The sad loss of the Overlander
News of the sad demise of the Overlander train service between Auckland and Wellington will have reached you by now. As Jeanette has pointed out, it may not be a permanent thing, as demand for train services will almost certainly increase in future when the real impact of peak oil bites. Let’s hope that the capability to run such a service isn’t lost altogether.
In the meantime, while demand may be too low for Toll to deem the service efficient (and fair enough, because empty trains aren’t particularly fuel efficient) the 50,000 people who use the Overlander each year will be rather put out. It’s a particularly good service for accessing the North Island ski fields, and as one Green staffer pointed out with this little story, finding alternative transport from that area can be a mission:
Skiing holiday: needed to return to wellington by public transport. No 0800 numbers for bus companies so try calling from cell to the Wellington and Auckland numbers. Get put on hold. Uses up lots of money and battery. Don’t get through. Then find that to be picked up at the place I am at, I would need to have told them before the bus set off (don’t they have the ability to update the drivers on route!?). In the end the bus I wanted to be on was full (and would have meant a night on the bus) so it just proved a lot easier, but costlier, to call AirNZ on their 0800, book at short notice, drive to nearest airport the next morning and fly. And get a good night’s sleep
So it’s a sad goodbye, for now, to an iconic train service.
July 26th, 2006 at 5:29 pm
I’m the first to admit I don’t know anything about the Overlander but according to the article, “The company said continuous loss of patronage had led to the decision.”
If this is the case, perhaps this is a good thing, environmentally. Yes, people are relying more on flights and cars, but it costs significant amounts of energy to lug a multi-ton train around - and if there aren’t any people, there aren’t any people.
In the long run, I think the main problem with the Overlander was that it simply wasn’t cheap enough to justify; as mentioned, the cost of a plane ticket is roughly equal to the cost of a train ticket; and with no cost savings, it simply makes more sense, individually, to fly.
Remember, one of the things about public transportation is that it has to be reliable and cheap. I don’t think that trains can meet that second criteria anymore.
July 26th, 2006 at 5:46 pm
A train journey of a similar distance in Japan is Tokyo-Osaka.
2 hours 40 mins. No airports, no check-in. Central city to central city. Quite expensive too: NZ$200 one-way. Cheap air tickets for the same route are about 30% cheaper, but involve much more hassle.
With 1/30th of Japan’s population, a NZ shinkansen is not going to happen, but…
When petrol and jet fuel quadruple in price (within 5 years folks) a rapid electified rail service between Whangarei and Invercargill will seem like quite a good option. And a few branch lines could have most of the population covered for long-distance rail.
Flying and driving everywhere are luxuries we have enjoyed for almost 50 years in NZ. In the not-too-distant future, they will once again become true luxuries. We can still do these things, just not all the time.
July 26th, 2006 at 8:21 pm
It IS sad, I have taken the train a few times, mainly for points in between. It has its last boost late 80s/early 90s when NZ Rail refurbished the rolling stock, but the route needs new rolling stock (can’t refurbish heavy 60 year old carriages a fourth time cheaply) and the cost isn’t worth it for 80 people each way a day. The Railways General Manager in 1981 said (and it remains true), for passenger rail to start to make economic sense you need 3 busloads per trip, which means getting 135-140 people per trip. This is a tall ask when buses are cheaper for single trips, cars are cheaper for families of 3+ and flying strips any chance of charging a premium for the trip because 2.5-3 hours beats 11 hours CBD to CBD anyday.
By contrast the Tranz Alpine manages over 200 a trip and the TranzCoastal not much less. Those trains work (although both performed worse in the pre-tourism days of the 70s and 80s).
Buses have been getting bigger, more fuel efficient and cleaner burning and Intercity has record patronage on the Wellington-Auckland route, this will simply boost that.
July 26th, 2006 at 9:25 pm
Its not sad, it is a disgrace.
I dont believe what the company is saying, over the last two or more years a number of things have happened that make it seem like Toll actually wanted less people to catch trains up and down the country. Please dont take this sitting down. Why should a company be permitted to close down a long running service on such slender grounds.
1. Largest population in Auckland, large new station, guess what, you can not purchase a ticket for the over lander and not even get the times the trains run. You have to go else where for that…..
2. Toll says tavellers down 50%, I wonder why, first 2 years ago they take off the over night train (the 50%?) or is it because its the middle of winter. Last summer on serveral days I wanted to travel I couldn’t no seat available unless I paid an arm and a leg.
3. Has the Company made too many seats 1st class, meaning that often the train runs with few people on board….who knows, there is many ways to cloud things over.
Please dont except this, we as a country need this service to be alive and well, not just for us locals but for our visitors as well.
It should be something that is kept alive if Toll refuses then by others.
July 26th, 2006 at 11:11 pm
The overlander could have had more people use it if it had provided a service. Every time I have used the overlander from Auckland to Wellington, the service has been third world. We have broken down in the middle of the North Island; we have had threats of derailing in Hamilton and we had to transfer to busses; we have been attacked by angry Sioux; we have run out of water for passengers; we have suffered interminable delays.
Okay I was lying about the Sioux, but the rest of it is just liek something out of the Wild West. It does not have to be shinkansen speed, but truly, a horse would be faster.
The sad thing is the overlander is used by tourists. I wonder what their impression is of New Zealand after such an adventure.
July 27th, 2006 at 7:58 am
OK, well if people want it, then use it. Seriously, I bet if patronage shot up dramatically in the next few months Tranz Scenic would think again - after all, it is a separate company and is making money from the South Island routes.
A local railway magazine a few years ago said that if everyone who wanted passenger trains did 2 return trips a year, they would be viable. I doubt most people who support it used it annually. The overnight train was not the Overlander, but the Northerner, its patronage died with cheap flights, it was down to 2-3 carriages a trip and the only people who wanted to go overnight would only pay cheap fares (and buses ate into that). There has not been first class on any NZ trains since 1979. The train needed to carry on average about 40 more people per trip in each direction to be profitable, or every passenger pay $16 more per trip in fares.
July 27th, 2006 at 9:35 am
It will return but…
The only way it can be useful is if it goes at speed and on time on a decent budget. I used it exactly once, taking my family and all our luggage, to Wellington. It was supposed to arrive before 7 PM, but it was late September and the speed restrictions were in place owing to the tracks. When we arrived in Wellington it was closed and there was a howling Southerly knifing through the station.
That sort of problem will kill ANY service… unless it is a LOT cheaper and more reliable than the airplane. Cheaper it will get, but the rest has to be dealt with. One, the tickets have to be available and READILY available. Two, they have to be cheaper than a plane. Three, the service has to arrive on schedule. Four, there has to be something done about “in flight entertainment”, or the complete lack thereof.
Didn’t notice any 1st class-3rd class passengers differentiation. Food was bad enough and ran out halfway through the trip.
I used the trains in Russia and Ukraine. Tickets were a true PITA because I wasn’t Russian, and there is a distinct difference between 1st and 3rd class, but they got EVERYONE where they were going and arrived when they claimed they were going to arrive.
Part of the problem is the track, the line between Auckland and Wellington is nothing like straight and the maintenance problem (welding rail that should NEVER have been welded) has kept the trains slow. Faster trains, reliable service (no fog/wind/rain delays) and decent prices would put people on the trains in a heartbeat.
This isn’t rocket science. Any ordinary fool could figure it out.
I guess we have a lot of extraordinary fools
respectfully
BJ
July 27th, 2006 at 12:00 pm
tochigi Says:
July 26th, 2006 at 5:46 pm
A train journey of a similar distance in Japan is Tokyo-Osaka.
2 hours 40 mins. No airports, no check-in. Central city to central city. Quite expensive too: NZ$200 one-way. Cheap air tickets for the same route are about 30% cheaper, but involve much more hassle.
With 1/30th of Japan’s population, a NZ shinkansen is not going to happen, but…
Hasstle would be locating to the airport etc compared to leaving centrally?.
Would that add to the cost much (I suppose not)?
Henry
July 27th, 2006 at 12:08 pm
I have used the service and also always recommend to visitors arriving in Auckland that they take two days to come by train to Wellington. Comments above about patronage drop off coinciding with the service deteriorating gells with my opbservation. No attempt has been made to make this an attractive and convenient servce or to hook up with tourist operators on the line or even let people know just how late the service is running on any particular day.
I once had the embarrasment of waiting with an overseas friend for 3 hours at Ohakune whilst the only publicly available number kept assuring us the train was running on time.
This was a service set up to fail.
July 27th, 2006 at 12:14 pm
My friend scoffed at Jeanette Fitzimonds’ saying the line should be kept up etc. I have sent him articles about peak oil but he dismisses them. Makes you wonder how many people are concerned. I recall John Cambells opening item when his show first started, but TV1 had an item on a water engine and later a barman was quoting how clever Kiwis are as “someone had invented a water engine”. Close Up also had the item on how we might be floating on oil and gas and had images of Invercargil and Bahrain before and after. The networks want good (full steam ahead) news as this creates the mood for sales.
Henry
July 27th, 2006 at 1:04 pm
Henry,
When you add the cost/time of getting to and from the airport, and the time required for checking in, etc., the shinkansen and the cheap flights cost about the same and take about the same time. Even if the plane has a slight advantage, it is just so much easier to get on a train (no need to book if you don’t mind lining up for 10 minutes).
July 27th, 2006 at 2:19 pm
I heard somewhere that the maintenance levels for rail lines carrying passenger trains are different from those of freight. So while the main trunk line will still be used for freight, the quality of the track may be allowed to degrade (feel free to correct me if this is a faulty assumption).
I think most people have to agree that if global energy prices keep going they way they have been, at some stage in the future the price differential with other forms of transport will eventually make rail travel attractive again. I just hope that in the meantime we don’t lose any hard-to-replace infrastructure.
There will come a time (hopefully not to soon) when ANY trip to Wellington will be an expensive luxury, even if it does take a whole day to get there.
July 27th, 2006 at 2:31 pm
Jeanette is right to warn about the loss of infrastructure, but does not appear to be aware of the role of Toll rail deal in this sorry saga (which the Greens supported). As part of this deal the Government agreed there would be no other passenger services for 3 years meaning that Toll could close down services without worrying about another operator taking it over and offering a decent service. They used this opportunity to close down the Northerner, now the Overlander has gone too, with a year to spare.
Instead of making deals with Australian mulitnationals with dodgy employment records, the Government would have been far better to nationalise the whole railways and gain a clear start to promote its social, enironmental and transport goals, without having to make concessions to profit centric private investors.
July 27th, 2006 at 10:27 pm
Given that the next ten years will see the end of cheap car use, and of cheap flying, the closing down of the service is a powerful symbol that we’ve got it all wrong… On the other hand it’s hard to argue with the current economics of it.
I used the old Express AK/WN a few times in the 70s, until I was deemed old enough to hitch (a no-cost option more in line with my budget). In the early 80s I was even known to drive to Wellington and back for the weekend (ah freedom!)
The key cultural element of the rising cost of oil is the very real loss of personal freedom it entails. The golden years are pretty much behind us.
July 28th, 2006 at 6:12 am
Re libertys….
First class finished in 1979 you say, and yes you would be right, but never the less, less than a year ago I was offered different ticket prices on the same train (ok its not called 1st class) but the more expensive was almost double (for memory, could have been even more) than the cheapest seats. Yes, on the same train trip and in this last year. Seemed clear enough to me that the cheaper seats sold quickly. Meaning the more expensive went unsold (mostly) I should think. There by leaving many seats empty. Honestly who cares what its called????
We can all say how bad the service was, it has been in Companys best interest to have it that way. What we now have to look at is how good it could be.
Someone above said something about another year before anyone else can offer a service. Is this really right. The exisiting company is permitted to close down everything and no one else is permitted to take over. Looks like someone mucked up big time on this deal.
This has been a deliberate running down of a service, by a private company that is out to make as much out of the deal as it can. Actually good for them, it is us that are the foolish ones for once again having it happen.
The TV insurance advert spings to mind, “everyones always taking your stuff, NZ”
joeh
Here, here, you have hit the nail on the head.
We should all remember that not everyone is in a hurry to get from A to B some people actually like to smell the roses.
July 28th, 2006 at 6:33 am
Re Farmge
Yes, think I have also heard that, would it be because of insurance?
Not sure that I would like to be working on a freight train if the lines are in such a bad state.
Jeeves, may I borrow of you……….
……………….This service was set to fail……………
July 28th, 2006 at 11:44 am
farmgeek said:
There will come a time (hopefully not to soon) when ANY trip to Wellington will be an expensive luxury, even if it does take a whole day to get there.
I remember trips to Wellington (from the hills between Southern Hawkes Bay and Northern Wairarapa) being a whole day journey, and that was only 35 years ago.
We keep running on the assumption that avgas will continue to be available for private consumers to use; even in the 70’s families emigrated from Britain on ships, not planes. The cost of air-shipping cargo is not reflected in the cost of products to consumers, in the majority of basic foods (eg: tinned tomatoes from Italy) or consumer items such as electronics.
Rail as cargo transport has been all but destroyed by the de-regulation of the transport industry, thus pushing huge trucks around our highways. Rail is more efficient, but less privatised. Capitalism won over logic on the day.
The technology of Railways opened up the most remote parts of the centre of the country, but is out of favour in this century’s hi-tech on-demand transportation and marketing environments. Privatisation is the buzzword, and private transport is sexy, public transport is (insert favourite derogatory terms).
Ferrari and Lambourghini are used to motivate marketing exec’s, not high-speed, highly sustainable transport options like the Japanese or French bullet trains. Once you change the brainwashing, and motivations, then there can be open societal discussion about how best to move goods and people around the country!
July 28th, 2006 at 1:00 pm
Strikes me that even if we can’t afford a bullet train, a bog-standard, basic railway, like the commuter trains around London, should manage around 150kmh. Which would get the journey time down to below 5hrs.
Moreover, it would get the Auckland-Hamilton run down to around an hour, making commuting reasonable and the Auckland-Ohakune under three hours, which would be excellent for skiing (France has TGV service to some ski resorts).
Having a well maintained, fast (ish) railway would also encourage freight usage - and could be paid for by taxing road freight to level the playing field.
July 28th, 2006 at 3:56 pm
Our problem is our geography lent us to using Narrow Gauge railways when they were built in the Victorian Era - so no high speed trains are possible. Our trains only get to 100km/h (with a tail wind).
I’ve been on the EuroStar Italia (220Km/h) from Venice to Rome and the French TGV (320km/h) from Milan to Paris- both were packed with passengers as it was as quick as flying when compared city centre to city centre. I’m not sure how the cost compared with flying.
But the cost of building a new rail network for high speed trains would be prohibitive, given our population size.
July 28th, 2006 at 4:55 pm
I don’t think the problem is building “A” high speed network.
It is getting a New Zealand government to think of the rail system as a resource instead of a money pit and treating it as the vital infrastructure it is. Takes money to put in and properly maintain a working rail system.
The trains are capable of going faster. Most of the track between here and Auckland isn’t THAT poorly laid out. There’s that spectacular set of curves and bridges that gets climbed someplace in the middle, and that has to go, but I don’t know of any real show-stoppers. Money is NOT the problem.
Doing something that doesn’t involve talking everyone to death… THAT is a distinct kiwi government problem.
respectfully
BJ
July 28th, 2006 at 10:50 pm
It’s simple economics. The rail company in any form only profits well through shifting heavy materials, weight enough to beat the trucks in fuel efficiency. There’s good demand for that, so one less passenger train is one more freight train, and more profit.
From my own experience with the Southerner, the passenger trains on busy lines were/are clearly being run to fail. To be honest, until the national main trunk is double lined, it’s probably for the best. The national cost in passenger transport efficiency will be easily made up for with the extra freight runs.
Is there any room to push harder on rail investment? God knows we don’t need more friggin’ motorways just as the oil crash is hitting. Better ports too: source -> truck -> train -> ship -> train -> truck -> destination.
July 28th, 2006 at 11:04 pm
NZ’s railways are 1067 mm (narrow gauge)–3 ft 6 in.
That is what you get in mountainous terrain.
In Japan, even more mountainous than NZ, all of the former Japanese National Railways lines apart from the Shinansen are also 1067 mm narrow gauge.
I used to ride a commuter service to work in Tokyo every day, and I can tell you the top speed is more than 100 km/h (about 120 km/h).
Of course, there are long-distance express services on this gauge of track to areas not served by Shinkansen (e.g. the Chuo line from Shinjuku to Matsumoto). On the straighter stetches, they get up to 130 km/h (e.g. Super Azusa)
And then there is Queensland, where they have a narrow gauge service with speeds hitting 160 km/h.
I can’t imagine the current tracks in NZ could reach these speeds, but with some serious investment that includes electrification (but NOT ripping up everything and going to standard gauge) we could probably have a 20th-century rail system, as opposed to the current 19th-century one.
I hope we see it in the next 20 years!
July 29th, 2006 at 7:13 pm
so..we’ll see you again next wednesday..or so..?…frog..?..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 29th, 2006 at 9:31 pm
Life would be dull(er) without phil u’s inimitable comments!
July 30th, 2006 at 1:12 pm
Switzerland’s railways are standard gauge (mostly - a rail geek could probably clarify).
July 30th, 2006 at 7:41 pm
Sorry - I only do farm geek
July 31st, 2006 at 4:25 pm
Tochigi - true, but the 1980s Hungarian Commuter trains only do 100km/h in Wellington, and there would be few stretches of rail they can achieve it on. But enough on that.
The real problem with Rail in NZ is that certain businessmen stripped the company of all it’s capital then sold it at an inflated price on the basis it was making a huge cash profit but the capital items on the books weren’t discounted to their real value (I.e. Next to Nothing).
July 31st, 2006 at 6:30 pm
ports, airports, railways, telecommunications, gas, electricity…
infrastructure vital to the functioning of the whole economy!
strategic assets that affect all NZers!
natural monopolies!
sell them off, watch everyone get milked while the profits are whisked offshore!
see the capital value, security of supply and service standards compared with other OECD countries go down the drain!
the great NZ infrastructure smash-up derby rolls along…on its last wheels!?!
(no worries mate…we’ll just keep paying through the nose…again…and again…and again…)
July 31st, 2006 at 9:13 pm
If anyone cares to leave ideology at the door, the demise of long distance passenger rail in NZ has little to do with privatisation. It is a combination systematic mismanagement by a government department that was dominated by railway workers with NO interest in customer service, but an obsession with engineering, followed by the inevitable drift away by New Zealanders to modes that are cheaper, more flexible and more comfortable.
The Railways Department invested little in such trains for over half a century, which is why most of the Tranz Scenic rolling stock was produced 1937-1945. Railcars bought in the 1950s were underpowered, with engines that were so unreliable that a third of the vehicles were scrapped after 10 years (and the railways had a policy of NOT using the new railcars to keep them in pristene condition - so by the time the gearboxes starting malfunctioning the warranty on these little used trains had expired). Food/beverage service on trains was canned on most services in 1917 as a wartime measure, and the rest by the 1930s - it wasn’t restored until the 1970s, meaning all trains stopped every couple of hours at stations so passengers could rush to buy refreshments - slowing them down. No wonder these services failed, the Railways Department invested nothing in them, and ran them until the trains were unserviceable. Note that competition from buses and airlines was tightly regulated - no more than one competing bus operator per route in most cases, and NAC/Air NZ had a statutory monopoly. Cars were artificially high in price because tariffs kept the price high - so even under this environment, trains couldn’t compete.
The only new trains bought were the 3 Silverfern railcars (one off design, high unit costs) and the Silverstar (designed for business traffic Wellington-Auckland, ordered AFTER Boeing 737s started flying the route). All other trains were refurbished old carriages, that weighed 3 times as much as a bus that could carry the same or more people.
Meanwhile provincial services were run into the ground, some were 1908 vintage unheated wooden carriages attached to freight trains!
The peak of patronage was in the late 1960s, all the trains were unprofitable by the late 1970s. There was an attempt to revitalise services in 1979-1980 by converting the Silverstar to part seat/part sleeper but when opened up, it was found they were insulated with blue asbestos, and the union understandably said “like hell unless we’re paid a lot more to fix this”. By the time this was costed, it was found to be as expensive as a new train - and by then long distance trains were costing $90 million a year in subsidies.
They were saved by Prebble giving a one off bulk payment of subsidies to the Railways to run the trains as a business - and suddenly the worst performer (Christchurch-Greymouth) got a buffet service, some promotion and air conditioning with big windows, and is now a stunning success. Same with the TranzCoastal. Took longer to do the same for the Hawke’s Bay service, which didn’t succeed. Post privatisation, Tranz Rail tried more trains (Auckland-Tauranga and Auckland-Rotorua, both had been canned in 1967) and upgraded the Southerner, but at the same time airfares, petrol prices and new car prices were all coming down, and bus competition increased. TranzRail also imported a bunch of ex.BR carriages that are now usefully being employed on the Capital Connection and soon to be used on the Wairarapa services. The rest will probably be used to revitalise the TranzAlpine and TranzCoastal services.
The short of it is - NZ Railways had never been seriously interested in long distance passenger trains since the 1950s. It milked them through the 40s, 50s and 60s because many had little other option, but as soon as aviation became an option for business travellers, and cars for leisure trips, the railways lost out and did little to respond. There have been 2 periods since then where there was some money injected into it - the last one has proven the one single success of rail passenger services in NZ - scenic tourist routes.
July 31st, 2006 at 9:25 pm
I wonder what people in 50 years time will say about us (re railways and climate change). We are all to blame, not just NZ Railways board, TransRail, Toll and the Government.
July 31st, 2006 at 10:25 pm
libertyscott:
Interesting post.
Food for thought. Thanks!
August 1st, 2006 at 1:57 am
LibertyScott has made a real contribution here. Thanks.
However, the issue of whether the rail between Auckland and Wellington can work now boils down to the question of speed, money and the ability to change the future rather than simply accepting what has happened in the past as prologue.
I have my doubts. Privatising the rail between Wellington and Auckland doesn’t make it feasible to run the trains faster. That requires better track maintenance, better rolling stock and a pretty real effort on the part of government. I don’t see a private firm being able to do it at all. Rail is major infrastructure. An investment that pays back over generations.
respectfully
BJ
August 1st, 2006 at 11:54 am
I don’t think questions will be asked in 50 years time, how about less than 10 years. Unless big changes are made yesterday, has this happened will this happen. Lets hope that we can make a difference quickly, rail is and will be one of these differences long term.
We have elderly people washing out their baked bean tins and going the extra mile, trying to do the right thing. While many large Government funded organisations to this day still don’t even recycle paper and glass, in any organised way, if at all. So many things that make a difference long term that require urgent attention.
August 2nd, 2006 at 4:19 pm
“the cost of building a new rail network for high speed trains would be prohibitive, given our population size� is true if we continue to spend less than a fifth of transport money on public transport. However, even if we could only emulate the Queensland narrow gauge speeds, the 680km Wellington to Auckland Overlander’s 12 hours (even slower than the bus and with no improvement in half a century) could be halved. In that half century billions have been poured into road straightening, so that 42% of energy now goes into transport. Cars use that energy about 50% less efficiently than trains. Aircraft are even less efficient. With global warming and rising oil prices we need to start diverting to greener transport. Almost 4 people a day die from road crashes or related air pollution. If terrorists were killing that many, no end of money would be put into stopping the deaths. This Labour government has presided over closure of rail services to Invercargill, Dunedin, Rotorua, Tauranga and now the Overlander. Can the Greens get it to spend transport money sensibly, so that we don’t get stuck even longer on Auckland’s motorway?
By the way, does anyone understand why trains have to be so high and wide? If they were lower, narrower and longer, wouldn’t they have a lower centre of gravity and thus be able to corner faster and have less wind resistance?
John Lawson
Raglan
07 825 7866.
August 3rd, 2006 at 11:27 am
Interesting post 4389
August 3rd, 2006 at 3:14 pm
4389
Wind resistance is of near zero interest to trains. The reason is that there are two components of wind resistance. One is related to frontal area, which is the one you are used to and which benefits from lower/narrower. The other is related to skin drag. Given the already long and narrow cross section of the entire train, and the minimal contribution of skin drag in air once the air is already disturbed/turbulent, the actual contribution of either of these drag components to the cost of driving a train is minimal.
Lower would help with the tipping moment and the need for banked curves on the line, but this is not a big problem either. So the basic issue becomes how much stuff you can haul in the boxes you attach to the train. Which means that the height and width are limited to what your tunnels and bridges are designed to deal with. Other factors become important, not (*especially in NZ*) the engineered optimum guage of the railroad, but the price of the second and third hand rolling stock we get.
The other point you made however, is pretty similar to what I was pointing out. There is no reason whatsoever for us to be unable to run to Auckland at a mere 140 Kph. A 5 hour trip.
At 140 K’s the interior of that 3rd hand rolling stock gets sorta loud though.
respectfully
BJ
August 3rd, 2006 at 9:54 pm
Thanks for the kind remarks.
Given the $1billion+ cost for Transmission Gully for a 110km/h road and gradient that is unsustainable for rail, it would be mindblowingly expensive to half the rail travel time between Wellington and Auckland. From Marton to Te Awamutu there are so many gradients and curves that are in the order of 50km/h or less that you’re talking a good $5 billion - plus the need for double tracking (why bother with a moderately high speed line that has bottlenecks every few kms) - I’d frankly rather buy $5 billion in hospital equipment. Transport isn’t everything, if the price of oil tracks upwards then rail will become more competitive for more things - but air and road transport will also change, become more efficient. I am simply guessing that if the price goes up, it will mean people travel less - and the existing modes continue to get more fuel efficient. One great step forward is encouraging walking/cycling for trips of 1 km or less (including getting people off of buses for short trips - buses would use less fuel if they stopped and accelerated less).
The 737s flying today Wellington-Auckland use about a third less fuel than the ones from 35 years ago, could probably save another 10% if they were brand new - and in 10 years the aviation sector expects engine technology will mean further savings of around 20-30%. Trucks and buses are doing the same (the operators are demanding it, which is why Intercity has bought new larger more efficient cleaner burning buses and linehaul trucks are rarely more than 10 years old).
August 8th, 2006 at 2:59 pm
The NZ Greens must be the most tardy when it comes to saving and growing rail. Here I read posts about buses being efficient, and that one day rail will make a come back. Well H E L L O? Wake up time!
The time for rail is NOW! All other world leading countries are growing the use of rail NOW. They know air pollution is important to limit, and oil is a non re-newable resource, which NZ, and the Greens reading this, should be acting upon NOW!
737’s are not fuel efficient compared to the Overlander, which 50% of the route is run on electricity. Buses are not fuel efficient compared to electric locomotives. Buses and 737’s are not good for the environment. I have not read such a load of rubbish in years, and here I find it on a Green Blog!
If the Greens are serious they would initiate the continuation of The Overlander service. It does everything right for which the Greens stand for, but the Greens can not, or will not stand up for the service! Come on you NZ Greens, wake up and smell the diesel!
The Overlander has been run down on purpose by Toll Rail, as they want the loco’s for freight, their key business. They have NOT painted the Overlander since owning it for more than 3 years. They also increased the duration of the trip travel time….10 years ago it was a 10.5 hour trip, today 12! Why don’t you Greens ask why this has happened? I will spell it out for you - BECAUSE TOLL NZ DO NOT WANT PASSENGER TRAINS!
So GREENS, and anyone with foresight, save the OVERLANDER NOW, ensure that the $1.4 million is there to keep it operating now, build up the service and within a year it will be BACK TO PROFIT.
NZ subsidies Air New Zealand, why not save a train that helps not so much Auckland and Wellington, but Hamilton, Otorohanga, Te Kuiti, Taumaranui, National Park, Ohakune, Waiouru etc…?
This is a national service, and all other countries are investing rail NOW. The call to action is NOW to save this environmentally friendly service.
The Overlander represents the Greens beliefs. Do the Greens believe in rail and it’s future starting from NOW?
One last point….I know some of you will be glad I am finishing, so here it is.
We subsidise Air NZ. They fly hourly on the Auckland - Wellington route with 737’s carrying an average amount of 85 passengers per flight. The Overlander is currently on a low point (down from 90,000 last year) and carries 50,000 people per year. This is equal to 588 Air New Zealand flights on 737’s Auckland to Wellington.
If we subsidise 588 polluting 737’s flights, why can we not subsidise 1 train service that uses electricity for half of the journey? What’s more, as mentioned the Overlander is only currently at a low patronage point, so with good promotion AND MANAGEMENT it could grow back to 90,000+.
Greens, stand up and be counted. Force Labour to fund THE OVERLANDER and take over the management of the service.
Toll NZ only wants to run freight trains - so don’t let them tell you the service is unviable!
August 8th, 2006 at 6:53 pm
I imagine the Greens would save the Overlander if they could, but unfortunately not enough people voted for us in the last election and we are not in government.
August 9th, 2006 at 12:36 am
Thank you Jonthekiwi, well said.
Seems to be green is a bit lost for some of the posters here. Also many that are not that interested in our environment it seems?
Many in too much of a hurry to see it, let alone experience this wonderful country of ours. Something you do get to do via train.
I agree with J lets not let Toll close down OUR overlander. If its only a year before others can take over surely something could be worked out until then. Otherwise who knows what will happen to the existing old trains. Surely old is better than none.
August 9th, 2006 at 10:17 am
Well said Wendy!
August 9th, 2006 at 1:55 pm
Apart from 10 years the worst and the 30 years the best for oil supplies
left in this world, esculating problems e.g.middle eastern wars, B.P. in Alsaka shutting down the pipe lines that have corroded, the lines supplying America with one tenth U.S. domestic fuels, this oil is also for many products other than driving the family car to the super-market. Let alone the effects in the atmosphere.
BIO-FUELS are the answer, which the oil companies can use exisiting service sites and tanks. The infra-structure is already there at you local Shell Station. We have Bio-Fuel development here in N.Z. that can be pumped straight into exisiting transport.
So where the hell is the government support and aggressive development and trade with the oil companies. New Zealand in the Malborough region, is the first in the world to develop a fuel from sewage ponds outside the laboratory. also the cleansing of the water a double edged sword that would benefit the country. With events taking place throughout the world I would have thought government would stop sweating the small stuff and get into BIO-FUEL and start looking after the country.
It is like knitting, one has the needle, one has the wool, and one has the skill, knit altogether and we have an extraordinary product double edged. We are an extraordianry race of people after all we invented the No.8 wire, and wow look at the America’s cup the kiwi tech on that.
Marie
August 9th, 2006 at 2:49 pm
A very STUPID decision indead !
Everywhere in the orld Public Trains are becoming more and more popular and is mostly supported by Governments. The “King of Tonga” once said to the German TV ARD: “Tonga is the country of Cars …” ! WELL New Zealand is the country of cars as well, that’s why we have such a lot of people dieing on Roads !
New Zeland - Shame on You …
… Instead of ceasing serices we should provide customers with more train services. The more trains the less time customers have to wait for the next train when they missed one. Its all about CUSTOMER SERVICE, thats what is happening all over in th world bur nor in New Zeland.
Again New Zealand, Shame for that decision !
August 9th, 2006 at 11:29 pm
Isn’t this the decision of a private company? (which is an Australian, not a Kiwi one)
Our National Railway system was sold off for “Private Enterprise will do things better” reasons.
Later we had to “buy back the tracks” (which were not being maintained adequately). Now it seems we will have to buy back the rollingstock on any lines that are not currently profitable.
No doubt if and when the Railways are up and running, revamped and succcessful, (at “taxpayers expense”) a National etc Govt (or whatever Right of Centre group is around at the time) will sell them off again …
I’ve obviously been around fore too long!
August 12th, 2006 at 9:42 am
Any arguments about profitability are short sighted. I think its important for the government to be seen to promote the use of more sustainable long term alternatives to cheap flights. Ok, granted the Overlander service mightn’t be economically viable right now, but surely with peak oil looming ever closer its wise to encourage people to patronize modes of transport that use less fuel?
Even with the considerable investment made in promoting public transport by the labour - green government rail will never compete when hundreds of millions are being spent on squeezing a few more cars onto Auckland’s motorway. By comparison rail hasn’t had that much spent on infrastructure since Vogel’s era.
Perhaps its time to look closely at partial regulation of ‘other’ transport to help rail to compete for the next couple of years until peak oil forces that decision. I’m not suggesting a return to the days of rail being continually bailed out by the government, but something must be done to ensure that rail is preserved as a viable alternative against the day we need it. And in my opinion that requires at least a semi regulated environment to achieve.
Toll bemoan the diminishing patronage of the Overlander, but how long since the service was actually promoted by them? How many people have seen a tv advert or cinema advert for the Overlander in recent years? The cruel irony is that media coverage of Tolls decision has resulted in the service being booked solid until it finishes.
I find it hard to believe that a train service running in both directions each day between NZ’s major cities wouldn’t be viable – provided it was promoted properly.
August 12th, 2006 at 5:20 pm
slightly green: Very well said.
August 13th, 2006 at 5:00 pm
Slightlygreen,
You are so right, like Eredwen, I also say very well said, but is anyone listening?
August 14th, 2006 at 1:11 pm
SlightlyGreen - You are correct in asserting the shortsightedness, it is that, but it is (if it is running at the snails pace it has run for the past few years) not viable at the prices charged.
Basically, if the service is to run viably it has to get me to Auckland in the same time or LESS than it might take me to drive there and it has to get my FAMILY there at the same price or less, than the cost of the fuel for the car.
I am prepared to substitute some degree of money vs time. Cheaper rates for less convenience does help me accept the lost time, but not if I am running on a tight business schedule. I would imagine that this is going to be true of almost every “professional” whose time is worth more than the minimum wage.
Working out how to fix the track so the trains can go as fast as the rolling stock permits and adjusting, tuning and fixing that rolling stock to move along at a pace rather faster than I might drive on NZ roads will cost some money. Part of that cost is the neglect of the past couple of decades, and part of it is just needed improvement in the rail link.
I find it very EASY to believe that this link is currently not viable. I agree that the promotion has also failed miserably, but the necessity of actually doing work to improve the system has not yet been driven home to this government.
respectfully
BJ
August 15th, 2006 at 9:23 pm
I regularly travel between Auckland and Wellington so I can certainly appreciate what you mean about convenience (or lack of)!
Disregarding the current state of the line and the antiquated rolling stock it still wouldn’t be a level playing field because beyond electrification there hasn’t any major improvement to the basic infrastructure of the line since it was opened. Its still the same narrow gauge No8 wire railway that it always has been.
The original idea of major public works of this type was to open up NZ’s heartland and provide a way of getting goods to market. The narrow gauge and tight curves were a straight out cost saving measure designed to provide an adequate rail link at a point in time when rail was the transport revolution. Fast forward a hundred years and that same budget infrastructure is expected to compete. Yet the government bailed out Air NZ. Go figure.
August 24th, 2006 at 11:37 am
Thank you Jeanette F., good to hear your level headed views a day or two back.
September 27th, 2006 at 11:48 am
Overlander fate goes down to wire
Looks like Toll has just provided multiple grounds for the immediate termination of their exclusive track usage agreement.
Terminate it and kick these rent-seeking monopolists back to where thay came from.
September 27th, 2006 at 2:21 pm
Well said tochigi !