by frog
Spurred on by frogblog reader geoff_184 who commented on my KiwiRail post, I was forced to consider what must be a ground breaking innovation. If his numbers are correct, this newfangled contraption might help wean us from our account deficit killing addiction to foreign oil. From geoff’s comment:
How to use the fuel of 75 trucks to move 306 truck loads:
Now let’s see, would business rather pay the wages of 2 people on the train, or 306 truck drivers???? Duh!
Rail = Good.
Trucks = Yuck.
Maybe technology can save us from our obscene reliance on foreign oil and it’s crippling costs after all? Could we use this newfangled thingamy to do the long haul stuff, and save the precious expensive truck fuel for the local deliveries?
Published in Economy, Work, & Welfare | Environment & Resource Management by frog on Wed, February 25th, 2009
Tags: account deficit, efficiency, KiwiRail, politics, train
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
If all the numbers add up, sure thing. You see – no need for subsidies.
But do they all add up?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
If one looks at it from an engineering perspective yes. The problem is that the current system favours Trucks as it internalises a lot of rail costs and externalises those for Trucks. The health and safety impact of the two modes do not feature in the economic cost, neither do the environmental or social costs of having lots of trucks on the road as opposed to a regular train service.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The first step towards internalising safety costs must be to amend the OSH legislation to make highways “workplaces” the same as railways are. The second step must be to record all injuries and fatalities on roads and railways using the same criterea. Currently only the USA routinely includes pedestrians struck by trains and they account for 90% of the death toll but that is probably unique to America’s extensive interstate railfreight system.
I don’t see any problem recovering environmental costs through a diesel tax provided that the existing petrol tax and RUCs are reviewed using the MoTs cost allocation model to remove the anomolies introduced by politians over the last dozen years.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
frog may be interested in the apparent success story that is state-owned Indian Railways. More of a personality article, but does make several references to efficiencies of rail. Of course India’s road system is awful (although fast developing), but still.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
First, we take Auckland by commuter rail.
Then we get light-transit for the Courtney to Airport corridor …
After that, we take on the trucking industry!
Well, I can dream, too, can’t I?
Given the stoush that’s happened in WCC over upgrading J’ville line, and adding new units to the suburban lines (several years’ worth of lobbying by Celia Wade-Brown), I’m pretty sure that scenario still comes under ‘fantasizing wildly’.
But then, a group of ‘motivated, inspired individuals’ working together is what usually effects change, to paraphrase Margaret Mead.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Froggy, the problem with your You Tube clip is that it shows a train with double stacking. There are two major reasons why we cannot have double stacking in New Zealand
Reason One: Our loading gauge is extremely small; you just need to look at American loading gauges to see what sort of loading gauge we would need for double stacking to be possible. It would cost billions. Furthermore, I am not even sure if we could do double stacking on Cape Gauge.
Reason Two: We would need to take down every single cable and dieselise all our passenger rail operations. The ARTC in Australia refuse to allow electrification on their rail corridors, because it doesn’t allow for double stacking (that is one of the reasons why Adelaide’s Belair Line will remain diesel in the medium term; one of the two tracks is owned by the ARTC). Even in California, Caltrain have not gone electric yet, partly because their system would need to be designed around higher lines, again, to allow for double stacked trains to pass underneath.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Oh, and one more thing. Our axle loads would need to be doubled to allow for double stacking; there is a reason why the Americans have the highest axle loads (35 tonne) in the world.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
And you still need trucks to get the containers to the station and from the station to the customer.
But john-ston is right. The US carries more freight as a percentage of total by rail than anyone else in the western world largely because they transport huge amounts of single cargos such as grain and coal over huge distances.
They have real trains – not toys.
The reason motor vehicle leapt after the trams were removed because the narrow roads of Auckland now had room for the cars. Before you day dream have a look at Auckland “main roads” and imagine how many vehicle lanes there would be with two tram tracks down the middle. Start with K Road.
Light rail uses the same road way as vehicles which means you need wide avenues as in Melbourne. OUr roads follow old bullock and sheep tracks and are narrow.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Forget about rail to Auckland airport the numbers do not stack up just as they don’t for Sydney.
The shuttle buses are doing a great job without public subsidy.
Hardly any freight moves from CBD to the airport and why would you try and mix it up with passenger rail. Most people going to the airport go no where near the CBD and indeed try to avoid it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Forget about rail to Auckland airport the numbers do not stack up just as they don’t for Sydney.”
I would consider rail to Auckland International once we have interurban services to places such as Hamilton, Tauranga and Rotorua. Part of the success of Brisbane’s Airport Line has been the direct link between it and the Gold Coast Line, which makes it much easier for the tourists heading to the Gold Coast to get there. Your tourist heading to Rotorua might consider a rail option if it were convenient, quick and decently priced.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
john-ston – clearly you don’t know tonuge in cheek when you see it! I had no anticipation of double stacking in NZ when I posted it. But the argument still remains that without the double stack you would likely eliminate half your locomotive requirement and the math would be close to the same.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>and the math would be close to the same
I’m not sure it is, though. The maths for trains don’t work well in NZ, except on specific lines, for specific purposes.
So why extrapolate that out to the whole rail network Frog? Only “rail religion” could straddle such a logic gap.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
john-ston
“I would consider rail to Auckland International once we have interurban services to places such as Hamilton, Tauranga and Rotorua. ”
this is why now one takes the greens seriously – because you live in la-la land. Sydney IA has 33m passengers a year and a catchment of about 4m people. AIA has less than half the passengers and a quarter of the catchment. Scale counts and if it doesn’t make sense for big numbers by what miracle is it going to work for significantly smaller ones?
“Your tourist heading to Rotorua might consider a rail option if it were convenient, quick and decently priced.”
Given the numbers of people going to Rotorua direct from Auckland and the varying arrival times of international flights I’d suggest it would be unlikey to be convenient and we know it’s not going to be fast. For two people or more a rental car or tour bus is probably going to be cheaper, faster and more convenient based on current prices.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Jumbo jets and small passenger trains do not connect well as modes.
Consequently the trains are either overcrowded or empty.
The numbers I crunched for AIP a few years ago showed that the numbers committed to travel between the AIP and the CBD meant that the trains would run about every 45 minutes. If you miss one its a long wait.
The study of the viability of the Auckland Hamilton rail service finally decided that the loading would be ninety people a day.
They got so desperate for means of justifying these costs for ninety people (cheaper to give them a BMW each) that they included the health benefits of people walking to the train at each end. Read the study and wonder that the consulting firm finished the job and took the money. I would have done the analysis on the back of an envelope for nothing. IT’s called “make work” for the well off. At least those folk who dug ditches in the last depression did useful work.
Go to: http://www.ew.govt.nz/PageFiles/2322/hamiltonToAucklandCommuterRailStudy.pdf
I am going to Hamilton from Kaiwaka tomorrow. I will drive down to my motel and then to the venue. The next day I meet with a colleague in Auckland at 11.00 then meet with another seminar at 12 and then go to a TV studio at 1.30 and then drive home. That is why the majority of the 1000 business visitors per day to Hamilton drive. How would I use the train? Just map it out?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“this is why now one takes the greens seriously – because you live in la-la land. Sydney IA has 33m passengers a year and a catchment of about 4m people. AIA has less than half the passengers and a quarter of the catchment. Scale counts and if it doesn’t make sense for big numbers by what miracle is it going to work for significantly smaller ones?”
Insider, you forget about several things with the Sydney rail line.
#1 – it was part of a massive urban renewal project; that contributed to the cost. Of course, the urban renewal never exactly happened, and it was forced to survive on the Airport revenue
#2 – it was placed on an ordinary suburban line; at peak hour, the Airport and East Hills Line gets quite busy and would be discouraging for your ordinary airport passenger.
#3 – all ten kilometres was tunnelled. After Central, you don’t see blue sky again until Wolli Creek. Tunnelling is expensive. The Auckland proposal would only involve tunnelling around the Airport.
Look at Brisbane’s scheme instead. That has worked, and their airport is about the same size as that of Auckland and has a similar catchment.
“The study of the viability of the Auckland Hamilton rail service finally decided that the loading would be ninety people a day.”
Mr McShane, in the 1990s when the Gold Coast Line was first constructed, it was estimated that running to half hour frequencies during peak, and hourly frequencies off-peak would be sufficient. You will be glad to know that QR was wrong, and instead, the Gold Coast Line was nicknamed the Bombay Express for a number of years due to the level of crowding. Indeed, it is expected that the line will need over a dozen services per hour in 2026 – not bad, eh?
“Read the study and wonder that the consulting firm finished the job and took the money. I would have done the analysis on the back of an envelope for nothing.”
I have also heard of studies that suggested that the Northern Suburbs Line in Perth would be a failure; that suggested that the Lota Line in Brisbane should be shut (it was later extended); and so on and so on. I find that studies tend to underestimate public transport patronage and forget things such as the rail effect (i.e. people like to take trains, just look at the Fremantle Line tale), the sparks effect (i.e. people like to take electric trains, just look at Perth, Brisbane, the Central Coast of NSW and so on) and so on.
“How would I use the train? Just map it out?”
I’ll map it out for you later
“cheaper to give them a BMW each”
On what basis. Explain it to me.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I suggest you go to
http://www.hku.hk/cicid/3_events/32/slides/5.pdf
which is a pp summarising failed PPPs in Australia and provides concise summaries of the Brisbane and Sydney rail links and their performance.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Look at Brisbane’s scheme instead. That has worked, and their airport is about the same size as that of Auckland and has a similar catchment”
wheras teh world Bank says “Airtrain incurred negative operating margins during its first four years of service. It lost A$205 million in the first four years, including A$125 million in write-offs…Woefully low passenger numbers, especially during off-peak periods, largely explained the losses. ”
“At present is has 7 percent of the market for trips to the airport, and hopes to increase this to 9 percent within two years.”
“The service has improved accessibility for some passengers because of its connection to the suburban rail network, but the improvement over the bus service is modest.”
http://www.aciltasman.com.au/images/pdf/tp_7_AustraliaNZ_Rail_concessions_web.pdf
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Forget about rail to Auckland airport the numbers do not stack up…The shuttle buses are doing a great job without public subsidy.”
How would your assessment stack-up if the road usage had to pay rent for the land roading used up, road usage had to pay per km for road usage, had to pay for the pollution it caused, did not get “free land” for car-parks all over the city etc… ?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“wheras teh world Bank says “Airtrain incurred negative operating margins during its first four years of service. It lost A$205 million in the first four years, including A$125 million in write-offs…Woefully low passenger numbers, especially during off-peak periods, largely explained the losses.”
However, it has changed since then, and it is now profitable. It isn’t surprising when you see HS SMUs on weekends carrying hundreds of passengers and their luggage down to the Gold Coast.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Yes sorry frog, the example of privately owned US railways which are not subsidised, run entirely diesel operations, double stacking containers, over distances that are typically the length of NZ and much much longer does NOT make a good comparison with NZ.
http://www.treasury.govt.nz/publications/informationreleases/rail/transaction/pdfs/rt-lek-tsy-30may02a.pdf and
http://www.treasury.govt.nz/publications/informationreleases/rail/transaction/pdfs/rt-lek-tsy-30may02b.pdf
explains the economics of rail freight and why NZ is not in the same ballpark as Australia or the US. They also show why fuel is not important in the scheme of things. The moment you need to load and unload trains and put freight on trucks at both ends, you seriously undermine the economics of rail. In a country where freight is mostly about servicing farms, and distributing consumer goods, you are rather stuck.
Tasmania faces the same, which is why Pacific National recently gave up running trains there – distances too short, volumes too low, network has loading gauges too tight to run efficient freight trains.
Don’t forget the US has competing long haul railroads (and I mean serious longhaul, not this piffling Auckland to Invercargill stuff) as well.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
If the full cost of the damage caused to our roads by heavy long haul trucking was paid by the industry and not by the general taxpayer, I suspect the hard sums would favour significantly a rejuvenated rail system for long haul freight.
What’s more, RO-RO shipping services between main centres, which can carry rail wagons as well as trucking trailers haven’t had a level economic playing field for decades.
If the will was there we could restore an economic rail freight system. If it could be done in the 19th century with picks, shovels and donkeys it can be done now.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
misty
what costs are these? Aren’t our highways fully funded by fuel taxes and RUCs? Do train users pay the full cost of the damage caused to our embankments rather than the general taxpayer?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Why do we not take a leaf out of the Euro Tunnel it would mean a major revamp of NZ rail but they load the trailer units onto the rail wagons and ship them across the channel. Easy no double handling of goods leave Wellington 5 oclock unload Auckland 8 hours later.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Misty: Insider is right. The general taxpayer pays not a cent towards maintaining state highways. Trucks pay their shares of the costs of maintaining state highways through Road User Charges. Since when have shipping services not had a level playing field, except they compete with a railway that keeps sucking taxpayers’ money periodically?
Yep the 19th century was the heyday when rail was the only decent mode everywhere on land, funnily enough the inventions of asphalt and small diesel engines saw dozens of lines closed by the 1960s.
Sika: Loading gauges preclude your idea, although it has been investigated. Quite simply there isn’t enough clearance through tunnels.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
When I posted the stack train video I was thinking in terms of rail’s ability to move large quantities of containers in one go, and wasn’t specifically posting about stack trains as such.
A few comments in response to the posts above:
KEVYN WROTE: “The first step towards internalising safety costs must be to amend the OSH legislation to make highways “workplaces” the same as railways are.”
Nice idea, but in practice no government or private business (if the roads were sold) would take on responsibility for a workplace that has hundreds of deaths and thousands of injuries every year. If normal workplace rules were made applicable to roads it would mean extensive training of the entire population. You’d need to wear hi-viz just to cross the road to visit the dairy!
JOHN-STON WROTE: “Furthermore, I am not even sure if we could do double stacking on Cape Gauge.”
Yes, it’s possible, just as it’s possible to operate full-size North American locos on the even narrower metre gauge network in South America. 1,000mm is the minimum track gauge required to operate all train types and sizes.
JOHN-STON WROTE: “Our axle loads would need to be doubled to allow for double stacking; there is a reason why the Americans have the highest axle loads (35 tonne) in the world.”
Very few railway loads anywhere in the world require 35 tonne axle loads. Benefits of such high loads are more along the lines of being able to have a shared bogie between two wagons (i.e., a total of two axles per wagon). In the US they run stacks with shared bogies. In Australia though, where they run stack trains with 23 tonne axle loads, they have two bogies per wagon. It would be possible to run stack trains on 22 or more tonne axle loads.
OWEN MCSHANE WROTE: “And you still need trucks to get the containers to the station and from the station to the customer.”
Correct, local delivery trucks convey products to truck linehaul depots and rail depots (that’s why you don’t see B-trains outside shops in Queen Street, or rail wagons for that matter!). Of course you also have direct delivery by trucks and trains where appropriate.
OWEN MCSHANE WROTE: “The US carries more freight as a percentage of total by rail than anyone else in the western world largely because they transport huge amounts of single cargos such as grain and coal over huge distances.”
But you don’t have to achieve market dominance to justify having a rail network. You yourself have conceded rail has a place in NZ. What I would like to see from you is some specific examples of what you think should be done away with, and why. When I look at the national rail network in NZ, I see purpose in most parts of it. Most of our lines are carrying more freight today than they did at any stage in the past. There is still lots of unused capacity, but then that is a major asset of rail – the ability to have so much capacity on such a small strip of land.
OWEN MCSHANE WROTE: “They have real trains – not toys.”
NZ runs trains up to 70 wagons length wise, particularly on the Auckland-Tauranga and Christchurch-Dunedin corridors, and close to 3,000 tonnes weight-wise, particularly with the coal, forestry and steel trains. Not what I would call toys.
BLUE PETER WROTE: “I’m not sure it is, though. The maths for trains don’t work well in NZ, except on specific lines, for specific purposes.”
It depends on your criteria, and as things stand, rail is expected to internalise all costs, whereas road is not. There are many reasons for having rail, with financial return merely being one. In fact financial return is not even a consideration in some areas of rail. The urban networks are fully subsidised, but it cuts so many costs in society that will never show up on the rail operation balance sheet. I suspect your “maths” is looking at finance only, and not poor health/traffic congestion/high rates/greater dependence on overseas oil, all of which come with greater use of trucking, but are not reflected in the costs of trucking.
OWEN MCSHANE WROTE: “I am going to Hamilton from Kaiwaka tomorrow. I will drive down to my motel and then to the venue.”
Why do anti-rail people always give non-applicable travel examples as reason for not promoting rail? Why do they not point to actual rail passenger corridors and then state their reasons for why that service should cease? Could it be that they see how rail does work in some areas, so try to ring-fence it against further expansion? Of course in the real world there are tens of thousands of people travelling by train in NZ every day. It’s the increasingly popular choice for many.
OWEN MCSHANE WROTE: “(cheaper to give them a BMW each)”
Only if they leave it in the garage, while also giving up their commuter routine and staying home.
LIBERTYSCOTT WROTE: “The moment you need to load and unload trains and put freight on trucks at both ends, you seriously undermine the economics of rail.”
This is a common myth put forward by pro-truckers. It conveniently ignores two facts: 1) Linehaul trucks run depot to depot, with local delivery trucks carting the products before and after. 2) Rail can have private sidings, enabling direct delivery. With both road and rail you can have local trucks connecting, or direct delivery. Different situations and customer requirements call for different solutions in the supply chain with each individual case. Flexibility is important in modern logistics. Presumably KiwiRail’s current customers are happy with whatever arrangement they have or they wouldn’t be using rail.
INSIDER WROTE: “Aren’t our highways fully funded by fuel taxes and RUCs? Do train users pay the full cost of the damage caused to our embankments rather than the general taxpayer?”
No, highways are not fully funded by RUC’s. Trucks cause 90% of road damage, but RUC’s don’t come anywhere near covering that cost. That’s why local rates are so high in NZ, with most regions spending 60-75% of their rates on road maintenance. It affects every single ratepayer in NZ to a significant degree. Overall, trucking pays 56% of the costs it imposes on NZ society, and rail pays 82%, although those figures were arrived at in a government study before the current round of rail investment, so rail will be more subsidised today than it was then.
LIBERTYSCOTT WROTE: “Yep the 19th century was the heyday”
Yet rail carries vastly more freight today than it did then. If you want to judge heyday on tonnage levels, then your statement is incorrect.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Yes, it’s possible, just as it’s possible to operate full-size North American locos on the even narrower metre gauge network in South America. 1,000mm is the minimum track gauge required to operate all train types and sizes.”
So, is there is a quotable example of double stacking on these narrower gauge systems? What concerns me is that with your double stacked trains, you have a higher centre of gravity, and thus a much higher risk of the top containers falling off, especially with a narrow gauge system.
“Very few railway loads anywhere in the world require 35 tonne axle loads. Benefits of such high loads are more along the lines of being able to have a shared bogie between two wagons (i.e., a total of two axles per wagon). In the US they run stacks with shared bogies. In Australia though, where they run stack trains with 23 tonne axle loads, they have two bogies per wagon. It would be possible to run stack trains on 22 or more tonne axle loads.”
Still, we would need to increase our axle load to achieve this, and it would have to be far more than what the government has been proposing for some time now, would it not?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I’m not aware of any running on our gauge, but then they hardly run anywhere. Until 2003 they were still only in North America, but then began appearing in Australia, and more recently India and China. Takes a lot of work to make infrastructure suitable for them. The aussie ones stopped running for a while in 2007 after they had problems with Chinese built wheel bearings, and they had to replace them with ones from the US.
Double stacks would run on our gauge, but not at the same speeds as North America (120km/h) or Australia (110km/h). It would be 80km/h at the most here, if not 70 or less.
1,000mm or wider will take any SG rolling stock you can think off, but the general rule is that the narrower the gauge, the slower the speed. Size is irrelevant though, as is weight.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Double stacks would run on our gauge, but not at the same speeds as North America (120km/h) or Australia (110km/h). It would be 80km/h at the most here, if not 70 or less.”
Might as well stick with single level trains then going at a higher speed. Also, I wouldn’t want to see de-electrification of what we have in New Zealand.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Doesn’t most freight go on diesels anyway? De-electrification may not bbe an issue then.
It always appeared to me that NZ trains are dead slow anyway so double stacking would be no issue.
What about tunnel height?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Doesn’t most freight go on diesels anyway? De-electrification may not bbe an issue then.”
Its the passenger stuff. Caltrain is having trouble getting suitably designed rolling stock for electrification because they have to factor in double stacking, and in Australia, the ARTC prohibits any of its corridors from being electrified to allow for double stacking and that is part of the reason why Adelaide’s Belair Line is to remain diesel for the foreseeable future.
Essentially, you would have to de-electrify Wellington (and not electrify Auckland) and that would kill commuter rail, as you lose the sparks effect.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
There’s no reason why stack trains can’t operate on electrified lines. See http://railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=69105&nseq=10 as an example.
Clearly though, if catenary is too low, raising it would be on the list of clearance improvements for stacks, along with bridge replacements, tunnel daylighting, etc. It would probably be expensive.
Minimum wire height for double stacking is 6870mm, while NIMT overhead is at 5250mm, up to 6100mm at some level crossings. Quite high, as Perth for example is apparently 4700-4900mm.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Better photos at:
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=248098&nseq=1
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=216216&nseq=18
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Geoff
While delving through the technicalities of double stacking, should we not ask if the volume of containers to be moved in New Zealand is actually that large to warrant double stacking.
it would be far cheaper and much more convenient to run longer trains, with helper engines in the middle of the train consist to reduce coupler loadings.
I dont know if KiwiRail locomotive equipment can run unmanned locomotive power by remote control such as these systems
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1215/is_2_202/ai_71634657
But to me that investment into remote controlling equipment to enable mid and end train helper units thus allowing for longer trains, is a much better solution than double stacking.
Coupler loading in double stacking wagons may see the need to improve the locomotive coupling and braking systems. Do KiwiRail locomotives have dynamic brakes?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I wouldn’t want to see such long trains here in New Zealand, not that I would expect them to be feasible given how windy our roads and railways are. It took almost 5 minutes for that train to pass. No offence Geoff, but that was one of the most boring videos I have ever seen. I’m just glad I wasn’t watching the scene from behind a steering wheel!
Trevor.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
How feasible would it be for the railways to offer a drive-on, drive-off service for cars, vans and light trucks? That could be one way of reducing double-handling and allowing a truck load of goods to be delivered to Queen Street – without having to pay a driver to actually drive it, except for the first and last few miles.
Trevor.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Trevor; Haven’t seen this tried O/S anywhere. Can see a lot of complications with the carriages that would have to be built (height and width problems for tunnels etc).
In these days of forklifts and shrink wrapped palletts – most goods are highly cost effective using light truck-train-light truck for transport.
When looking for transport providers for goods in Australia, I found this system was 80% cheaper than simply using large highway trucks.
Thus we were able to offer Retailers a FIS (no freight charge, free into store) incentive which, in turn allowed us to steal a march on our competition.
S’why I’m a keen supporter of rail – once the infrastructure is built, the costs of running Electric Trains was (and is) surprisingly low.
Partly why ‘superfast trains’ are still able to run on a cost-effective basis.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“There’s no reason why stack trains can’t operate on electrified lines.”
Geoff, tell that to the ARTC. Some of the pictures also show that the containers are very close to the wire.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Trevor 29 wrote: “I’m just glad I wasn’t watching the scene from behind a steering wheel!”
Indeed, it takes a while to cross a road doesn’t it? But just imagine if the 300+ trucks that would otherwise be moving those containers were on the road itself. The motorists would have a lot more than 5 minutes added to their journey, and the road surface would be considerably rougher!
Gerrit wrote: “While delving through the technicalities of double stacking, should we not ask if the volume of containers to be moved in New Zealand is actually that large to warrant double stacking.”
I’m not advocating double stacks for NZ, it’s just the topic has been focusing on the double stack concept in general terms.
NZ can do just fine with single level, provided we can move all container types. There are still a couple of significant routes where hi-cubes are restricted, but most routes can take them these days, including the recent addition of Palmerston North-New Plymouth and Palmerston North-Woodville to the list of clear routes, following tunnel removal projects.
It should be noted that double stacks do not offer a doubling of capacity. KiwiRail’s IB and IC class wagons will carry 3 TEU each. They are the same length as a double stack wagon, which holds 4 TEU, so double stacking would only offer a gain of 1 TEU per wagon.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Gerrit asked: “Do KiwiRail locomotives have dynamic brakes?”
Yes, all KiwiRail mainline locos, diesel and electric, have dynamic brakes.
The NIMT electric locomotives also have regenerative brakes, which means they harness the power of gravity going downhill to generate electricity which is then sold by KiwiRail to the electricity company. The locomotives send the power directly back into the national grid. The pro-roaders find it a difficult concept to grasp their minds around. CREATING energy while moving freight?!?! You won’t find any trucks doing that!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
geoff_184 claims “No, highways are not fully funded by RUC’s.”
That’s correct, State Highways are fully funded from petrol taxes as well as RUCs.
geoff_184 also claims “Trucks cause 90% of road damage, but RUC’s don’t come anywhere near covering that cost.”
Cars cause less than 3% of road damage, trucks roughly 35%. The remainder is caused by exposure to the elements. On North Island State Highways traffic volumes are high enough to double both of those percentages. On local roads there is no differences in maintenance intervals or maintenance costs per km despite North Island local roads carrying twice as much traffic as South Island local roads. Analysis of the financial and physical works stats over the 80 years since motor taxation was introduced to fund the development of all-weather roads confirms what the Department of Transport stated in the first annual report in 1930: maintenance costs increase by one third of the increase in traffic volumes. And that was on a mostly dirt and gravel surfaced road network. Tarseal has reduced the relationship to less than 10% cost increase for 100% traffic increase. Of course if traffic keeps growing the proportion of maintenance costs due to traffic will probably increase. A lot of the past reduction has been due to seal extension during the 1950s and 60s and the changes to truck/trailer design since RUCs made trucks pay on their axle weights instead of gross weight.
Ontrack has concluded that hardwood sleepers have a servicable life of 30 years because of exposure to the same elements that limit tarseals useful life to 15 years. In both cases very high traffic volumes are needed to reduce those service lifetimes significantly.
Sorry, don’t have a good net access here in Tasman to be able to find the link to the sleeper study.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Sorry, don’t have a good net access here in Tasman to be able to find the link to the sleeper study.”
I recall reading about a QR study done in the late 1980s which indicated that concrete sleepers have a tenth the maintenance cost of wooden sleepers.
“Ontrack has concluded that hardwood sleepers have a servicable life of 30 years because of exposure to the same elements that limit tarseals useful life to 15 years. In both cases very high traffic volumes are needed to reduce those service lifetimes significantly.”
Tell that to Trans Adelaide; the condition of their wooden sleepers is shocking and it appears they haven’t been replaced since the 1970s. On RP Australia, there were once some pictures posted and you could see how rotten the sleepers were.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
australia has termites…?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I must add insider that there were sections of track which were dated to the 1920s. I seriously need to find the link to that thread.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
john-ston Says:
March 1st, 2009 at 1:11 am
> I recall reading about a QR study done in the late 1980s which indicated that concrete sleepers have a tenth the maintenance cost of wooden sleepers.
also worth noting that wooden sleepers have to be hardwood. We currently have a shortage of hardwood, due to nearly all our plantation forests being softwood. So we need to be sticking to concrete for now.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
insider; Australia has many Borers – the termites are so big – well one of them tried to pinch my motorbike one year – the bulletts bounced off it so we had to pour petrol on it and set it alight – even then it set fire to seventeen miles of bush as it ran off. Huge house eating termites!!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I wasn’t against moving containers by train or double-stacking. I would just prefer shorter trains. It took (if I counted them correctly) 8 locos to move that train. Why not have two trains of half that size? Those big trains might make sense in Australia and the USA because of the distances travelled but they don’t make sense in New Zealand as far as I can see.
Smaller but more frequent trains would add flexibility.
Trevor.
PS: You should see Australia’s grasshoppers!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Right on with the truth there Trev – one Grasshopper took the bleedin tractor, what’s worse, the Cocky’s wife left with it, said she preferred the athletic type!
Our rail lines (at a glance) don’t have untrammeled ability to move wiiiide containers – currently those would have to be ‘special trains’(if at all) – very special indeed.
But palletts can easily be seperated into individual trains at the Wharf – it is still a huge cost saving on using roads – not to mention the environmental preferences.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Kevyn wrote: “That’s correct, State Highways are fully funded from petrol taxes as well as RUCs.”
And the majority of roads by rates. All of which means trucking companies use infrastructure on the back of the public purse. Without public $ the trucking industry could not survive. Still, we need it, so we tolerate the trucking subsidy, and make no mistake, it is a subsidized industry. More so than rail is.
Kevyn wrote: “Cars cause less than 3% of road damage, trucks roughly 35%. The remainder is caused by exposure to the elements.”
Trucks cause approximately 90% of road damage caused by vehicles would be a more accurate description. Yet the industry is not required to cover those costs.
John-ston wrote: “also worth noting that wooden sleepers have to be hardwood. We currently have a shortage of hardwood, due to nearly all our plantation forests being softwood. So we need to be sticking to concrete for now.”
I think the most common type of sleeper in NZ is Radiata Pine. I’m not aware of any shortage of that growing in NZ, but I do stand to be corrected.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
geoff_184, Since 1954 half the cost of maintaining local roads has been funded from the road fund/LTF, but the rate varies from 43% in cities up to 76% in the poorest districts. Back in 1954 there were good reasons for splitting the reponsibility equally between ratepayers and road users. I don’t why our politicians have not increased the road users % since then.
Yes, trucks cause approximately 90% of road damage caused by vehicles. The industry has been required to cover those costs for the last forty years. That’s when the ESAL cubed formula replaced the old gross weight mileage tax. Using an equivalent standard axle load means that if you charge a 2 tonne vehicle 40 cents per thousand km for it’s road damage the actual charge is for two one tonne axle loads @ 20 cents per axle – two ESALs, A 42 tonne 7 axle B-Train is charged for the cube of the axle weight times the number of axles – 0.20 x (6x6x6) x 7 = $302.40
The same weight on a 4-axle freight wagon will result in RUCs of $800, consuming all the money saved by the trains fuel and labour efficiency. The real big ticket item for maintenance of both roads and railways is keeping the gravel under the riding surface level to prevent derailments and it’s road equivalent. Even when that only needs doing every 30 or 40 years about 3% of the network needs to be done each year and the cost of doing the work will be pretty much the same for roads and rails since they use pretty much the same amont of crushed gravel..
Even if the trucking industry had to pay the full cost of maintaining local roads it would only incease their total costs by 10% or 20% since RUCs comprise less than one-fifth of truck operating costs – buying the truck is the single biggest cost.
Don’t forget, the local roads damaged by trucks are mainly rural roads. The ratepayers who are currently paying for the truck damage are generally farmers and foresters so one way or another the same customers are paying the bill. Shifting from rates to fuel taxes and RUCs will ensure that foresters aren’t subsidising farmers (or vice versa) but it won’t benefit rail as rail doesn’t compete with local roads.
It’s a different story for commuter buses. That industry definitely doesn’t pay for the damage it does to local roads. But then, like truck damage to country roads, the total cost is barely $10 million a year which will add maybe one cent to an average bus fare. Which isn’t exactly opening the door to a light rail takeover.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“The same weight on a 4-axle freight wagon will result in RUCs of $800, consuming all the money saved by the trains fuel and labour efficiency.”
Why would RUC’s be applied to rail wagons? Rail wagons carry much more than trucks. Up to 72 tonnes gross, or it will be 90 tonnes gross on the proposed upgraded routes such as Auckland-Tauranga and the NIMT. Gross truck weight is only 44 tonnes. Yet it will take less fuel to move that 90 tonne wagon that it will to move that 44 tonne truck.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Why would RUC’s be applied to rail wagons?” Because the laws of physics apply to rail wagons and ignoring that fact results in an awful lot of money being wasted.
How can Kiwirail halve their RUCs? Simply by using tridem bogeys instead of tandem bogeys.
This is one occassion when history teaches us a very important lesson. Ontrack is in the same position as Transit was in before RUCs were introduced – trucks running at the legal weight limit instead of at an economic weight limit. Under the old mileage tax there was no incentive to minimise road damage. Why spend your money on more axles and tyres when someone else is paying for your road damage? But when RUCs ensured that owners of two axle trucks had to pay twice as much as owners of three axle trucks of the same gross weight it provided a major incentive to replace that two axle truck with a three axle truck. With the result that maintenance costs per nett tonne km of freight have fallen dramaticly on highways. Tranzrail tried to match that cost reduction by simply deffering maintenance.
I’m not suggesting that Ontrack actually charge Kiwirail RUCs but simply that they should simulate it to revolutionise their thinking. IF rail’s only major cost disadvantage is the higher maintenance costs of carrying 72 tonnes on 4 axles instead of 44 tonnes on eight axles, then the solution to competing with linehaul trucks is a simple easy to implement one.
True, getting all that freight off linehaul trucks and onto rail will save the country a couple of hundred million off the trade deficit (at last years peak price) but it will cost taxpayers or motorists or railfreight customers over half a billion dollars a year in extra track maintenance using the current 20th century approach to rolling stock.
The Green Train that Bombadier are building for Sweden’s railways is the first implementation of tri-axle bogies to reduce track loadings that I’m aware of.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Tri-axle bogies are expensive to maintain, as they require complex moving parts to enable the centre axle to move sideways, as rigid tri-axle bogies would derail on curves. The old NZGR built some in the 1950′s but they were not popular due to the extra maintenance required. As you note, the concept has only been applied in one place. That’s because such bogies are just not efficient.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Or , alternatively, nobody had worked out how to do it efficiently until now.
“Special attention was given to the bogies, which are “track-friendly” (unique passive self-steering). The benefits of the track-friendly bogies are increased running stability, lower track forces and less wheel-rail wear on curved tracks.”
http://www.bombardier.com/en/transportation/media-centre/press-releases/details?docID=0901260d8003bb31
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)