in mass markets. Fischer & Paykel is the prime example of putting all your eggs in one basket. Whereas Steelbro, Hamilton Jet, Designline, Air New Zealand and Auto Restorations all specialise in different areas of high value transport engineering where distance to market is not a barrier. These companies get occassional mentions in the business pages of The Press which is why they are all Canterbury examples. I’m sure Auckland has more than just Ford’s alloy casting plant, which last I heard had export earnings equal to the entire wine industry, but that was five or ten years ago.
Your point is that for a manufacturing enterprise to survive here it has to have something more going for it than ingenuity. My point is that three of those something more’s are:
1. exclusivity, something that almost nobody else is doing and that the Chinese are unlikely to counterfeit,
2. high value for it’s size or weight so that transport remains a small component of the price even if oil gets five times more expensive. Heavy engineering and microelctronics both fit the bill.
3. niche markets, small volumes, highly skilled workership. Something that can’t be automated or done by just anybody with a bit of initiative. That sort of work is very resistant to migrating to low wage economies.
Incidently, my point about adding axles probably belonged in the thread about assembling locomotives here, and why it would be a good idea to let our road transport engineers design rialway rolling stock without the baggage of preconceptions about how carriages and wagons are “supposed” to be designed. The first thing you would get is tridem bogeys, are maybe even low-floor steering quadrem bogeys ro reduce dynamic axle loads and increase tunnel clearances. Heck, we might even get weight saving monocoque construction just like on an elderly 737 or 787 dreamliner.
July 19th, 2008 at 9:37 am
Rakon just sent its manufacturing overseas. They may retain R&D here.
F&P left for the reasons you mention and because it is easier to ship a mass-produced product back to NZ from someplace closer to market and cheaper of labour than it is to go the other way. I already took your point about the cost of labour. No need to argue more about it. Exclusivity will last just as long as the Chinese see no profit. Successful growth means mass market and mass market means moving. I think we’re close, my point relates to comparisons between NZ and say.. Ireland or Sweden… which are small but which have a big market on their doorstep. They can still have successful manufacturing ventures.
Highly skilled won’t make it for us. We have to import skilled people to replace the ones we export to Oz. Oz tries to import as well and can pay by digging metals out of the ground to sell elsewhere. Not just because they’re bigger than us. There’s also of course, our propensity to invest everything in property and not a hell of a lot in engineering.
We don’t do micro-electronics here. Not that I’ve seen. Every board and component in the inventory has been manufactured elsewhere. I haven’t seen Canterbury though, and honestly have not been far outside of Wellington. Maybe I should move. It could be that what you say is true and it is my lack of time and ability to travel that is the issue.
I was unaware that there was an alloy casting plant anywhere in the country either. The stuff I don’t know about NZ still outnumbers the stuff I do.
Thanks for a lot of new information.
respectfully
BJ
July 24th, 2008 at 2:14 am
The railway pincer movement? Isn’t that tactic aimed at preventing the enemy from retreating. Now, if the enemy is the private car/truck where is the evidence that it is retreating and, is it is, what is it retreating to? The answer to the last point is - Futurama, the GM 1939 World’s Fair version. Automated highways didn’t happen in 1960 like GM suggested but all the prerequisites are now in place. The roading hierarchy that concentrates most traffic onto a minority of high capacity roads, the trust in automated technology, the radio communication technology, the satelite navigation technology, the computers that can outthink the best drivers, the chronic congestion and high energy prices that justify mandating driverless driving. Almost all of the required technology is fitted to luxury cars today and the basic components are fitted to most family sedans in the form of ABS and electronic stability controls. Will our children be berating us because they have to make do with slow rattling old fashioned trains while their American blog-buddies are bhizzing along in high-tech NASCAR “freight trains” getting 100mpg on freeways with triple their current peak carrying capacity. Actually, double triple cos once the driver doesn’t have anything to occupy his/her mind they’ll want some passengers to talk to, or maybe they’ll just read a book or catch up on some paperwork just like on a conventional train. No wonder S**mens has resorted to some dodgy (by German standards) practices to sell its LRT systems in the USA.
There is a film of GM’s Futurama, it’ll either make you laugh or barf, but it should help your understanding what our grandparent’s generation were thinking at the time. The film even extols the virtues of single use zoning and airships
http://www.archive.org/details/ToNewHor1940
“We’re running out of roads! We didn’t dream big enough!” From this GM advocacy film.
http://www.archive.org/details/GiveYour1954
July 24th, 2008 at 5:05 am
Kevyn,
Alloy wheel and component casting facillity closed down about 3 years ago. Mainly due to mismangement but also to the fact they had only one customer (Ford) who was able to buy the same components much cheaper elsewhere.
Problem was the management never got the changeover from Ford ownership (guarenteed sales) to private (no guarenteed sales) right. A business cannot be reliant on one customer and hope to survive.
BJ,
I’m with Kevyn on the the niche markets. Transport is one, while in Auckland a thriving marine export group is fully up and running.
Not just the glamour stuff at Alloy Yachts. But sailmakers like Norths, Quantum, Doyle, etc. Spar and Rigging like Southern Spars, NZ Rigging, Hall Spars, etc. Boat builders like Cookson, Salthouse, LLoyd Stevensons, etc. We even have rope manufactureres.
Then there is Maxwell Winches who export thousands of capstans. Or precision keel casters and manufacturers like Cable Price in Thames (who incidently at the last emex show displayed a railway wagon bogy that they cast on a regular basis for use on Australian railways.
Meaning the techology to build railway stock in New Zeland is fully feasable.
And yes, we should investigate low rider, self steering triple or four axle bogies on articulated wagons for railway use. Would mean higher speed will be possible (especially passenger trains). Though I dont think you would get low enough for a maximum height (14 feet?) road trailer to be placed there in intermodal fashion. Down side is that the trainset would not be able to be split easily, not having independent wagons.
Maybe the government could fund a joint proposal by Steel Bros and Cable Price to investigate, design, prototype and cost a road trailer - rail wagon - trasinset combo?
Just think of all the countries who you could export to. All except maybe the USA who have the inter modal thing already sorted.