The Waikato Times reports that some agreement at last has been found over the proposed Hamilton to Auckland rail connection that has enjoyed so much public support over the past couple of years.
A daily commuter rail service from Hamilton to Auckland’s inner-city Strand station is “a good first step”, say rail advocates.
A multi-agency working group assessing the viability of a daily Hamilton-Auckland rail link has named a Silver Fern railcar service into The Strand as their preferred option.
The service would leave commuters with a 1.5km walk into central Auckland, but supporters say the service is a viable interim option.
Congestion around Auckland’s central city Britomart terminus inhibited a direct rail service into the CBD.
It’s interesting to see that a lack of train capacity into Britomart is already constricting our ability to operate desired services. With rail patronage growing at over 10% a year, it’s fairly hilarious to think that the government is still questioning the need for the CBD Tunnel project in ten years time.
I suppose that it’s disappointing that the service won’t go all the way into the heart of Auckland, and it is somewhat risky to terminate there given that the station location failed Auckland’s rail system for so many decades. But it is certainly better than nothing and it’s exciting to see that the service is actually now likely to happen. The Campaign for Better Transport’s spokesman on Waikato Trains generally takes this position too:
Campaign for Better Transport organiser Rob George said the Silver Fern option appealed to “cost-adverse” councils.
“For the first time we see the councils actually saying we can make this happen,” Mr George said.
“With that intention I can’t see any reason why this won’t happen; it’s been given the green light and there’s no reason why it shouldn’t happen particularly given costs are no longer a factor.”
Mr George said a dedicated shuttle could take commuters from The Strand to key points in central Auckland.
“A train takes you from Hamilton to Auckland and a shuttle drops you off to where you want to go.
“Okay, it’s not Britomart, but it gives you a door-to-door service.”
There were two other options given strong consideration:
- Running the Silver Fern train between Hamilton and Papakura only. This would have required all passengers to then transfer onto a normal suburban service for the rest of their trip.
- Extending an existing suburban train from Pukekohe to Hamilton, with two of the carriages set aside for Hamilton passengers. This would have been the most expensive option due to the need to extend platforms in the Waikato and to haul a lot of empty metal around the country (which would have hardly been environmentally friendly).
Out of those options, I think what has been chosen is probably the best and most realistic – given the desire to keep costs down and to get it up and running as soon as possible. The current proposal also potentially offers a ‘premium’ service for travellers between Papakura and Newmarket or the city as the Silver Ferns have been nicely refurbished and will run as a limited stops service.
Processing...
I didn’t see anywhere wether the silver ferns will run via the Eastern Line or via Newmarket – I have a feeling it is the former as they also mentioned Newmarket was too congested for a berth. It would be great if it ran via Newmarket and then to the Strand as a lot of people could then exit there and catch trains out West, if need be, or catch one of the many trains coming through that will go directly into Britomart. It’s great to see this finally happening.
My understanding is that it will go via Newmarket.
Well then the termination at the Strand doesn’t really matter, so long as it does stop at Newmarket. Newmarket is functionally closer to Britomart than the Strand as you can switch to a local train instead of walking for a kilometre.Or leap on the dawdling Link…..
Patrick – That`s exactly what I was saying on AKT trains. If it can`t go into Britomart it at least has to go through Newmarket to offer transfers to bus services or trains out west. It should also stop at Papatoetoe as quite a few people I talked to in the Waikato mentioned using it to get to the airport to catch flights out of Auckland with transferring to the 380 Airporter bus. If someone did want to go to an Eastern Line destination they could also transfer at Papatoetoe.
Perhaps it’s time to talk about the Strand becoming the intercity terminal and run the overlander from there as well?
Any indication as to when this service may begin?
Perhaps, but it would need significant refurbishment. At the moment it looks like a series of windy, barely standing platforms and not much else, especially seeing as the main building is being used as sub-standard accomodation.
A platform refurbishment programme was already planned so the station was fit to be a backup for Britomart during thr RWC.
I think this is MUCH better than stopping at Papakura. Because a normal commuter service would stop all the time and make the total trip way slower. also, would have been really frustrating for commuters if the second train was late (or even worse) early or didn’t show up.
It isn’t clear to me who is paying for this service. The linked article mentions $12 per ratepayer if central government chips in some money, or $22 per ratepayer if they don’t. Are they making decisions on the termination point without funding being secured?
When Waikato Connection folded under the previous government, it was carrying around 30 people a day. If the $22 figure is correct then that suggests a subsidy of around $2million a year. That would mean a subsidy of about $60k per commuter, which I think is an outrageous waste of money. Some people will be subsidised more than their total income. Why do these bad ideas keep coming back? Labour didn’t see any reason for central government to waste money on this scheme and it was cancelled, and here it is back just ten years later.
Obi, Labour actually brought up the idea in their last term of Office and were keen to restart the service. Local MPs Sue Moroney and Nanaia Mahuta have been vocal supporters of the campaign. Even on the right side of politics, we`ve had Cameron Brewer, when he was in his guise of Newmarket Biz Assoc spokesman calling for the service.
Doesn’t stop it from being a waste of money. You’d need to increase patronage by a factor of 100 for it to make even slight sense. If you subsidised all public transport at this level then you’d spend the entire GDP on subsidies.
Obi, please explain to me how the Capital Connection train can operate without subsidy but apparently this train – between two much larger cities – is going to be a giant waste of money. The subsidy is to get it up and running and to recognise wider benefits of the service (congestion relief etc.) I would anticipate that if the service is a success then it may well be able to operate in the longer term without subsidy.
No idea about the Capital Connection. But this scheme apparently needs a subsidy of $22 per ratepayer… they’re not going to even try and run it on a commercial basis. It may possibly launch the route, it’ll be a great success, thousands of people will start commuting between Hamilton and Auckland, and the need for subsidy will disappear. But that certainly didn’t happen ten years ago and while conditions are different now, they’re not different by orders of magnitude.
The wider congestion relief benefit is that it takes one return coach trip off the road each day. If one vehicle is worth $2million then I’d be quite happy to scrap my car if the council will pay me the same amount of money.
The only way this will ever make sense is if thousands of people start commuting large distances. Why would we want to encourage this? They’ll be using energy of some sort, and there is no social benefit for encouraging long distance commuting that I can see.
I think the difference in subsidy depends on whether NZTA contributes or not. As eah person on the train is one fewer car (roughly) on state highway 1, creating congestion relief benefits, you would imagine that NZTA should contribute.
The world has changed a lot in the last 10 years. Petrol has more than doubled in price, rail patronage has increased four-fold and congestion is probably worse. So the failure of the service in 2000 is pretty irrelevant I think.
The Capital Connection between Palmy and Wellington operates succesfully on a commercial basis between two much smaller cities. There’s no logical reason why this service couldn’t do the same if given the time to establish itself.
Firstly your maths is out Obi.
If your right and its 2 Million subsidy and the average is 30 passengers. Then the average susidy is $64 per passenger if its 4 trips per day or $128 per passenger if its only 2 trips per day. Thats 2 Million divided by 52 weeks divided by 5 working days divideed by 30 pax average and divided by 4 or 2.
Secondly your goning to get way more than 30 passengers avaerage. And Im glad the trial sounds like it will go ahead so that can be proven!
I attended the workshop as well and there are a couple of other points worth mentioning.
The preferred option of using the Silver Ferns will also mean that a limited stop service can be offered for Auckland stations (provided it doesn’t catch up with the Maxx train chugging along in front).
The train can go either way along the Eastern Line or the Southern as it comes in. It will definitely stop at Newmarket and the Strand, and other main stations on the Southern.
The next hurdle is the business case where we look at the cost of providing the service, and come up with some ticket pricing scenarios. Silver Fern can carry 92 passengers in comfort, with tables, toilet etc. 2 Silver Ferns can also be coupled together, but this might cause problems with the shorter platforms at Te Kauwhata and other in between stations. As a comparison the alternative of refurbishing Mk2 carriages will also be considered, although this would probably be more of a capital outlay than the councils have an appetite for.
There is a great deal of unanimity among the councils to get this service up and running. We anticipate that there will be demand for Auckland to Hamilton travellers in the morning as well.
On the topic of the reverse journey (Auckland to Hamilton in the morning, and Hamilton to Auckland in the evening) a couple of extra carriages of the Overlander could be used but marketed as the same as whatever the new service is going to be called. Then at the other end of the journey it becomes a reverse Capital Connection service as well. An idea I touched on at:
http://wellingtoncycleways.wordpress.com/2011/05/07/could-the-capital-connection-run-3-times-a-day/
The times aren’t too bad – – 7:25am departure Auckland, arrives 9:45am Hamilton. 5:00pm depart Ham, arrive auckland 7:30 ish – but might make things a bit complex. Pricing is $31 each way for Overlander, also doesn’t stop at suburban stations.
I hardly think first departure out of Auckland arriving in Hamilton 9:45am will encourage commuters from Auckland working in Hamilton (and I was almost one of these a year ago), to go by train unless one had a job starting at 10:00am or later. You’d need a first service out of Auckland at around 6:10am while the journey time is not exactly quick. I support having a regional station at the Strand from Newmarket with a link service – it sounds practical and provides options for travellers.
Will be interesting to see how popular this is with travellers and workers going to/from Auckland airport – how attarctive they see a train/airport bus transfer to driving.
How long would it take to drive from Hamilton central to the airport?
I’m with Obi on this one. Lets deny these people the opportunity of a train service so they are forced to drive on the roads. The State Highway network is funded by the magical road fairy so clearly doesn’t cost anyone a thing. Whats more, the motorways have unlimited capacity! Yay!
There are around a dozen coaches making the trip each day in each direction. The trip takes 2 hours – about the same as the train. The fares range from around $11 to $22, which is less than the $25 that which is being suggested for the train. The coach fares are unsubsidised, whereas the train fares require around $2million worth of subsidy each year.
A dozen coaches make absolutely no difference to a roading system that is already handling hundreds of thousands of journeys each day. So you’re actually saying that you think rate payers should stump up $2million a year so that 30 people will have the opportunity of sitting in a train rather than a coach.
Proportionally, this is about the same as if the government announced it was going to spend $250billion a year on motorways. ($60k annual subsidy per user times the number of road users in NZ) That would be plainly stupid. So is this. That is why Labour refused to fund the service ten years ago.
Obi, I think you would find a very limited number of people willing to sit on a coach for a commute 2 hours each way a day compared to the number willing to take the much more comfy train ride. So one would guess most of the train riders would be former drivers.
In terms of subsidies, remember that each peak time rail trip generates $17 in road user benefits. That’s an average and the Hamilton trips would relieve traffic from much more of the road network than an average trip.
You’ve removed one coach from the road. That’s $35 a day benefit, or less than $10k a year. The cost benefit ratio of $2mill cost to $10k benefit doesn’t look compelling.
Whose estimate is 30 passengers a day? There’d be at least 30 people in each of the Capital Connection carriages and it has about 8 or so carriages. Wellington and Palmerston North are much smaller than Auckland and Hamilton respectively. (I looked it up – in the 12 months to June 2009, 185,472 passengers used the CC and at 50 working weeks a year, 5 days a week, twice a day that is an average of 370 passengers on each service.)
30 passengers is low-ball disinformation, verging on scurrilous hyperbole.
It is the number who used the previous service when it was cancelled.
“At the time of its cancellation the Waikato Connection was being patronised by an average of 129 passengers per trip, most of which boarded at Pukehohe or Papakura, with only about 30 of those travelling the full distance between Hamilton and Auckland.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waikato_Connection
But this is a completely different era for rail travel in the upper North Island compared to 2002.
“It is the number who used the previous service when it was cancelled” – I don’t think they would be looking to get this up and running if the patronage forecast was to get the same amount of passengers as 2002 right? Why do you assume there would be the same numbers as 9 years ago?
What has changed? Both cities are bigger, but not significantly bigger. The service will take the same time and involve the same clapped out old Silver Fern carriages. The service will still need to be hauled by a dirty old diesel engine since electrification isn’t going all the way to Hamilton. I’m going to assume that the proportion of people in each city who need to commute for business is about the same and has grown in line with population increase. On the other hand the feeder services in Auckland are better, but only if the new service terminates at Britomart and I think you’d be insane to commute from Hamilton and then change to head out west or over to the Shore on the busway. Fuel prices have increased, but all of coaches, trains, and cars use fuel so while it might encourage mode shift it will also require increased fares and subsidies. More people use video conferencing these days and there is less need to travel for work… I’m meeting colleagues and customers from Wellington, Christchurch, and Sydney tomorrow and I’m doing it all from a couple of blocks of my home.
The idea was a failure ten years ago. What do you think has changed to make it a success this time? You don’t need a 10% increase in commuters for this to succeed, but one hundred times the number of commuters. And why do you think we should subsidise long distance commuters when they’re contributing to carbon emissions? Do you believe in subsidising other polluters?
“There are around a dozen coaches making the trip each day in each direction. The trip takes 2 hours” Really two hours including getting from the CBD to the end of Southern motorway to the CBD and vise versa in rush hour peak? I wouldn’t have thought so.
Check it out with http://www.intercity.co.nz/ … There are 10 coaches from Hamilton to Auckland tomorrow. The one leaving at 3:10pm has a travel time of 2:55, but every other service has a time between 1:40 and 2:05. There are 12 coaches in the other direction and none has a time over 2:20. It isn’t much further than 100km. The coach terminal seems to be at Sky City which is a bit handier than the Strand too. You could walk to most CBD destinations (assuming that is where you work) rather than having to take the “dedicated shuttle” from the Strand to CBD locations that is talked about above.
Yes I have to say that I agree with Obi on this one. Even if more than 30 people use the service it’s still ridiculously expensive given the cost of possible alternatives.
For example, a rail based park and ride has long been planned where the NIMT crosses SH1 at Drury. You could build that and save your $2 million per year by getting people onto existing rail services. Hell you could even have an RTI sign approaching the offramp that told drivers a) car travel time to city and b) time until next train departs.
Alternatively, you could extend Pukekohe services south to Tuakau and Pokeno. Then at Pokeno you could build a park and ride that is easily accessible to SH1. Then any drivers from anywhere south, or east on SH2 for that matter, could stop and use the services (which could be provided at much higher frequency) when they needed.
New Zealand needs to think smart, and running empty trains from Hamilton to Auckland is not particularly clever. As we found out with the Helensvile rail services. A well-placed park and ride would be useful for a number of people and deliver these benefits at a fraction of the cost.
Park and ride is not a silver bullet, but it is an issue that there are no park and rides on the southern rial line with easy access from SH1. A P&R at Pokeno (if you want services to go south) or Drury (if you want to concentrate services) would seem to be a better solution.
I like your idea about park and ride. But don’t ignore the benefits of coaches, Stu. Last time I was in the UK I decided to take coaches everywhere*, mostly because they’re much cheaper than trains and I had plenty of time on my hands. The service was generally good, except for the Oxford Tube coach service which I hadn’t heard of before but turned out to be completely excellent. There is a train service between London and Oxford. It costs a subsidised 26quid per journey. The Tube costs an unsubsidised 14quid, or 11 quid if you’re a student. The coaches are new and clean and have free wireless onboard and they run a coach five times an hour. The coaches are full of young people and students, which pretty much matches my experience in Australia where everyone under the age of 60 gets around the country on the Greyhound.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_Tube
* Exceptions: The Underground, and a train between Bath and Newport because I’d never been under the Severn in a tunnel before.
more support for the need for free wifi on transit
Hi Obi, thanks and I should mention that the P&R at Drury is not my idea, but instead one that has been floating around for strategic transport documents for a while. In fact it’s been around ever since I was a student car-pooling to Auckland Uni from Waiuku every day with my friends, when a P&R at Drury would have been wonderful.
Yes I agree with you that coaches/buses are a very useful public transport mode. I’m a little confused by how that relates to this discussion? Are you suggesting that AT should subsidise private bus coaches running between Hamilton to Auckland? If so, then you should note that you will end up subsidising many existing travellers who are already travelling by bus – so you will end up spending a lot of money on people who are not contributing to congestion.
I think it’s important to note that the primary problem we are trying to solve here is congestion in Auckland, indeed that’s the only reasonable economic premise for investing public funds in transport. Another problem, pointed out by others on this blog, is that buses will simply add to peak hour queues on SH1, unless you constructed a lot of expensive busways. Assuming this is not an option, then managing congestion on SH1 requires a rail-based solution.
I guess the point of my post was to suggest, however, that there are much more targeted solutions that would target car-drivers at the points just ahead of where the congestion is, e.g. Pokeno and Drury. No need to run empty trains around (remembering of course that they have to get back from Auckland to Hamilton).
And in the long run, you probably would extend commuter services south, eg start with Drury, then Tuakau, Pokeno, Mercer, Huntly, and so on. But these extensions would be staged fashion as and when justified by demand and/or congestion. You would eventually get to Hamilton – but it should not be the first step.
“Are you suggesting that AT should subsidise private bus coaches running between Hamilton to Auckland?”
No. I am suggesting that there is a perfectly good unsubsidised service already. There is no need for ratepayers to pay $2million a year to set up a competing service. There is no need for central or local government to do anything.
Well, you are both right and wrong. Yes there are commercial services, but just because they exist does not mean they are used enough. There are external costs from congestion on SH1 that, if internalised to drivers, would see more people using the buses etc.
But without time-of-use road pricing we can’t internalise these costs, so the “second-best” solution is to subsidised alternative modes of transport. The problem here is that public agencies are too keen to “pick winners” (usually romantic rail solutions) without acknowledging that there are many ways to skin a cat.
So there is a case for public investment in managing congestion. It just needs to be done right and, as you suggest, try to minimise the degree to which it poaches passengers from the private bus companies that are actually doing a good job, as far as you and I can tell.
But you are right that efforts to manage congestion should avoid “picking winners.” Ie we
P.s. The P&R at Drury would also service commuters from Franklin, some of who currently travel to Papakura P&R while most just jump on at Drury and trundle into the city.
The thing is that the Capital Connection runs without a subsidy so why shouldn’t the Auckland-Hamilton service also be able to run without a subsidy? Back in 2002 the number of rail trips in Auckland was tiny compared to what it is now.
Hard to compare routes that are so different. Four completely different cities, with different transport networks and socio-economic interactions. Reality is that if the Overlander is not well patronised (and we own it so we should know!) then its not so likely that this service will change that.
In terms of the growth in rail trips – this has occurred because of investment in stations, services, and development that is less likely to benefit the Hamilton service. Will the Hamilton service benefit from Sylvia Park? Ah … probably not.
But I don’t really oppose having a trial – so long as people are objective about the fact that it is a trial and that the service should be cut if it does not attract the numbers it should given the cost.
I still think a couple of strategically placed park and rides, possibly supported by an extension of rail services to places like Tuakau and Pokeno, would be a better first step.
It may be wildly popular and if so then I’ll shout you a beer! 🙂
Frankly I’m not much fussed about congestion, petrol price will deal with that as we move through this decade, what does matter is interconnectivity and getting a viable train service between Ham + AK is an important step in that. And, in my view well worth investing in, and certainly over half-pie ideas such as trying to get people who are already driving out of their cars at the gates of greater AK. The example of the capital connection surely shows that this service should be able to work, and I mean work financially, given time, of course if only we were allowed the CBDRL we could drive this service into our diesel ready central station.
Obi is playing his devil’s advocate role to the full, but 30 humans is a crazy low ball, as proved by your own bus evidence. And Rail ain’t coach, so there’ll be more.
One it’s way to the strand, it should only stop at Pukekohe or Papakura, and at Newmarket.
2hrs 20mins on a train for this journey is a long time, it really needs to be faster to ensure popularity & operating as an express through Auckland suburbs would help.
People bound for the airport, Manukau, Middlemore, the west, etc. can transfer to a train that originates from Pukekohe or Papakura or Newmarket. It would wait until people transfer before departing behind the Hamilton train.
Please don’t do the garbage option of a shuttlebus. Newmarket yes! In fact you probably don’t even need the Strand. Keep going west, or round the eastern line before servicing for the return.
@Obi none of those coaches is in peak hour. Way to avoid the question
Actually my apologies, i didn’t read that there are actually coaches leaving in peak hour, but come on you don’t really believe people would use those for commuting over a train service do you? Be honest.
Yes, I think if coach services were subsidised to the same level as the train service then many commuters would probably use the coach instead. The coaches have a big advantage at both ends in that they go right downtown. Easpecially in Hamilton – where the coaches would connect with local bus services, while trains will stop at Frankton (I assume?)
coaches are subsidised- who pays for the motorways?
Please elaborate? Highways are “user pays” in the sense that the fuel taxes/RUC pay for their construction. There are external subsidies (parking and congestion), but in the case of coaches that’s almost negligible.
To be honest: I don’t care. If people choose to live in Hamilton and live in Auckland then we don’t need to kick in $2million in subsidies to improve the quality of their ride.
I’ve used the coaches between Hamilton & Auckland quite a bit over the last 10 years or so (about once every 3-6 months) and I can tell you they are bloody painful at times. If you’re travelling outside peak its not so bad, but I’ve been on coaches before today that have taken 1 1/2hrs just to get to Papakura. Once you’re past the Bombay Hills its not so bad, but between Sky City and there it can be diabolical.
Trust me, there is nothing worse than finally getting over about 55k an hour and having to pull off the motorway again, trundle through suburban streets and then trundle back on again.
Funnily enough the trip back from Hamilton – Auckland generally isn’t as bad, then again I’m not usually travelling in peak for that.
Obi – You are pretty out of dates with your ´facts´. While basing your comments on the past you may as well be advocating for more horses and carts, because in the past they were very popular too.
You also have calculations, while to the advantage of your argument, are completely incorrect. While taking the time to research for your critism and biase against the rail service, perhaps you could use that same time to research THE FACTS online? Costings etc can be found online if you choose to google them.
Just so you know, there are NO coach services to a number of towns on the train line. So the train will be the ONLY PT connecting them to AKL and Hamilton.
I’m not sure that the Silver Fern can run without catching up to the Maxx train in front. We’ve aldready got trains every 10mins or so from Papakura, and well have trains every 15mins from Manakau next year, plus an Onehunga train to fit in with. If it was limited stops I would imagine the train would slowly coast the whole way so it kept similar average speed to an all stops train. Only reason to keep it as express would mean you dont have to disrupt people from working on their laptops/tablets and the train doesnt get packed out with Auckland urban commuters.
All the more reason for a 3rd main south of Westfield, then it could travel at full speed all the way to Penrose and only have to fit in with suburban services for a short period.
That third track was meant to be part of the rail upgrade works (at least between Middlemore and Westfield to start with). I wonder what happened to that?
The government decided that it wasn’t urgent as part of electrification so it could be put off and Kiwirail could squeeze its services in off peak. From memory it was a third track between Wiri and Westfield and only going to cost about $26m to build as all of the bridges along that corridor were already designed for 3 tracks or were being done as part of rebuilding them for electrification. They also had listed grade separating Westfield junction which was estimated to cost $7m. I think I remember reading a comment in the review of electrification to the effect of “while things will still work ok without the those projects, they actually gave a lot of added benefit”
“Just so you know, there are NO coach services to a number of towns on the train line. So the train will be the ONLY PT connecting them to AKL and Hamilton.”
The fact that some towns don’t have a bus service is not a reason to start a train service. But let’s not forget the train itself won’t be stopping at most localities along the route. I think Huntly, Te Kauwhata and Tuakau are all that is planned. Ngaruawahia, Taupiri, Mercer and Pokeno are all skipped. Can’t understand why Ngaruawahia isn’t on the list, as it’s bigger than Te Kauwhata and Tuakau combined.
I’m with Obi and Stu – A heavily subsidized train to get a bus load of passengers off the road is just plain stupid.
BTW Obi, the previous Waikato Connection averaged 23 passengers from Hamilton, and I think about 4 from Huntly. It also had onboard catering, which the new one won’t, and took 1hr 56min to complete the journey, whereas the new one will be about 15 minutes slower due to extra stops and no express path through suburban Auckland.
Guys the train wont be taking only 1 bus off the road.
It will be taking 30 to 100+ cars off the road per trip.
I wonder if it would be possible to extend a waterfront track, currently used for freight from the port, all the way along the waterfront to queen street and have a long distance passenger terminal combined with a cruise ship terminal, along with a pedestrian bridge or tunnel linking it to britomart.
Now that’s an interesting idea…..feasible?
Hi Geoff, great to see you here and yes, I agree with you on your point, you certainly do seem to be ´with Obi and Stu´.
It sounds like you want to slow the trial trains right down by stopping at every station along the line. If you stop at all those stations, as you mentioned, it means plenty more downtime in the timetable. Aren´t you complaining about the duration of the journey as it is???
I know it´s easy to get emotional over this train service but ´heavily subsidised´? Again, talk the facts not the fiction (like Obi).
Obi anf Geoff – the railcars have been very nicely refurbished to a high standard. Have you seen the interiors? Very nice. Please see the http://www.votetrains.org.nz website for photos.
Yes Jon, they have been refurbished. Not sure what your point is there? Are you pointing out what a commercial investment can produce?
I didn’t say anything about wanting the trains to stop more or go slower – merely pointing out that you contradict yourself by incessantly claiming that the train is there to serve the community, whilst simultaneously saying it shouldn’t stop at most communities along the route.
I do however think it should stop at Ngaruawahia. Don’t you think skipping a town of 5000, whilst stopping at a town of 1000 is a bit bizzare?
Yes, it is heavily subsidized. $12-20 per ratepayer to get a bus load of people onto PT is excessive, and unnecessary. Remember – the Capital Connection faced higher start up costs, yet it was started, and made successful, without a single subsidized cent.
I fear that you are continuing your well publicly documentment detest to increasing commuter rail from the Waikato in any way which will see it starting soon. I will repeat myself to you Geoff. The public want the services. The public are ready to provide funding for it to happen soon. So why are you against the majority public?
You may personally hate public money being invested on regional rail. You may adore insane amounts of public money on state highway projects to nowhere. However, the public in the Waikato towns of Hamilton, Huntly, Te Kauwhata and Tuakau clearly are demanding the services and ready to fund any short falls in revenue in the trial stage. This will ensure a couple of services a day in each direction. It will prove to be popular according to the business cases which are available from EW and have excellent BCR’s with growing patronage (not “a bus load”…unless you are working as a speech writer for Steven Joyce).
The communities will be served by the trains Geoff. Those communities are the ones where the services will stop at. OK?
All readers of this blog, CBT forum and AKTNZ know you are against the rail trial. But again, keep to facts please Geoff. If there is anything you are unclear of about this rail trial, and without going over the same things continously, please just email me. That way all the various messageboards and websites will remain clear of the repetitive questions and statements.
“the public in the Waikato towns of Hamilton, Huntly, Te Kauwhata and Tuakau clearly are demanding the services and ready to fund any short falls in revenue in the trial stage”
Is that a true statement? In respect of Hamilton I understood that Hamilton residents were polled but it would be Hamilton ratepayers that footed the bill.
Jon, my view is shared by a majority of the regular posters in the CBT forum. Your argument is so weak that you have to outwardly lie each time you post. You know very well I am in favour of the train, but under a less costly model. Your insistence that anyone in favour of the standard model is anti-rail is tiresome. You are essentially redefining the majority of railfans and pro-sustainable transport people as “anti-rail”.
Adore insane amounts of money being spent on highways to nowhere? Not me, but another good example of how you don’t articulate your argument very well.
No matter how much you deny it Jon, the Hamilton train will run as a commercial venture. KiwiRail and Veolia will not touch it unless its profitable to them. My approach lowers the cost structure. Yours increases it.
What is at stake here is the viability of the service. The high cost structure proposed makes it harder to succeed, whilst also setting a precedent for making the start of new services much harder than ever before.
At the end of the day Jon, starting a nine carriage train was possible with no subsidy. The railcar only needs it because of the artificial cost inflation of the subsidized model.
I thought the cost structure is yet to be finalised as we have only now settled on the preferred option. Cam Pitches said earlier in the thread that a business case is the NEXT step.
Personally I think the service should be able to operate without a subsidy as I think it will be popular enough. But it’s useful to have the financial support there so people don’t think it’s a service that will disappear at any moment.
Geoff, what are the cost inflation matters you mention? Just curious.
Geoff, a majority of posters? From reading the comments here and other forums your “majority” is actually no more than half a dozen of the usual suspects. Hardly enough to even fill a small dinghy, no matter how load you yell “free market is the saviour.”
Your much fabled “less costly model” never eventuated. So was your free market version a success? No, because the service never got rolling and if it did we would never have had to do this campaign in the first place. So your plan failed outright.
“No matter how much you deny it Jon, the Hamilton train will run as a commercial venture. KiwiRail and Veolia will not touch it unless its profitable to them. My approach lowers the cost structure. Yours increases it.+”
OK Geoff…in detail show us your detailed approach for 2 return services Hamilton – Auckland.
“The high cost structure proposed makes it harder to succeed, whilst also setting a precedent for making the start of new services much harder than ever before.” Wow Geoff, under your free market favoured system so many inter-regional services were started up around New Zealand – not.
Actual costs have yet to finalized of course, but I’m talking about the main funding structure of those costs.
The two main funding options that Jon Reeves and I often argue about are the so-called commercial and subsidized methods of funding, but in reality they are actually just two versions of the commercial model. One is a low-cost commercial model, and one is a high-cost commercial model. I prefer the low-cost version, whilst Jon prefers the high-cost commercial version.
The low cost commercial model is the tried and tested “invest and grow”, which got the Capital Connection up and running. It’s the basic business principle of investing in the start up costs, growing the business, then investing more as income goes up. KiwiRail takes this approach with everything they do, including their passenger operations. This model provides an incentive to KiwiRail to keep their costs as low as possible, to maximize revenue.
The high cost commercial model is when KiwiRail (and Veolia), take on the role of providing a commercial service to another party, such as a council. KiwiRail has no incentive to do anything at cost, as it would in the above scenario, because it’s the council who will be paying. Everything that KiwiRail (and Veolia) will do, will be charged at commercial rates to the council. To make things worse, we will have KiwiRail leasing the train to Veolia at commercial rates, which Veolia will then charge to the councils on top of their own profit requirements. The multi-party, commercial rates approach is much more expensive than one party running its own service where it has a vested interest in reducing its costs.
The difference between the low cost commercial model that I favour, and the high cost commercial model that Jon favours, is a very stark contrast. One enables a large carriage train to be started, refurbished and operated, all without subsidy. The other requires a million dollar subsidy just to run a simple two carriage railcar.
I stand firmly against the push for expensive train funding structures. Jon stands firmly in favour of it.
Thank you for identifying the two different options. It seems the key is whether Kiwirail runs the service itself or not. Is there any reason why it can’t? Plus one would think the Silver Fern would be cheaper to run than a loco with heaps of carriages. Right?
Has anyone run the numbers on the different options?
(Final point, let’s not make this discussion personal let’s try to just get the facts).
Jon, the service never got rolling because the lobbying to get it rolling was misdirected. Why would they start something that nobody is asking them to operate? The councils would never have started it either, without lobbying.
Neither funding system causes trains to start running spontaneously. You lobby for what you want, until you get it. CBT had a choice – lobby KiwiRail for the low cost commercial model that got the Capital Connection started, or lobby the councils for the high cost commercial model.
It chose the latter, but the question is why? Why did CBR roll over immediately, when KR said no? The councils also no originally, but the lobbying continued. It should have been continued with KiwiRail as well.
@admin, yes that’s pretty much the key. KiwiRail won’t do it voluntarily simply because they have bigger things to worry about – mostly freight. But that doesn’t mean they wouldn’t have changed their mind if lobbied. The councils were exactly the same, full of apathy, and they would never have looked at it without being lobbied.
CBT could have lobbied KiwiRail to start a Capital Connection type service, either instead of lobbying the councils, or in addition to lobbying the councils. But for reasons never explained, CBT refused to lobby KiwiRail. THat was a mistake, especially when the method of funding for the Capital Connection at least has that service as evidence it works, whereas the high-cost approach pushed by CBT has never been done, and has a higher risk of failure.
Why not electrify between Auckland and Hamilton and provide a tilt train service between Auckland and Wellington? You need train services to beat the gridlock in Auckland at peak hour.Services to Hamilton should have a regular service not two a day.This would help the freight business as well.
Unfortunately it would cost $800 million to electrify between Auckland and Tauranga. Many of the trains from Auckland and Hamilton go onto Tauranga so if you electrify to Hamilton, you need to go to Tauranga as well.
Here is a link for a report prepared for Kiwirail a few years ago regarding the matter: http://bit.ly/isET4F
Earlier in the thread it was said that the journey is about 100km and buses do the trip in maybe 2hrs 20 in the peak. So we are talking less than 50km an hour.
If the powers that be in New Zealand were serious about running a passenger railway between Auckland and Hamilton there is no way that it would be contemplated to run at anything like 50kph. Picking a bit of commuter railway in the UK at random – say Edinburgh to Perth via Stirling – and the travel time is 100 minutes with 7 intermediate stops. Pick a specialised London commuter railway and that sort of distance is done in about an hour. Rail has the potential to win hands down against cars and buses with peak journey time, but to do so it has to offer a decent journey time and a level of service that accommodates the person working late or needing to get home early.
The problem is that our trains are pathetically slow for some reason.
I suspect it is the state of the track. Slow track needs less inspection and maintenance.
Is this a limitation of narrow gauge? Queensland has the same gauge, and the two services between Brisbane and Cairns take 31 hours for the Sunlander (average 55 km/hr) and 24 hours for the tilt train (average 70 km/hr). That’s not too out of line with the Waikato Connection speed. Also the Waikato train has to mingle with all the local trains stopping at all stations and NZ has WAY more hills than Queensland.
Oh, yes – gauge will have some effect.
Obviously the narrower gauge railway can have tighter curves than the standard gauge, which would lead to slower speeds where they are used.
I can see also that a narrow gauge train at speed will a greater propensity to sway than a standard gauge train at the same speed. Even so, I find it hard to believe that a Cape Gauge railway engineered to look something like the UK main lines with tightly spaced concrete sleepers, ample ballast and frequent inspection can’t be capable of something significantly faster, even if only for light multiple units. I have to say that given the amount of sway I felt the time I went to Pukekohe even at the existing speed, compared with my experience on the UK railways I still think that the existing condition of the track will have a lot to do with the current speeds.
An example of what should be being thought about here is what the Irish did from 2003 onwards. They grew the rail business by investing in it to provide decent journey times, decent frequencies and decent comfort. http://www.railnews.co.uk/content/documents/railnews_july2010_irishrailspecial.pdf Doing something similar here for Auckland – Hamilton would (in my view) have a good chance of having similar success.
Personally what I think many of the comments on this post reveal is that the public organisations involved in delivering transport infrastructure and services really need to sit down and develop a long-term passenger rail strategy for the upper North Island, first connecting Auckland-Hamilton and eventually Tauranga. This plan needs to consider strategic options and constraints on realising those options.
For example, it seems to me that there is little point in running services between Auckland-Hamilton when the tracks are in such a sorry state that trains dawdle along at 50km/hr; to do so it putting the cart before the horse so to speak. Compounding these speed issues is the fact that the service will not stop downtown in Hamilton while not stopping at Britomart in Auckland. And it confuses me why we would run trains all the way from Hamilton when more cost-effective options exist (e.g. park and ride at Drury) to divert people off SH1 and onto trains.
If this was a game of SimRegion then here’s what I would do:
1. Focus on incremental expansion of Auckland’s regional train services south over time, by way of a couple of strategically located park and rides (close to major highway interchanges).
2. As we move expand services south, we should also upgrade stations and encourage development around those stations that have (or are expected to have) services, thereby stimulating additional demand.
3. In the meantime, KiwiRail should place a major focus on improving track speeds between Auckland and Hamilton, so that rail services are a competitive option (I think this actually is already a priority for them)
4. Hamilton City Council, meanwhile, should include funds in their 10 year plan to re-open their underground downtown station – which is right under the city on the Tauranga branch line so that services don’t stop out at Frankton.
5. Tauranga City Council, meanwhile, should develop strategic options for a downtown station – probably somewhere along the waterfront as you approach the downtown from the north.
Basically, I think if we work our way towards long distance passenger rail services in a logical way then we are more likely to get a positive outcome. I am concerned that if the trial services fail (and I hope they don’t), then what does that mean for the long term future of passenger rail? Will we have to wait for another 10 years before we can convince people to try again?
Anyone here who thinks petrol is going to get significantly cheaper in the next few years, put your hand up. Anyone? So, if gas gets progressively more expensive, do people think that kiwis will be making more private trips in cars or less? If less, what type of transport will they look to more and more? Taking a stab in the dark here, maybe public transport. There are of course some people who think cheap petrol is just around the corner again. Others think that miraculously cheap electric cars or hydrogen fuel cells will arrive in the next few years to replace expensive petrol. Yeah, maybe. Then again, maybe not. At $1.50 per litre of petrol a Ham-Auckland train may be a marginal call. There are things to recommend it but also barriers to its success. At $2.50 a litre of $3.50 a litre it starts to have some attractions.
Now lets say that cheap petrol does come back into vogue. All the efforts to get the rail service may be futile. If however in the next few years oil does continue climbing up in price, the service shuld get stronger patronage. It’ll be just a little bit too late in 2013 or 2014 to get it established if petrol prices do hit the fan. As I see it, getting a Ham-Auck rail service is not just about here and now, its about a few years into the future as well. If we do nothing now except grizzle and whine about things now, if we do need a huge ramp up in publci transport somewhere around 2013 or 2015 it’ll be too late. You need to start doing the ground work now.
Hamilton-Auckland is just potentially the start. Get this one done and Tauranga-Auckland, Rotorua-Auckland become possibilities. However, if you do nothing then you get nothing. If I lived in Auckland I would be down at Britomart or a bus station twice a month stirring up public support for public transport & for the rail tunnel to be built. Or I could just grizzle and moan about things.
Everyone agrees that petrol prices are an issue. But I do not agree with the suggestion that running empty trains somehow saves fuel, let alone is economically justified.
The question being discussed here is not whether you support a HAM-AKL service, but whether you think it should be run before the infrastructure is in place to support the service. In this case, the available infrastructure (tracks stations etc) are likely to undermine the service – so that all we get are empty trains and a short-lived trial.
A more strategic approach to the AKL-HAM service (that took a little longer before kicking services off) could possibly have left a more enduring legacy. But time shall tell whether my concerns are borne out and the service fails (ala Helensville), or whether I’ll be eating humble custard pie … I actually hope its the latter. Custard pie mmm.
I agree Stu, there is so much more than can be done in the region to get more people onto PT by expanding rail services. Opening Drury is a good start, but also an extension of MAXX services to Waiuku and Tuakau, and Huapai out west, will add a few thousand passenger trips per day. Introducing Sunday services to Swanson wouldn’t hurt either!
Geoff, you have your 2 options confused.
The option you are in favour of is the “Poor Service” option where as I and the CBT campaign as been promoting “Medium Service trial” option.
Your desired “Poor Service” option has lack of frequency and offers no flexibility for the public. It has to be funded 100% by users and could be pulled at anytime Kiwirail desires if not profitable.
I, the wider community and businesses in the towns the trains will service want a “Medium Service” trail. Higher frequency, more flexibility, greater choice to choose rail over driving with an insignificant rate of between $10 and $22 per rateable property. Guaranteed services which Kiwirail cannot cancel whenever they want as they are contracted by the councils to operate.
Your “Poor Service” option is not wanted by the community.
I think we would all agree that Stu’s rational and orderly approach to regional transport planing would be great. But we have a minister who is actively hostile to any kind of growth of rail travel and certainly behaves as if in denial of global resource supply issues. So we have to scrap and elbow and beg for any small improvement at a lower level to players with much less money and power. But the problem remains that by having to focussing on narrow and isolated services they are probably less likely to work. It’s a constant problem, and the speed and station location issues are not trivial. on balance I think this is still the best first step as I cannot see the Ham council spending on a station upgrade without there being a service running first. But the risk remains, if it fails, and balancing cost against quality of service is a vital discussion (thanks Geoff + Jon). Here’s hoping.
Patrick, I think you have captured the essence of what I was trying to say, and done so well. Thank you. If the following sounds like a lecture then I trust you will excuse me, however I do aim to be blunt.
If we had the political settings which allowed us to have a real and proper debate about what is best for public transport, that would be wonderful. Unfortunately we don’t. We didn’t have a glorious radiant age of public transport with the previous government either, but at least they were a little more forward thinking. When may we have the ideal conditions for a proper debate about long term and serious improvements to public transport. I may pick somewhere around 2013 to 2015 if predictions about an oil price spike comes to fruition. By then however, a little too late. PT will cost money, an oil price spike won’t provide much of that. Likely think along the lines of 2008, more or less. When suddenly the political will for a PT oriented future comes along, could be that the economic conditions militate against serious spending. So really, as I see it, waiting is no longer an option. If the wonderous arguments about the benefits of PT were to bring about a sudden PT consciousness from our political leaders it would’ve happened by now.
Sadly, it hasn’t. If an oil price spike is a handful of years away (maybe it isn’t, or maybe it is nearer than that) it’s too late to sit by and wait for political leaders to ‘see’ the virtues of the arguments raised in such forums as this. No, for me its time to actually go out and, as you put it, scrap. Its time to go out and mix it up, do some stirring, build some public support and build some voter backlash. If we are not prepared to do this, forget about a Ham-Auck train for the next few years, forget about your rail tunnel, foorget about and major new rail lines in Auckland, forget about dramatic improvements in bus lanes. For a reasonable amount of time the talk of restarting a Ham-Auckland has been around. That is, until CBT got organised and started pushing. Now we are seeing some real traction.
We can all sit around and do nothing except wait for the light to go on in peopels heads. Whilst we do, the planet continues to warm and petrol prices will (according to forecasts) continue to rise. Things don’t often miraculously fall from the sky. Next target must be the governments position on PT. November election provides a great opportunity to ask some hard questions of our poltiicians, which political party has some foresight? Which advocates of PT are actually prepared to try and change the political landscape? Does anyone think the present governments position on transport is acceptable? Likewise, I don’t think waiting for the ‘perfect conditions’ rather than taking some action now, is acceptable anymore either?
What’s up to every body, it’s my first pay a visit of this website; this blog consists of awesome and genuinely excellent data in support of readers.