The news got lost a bit in the panic leading up to Wednesday’s approval of Council’s Long Term Plan, but earlier in the week there was an NZ Herald article which highlighted that Auckland Transport is looking at extending electrification to Pukekohe, around 18 km further south than the current proposed end of electrification at Papakura.
Here are the relevant parts of the story:
Auckland Transport’s board decided yesterday to include an investigation into electrifying rail to Pukekohe as a late addition to its 10-year programme, in response to public submissions…
…A recommendation from a hearings panel to add the Pukekohe investigation to the organisation’s programme won support from the Citizens and Ratepayers’ leader on the Auckland Council, Christine Fletcher, as well as from council transport chairman Mike Lee.
Both are appointees to the organisation’s board and Mr Lee headed the former Auckland Regional Council when it asked the previous Labour government in 2008 to add an 18km Pukekohe extension to the $500 million electrification project.
That was estimated to cost an extra $115 million.
Mr Lee said yesterday that a Cabinet decision to make Papakura the southern cut-off point for electrification had been “somewhat arbitrary”, and the 20 services a day now running from Pukekohe were “very much an integral part of the rail system”.
There seems to be a growing number of reasons why electrifying to Pukekohe is a no brainer.
Firstly, Pukekohe has been identified as a pretty major growth centre in the spatial plan – seemingly the biggest satellite centre, with a large area of possible greenfield development between Papakura and Pukekohe further justifying rail investment in that part of the network (as a number of future stations could be dotted along the line there).
Secondly, if rail services are curtailed in the west to Swanson (and extending further from there really doesn’t make much sense) then electrifying to Pukekohe means that we can do away with diesel trains altogether – surely a massive savings in operational costs over the coming decades.
Thirdly, extending electrification to Pukekohe obviously eliminates the need for people to change trains at Papakura, which presumably would boost ridership from Pukekohe – very long trips which are likely to generate significant decongestion benefits, yet again boosting its cost-benefit ratio.
Certainly the project seems like a no-brainer in so many ways. We just need to figure out how to pay for it and decide when it’s necessary. I do wonder whether it would be cheaper to do it as an extension to the current electrification project, and also buy the few extra electric trains needed to operate the service at the same time as we’re getting all our other trains built. Which means a decision on the project might be needed a bit sooner rather than later.
Processing...
unless there are good cost savings to be made by doing this as part of the current electrification cant see this being a priority really. Is a very large amount of money to be spent to benefit a small number of commuters.
When we have issues like the short sighted cost savings being pushed on CBDRL should save money for now.
Or would much rather see the money going into things like the bus redesign, and getting a decent increase in services on some routes, rather than trying to do it with no extra money like usual.
Sad state of the current political situation really, rare for me to be advocating delaying a project.
I guess the real question is how much money we need to spend on our diesel trains to give them yet another lifetime post electrification. And how much extra it costs to keep the diesels running, and maintained.
From memory patronage at Pukekohe has grown tenfold over the past few years, although admittedly from a very low base.
“Secondly, if rail services are curtailed in the west to Swanson (and extending further from there really doesn’t make much sense)”. Can you please quantify this statement?
It is quicker for West Auckland residents catch a train from Huapai to Henderson/Glen Eden than to use the slow buses. Huapai is slated for growth and is growing now.
I believe you should be advocating the Western line extension to Huapai rather than a reduction in service to only Swanson.
How much demand is there to travel from Huapai to Henderson across the course of a day? Certainly can’t be enough to justify a train service at any useful frequency. The fact is the electrified western line will always stop at Swanson before the tunnel. The question is can we at all justify a separate diesel line out past Swanson, to provide a shuttle to a couple of small villages once an hour at best? Why not skip the infrequent diesel line and use the money saved to operate a bus line connecting to every train at Swanson? That’s would be far more useful than one train every hour or two.
“The fact is the electrified western line will always stop at Swanson before the tunnel.”
Why is that? Plenty of similar small tunnels were lowered and electrified during the NIMT electrification project back in the 1980s.
Apart from the tunnel, the only possible obstacle would be the Waitakere Rd overbridge which probably has enough clearance as it is.
It takes me about 10 minutes from memory to get to Westgate from Huapai by car, a bus would be little more. If we can get the NW busway built, in conjunction with express buses, travel times would be quite a bit quicker than by train. This expenditure will also benefit many more people.
Wouldn’t it also mean not needing to build the planned Diesel/EMU interchange station at Papakura? Bit of a saving there. And of course this isn’t about intensification, rail is extremely good at making satellite towns viable; so isn’t it a way of supporting those who want a city edge way of life and in a way that doesn’t degrade that quality of life with more car infrastructure?
Yeah, I was going to ask – roughly speaking, how long do you think the commute would be to Britomart from Pukekohe, if fully electrified?
I’d imagine that for those working in the CBD (or somewhere in between near a station) provided there are decent time-savings, it becomes a viable (read: affordable) place to live, with a relatively easy and cheap commute to/from work.
Its how Wellington operates isn’t it? Most people live in the “satellite” centers like the Hutts, Porirua, Mana, etc and commute in by rail.
“How much demand is there to travel from Huapai to Henderson across the course of a day? Certainly can’t be enough to justify a train service at any useful frequency. ”
Henderson is a large shopping and employment area out West. Even the limited train service provided for in the Helensville test picked up more passengers at Huapai than Helensville or the other stop. Huapai is scheduled for even further growth, so naturally many people will use the trains to reach Henderson and Glen Eden.
A shuttle service whether to Waitakere will cost not much more running through to Huapai, but will have a much larger scope for growing patronage on the shuttle. We know people who use buses from Huapai and West complain about how long the buses take to get to Henderson now, so the extension seems more logical to Huapai than not.
As nice as it might be to expand the rail network, I just can’t see it being able to be justified any time soon as the operating costs to have a separate diesel operation for two small stations would be pretty high. The buses may take a long time but I’m pretty sure that they could be sped up quite a bit and I would point out that Huapai is slated for growth but not that much. I would much rather see our money spent in areas where it would have much more effect.
Huapai’s not really identified for much growth in the latest versions of the spatial plan. Most growth in the northwest is closer to Westgate, with the obvious RTN link being a busway along SH16.
Jon, the fact that the patronage at Huapai was better than Hellensville isn’t evidence of strong demand at Huapai, it just shows how much of an abject failure Hellensville was. The whole trial, including Huapai managed to drum up 43 passengers a day. That’s about one bus load of people. Patronage would have to quintuple before you’d consider even on train service, let alone a regular and useful service, there just isn’t the need for rail levels of capacity there.
The wider Waimaku-Huapai-Kumeu area has a population of only 6,600. Even if we very generously assume that 5% of the entire population wants to travel to Henderson each day that’s still only enough to fill up one small train. Even at a basic hourly service you’d still need to run eight or ten return trips a day for it to be the least bit useful, other that that what would the service pattern be, two or three peak hour runs in the morning and the same again in the afternoon? Can we really afford to run a separate diesel train line out to these two little villages to carry a bus load of people in total across the whole day?
Why not take off the rail tinted glasses and look at what is going to serve those villages best. For the cost of operating one train an hour to Huapai we could afford to run about six buses in it’s place (probably much more if we factor in the capital expenditure required to establish the turnaround facilities, dock platforms, staffing rooms etc). That means you could have a timed connector bus from Huapai to Swanson that meets every single departure, and more importantly coming back to Swanson every single train would have a bus waiting to take you back to Huapai. What is the point of having a diesel transfer shuttle train that only meets every fourth train or a handful of peak time services, when you could have a diesel transfer shuttle bus that meets every single train all day? Which outcome is going to make it faster to get to Henderson, the one you have to wait an hour for and finishes at 6pm, or the one that runs with every train to Swanson all day?
Oh and just for the record I am advocating we don’t run a shuttle train to Waitakere either, we should get rid of the diesel shuttle train entirely and replace it with a bus shuttle with much greater service levels.
Following on from what Luke has said, my view is, that if the cost of traction, track-work and signaling for Papakura to Pukekohe plus station upgrades for Drury and Pukekohe can be accommodated within the current budget allocated for the electrification project underway, then great but if it can’t, then the work should only be done after the CRL is complete and by ‘complete’, I mean the building of all three proposed stations and both east and west links (double tracked).
The CRL takes absolute priority and any opportunity to cost-cut there, must be nixed lest we end up with a half-baked, functionality-poor solution (got to stop this stupid NZ propensity to penny-pinch for no real good reason). Without the ‘full’ CRL, the entire suburban commuter network in AKL will grind to a halt under the weight of increased rail patronage once the EMUs have been rolling for a few years from 2015 on. Expenditure-wise, absolutely ‘full’ CRL first, then Pukekohe thereafter.
I do wonder though whether Papakura-Pukekohe traction, signaling and track-work could be done within the current budget for the electrification project. Even without putting a station in at Drury and doing anything much to the station at the Pukekohe end, that work alone could be worth it and I surmise that even with the set of 57 EMUs (is it 57 or 59?…can’t remember offhand), including Pukekohe in the network shouldn’t run the fleet ragged surely?.
Just remember the scale of costs we’re talking about here. Full CRL is potentially something like 25 times the price of extending electrification to Pukekohe. Also, extending electrification earlier may generate more rail trips and improve the business case for the CRL.
That is exactly it. We don’t even honestly know how Britomart will work with the EMU’s at this stage anyway do we. All we can do is plan, guess, assume etc.
It would be nice just to get late night and weekend train services to Pukekohe.
Shouldn’t need to buy more EMU’s for Puke, as the already-ordered fleet is bigger than the existing diesel fleet.
Regarding Huapai, I agree with Jon, a diesel shuttle from Huapai (or even Waimauku) to Swanson is the way to go. SH16 through Huapai/Kumeu is chocka with cars all day long, and they even have mild congestion there during peak hours. Plenty of people to make a service viable out there.
Disagree, Geoff, Electrifying to Puke would result in more needed EMU’s as the current order is based on how many we need to go a certain distance and return with what frequency. Extending the distance means either less frequent services across the network or needing more EMUs.
Can anyone do the numbers on how many more EMUs would be needed for say a 30 min frequency to Puke?
Remember each EMU is ~$7 million.
Also how frequently could services run to Puke remembering that its a single track?
Its double track all the way to Hamilton with just a few short gaps in the middle.
If it is a just cause and a hault was put on building platforms 3&4 at Papakura, that would be many $m’s of money saved just in that. And then there is also the extra singal & interlocking that wouldn’t be required, many more $m of dollars not required there that could be spent on electrifying to Pukekohe.
Even with 30min frequencies to/fro Pukekohe, peak services would have to run far more frequently. So much so, that Papakura would be a place with through services during Peak runs, not a point of commencement or termination. I would guess trains would have to run every 30 mins. Since it takes approximately 15mins for a train to travel between Papakura and Pukekohe, include 5 min turn around time, that is 35 mins for a return trip from Papakura to Pukekohe. Given the frequency would most likely be 10mins during Peak, that is 3.5 trains at any one time during peak(3-4 trains). Since it is peak, at least 3 train will probably need to be 2 EMU sets(???), that equates to something like at least 7 extra EMU’s. Might as well make that 8 to make it work properly. Hope you all love my maths on that!! lol.
As for Huapai, wouldn’t surprise me, that wherever a realiable service goes, it is bound to cause and/or stimulate growth in that region. But having a diesel serivce is a no brainer, and of course if it gets to much(too many users!!) well then that instantly justifies the need for electrification. If it doesn’t stimulate anything, well it goes the other way then doesn’t it… – Cancel It.
Double tracking further than Swnason will be more difficult and more expensive than electrifying beyond Papakura.
What reason would be required to double track beyond Swanson. Could still provide 10min frequencies between Haupai and Swanson with the current alignment and a crossing loop at Huapai. Could have 2x platforms at Waitakere also where trains could cross. I don’t see why it would have to be 10 mins frequencies in both directions anyway. Basically a six car could travel up there in the morning peak, and come back as single 3 car sets.
The other benefit is it will help support the growth of the city to the south.
Finally between Hamilton and Parlmerston North the main trunk line is electrified. The shorter the gap between Hamilton and Auckland the more sense it makes to complete the electrification and thus remove one locomotive change required for running freight on the main trunk line. Obviously there is not much need for this at present, however this should be one strategic consideration.
It would be nice also to have an electrified Auckland-Hamilton commuter service too
Where is the “like” button?
$115m for an extra 18km sounds like an awful lot of money, how much of that is electrification, how much is track and station improvements (which would arguably have to be done anyway at some point), and how much is new stock (again, needed at some point)? Having a single fleet of electric stock maintained in a single location will be considerably cheaper and also cheaper operationally. Perhaps the “sticker price” could more accurately the price of actually stringing up wires?
As Brendan says, the bonus is that when it was complete, the remaining unelectrified stretch to Hamilton would be narrowed to 80km or so, which should be fairly straightforward to electrify as a follow-on to the Auckland project, particularly if you can keep skilled project teams intact, which would make it a lot cheaper and faster (and keep people in NZ jobs, paying NZ taxes 🙂 ).
Whilst there might not be a particularly compelling business case for infill electrification with today’s traffic flows, removing the need for a loco change at Hamilton and increasing average running speeds will reduce costs and improve timings (making rail services more competitive), which should help stimulate additional business. Running electrically into Auckland should improve timings and make better use of existing infrastructure, reduce track wear (electric locos are generally lighter) and will reduce air and noise pollution, so it’s definitely in Auckland’s interest to support this.
It would certainly help the business case for a proper Hamilton passenger service and running the Overlander electrically into Auckland removes the need for a loco change (and removes a diesel-hauled service from Britomart).
Finally, every extra KM of the network that gets electrified makes doing the next bit more compelling. If you fill the northern gap, filling the southern gap and investing in some dual-voltage locos becomes a much more attractive prospect. Electric stock is generally cheaper to build and operate, so EMUs for Palmerston North (and maybe even the Overlander) could become affordable.
The cost to electrify the line is only ever going to increase the longer they delay the inevitable.
Avoiding where possible the need to change trains can only be positive for encouraging patronage growth. That said, changing trains is a reality now for many Pukekohe commuters and I guess it would still be if the line was electrified. I’m under no illusions that even with electrification all the way out there and fancy new EMUs that all services would go that far. Some would probably still turn around at Papakura.