On Tuesday a quite important rail funding package for Wellington was confirmed by the government. This was originally announced a few months ago, and somewhat came out of the blue. Here are the details:
The package includes Government funding of $88.4 million to renew the rest of the signalling and traction assets on the network. GWRC will take over and refurbish the 30-year-old Ganz Mavag units at a cost of $80 million, which will be supported with an operating subsidy from the NZ Transport Agency (NZTA).
The complete funding and ownership package comprises:
- Government funding of $88.4 million to renew the rest of the signalling and traction assets on the network.
- GWRC retaining ownership of the Matangi train fleet.
- GWRC taking over ownership of the Ganz Mavag and English Electric trains from KiwiRail and committing to upgrade the Ganz Mavag units at a cost of $80 million.
- GWRC taking over ownership and responsibility for stations (other than Wellington Station), train stabling and the electric train depot.
- The Crown (through KiwiRail) retaining ownership of the metro rail track network, the traction and signalling assets, and responsibility for any further investment in the upgrade of these assets.
- GWRC will pay a track access charge to KiwiRail, partly subsidised by NZTA, that reflects the fair cost of maintaining the tracks and other assets.
There’s also mention of the reducing NZTA funding assistance ratio – which is the same issue causing much consternation among councillors here in Auckland.
The most interesting part of this announcement is the fact that Greater Wellington Regional Council are going to take ownership of the Ganz Mavang and English Electric trains, which are currently owned by KiwiRail. This is a pretty big step away from the government’s plans for rolling stock just a year or so ago – where they wanted to establish a separate agency with connections to KiwiRail that would own rolling stock. In Auckland, initially ARTA was going to own our new electric trains – but when the government pulled the regional fuel tax and pretended to fund the trains themselves, they were also going to be owned by this separate rolling stock ownership company.
What is interesting to ponder now is who is going to end up owning the electric trains in Auckland? Technically the government is lending KiwiRail $500 million to buy the trains, with the loan being paid back from rates and NZTA subsidies. But how sensible is it really for Auckland and Wellington to have different ownership structures for their trains? Also, if Auckland really is going to be paying for the trains then it seems to be fairer if we also own them. I’m yet to see an announcement about this issue – but a few Ministry of Transport papers that I’ve flicked through seem to suggest that the government has not yet made up its mind on this issue.
If we were to assume that Auckland does end up owning the trains, then I wonder whether there might be a temptation to extend the EMU procurement beyond the 35 three-car trains that was originally being sought (perhaps that explains the delays in finalising the contract). We now know that locomotive-hauled SA trains won’t be able to run through the City Rail Link tunnel (even with electric locos the tunnel is too steep and the fire-rating isn’t compatible – whatever that means) so in the longer term we’re going to need a “full EMU fleet”.
One wonders whether the finer details of the EMU procurement are shifting away from ordering Electric Locomotives and more towards having more EMUs. Even though this might cost more in the short-run, with Auckland paying for the electric trains anyway (and potentially owning them and therefore able to make decisions about how many trains it wants) the $500 million funding cap might be able to be shifted a bit.
Of course this is all speculation – but interesting speculation all the same. It would be surprising to have a different rail setup in Wellington than Auckland, so what’s happening there may well have a pretty big impact on the long-term structure of rail operations in Auckland too.
Processing...
The rumour definitely seems to be that the electric loco’s have been dropped in favour of more EMU’s with the justification being that over the long term it would be the cheaper option. There are a couple of reasons I think it would end up cheaper just buying the extra units now.
1. The SA sets are about 40 years old and while they have been refurbished, some may not have that much life left in them. Even if we got another 10-15 years out of them, we would then be buying the EMU’s anyway and would also the issue of what to do with the no longer needed loco’s. Further to make the SA carriages last that long they will probably need another refurbishment which adds to the cost (plus Kiwirail is currently looking to layoff staff with the skills to do this work)
2. The plan called for some of the driving cars (SD’s) to be converted back to normal carriages and the remaining SD’s would need also modification. This is to enable them to work with the new signals and also the likely need to remove the generator which is used to power the auxillary systems in the trains like doors and lights.
3. None of the things in #2 can happen until the EMU’s arrive and start operating to relive the operational pressure on the SA fleet. They would then need their own set of testing which means things may not be completed for quite a few years which just delays the project even further.
4. The SA sets would not allow level boarding meaning you would still need onboard staff to help some citizens, the EMU’s will have level boarding on at least one of the 3 cars in each set and will be able to be operated by only a driver if needed.
5. Possibly higher maintenance costs, SA sets already have lots of issues with things like their doors and other systems and due to their age would generally need more care. Also it means more parts and processes that maintenance crews need as well as more training.
6. 6 car SA sets like were planned, have less capacity than a 6 car EMU.
7. In the documents surrounding the CRL, they indicate that even without the tunnel we would need a second batch of EMU’s around 2021-2025, would we really want to be going through this tender process again in 10 years time?
At the end of the day I think that getting a full EMU fleet is a much better solution and it provides more operational flexibility. If this is the outcome it will be interesting to see if they have managed this within the $500m budget or if extra has had to be paid. If its the former I wonder if they have had to cut features to get the price down enough or if the bidders came in lower than expected.
All things being equal I think it is best if AT owns the kit- KR can focus on freight, and there’s one place to go with all problems and improvements for passenger rail in AK. However it is clear that this is also an process to decouple NZTA from funding rail. The second thing can change with a change in WGTN; of view or of people.
If I had to hazard a semi-educated guess at the “fire rating” issue, it would be related to the cars’ ability to protect occupants in the event of a fire. If there’s a fire in the tunnel, and it’s not your car that’s burning, you should be safer staying in a car that’s on ventilation lock-down than trying to evacuate into the nearest fire shelter. In a confined space, such as a tunnel, trying to evacuate a whole peak-hour train in one go is just going to end in disaster. It’s not like evacuating a train on one of the existing routes, where there’s a lot of space for passengers to spread out in order to get clear.
Tunnels are a special fire hazard in terms of occupant protection. Toss in electricity and it gets even more fun. The fire protection systems for the Puhoi tunnel – admittedly rather further away from Fire Service resources than the CBD rail link, but much easier to access – are extremely impressive. The deluge sprinkler system delivers 10s-of-000s of litres of water per hour, and the smoke evacuation fans can do a full air change in under a minute. It’s not even a very long tunnel! Achieving the same protection for the CRL is impossible from a cost-practicality perspective (consider what it’s costing for the ordinary ventilation requirements for the Waterview tunnel), so the vehicles within must offer better protection of the occupants to allow fire fighters to respond and tackle the fire.