There’s been a bit of talk in the papers recently about Port of Auckland’s long term plan to reclaim more land in the harbour, in order to handle an expected four-fold increase in container traffic “in the long term”. I don’t really want to get into the debate over the pros and cons of expanding the port and filling in the harbour, but yesterday Patrick pointed out an interesting piece in the Herald about using rail and inland ports instead which warrants a further look:

 Mainfreight boss Don Braid says better rail and use of an inland port should restrict the need to reclaim more of the Waitemata Harbour.

Mr Braid, the Herald Business Leader of the Year for 2011, is unconvinced by the case from the board and management of Ports of Auckland on the need to fill in more of the harbour.

Ports of Auckland wants Auckland councillors to “lock in place” a coastal zone allowing it to expand its waterfront operations from 77ha to 95ha by 2055. It has forecast container traffic will increase from about 900,000 to 3.6 million in the long term.

Mr Braid said he was frustrated at how reliant the port was on moving containers by truck and the lack of rail.

“If you are running an efficient port with an efficient transport network feeding it in and out, then you have a very good chance of being able to use the inland port to help with the overflow and restrict the additional land the port might well need.”

That’s quite a good point to consider. We do have a large freight yard at the seaport, a series of inland ports and other rail yards in south Auckland and a mainline railway linking them. If rail utilisation is as poor as Mr Braid says then why not use it to manage peak capacity at the port? Naturally using industrial land in the Auckland suburbs has to be cheaper than making more land by filling in the downtown waterfront.

Now of course the boss of Mainfreight is going to have a vested interest in such activity, they are the owners of one of the rail-equipped inland ports, but what he is talking about seems to make much sense. The article carries on with some interesting figures on container growth:

 The number of containers passing through the port will increase from 900,000 last year to 3.5 million over the long-term, says Ports of Auckland.

Ports infrastructure general manager Ben Chrystall acknowledges there will be more trucks on the road, but a number of factors will limit the impact.

The company plans to increase the number of containers being moved by rail from 11 per cent to 30 per cent and says the percentage of containers reshipped by sea will grow from 25 per cent to 40 per cent. That will result in the percentage of containers being moved by truck halving from 64 per cent to 30 per cent.

A goal to triple the proportion of containers trans-shipped by rail and almost double the percentage going by sea is promising. However while the proportion being trans-shipped by truck may halve to only 30%, this is over the course of a projected four-fold increase in overall container movements. If you run the numbers (going from 64% of 0.9 million containers now to 30% of 3.5 million containers in the long term), they’re actually projecting double the number of containers leaving the port by truck. The port suggests that this impact wont be as bad as it sounds, due to a strategy of using “more efficient” trucks capable of carrying two containers at a time and by operating more trucks in off peak hours. I’m not sure if having a greater number of larger trucks using our roads and motorways across all hours of the day is exactly a low impact proposal.

To finish off the article the Herald takes a strange turn with a perplexing comment from Joel Cayford:

Former Auckland Regional councillor and planner Dr Joel Cayford has calculated that moving 900,000 containers by rail – through residential Orakei, Panmure and Glen Innes – would require 30 trains a day, each a kilometre long, running for three and a half hours, 300 days a year.

I’m really not sure what Dr Cayford’s angle is here, it appears he’s concerned about the effect that having lots of big freight trains on the main trunk line might have on the eastern suburbs. However I do have to question his calculations as they seem to be a little bit of scaremongering, or inaccurate at the least.

If we calculate through his suggestion of carrying 900,000 containers on 30 trains a day over 300 days, with each train being 1,000m long, we can see he has actually allowed 10m of train length for each twenty foot (6.1m) container. By my reckoning about 40% of his freight trains would be carrying thin air. Another point is the fact that 1km long trains wouldn’t be possible, the port freight yard is only about 600m long so that will be the functional limit to how long these trains could be.

I’m also not sure why he has suggested 300 days a year, or about 5.5 days per week. Surely such an operation would have to run 7 days a week like the port itself?

One further thing puzzles me, the “running for three and a half hours” bit. I think the suggestion is that those 30 port trains would all run in the same 3 ½ hour window each day, or in other words one kilometre long freight train every 7 minutes. It’s pretty ludicrous to assume that the port could process a huge train every seven minutes, or that the eastern line could handle the traffic. Am I missing something here?

Anyway, it seems I’m not the only one who is confused:

Ports chief executive Tony Gibson has disputed the calculation, saying the trains would be 500m long, running every 30 minutes for 16 hours a day.

That makes a lot more sense. If you follow these numbers through then shipping 900,000 containers on thirty-two 500m long trains a day, seven days a week means Mr Gibson has allowed 6.5m of train for each 6.1m long container. Plus a 500m long train could be loaded at the port, and one assumes they could manage to send one out every half hour (there are several sidings to hold trains that length). Furthermore two freight trains an hour could often fit in comfortably with the passenger services on the eastern line, however there would probably be issues during peak hour or at pinch points on the network south of Westfield. But with the proposed third track on the eastern and southern lines it would be a breeze.

As an aside, it always puzzles me why they are planning for only a third track for freight and not a fourth. Rail lines always work best in pairs, and a one extra track would provide far less than half the capacity of two extra tracks. It would be the freight equivalent of the western line before duplication. By all means start with just the third track and add the fourth when it is needed, but four tracks on the main trunk corridor leading to the port and Britomart should be the end goal and they should plan for it before any works are undertaken on amplification.

So what is the moral of the story here? Beats me. But it does seem that railing containers out of the port in bulk should be looked into as an alternative to major reclamation.

Share this

19 comments

  1. The other big question is how much is it in Auckland and New Zealand’s best interests to have such a large port here?

    If we want to distribute economic activity throughout the rest of the country a bit better and perhaps take a little bit of population growth pressure off Auckland, couldn’t that possibly be achieved by encouraging Tauranga and Marsden Point to grow – and capping Auckland’s port at the size it is?

    Or analysing the economic use we could make of the Port land.

    1. Exactly, good point. I seriously doubt the bold predictions of PoA about future tonnage. So Nick’s math above is likely to remain untested at the top end I believe. There have to be advantages for the nation’s resilience to have functioning ports in less land constrained places such as Tauranga and the great deep harbour of Marsden Point. Bay of Plenty or Auckland could well be put out of action by earthquakes or other natural disaster for example.

      And the regional development opportunities in developing Northland and maintaining its rail line are not insignificant. These however are strategic discussions that the current government seems unwilling to have, preferring to believe, as has somewhat quaintly been the ruling fashion, that an invisible hand will benignly lead us to the perfect result…… ?

  2. I have a big concern with the location of the inland port and the EMU depot. I think they are on the wrong side and will cause conflicting movements that will adversely impact passenger trains but I will put together a post on it shortly.

    1. Don’t worry Matt, you are not the only one concerned about the EMU deport and the Wiri Inland Port being on the complete wrong side – thus causing conflicting movements.
      Damn if POAL expands as well as the Inland Port, I am going to have the worst headache ever with delayed and buggered passenger trains in the Britomart Control Room.

      Matt I also have a post for you http://voakl.net/2012/01/31/councillors-having-a-moment/
      I was calling out to some Auckland Councillors when an idea came to mind.
      Look I want the port moved – but that is my personal opinion and pipe dream – however if the port is stay where it is I was thinking of alternatives for the Inland Port to save conflicts with passenger trains.
      Check the map out I have in that post – you can see the site for the new EMU depot and the Wiri Inland Port. Check out the black circles I also have drawn up – they might be good sites for an inland port as the track (white lines) is still there although mothballed.

      Who knows but it might be something to assist POAL and its growth program

  3. Local shuttles by rail make sense, but there is a major hurdle that will likely ensure the concept never goes beyond handling only the overflow, with most still going by truck: The rail shuttle cost will need to be borne entirely by the port. The existing road operation is subsidized by other road users.

    In short, it’s more economical for the port to spend millions filling the harbour, and still using the cheap roading option, than switch to a rail-based local delivery system.

  4. I see no good reason why freight such as milk powder, logs/wood are shipped via the POA. This sort ofd freight should never be bought into the centre of Auckland. It should go froom Tauranga, marden point.

  5. I totally agree on your comment about planning for the fourth tack and building when needed. Just make sure the space is left and any new infrastructure is build to accommodate.

    The idea of Marsden Point appeals, being rail served, will the western line be a major bottleneck, freight locked out at peck time etc…

    1. Marsden Point appeals but I see a problem.
      Single track to Swanson, a crap-arsed Waitakere Tunnel, gradients and speed restrictions that suck, Newmarket Station and the subsequent hill to Greenlane and last but not least choking from all the passenger train movements.

      You could put in passing loops north of Waitakere and the line from Southdown to Avondale to bypass Newmarket but that could be hellish expensive.

      Just on a side note, third tracking from POAL to Papakura is going to be a royal bastard. You need to widen the Meadowbank Tunnel and rebuild several bridges (some just being rebuilt – Papatoetoe, Puhinui, Homai, Manurewa) as well as more cross overs in order to get the third line running and eliminate passenger/freight movement fouling.

      Sorry if I am being Mr Negative but just playing devil’s advocate here. Look I support into getting our sick port healed, whether that be relocating the port or keeping it where it is – but we all need to play our cards right against Auckland Council, POAL and Central Government.

      1. The bridges currently being widened have been made wide enough for a third track or are leaving enough space for an additional span to be added for a third track. The tunnel would need a separate bore which will be expensive and the Orakei point development is required to leave enough space when they build over the lines for a third main.

        Most of the route from Papakura to Westfield should be fairly easy and last I saw that section was estimated at about $100m, not cheap but not horrendously expensive. It is the section from Westfield to POAL that will be the main problem of which the tunnel and the causeway will cause the most issues, the causeway in particular as it will be hard to get resource consent to widen it.

        1. Building a third track south of the Purawera tunnel would be relatively straight forward, as would a long third track passing loop between Orakei (or probably Meadowbank actually) and the tunnel. Leaving those two difficult sections but third tracking the rest would go a long way in the short term.

      2. If Marsden Point was connected to the rail network and became a significantly larger port then I think the argument for the Avondale-Southdown Line would re-emerge quite strongly, to avoid pressure on the Newmarket pinch-point of the network.

  6. The need for a port is obvious- if as the Auckland Plan says we’re going to grow to two million, it would be environmentally poor to bring in everything these two million consume (or send out what they produce) via a port other than Auckland. From the comments above, it would seem the rail system may not be up to it, and the hell on the roads if it were all to be trucked is best left unimagined.

    POAL’s current expansion demands and Heart of the City’s incessant criticism are both just “negotiation”, and should be treated as such. POAL already admitted they had delayed expansion by being more productive, surely they can be even more productive as their capacity expands and work with a smaller expansion? Something more along the lines of filling in their “V” shape in the centre and less of blocking Rangitoto views and messing with the inner harbour currents?

    The rail and inland port combo would seem to be the best solution for all parties, and as Ben mentions is his second comment, a united front would succeed most surely.

    Great post Nick, I hope the powers that be are taking note.

  7. How about building a third/fourth track with a new two track Purewa tunnel above the current tunnel. The new tunnel could carry the passenger rail and any swapping of the track layout could occur on the way through the hill. This would mean that the new freight track(s) would start on the northern (port) side of the current rail and could change to the southern side after the tunnel.
    The other thing that could be built into the new tunnel would be an underground station linking to the surface at a transport interchange on St Johns Rd. This would also satisfy the planners wish for a station in this area (http://www.stuff.co.nz/auckland/local-news/east-bays-courier/5774517/Feasibility-study-for-new-rail-station-in-Purewa-Valley).
    As usual there would be the inevitable problem of cost but this option could neatly solve two problems at once and allow for more flexibility in the future.

  8. Nick R says in the original post why not add 2 lines (making 4 in total) instead of just 1 line to make 3?
    Well other than cost there is another answer.
    The port can be reached by The Glen Innes “loop” and also via the main trunk line via Newmarket “loop”.

    This means that outbound from the port trains can use the GI loop to head south (or west/north) and incoming (to the port) trains can use the Newmarket “loop” – which is “downhill” from Market Road (aka Remuera station) all the way to the ports.
    there is also a (currently disused) rail line/tunnel under Quary Street from the Newmarket direction that goes into the ports, to complement the one that comes out from the ports onto the GI loop line. So trains could enter and leave the ports on either or both loops.

    Whatever the ports do I hope they put Electric locos on those freight trains like they use for the NIMT south of Hamilton.

    There is no point putting the quieter new EMUs on those rails and expecting housing intensification to occur around those stations on the Tamaki area (or in Newmarket) if the port trundles noisy and smelly (and PM10 emitting) diesel powered locos past their doors for 16 hours a day is there?

    1. You won’t get electric locos on port shunts, as you can’t load/unload containers beneath the overhead. All the other freights in Auckland will remain diesel hauled anyway.

  9. Can see your point.
    But there is no real reason why a yard shunter diesel can’t shunt the train from one end out of the port area then allow the electric to hook on at the other end for the mian line haul. With the reverse for the inland port shunt.

    Otherwise this means there is no incentive for anyone to live near a train station then is there?
    The main benefit of a EMUs was less noise, vibration and smell than diesels, and is a main justification for intestification near railway lines.
    Yet we have a situation where the frequency of (diesel hauled) freight will only increase in he next few year making any train station in Tamaki or south a way worse place to live near even with EMUs in operation.

    What a lot of crap.

  10. Most train noise comes from the steel-on-steel passage of the train, and remains just as loud regardless of what is hauling it. Exhaust isn’t an issue, as the freights are not stopping and starting like the passenger trains. You hardly notice diesel smell from a passing train. So really, I don’t see the benefit. It would be a hassle for the train crew to have to swap locos at the port, not to mention having the port loco sitting there doing nothing most of the day.

    1. How do they handle the situation of freight trains in the UK and in Sydney then?

      Both have electric lines (Sydney has overhead wires like Auckland will have with EMUs) and the UK has a mixture of third rail and overhead.

      So, when they move freight on rail in containers in these places they must have the same situation with overhead wires so how to do they load/unload the containers on/off the wagons?

      I can only recall 1 time – when I was in Sydney last year waiting for a train that a diesel hauled freight train of containers went past the station (and bloody noisy it was too – you could hear it coming from about 2 km down the track whereas there the electric passenger trains don’t make much noise until they come into/near the station) – sure pass through freight trains are noisy as they go past though, but nowhere as bad as a freight train hauled by diesels – and I’m sure I’ve seen way more freight trains in Sydney than that in the times I’ve been there so some must be electric loco hauled there.

  11. All freights in and out of Sydney are diesel hauled, and in Wellington as well.

    The electrification is for urban passenger trains, not freights.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *