Well my post a couple of days ago has certainly led to some interesting results, with the NZ Herald reporting that Steven Joyce is “upset” at the proposal to nearly halve the number of new electric trains that Auckland will get. (If you’re after the report, it’s here.) The article says:
Transport Minister Steven Joyce says he is unhappy with a report that recommends almost halving Auckland’s proposed fleet of electric trains, and has asked officials for something “more ambitious”.
“I am not that happy with the draft report – I think it’s a little unambitious in terms of the final rolling stock procurement plan they have put forward,” he told the Herald last night from Australia.
Our transport minister wanting more ambition for a rail project – wow, that’s certainly something I never thought I would hear. However, this isn’t all necessarily good news – it remains to be seen whether Joyce will provide some extra funding so the electrification project will proceed as per the previous plans, or whether he’s going to simply ask the officials to rejig the project to provide more funding for rolling stock, but at the expense of infrastructure spending. To be honest, if it was a choice between putting the money into infrastructure or putting it into rolling stock, I’d probably prefer it went on the infrastructure – as at least you can buy more trains later. Trying to run a lot of trains on sub-standard infrastructure is simply a recipe for disaster.
An interesting question is “why have the costs gone up?” Why isn’t the $1 billion previously set aside for rail electrification not enough to buy the 144 rail carriages, and why do we need to harshly cut that back to only 75? The Working Group Document outlines the reasons:
Since the development of the Auckland Rail Development Plan, and subsequent investment decisions taken by the Crown and the region, a number of factors have contributed to the situation where available funding is insufficient to complete the project to a level expected by key stakeholders.
Factors include higher than forecast patronage forecasts, new service patterns, revised budgets, and more information about the adequacy of current network improvements…
…Between early 2008 and June 2009 and as a result of significant engineering modelling being undertaken of Auckland Regional Transport Authority‟s (ARTAs) service plan, KiwiRail and ARTA identified the requirement of up to an additional $151 million of improvements to below track work to deliver a reliable ten-minute peak hour service. This has contributed to a situation where the costs to meet the objectives of the Rail Development Plan exceed the funding available.
Basically, it seems like the trains are likely to cost a bit more than previously thought and more work than previously thought will need to go into ensuring the network can cope with all the additional trains that will be running on it once electrification is complete. The infrastructure improvements necessary are:
Out of this $150 million, a lot has been “deferred”, and only $54 million of additional infrastructure is considered essential for the adequate operation of the system post-electrification. Most of the $54 million will be needed for lengthening platforms (to 144m) and upgrading trackwork at Puhinui and Newmarket – to cater for higher train frequencies. So effectively, that necessary extra $54 million is being found by reducing the number of trains ordered:
To fund $54 million of additional infrastructure within allocated or assumed funds will require changes to the scope of either the remainder of the DART project, the below track electrification allocation, or the assumed allocation for electric rolling stock. In the absence of additional funding the Working Group has assumed the funds will be netted off the electric rolling stock allocation. This will have the effect of reducing the funding available for rolling stock procurement. The Working Group has not explored the opportunities for trade-offs within Ontrack‟s $1.1 billion allocation ($600 million for DART plus $500 million for below track electrification), although opportunities might exist. A firmer view of the adequacy of the $500 million electrification budget allocation will be known over the next two months.
Another way of thinking about it is – if $54 million extra was provided, a lot of this mess would go away and we would be able to electrify the Onehunga branch, we wouldn’t have to take electric locomotives off the North Island Main Trunk Line (which will probably lead to electrification on that line being shut down), we wouldn’t have to refurbish our old ex-Perth diesel trains again, and we wouldn’t have to only operate trains from Pukekohe and Hupai as shuttle services to Puhiniu and Henderson respectively.
Update: Reading the document again, another reason why costs have increased is because the expected cost per train has also increased. So if we were to go with the 140 carraiges, the extra cost would be as follows:
The total cost of purchasing the EMU package plus recommended infrastructure upgrades is between $62 million and $112 million above the available funding envelope (figures vary depending on the low and high cost estimates for each EMU) and would require an additional $30 million for network improvements to lengthen platforms to 170 metres. The option was discounted as unaffordable (requiring $92million -$142 million more than assumed funding) and because the Working Group has agreed it would not make sense to proceed with the acquisition of 20-metre EMUs following KiwiRail‟s revision of acceptable train length on the network.
If full funding were available, this option would provide sufficient rolling stock to retire all DMUs once the full electric fleet is delivered (estimated to be 2014). It would allow for a more homogenous fleet on the network, which Veolia advise would make the operational management of the fleet considerably easier than compared to a more mixed fleet.
The option would purchase sufficient capacity to provide for an annual patronage of 21 million trips, which is consistent with forecasts of patronage growth beyond 2023. The construction of the CBD loop tunnel would generate a further step change in demand and require additional rolling stock. As a new fleet, rates of reliability and maintainability would be considerably improved over existing reliability. Operational costs are expected to reduce on a per passenger basis as electric trains are more fuel-efficient and require fewer on-board staff.
I think it’s quite crucial to point out that the operating costs of this option would be less than those of the “cheaper” option. So it seems like we need somewhere between an extra $92 million and an extra $142 million to get those 140 carriages, rather than the 75 proposed by the Working Group.
Processing...
Upset? More like worried the cutbacks would’ve lead to a half-arsed rail network, that would need to gut the NIMT electrification.
Yeah the effects on NIMT electrification seem to be the big consequence of this proposal that people are only starting to figure out. Dieselisation of that line might make some sense in the short-term (gets rid of the need to change locos at Hamilton and Palmy), but in the longer run, with a lot of uncertainty surrounding future diesel prices, it seems like a completely short-sighted and idiotic option.
Let’s await with interest what happens.
Locomotive changes don’t take that long – the only issue is electric loco availability. It usually takes about 5mins on the Overlander (if they’ve got an electric waiting), wouldn’t be anymore than 15mins. In fact I know from experience (i.e. sending containers from Wellington to Auckland) that truck owner-operators tend to transfer between each others’ trucks at freight depots (usually in Palmy and South Auckland). Lifting a container safely takes up to 30 mins for a 40ft container.
Moving all 17 EFs to Auckland would be very short-sighted.
Good to see Joyce rethinking his position here. Somre pressure seems to have worked.
Also good to see you mentioned in the NZ Herald. You are perhaps more important than you think.
I agree that more money will be needed if we are to fix the problems. New locomotives need to be purchased if we want to run the Auckland electrification without threatening the NIMT electrification. I agree we need to save the NMIT electrification at all costs, as it will destroy the idea of a completely electric NMIT from Auckland to Palmerston North (and ultimately Wellington, but this will be difficult as it requires the Paraparaumu line to relectrified with the new wires. Fortuantely the new Matangi units can be easily converted, so could still be used if this happens). If we want more carriages we need more money for them.
Ultimately, if more money is not avaliable, I sugest we scrap the Puhinui-Papakura electrification, and put the money into new locomotives to keep the NMIT electrification intact. I know an all electric network will be the ideal, but I sugest scraping this line because:
1) Without seeing any figures it is probbaly the least patronaged section of Aucklands rail network
2) Not worth swaping the electrification of this section for axing the NMIT electrification
3) Don’t want to remove Western line electrification, as it was only recently double tracked, and want to impress Waitakere City comuters with changes.
4) The main advantage of electric trains is they can stop/start faster, and as many of the services on this section are express from Otahuhu, are better served by diesal than ones which stop at every station on route.
He’s ambitious to saddle up KiwiRail with so much freakin’ debt that he can privatise it for a song to members of his fraternity who can then do a FayRichwhite. Course he’s ambitious.
The Puhinui to Papakura section of track is actually one of the busiest. After Britomart and Newmarket, the two next busiest stations on the network are Papakura and Manurewa. So I certainly don’t think cutting electrification back on that section would be a good idea at all.
If extra money can’t be found, then I think what the Working Group came up with is probably the best Plan B possible. However, the fact that the option is still completely crap just goes to show how critical it is to find the extra money for Plan A.
“The Puhinui to Papakura section of track is actually one of the busiest. After Britomart and Newmarket, the two next busiest stations on the network are Papakura and Manurewa. So I certainly don’t think cutting electrification back on that section would be a good idea at all.”
Thats a surprise. I guess it will have to be the western line then (I do like a big nag of double tracking and electrification, so people notice the changes more, rather than slow gradual improvements over time people may not relise.
“If extra money can’t be found, then I think what the Working Group came up with is probably the best Plan B possible.” If it ends the NMIT electrification, then its clearly not the best plan B. If the NMIT survives, it does quite well as a plan B.
Interesting to read the report in detail on the possible implications of EF usage:
There are a range of possible technical concerns, such as electrical harmonics, which need to be assessed before the locomotives can be accepted for operation on the network. In addition, the 18-tonne axle load of the EF will be significantly heavier than the rest of the suburban fleet, and this may have an impact on track and infrastructure maintenance costs. In terms of the performance the EF locomotive, and the carriage set being hauled, may not perform identically to the new EMU trains. Braking performance will be inferior to that offered by EMUs. As a result modification may be required and/or a different vehicle performance profile could result in passenger delay and on time performance concerns. If the performance is significantly poorer additional trainsets will be required. At this time, no clear scope of work or cost is available to determine feasibility and accurate capital or operating costs for these key elements of the proposed fleet.
Yeah I noticed that. There was a lot of money spent during the 1980s on strengthening and rebuilding viaducts on the NIMT for that very reason, although there isn’t any large bridges of the same size in Auckland there’s probably other issues to deal with there.
“ultimately Wellington, but this will be difficult as it requires the Paraparaumu line to relectrified with the new wires.”
No it wouldn’t – the most sensible thing to do would be to buy dual-current locomotives. AC / DC locomotives are used in Japan and many parts of Europe, including the EuroStar. In fact the Japanese have a narrow-gauge dual current locomotive that would run on 25kv AC and 1.5kV DC: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EH500
The change over from AC / DC could occur at Paraparaumu or Waikanae. It’s just a matter of changing pickups and switching wires (I understand usually the wires have an insulated break, which the loco sits under). That would save a lot of money on all-new AC equipment (Greater Wellington has spent a lot of money on new sub-stations for Matangi).
I thought the 75 electric trains were longer and carried more people per carriage. Comparing the 75 to 140 is a red herring. We need to know what the equivalent 24 meter trains equate to compare to the 20 meter trains. Endlessly comparing the two is useless as they are not like for like. Im inclined to think that ARTA, ARC, Kiwirail, Veolia, NZTA and the Transport Ministry have a lot of knowledge and experience, so I wouldn’t debunk their views so quickly. I read through their paper and came away with the impression they are trying to match passenger numbers with capacity, not putting in a whole lot of capacity that won’t be used for the next 15 years. As a taxpayer I would prefer a better match between demand and supply. The question really is whether we want all new trains in 2011 or a mix of the new and old that acknowledges the residual economic value of the existing assets. As money isn’t cheap i thought these advisors put up a thoughtful perspective on the options.
All the more reason to not abandon electrification on the NIMT then I suppose 🙂
Ian, I guess perhaps instead of operating 6 carriage trains that were 20 metres long, we could operate 5 carriage trains that are 24 metres long. That would give the same length of train and theoretically the same capacity. However, my understanding was always that the 140 carriages in the ARTA order were to be hooked up into 35 four-carriage trains (and sometimes into 6 carriage trains for special events).
If we have only 75 carriages, then that provides us with something like 18 four carriage trains. The difference is being made up by using all the SA Trains within the electrified area (under the ARTA plan they were going to generally serve non-electrified areas) and keeping on the ADLs (doing the job the SA Trains would have generally done).
I certainly agree that the Working Group has thought about this long and hard, and come up with what is probably the best solution given the funding constraints. However, it must be noted that this plan has some serious consequences – with dieselisation of the NIMT being possibly one of the most significant.
The ADLs are nearing the end of their lifetime, the ADKs are well past the end of their lifetime (and I think they’re going no matter what), the SA Trains were always going to be retained on some electric runs (electric locos were going to be ordered) and the diesel runs – so the existing assets were hardly going to be abandoned under ARTAs plans. All we’re really doing in this plan is nicking the electric locos off the NIMT and keeping on the ADLs plus changing around the structure of some of the routes (to shuttles) so that fewer trains need to be ordered.
In other words, we’re simply shifting the problem to the NIMT, and also ensuring that the high maintenance costs of the old ADLs will remain.
Deiselisation of the NIMT makes economic sense at the moment due to the fact 3 – 4 freight run on it a day plus the Overlander and it’s maintainance costs till the price of oil at least doubles… However all it takes is an increase in freight or a small belief in peak oil and climate change to realise that it is a dumb idea…
I’ve got an idea how about we give NZTA $50 million instead of $100 million to study the ridiculous northern motorway extension and then we get full electrification in Auckland and the NIMT…
Good to see you on the blog Lewis… Did the herald send you this way..? You’re loyal Treasurer here..!
Nah I lurk on railway-related blogs… just decided to start commenting. Remember the electrification of the NIMT was barely economic once the govt deregulated road transport in 1981. Also, I think there’s more than 3-4 freights on the NIMT – according to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NewZealandLocomotives/files/2CurrentTimetables/
I count 10 freights plus the return Overlander on Fri – Sun. 10 freights would require 15 or so EFs (most night time freights are longer and need to be double-headed). Not sure how the group decided they could do it with 7 diesels…
Hmm I can’t access that timetable without signing up… Are you sure they’re all electrics not diesel running under the wires for part of the line..?
Can’t tell. I think it just comes down to what’s available on the day. Some services are always run by diesels (e.g. trains from the Tangiwai sawmill).
Yeah, after looking around I think it’s 3 – 4 freights each way…