An exciting day for Auckland’s rail system as it was finalised that CAF have won the contract and also we got to see what the trains look like. Here’s Auckland Transport’s media release:
Aucklanders can look forward to a new era in public transport after the signing today of a contract for a new electric suburban train fleet.
Auckland Transport has signed a contract with Spanish manufacturer, Construcciones y Auxiliar de Ferrocarriles SA (CAF) to purchase 57 three car Electric Multiple Units (EMUs) for the Auckland metropolitan rail network.
The new EMUs will be owned by Auckland Transport (AT) and will come into service from the end of 2013. They will replace the diesel units and diesel locomotive hauled trains currently providing passenger services to commuters in the city.
The trains will incorporate the latest technology in terms of safety, accessibility and modern amenities like on-board Wi-Fi networks. They will be comfortable, quiet, environmentally friendly and attractive.
CAF has also signed a contract to maintain the EMUs until 2026 in a new maintenance facility that Auckland Transport is building at Wiri.
The contract signing concludes a procurement process that began in November 2009 when the government announced that it had agreed to provide a $500m loan to buy 38 new trains and build the new maintenance depot.
Circa NZD$400m of the loan will be used to purchase the trains, while the remainder will be used to build the new maintenance depot.
The procurement was managed on behalf of the government by KiwiRail working closely with the previous Auckland Regional Transport Authority (ARTA) and then transferred to Auckland Transport in preparation for the manufacturing and ownership phases.
The Mayor has welcomed the announcement. “The announcement of this contract is the next step towards giving Auckland a 21st century rail network,” says Len Brown.
“Without electric trains, the extension of that network is not possible. Without electric trains, vital projects like the City Rail Link are not possible.
“It also means that the train network can cope with the extra demand we are already seeing. This is a great deal from every angle.”
“What I’m now looking forward to is riding these trains on a regular basis along with my fellow Aucklanders. They will be a huge advance on the second hand trains Aucklanders have had to put up with for years, and from what I’ve seen they will be spectacular.”
Auckland Transport Chairman Mark Ford, says, “The purchase of the 19 extra trains, 50 per cent more than originally planned, resulted from a positive business case showing the savings involved in operating a homogenous fleet, additional central and local government funding and the intensity of competition providing a very good price.
“It has involved a true collaboration between all of the key stakeholders to reach a common infrastructure goal, a modern fleet of trains for Auckland.
“The key stakeholders involved have been the Ministry of Transport and the NZ Transport Agency, Auckland Council and Auckland Transport. KiwiRail and Auckland Transport have jointly lead the project and headed up the project’s governance structure.
“Auckland Transport and KiwiRail have provided the technical and operational input to the project with support by international experts”, says Mr Ford.
Auckland Council’s Transport Committee Chair Mike Lee says, “Last year, the procurement transitioned from the old Auckland Council structure to the new Super City council structures. During that time there was a change of the local government personnel involved, but all organisations have worked very well together to achieve their common goal – a modern fleet of trains for Auckland with the first train being in service by the end of 2013.
“Although this process was begun by the current government in 2009, the planning for electrification of the Auckland metro network and new electric trains began in the early 2000s.
“The ever increasing popularity of rail commuting is forecast to lift patronage in Auckland to approximately 17 million trips per year by 2016 from 10 million currently. At peak times the fleet of EMUs will operate with six trains per hour from Papakura in the south, on the eastern line and from Swanson on the western line”.
Mr Ford says,” The procurement process caught the attention of a dozen international train manufacturers who responded to the Expressions of Interest document in 2010. From this group, five companies submitted Proposals in response to a detailed RFP process. CAF was selected after a detailed evaluation of the technical and operational proposals based on price and non-price criteria.
“CAF will design its new trains based on the rolling stock that it supplied for the Heathrow Express. Many New Zealanders will be familiar with those trains as visitors to London or as commuters. The difference between these modern units and the current rolling stock used in Auckland will be dramatic and should result in even greater patronage of the network”.
Mr Ford says, “The team at CAF are to be commended in the way that they have approached the tender process and responded to the challenges posed by the Auckland network – a narrow gauge, stainless steel body, 25kV EMU is a unique vehicle.
“CAF has demonstrated that its trains will meet and exceed the requirements – and that they have the team and track record to provide ongoing support for the 40+ year life of the trains. This will involve new jobs for NZ workers and a significant skills transfer to the local staff who will provide the maintenance services”.
General Manager of CAF Jesus Esnaola, says, “CAF, with our trains running successfully in cities as Hong Kong, New Delhi, London, Rome, Dublin, Brussels, Amsterdam, Helsinki, Lisbon, Mexico, Sao Paulo, Santiago de Chile, Buenos Aires, Washington, Pittsburgh, Sacramento, is very pleased and honoured to be part of the Auckland Electrification Programme, a public transportation solution that will cope with the increasing patronage demands and population growth projections for Auckland while providing an enhanced experience for Auckland commuters through the provision of improved train safety, quality and comfort features, to the best international standards in train reliability and availability performance.
“As part of our commitment with New Zealand, we are announcing publically today that we already created our new subsidiary, called CAF New Zealand Limited that will take care of the new fleet maintenance for ten years.”
And a few photos: 
Wow. I love the swish modern look!
And inside:
Pretty nice inside as well! Overall I’m pretty impressed by these trains.
Next project City Rail Link I hope. After all one of the greatest benefits, as pointed out by Len Brown, is that electrification enables so much more to happen with our rail system – rather than expanding the network (both in terms of its reach and capacity) specifically.
Processing...
What a great day for Auckland! My only gripe is with the seats shown here and on AKT. They both look particularly uncomfortable for the journey lengths on offer. I hope they are not representative of what will be fitted.
Let’s hope they a a little wider than the current ones too. The current ones seem too small for most passengers.
Looks nicer than Wellington’s new trains (jealousy ;)). Rode on a few CAF trains in Spain and they’re pretty good.
“CAF has also signed a contract to maintain the EMUs until 2026 in a new maintenance facility that Auckland Transport is building at Wiri.”
I didn’t know this was part of the tender. I like the idea of a modern efficient maintenance workshop. I also like the idea of making the manufacturer responsible for servicing and availability as it’ll avoid finger pointing if there are problems.
Good looking trains, by the way. Are the carriages joined so you can walk the length of the train, or am I misinterpreting the interior picture?
If some one at AT is being smart, they will build in a certain amount of availability of rolling stock from CAF into the maintenance contract ie 99.99% 18 hours a day of operation, which offers even more incentive for good upkeep of the units.
You’d expect they’d do this. It is normal for IT outsourcing. In this context it means that if the builder skimps on the build then they pay for it through higher maintenance costs, and possibly penalties if they don’t meet the availability targets. That’s a good incentive to build a high quality train.
@obi
“Are the carriages joined so you can walk the length of the train, or am I misinterpreting the interior picture?”
Within a three car unit, yes.
That’s really really good actually, to minimise overcrowding by allowing people to spread evenly throughout the train.
Plus it means you can get an extra six or eight people standing in each of the join sections when it is really crowded.
Excellent day for Auckland. And perhaps in a few years other parts of the NZ rail network can benefit from our 2nd hand carriages and DMU´s.
Yes, they do look a lot nicer than the Matangi´s, which just never seemed to nice flowing lines that other new commuter rolling stock has around the world.
Congrats to all those involved from the begining including Cr. Mike Lee, Campaign For Better Transport and others who jumped on for the push to electric trains afterwards.
I hope the interior colours are more tasteful in the actual trains.
Josh, where did you get that interior shot from, I haven’t seen that on any of the other material
Auckland Transport gave me a USB stick at the launch and this was on it.
Interesting because the seat colours are quite different to the other renders which has them as a much more aqua colour and also the handles on the seats have quite a different design. I wonder if that image was an earlier version or if some minor things are still in a bit of flux
I think some things are still to be decided. There are some differences between the external images of what’s above and some other pictures floating around (the blue & yellow ones).
NBR used the CAF branded images in their coverage :-
http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/new-electric-trains-auckland-commuters-confirmed-ck-102016
OMG read some of the comments. Hilarious.
“Trains are 19th century technology.” So is the radio, cars, lightbulbs, photography, cinema, pasteurisation, internal combustion engine, vaccines. Indeed the first steam powered cars predate trains. The electric engine predates the internal combustion engine. We still smelt steel in the same way that we did in the 19th century. Just because something was invented in the 19th century doesn’t make it useless.
I was hoping for large radiused corners where the walls, seats, partitions etc., meet the floor.
These are more easily cleaned and don’t become dirt traps, giving a long term better appearance.
There are some interior pictures here
http://www.aucklandtransport.govt.nz/SiteCollectionImages/L4%20Images%20Moving%20Around/emubig.jpg
I see radius corners running the length of each car but not at doors or between cars
W00t vertical bike racks! 😀
I’m with Doloras Wooting on the bike racks. Hopefully they make it through to the finished product.
But if I lift my bike up onto the rack all my groceries will fall out of the basket…. 😉
Not wanting to launch straight into typical Auckland negativity (sorry Doloras) but don’t those entrance ways look a little bit cramped? I.e. the wind break panels are right next to the edge of the door frame, in my experience people tend to lean against those panels and the better designs place them about one upright body’s thickness back from the opening so that leaners don’t block the doors. Plus the gap between the panels appears to be somewhat narrower than the aisle formed between the seats, when if anything it should be a touch wider to assist the flow of pax.
Also I can see an issue with having the bike section and the wheelchair section in the same place (presumably this is the central low floor carriage?). Bikes need a fair amount of room to manoeuvre (especially lifting them on and off a vertical rack) and wheelchairs need a hell of a lot. It would be best to keep the two separate. I’ve run into this problem with my bike in Melbourne, the guy in the chair actually had to back out of the train so I could get my bike out of the way to give enough space for him to get into the disabled spot. Indeed in Melbourne they have recently banned cycles from the sections that have the fold up seats for wheelchair users.
My suggestion would be to have wheelchair accessible sections in the central low floor carriage, and the vertical bike racks in seat free sections at the ends of the outer carriages. These could then double as a sardine tin mosh pit for standees to cram into during the inevitable peak hour congestion.
I’m not sure whether all the interior details will have been finalised. It’s worth noting the doors will be 150mm wider than our current doors, which is good.
Don’t get too carried away by the glossy sales brochure pics. Yes, they look nice. But wait until the end doors are added (if they are to run in multiple consists) and the auto couplers are changed out for the manual type so beloved by Kiwi Rail (with jumpers and hoses) and plenty of other little things as happened in Wellington and you’ll finish up with something quite a bit different. I hope that doesn’t happen but I wont be surprised if it does.
I understood the primary reason end doors were added in Wellington because they needed an exit in case the train got stuck in one of our narrow single track tunnels. Possibly not an issue in AKL.
Ian – in the early renders of the Matangi’s you can see the outline of an end door, over time that became more prominent but there is no reason for them to be added to Aucklands trains. They were added in Wellington mainly because of the tight single track tunnels mean that in an emergency people wouldn’t be able to evacuate out the sides, Auckland doesn’t have this problem. Also Kiwirail was the one setting the technical requirements, if they wanted end doors or specific couplers they could have easily made them a requirement.
I think the couplings are neither here nor there. The ones shown or the standard KR ones won’t make a jot of difference to the functionality or interior comfort. They’ll be a minor cosmetic change to the rendered appearance, and most people won’t even notice them.
I doubt that the ones shown are the final product because if they are it’ll mean the trains cannot be shunted or towed by any train other than another of the electrics, and that’s not a desirable state of affairs. A computer render is not the final word, KR say-so or no.
I wonder why kiwirail wouldn’t just buy a few adapaters for their tow locomotives rather than change the entire fleet from auto to manual couplers?
In any case when you have autocouplers, if a 3-car unit broke down, couldn’t you just get the next unit along to couple up and run as 6 car unit?
Aren’t Auckland Transport in charge of this now? KiwiRail may ask for manual couplers, but AT can say no.
I’m sure there must be such a thing as an automatic-to-manual coupler joint anyway.
I only hope someone from AkTransport is noting the comments here and is passing them onto the people responsible within AkTransport; nothing like free critical analysis.
I see Mike Lee this morning in the paper is saying that Britomart will reach bottleneck from Feb next year when the Manukau trains come online, and the Western Services go to 10 mins services – is that right? Will we have to suffer because of Joyce?
Mike Lee is absolutely right. Six trains an hour on each of the three main lines plus two from Onehunga plus the Overlander is 21, the absolute capacity of Britomart.
Yes, February has been known for a while as the time when Britomart will reach maximum capacity.
To be fair to Joyce, even if the CRL had been designed, approved and funded immediately that it was raised as a topic in the mayoral election (which is only going back to mid-2010) it would still not be possible for it to be completed until at least the time that the new trains are due to start in general commuter service. Joyce is not responsible for the dead-end design of Britomart, or the physical realities associated with planning and constructing a tunnel beneath an already-built city centre. We’d be closer to having the tunnel constructed if he weren’t such an obstructionist hater, but we would still run out of capacity at Britomart in February if he were the biggest rail fan on the planet.
One thing to be careful of though is there are different levels of capacity. In Feb we will run out of capacity to add new services but that doesn’t mean those services will all be full. There will probably be a year or two worth of growth available from the new services and playing with the length of some trains, by that time the EMU’s will be starting to roll there will further boost capacity through larger trains. As a comparison most trains these days are 4 cars long and have a comfortable seating and standing capacity of about 380 people. At peak most EMU’s should be 6 cars long and as each car is also longer there is a seating and standing capacity of about 720 people. That means we should see huge boost to capacity by 2015.
So next year we run out of train slots but we do a few years worth of capacity left in the system.
Capacity to carry passengers on existing services, yes. Capacity to add services, no. We can’t add a single new service that terminates to Britomart (and that’s already a headache for the Waikato Connection, which hasn’t even been confirmed), and that’s going to require some thinking shifts on the part of AT as to how that is dealt with. Getting HOP in place will allow a shift to costless transfers within the rail network, but AT will have to actually do something different than current BAU to make that happen. Whether they’ve got the will, well, we’ll have to wait and see, but BAU is no longer good enough to address the growth in network use.
It’s also a shame that we’re going to have to wait until 20-freaking-13(!!!!!!!) before we’ve got proper integrated fares. That will, I think, be far more damaging to public transport’s continued growth than any issue with Britomart’s capacity. When it’s both inconvenient and costly to shift modes to complete a journey, people will just work around the problem by driving.
I’m not a fan of the on-seat handle design, TBH. That’s a grab point, not a handle, and won’t give as much purchase or stability as a proper handle. I haven’t been impressed when I’ve encountered them on buses (they’re particularly hard to grab onto if you’re also trying to hold something else), and no less impressed by seeing them in a pretty CAD render.
Good comment above about having rounded interior corners so that dirt doesn’t get trapped. It’s something that’s fixed quite easily, especially at this point in the process, and the long-term benefits of a tidy interior are significant. I also hope that the seat covers will be treated to repel things like chewing gum, and that the floor will not be as glossy and slippery as it looks. The last thing we want is a pretty, glossy floor that turns into a skating rink as soon as people board on a rainy day. Auckland ain’t Madrid.
Does anyone have renders from this stage of the Matangi process for comparison to the end product, so that we can get an idea of what might change in the interim?
Have a look at the design on the AT website, they are actual handles not grab points.
http://www.aucklandtransport.govt.nz/SiteCollectionImages/L4%20Images%20Moving%20Around/emubig.jpg
Excellent. Shame they’re on the sides, not the tops, though. Narrows the passage, provides something for bags and things to get caught on, and it’s not as natural to hold as one that’s on the top.
Well how about we start building a 900m long Quay St tunnel from Quay Park Junction as the first leg of the full tunnel to Mt Eden? That would just about double capacity within around 18 months if they started today.
*stops broken record*
Never happen. Ignoring the funding issue, there’s no way that AT will countenance another construction-related disruption of traffic on Quay St. They spat their dummy with the last one.
Why ignore the funding issue? Such a first stage would be a hell of a lot easier to fund than the full tunnel and would gain many of the benefits. The existing Britomart tunnel was built by cut and cover in 2000 for $30 million including service diversions. I’m suggesting we basically do the same 60m north, even allowing for a (two track) station, disruptions and inflation we are still only talking around two hundred million or so.
As for Quay St disruption, we’ll Auckland council is fixing to close that section of Quay St entirely anyway!
Why ignore it? Because the money’s not going to be made available, no matter how logical the idea might be. It’d be a lot of money to spend on something that’s pretty much a temporary solution. That’s why I said I’d ignore it. We’re trying to get money for a proper solution and struggling, so why waste the energy getting money for something that’s a band-aid on the bigger problem?
Matt is right: There is less than no money from gov. All spare AC funds are going into CRL route protection and planning.
Nick is right: Perhaps this could be the start of the line to Gaunt St and the North Shore?
On balance though I think it critical that all efforts are focussed on the CRL as this not only solves the capacity issues at Britomart [for a while] but much more importantly it makes our three lines into a unified network which allows so much more latent capacity and value to be extracted from the network and is The Most Vital Thing for improving Auckland. In a sense the capacity issues are a helpful push for the CRL….
Matt you might misunderstand what I’m suggesting. I’m proposing that we start the CRL at Quay Park junction and run it alongside Britomart, rather than starting it at Britomart. This means not only can you quickly and cheaply build the first leg to alongside Britomart for some immediate relief, it also means that once the full tunnel is complete we would have triple the current capacity (rather than just double). Basically rather than making Britomart part of the tunnel we add the tunnel on to the capacity Britomart already has. That could be very important once we start considering new suburban lines or regional and intercity routes.
It’s not a temporary solution but rather a phased one. One issue with the current proposal is that you don’t get an ounce of extra capacity until the full $2 billion + project is planned, funded and built, probably ten or more years from now. The first stage costing a few hundred million could even be done by the council alone while waiting for Wellington to come to the party for the second stage.
Nick – I know you are quite keen on having a separate tunnel on Quay St but it just isn’t practical and all it would really do is allow politicians to kick the can down the road/track a bit further and delay spending the necessary money to build the tunnel. To think it would be stage one is wishful thinking as the remaining plans would be cut back as soon as it would open and then we would miss out on the greater connectivity the tunnel would allow.
There is enough capacity with the tunnel to allow 5 minute frequencies on the current lines (if you do the routing right) while still allowing space for regional trains to berth at platforms 2, 3 & 4. The discussion here and in other places has been that any future extensions would most likely be through an east-west corridor most likely under Victoria St.
Why do they need the two seat side by side arrangement? Why not have seats the length of the train similar to what they do in Korea or Japan? Sure you don’t have as many seats available but you can fit a lot more people in. Plus it makes it easier for bikes, carrying stuff, I am sure cleaning would be easier as well.
Something like this http://deyvyrodriguez.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/subway6.jpg
And as for seat covering why not metal like the korean ones, easy to clean, hard to damage, nice and warm in winter, cool in summer.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ramblinglibrarian/225998990/
Those Korean ones look like the moscow/kiev/st petersburg metro. Did they copy the design from north korea?
These trains look like a good design and should perform well for Auckland. The Build and Maintain contract should reduce risk to AT of faulty rolling stock and this model has worked for Perth with its B-series cars.
In a previous job, I had a fair bit to do with managing the competing demands for space on trains (bikes, disabled people, parents with prams, etc) in Melbourne, so based on the published designs, some areas of concern that will need to be managed by AT in the future would include:
1. Removing (or not installing) bike racks – they’re a luxury that can be afforded by interurban commuter railways, but not by a higher capacity suburban rail service. Melbourne faltered with bikes on trains in 2008 during the patronage surge when the old railway (guaranteed seats, room for bikes) was swept away by overcrowding. At some point AT will have to bite the bullet and take the carriage of bikes off trains. The provision of better bike parking at stations and integrating CBD bike hire with PT is one way to provide bikes at both ends of most journeys.
2. Narrow vestibules – this will increase dwell times, particularly as train loads increase, people will be less willing to move into the carriage (particularly on 2-door rolling stock) and clog up the areas around the doors. Removing the windbreaks and re-configuring seats to longitudinal configuration near doorways will help.
3. Managing passenger expectations. People will grumble at the step change the new rolling stock brings and the management of expectations around seating comfort, ‘overcrowding’, levels of amenity (i.e. being able to get a seat) will all need to be managed. While electrification will be a great improvement, it’s not a silver bullet to rail transport problems and new grumbles will replace the old ones!
But on the good side, it does seem (from some research) that CAF are using a seat design not dis-similar to Bombardier/EDI on QR/Transperth trains that allow for easy conversion to longitudinal seating when the time comes. Hopefully, the benefit this gives over the life of the vehicles will be recognised and not designed out.
I *REALLY* hope someone from AkTransport is monitoring this discussion, and future discussions on the design of our new trains… Give us a sign Sharon!!
I disagree. You could much easier cover the bikes issue by banning bikes during the 1-2 peak hours. That would give certainty to users when and when not they can use bikes on trains (the train managers can already refuse you in any case), rather than go the hard-case way and ban something outright. And under such a scenario, the bike areas actually ADD to the capacity of the train.
Ingolfson,
I have to disagree with you. Bikes actually remove capacity from trains – in my experience as a public transport manager they only decrease, not increase train capacity, each bike taking standing room for 3-4 people in a doorway plus adding to dwell times at stations. While them may increase the mobility for the individual who has their bike on the train, bikes on trains decrease the potential for others to board the train, particularly if there are more cyclists wanting to board the train than the token number of bike racks onboard can accommodate. It is far better for a transport agency to provide improved, secure parking at the stations where cyclists enter and exit the rail network (giving the individual cyclist mobility at both ends of the journey), but removes their bike from the train so that others can board.
In terms of a peak period bike ban, that was tried in Melbourne in 2008. The cyclists managed to confect so much outrage that the ban was overturned. More cyclists are deterred from the dirty looks when they try to board a crowded peak period train (so that they ‘self-select’ themselves out of the peak) than any bike ban (which was difficult to enforce anyway). Good luck to AT if they try that without an extremely good legislative basis (can fines be given to people bringing bikes on trains?) and a sound stakeholder management plan that the bike lobby has signed up to.
The ‘good old days’ where cyclists can get on a train in peaks along with everyone else is largely gone in Melbourne, along with the expectation that most passengers will get a seat: even the interpeaks are starting to become ‘no-go’ zones for bikes on trains. Auckland post-electrification won’t be far behind.
“Ingolfson,
I have to disagree with you. Bikes actually remove capacity from trains – in my experience as a public transport manager they only decrease, not increase train capacity, each bike taking standing room for 3-4 people in a doorway plus adding to dwell times at stations.”
Harold – you are missing my point. I am talking about a peak time where bikes are banned. During that peak time, the bike area is likely to be standing room only, therefore standing room provides more passenger total than if there was seating in the same area. QED.
Of course bikes take up more space – and I do understand the peak time concern. I agree with you on the effectiveness of deterrents – though you could also do that differently, by pricing a peak hour bike ticket quite a bit higher.
“even the interpeaks are starting to become ‘no-go’ zones for bikes on trains.”
As I said, I can certainly understand the argument for the peaks. But let’s not get ahead of ourselves outside the peaks until we need to.
Ingolfson, I get your point now – I didn’t quite understand what you were saying. My apologies for taking your comment out of context. But I do believe it’s better to take the bike racks out of the train so it becomes a common space for parents with prams, people with luggage and peak standees, not just bikes. Part of managing public transport is managing expectations – including those of the minority of cyclists who want to take their bikes on PT.
For intelligent interior fitouts of trains you really can’t beat the Copenhagen Metro. Among other innovations they have cantilevered seats so that nothing obstructs the floor (which makes for easier and faster cleaning). See: http://www.designforalleurope.org/Design-for-All/Articles/Article_archive/Copenhagen-Metro-Design-for-All–a-must-that-calls-for-visibility/
If you look at the images you’ll see the seats for these EMUs are also cantilevered off the wall – that’s pretty standard practice these days.
Any details about the access ramps that are meant to be part of the package?
The middle car (yellow doors) will have its floor height match that of the platform, hence no ramps should be required.
Platform heights in Auckland vary between stations, so level boarding will not really be implemented in the true sense. There are variations between different upgraded stations, and then you have carriages leaning down or up at platforms located on curves. Wheelchair ramps will always be necessary.
In london at many stations one section of the platform very gently (so you don’t trip) slopes up until it is level with the train floor, giving an area wheelchairs can get on step free without needing any manual ramps.
I don’t understand why they don’t just raise the whole platform though.
The platform height is limited by some of the freight wagons.
How do they do it in other countries for freight? isnt there a way to increase the height of freight wagons or something? who knows when more people are on trains and public transport less on roads we may see more freight by truch rather than train
All that platforms except Britomart are pretty much the same height. The tracks in Britomart can be lowered to match up with the others, meaning that we can have fairly level boarding at all stations.
Not quite, all of the platforms are actually slightly different heights, some platforms are even slightly different depending at which end you stand, probably the only one that is exactly right would be New Lynn where the tracks are fixed to a concrete pad rather than on top of ballast. I noticed a few months ago markings on the sides of the platforms indicating that they had been measured and indications of how much they needed to be modified.
Also for Britomart the platforms are actually higher than the rest of the network so the tracks will need to be raised.
Ah yes good point about Britomart. Apparently that can be done relatively easily.
I seem to recall that Britomart was designed for the platforms to be lowered – note the slight ramp up when going from the lower concourse to the platforms themselves – the lower concourse level is supposed to be the final platform height.
Must be expensive to do though, raising the tracks is probably more economical.
There are meant to be ramps. Any details as part of this publicity?
Looking through the “technical summary” that I received on the day it says:
“A dedicated space will be identified for wheelchair users, with easy access from the train to the platform”.
Also says:
“The Units will comply with worldwide industry best practice for accessibility. This will include level boarding access on the centre car as well as the use of contrasting colour within the interior, tactile surfaces, audible and visual announcements, hearing loops, priority seating and wheelchair facilities.”
“Easy access” – so a goal rather than a plan, then. 🙂
““Easy access” – so a goal rather than a plan, then. :)”
Not sure what part of “This will include level boarding access on the centre car” is ambiguous, Sacha? Sounds to me like they DO very much have a plan.
No, that’s a goal. A plan says *how* they would do that – much like the other details given instead of blithe statements like “the train will have a means of power” or “passengers will have somewhere to sit”.
New Zealand’s history of disability access features enough platitudes with no genuine results or accountability for failure to deliver. You’ll forgive some cynicism at this late stage in the tender process when basic detail is not offered about something that affects a fast-growing number of passengers as our population ages and disabled people play a bigger role in society. These trains are here for many decades and they will be crucial for all Aucklanders and visitors to this wonderful place.
As others have said, the Auckland rail network has some tricky features like curved platforms with variable heights. Magic beans won’t create “level access”. Auto-deploying ramps would, for instance. Let’s hear some answers.
Happy about the other features described in overview, I should clarify.
It would be nice to have a train that is level the whole way