Hard News: Track to the Future
159 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 … 7 Newer→ Last
-
When I first arrived in NZ, 1986, I wanted to visit friends in New Plymouth so I decided to go by train. Off I went to Auckland Railway Station and what a wonderful building it was too, I enquired about said train journey only to be told when the bus left. I thought at the time what a shame it was not to be able to take my first trip in my new home by a scenic rail adventure and vowed to try and do something about it so I went down the pub.
Anyway. My most memorable train ride was on the old Istanbul to Tehran express, back in '72 there was such a thing, can't imagine why it no longer exists ;-). The journey took 3 days at an average speed of around 20kmh they loaded the entire train onto a boat to cross lake Van before continuing its way to the Nations capital.
I cannot really see the need for high speed trains, if you're in that much of a hurry you can always go by air. The train maybe one of the last remnants of a time when speed was not of the essence and a more leisurely pace was the norm. -
BTW, if environmental concerns are involved what a shame Toll still has possession of the Tranz Link freight forwarding operation -- and it's rather large truck fleet.
Make them pay their way properly (in road user charges and emissions), and it won't matter.
-
What, whether the money could better be spent giving tax cuts to the rich?
When you've finished with that straw man, I/S, could you feed it to the sheep?
-
and we have no guarantee, but certainly a well founded suspicion that once rail is vertically integrated again, it will behave like most, nay all, vertically integrated transport network operators. At least we know we're going to be subsidising rail.
Odd isn't it, just when we cleave Telecom into three, we cleave Rail back into one
I wouldn't say it's a given that the state will directly operate services.
But Toll had exclusive use of the network for freight, and seemed to be playing hardball over its next access agreement (which was key to the negotiations with the government). It may have been that the only way to enable new commercial services was to get Toll out of the way.
So I don't think the telecommunications comparison is completely apt here.
-
Actually the best train trip in the country used to be the over night trip between Auckland and Wellington - not because of the wonderfull views (it's night time) or the amazing rolling stock - but because for some reason that trip seemed to bring people together in a way others didn't - you were up all night with strangers, playing cards, drinking tea, etc etc
-
Tranz Link freight forwarding operation - with a totally govt funded roading system.
Craig is fiscal conservatisim going to extend to the roading system, tolls at the driveway & on ramp?
This inconsistency of govt policy has brought us to the folly of trucks as the main form of freight forwarding and with the rise of fuel is no-longer sustainable.
The historic policy errors of the 1950s are coming home to roost with our coming fuel crisis.
-
I cannot really see the need for high speed trains, if you're in that much of a hurry you can always go by air.
With oil prices expected to drive the cost of air travel higher, that will no longer be true in a few decades. That won't matter to business clients, but with a culture of popular travel, people will want substitutes.
Europe is ahead of the game on this - their TGV stations are the airport terminals of the future, and on some trips it is already faster to take the plane. In NZ, geography and low population density will prevent that, though there might be a role in some areas.
-
I cannot really see the need for high speed trains, if you're in that much of a hurry you can always go by air. The train maybe one of the last remnants of a time when speed was not of the essence and a more leisurely pace was the norm.
Bring back the Zeppelin.
-
Craig is fiscal conservatisim going to extend to the roading system, tolls at the driveway & on ramp?
Well, Shep, if that was the case I'd sure expect it to be done just a little more openly and transparently than this shemozzle.
-
(Oh, and when National, as it inevitably will, demands to know why the government should be subsidising the network at all, it should be asked then why it's such a fine idea to subsidise a comprehensive fibre-optic communications network to the tune of billions of dollars.)
Because:
A - fibre optic is quantifiably much better than copper, whereas the rolling stock, locomotives and ferries are exactly the same today as they were yesterday.
B - we do not have a fibre optic network, whereas we already own a rail network called On Track (which is the same network we just paid $663 million for). -
Actually the best train trip in the country used to be the over night trip between Auckland and Wellington ...
I was reminsicing about that just the other day. At 10.00pm the "train manager" came around and switched off the tv and all the lights and at Ohakune they switched the heating on, prompting all of us to unwrap from our sleeping bags and divest of bobble hats and jumpers.
-
What a great idea Bring back the Zeppelin. and maybe some of These
-
National: We said we'd sell the railways if Labour bought them, but now they have we won't because no one would pay for them anyway.
It's actually a reasonably savvy line to take, and they managed it before 2pm.
-
Kyle:
It might be worth "investigating", but not when you have a whacking great chunk of public money expended on the downlow As Colin Espiner puts it:
Well Colin is talking about the deal that was agreed to today, to buy back what we sold off a couple of decades ago.
I was discussing a hypothetical fast rail network, which I can't imagine is part of the government's plans. And I'd presume 'investigating' it would cost a few hundred thousand for a preliminary analysis at most.
-
I cannot really see the need for high speed trains
Ever tried to fly from London to Paris, or Tokyo to Osaka?
-
Craig - fairpoint.
I like the outcome - as much of it that is known. As for proceedure it does seem to be of the worst type. -
I like the outcome - as much of it that is known. As for proceedure it does seem to be of the worst type.
Thanks -- and I hope I've made it clear that even where I do like the outcomes I just instinctively don't like the fait accompli as an instrument of public policy, especially when substantive (and ongoing) public expenditure is involved. I know it's not a perfect analogy, but if you buy one of those houses euphemistically known as a 'renovator's dream', it does make sense to be at least thinking about how much the renovations are going to cost before you sign off on the settlement. And if you're asking third-parties to pick up the tab, they've got a reasonable expectation of being let in on your thought processes.
That's my brand of fiscal conservatism, but it seems to be a rather unpopular one at the moment with all sides.
-
Bring back the Zeppelin.
Oh, the humanity!
Lawrence Lessig, incidentally, is coming to speak to the LIANZA conference in Auckland in November. For those who are interested in that sort of thing.
-
Cullen has made the point that it makes more sense for the government to subsidise a public enterprise than a private one.
I know this sounds like it makes sense, but it really doesn't. This is the same fallacy as assuming that government ownership of a company is better because the government doesn't need to make profits. The true cost is the opportunity cost for all that capital, which in this case would be investing in a profitable non-subsidised company with a similar risk-profile. Owning the railways ourselves doesn't make us any better off unless the government can actually run the service at lower cost or higher quality, or if the subsidies are temporary measures needed while the business develops to a normally profitable level.
Libertyscott is worth reading on this.
-
We haven’t even seen the agreement signed with Toll this morning, or the Cabinet papers authorising Cullen and the PM to negotiate the deal. I’m told we’ll get these in due course.
These will be interesting - like you, Craig, I hope there's at least an attempt at a "social business case" here. I would have thought there must be just to get past Cabinet/have Treasury at least rubber stamp the spending - optimistic perhaps.
But a national infrastructure business that would require subsidies to private operators to cover off the externalities (that I'm assuming make up that "social business case") of public good does seem like a natural candidate for government ownership.
-
Oh, the humanity!
Or rather Oh, the huge manatee.
-
Presumably it would be cheaper if we rebuilt on top of existing infrastructure.
There's a fairly easy reason for this if we're talking high speeds. LGV (ligne à grande vitesse) have a radius of 4km on the original tracks, and are now at 8km for new lines. While they handle steeper grades than most freight trains could handle, the reality is that they would require mostly brand new routes. You see this in france where the LGV typically goes nowhere near the old train routes (except into and out of cities).
-
Also, you can't drive slowly (ie send freight trains) on high speed tracks. The corners are sufficiently banked to only be taken at a good clip, in addition to have steeper sections of gradient (which the TGV mostly gets away with because of the momentum you have at 300kmph)
-
Oh wait, did I mention that there's not point in having fast train tracks if you don't have double track the whole way as well. Ideal to avoid signalling errors with a net impact speed of 600km/h :)
So many depressingly sensible reasons not to have fast trains :(
-
I know this sounds like it makes sense, but it really doesn't.
I agree with most of what you've said there. The counter-point would be - if the subsidy led to a profit (which it presumably is doing for Toll), that profit should be used to reduce the subsidy and make it profit-neutral for the government. Instead of a $10 million subsidy, maybe it could be $7 million.
The other counter-point is that Toll is, while sucking up those subsidies, probably building up various tangible and intangible assets. If all other things between public and private were equal, it'd make more sense for 'us' if the government built up the assets.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.