The new electric trains have by in large been a fantastic addition to Auckland. This is not to say that there haven’t been implementation issues however they are things that I expect Auckland Transport, Transdev, CAF and Kiwirail will iron out over time – though perhaps not as fast as we’d all hope for. One issue that is already emerging and that will be much harder to fix is the issue of whether we have enough capacity or more specifically did AT buy enough trains?
Auckland is getting 57 new three-car electric trains or 171 carriages. That is up from what was around 148 carriages with the old diesel fleet however as each carriage is also longer it equates to an overall capacity increase of something like 40% (sorry can’t remember the exact number).
A single three-car EMU is meant to have a total capacity on part with one of the four-car trains they’ve replaced. In addition there should be enough trains that a number run as six-car trains with a capacity that eclipses anything we had before.
However despite this increase in capacity it seems we’re still having a lot of issues with trains that are over full. This tends to be on the fringes of the peak. It’s something that’s come up on social media a few times such as yesterday where trains on both the Southern Line and Western Line were affected by trains so full, they left hundreds waiting for a following service.
Come on @AklTransport, 3 car train during rush hour, full at Glen Eden. People turned away at New Lynn @TransportBlog pic.twitter.com/IL3FNoGZEr
— Konstantin Tchernov (@k_tcher) July 29, 2015
@k_tcher They want us to use PT so badly – but it's crap! My Tuesday ride: @pipkeane @AklTransport @TransportBlog pic.twitter.com/kQXmYkencn
— Rachel Kemp (@RachieMouse) July 29, 2015
And
@pipkeane @k_tcher @AklTransport @TransportBlog Ellerslie to Britomart. Only 5-10 got on at ellerslie. 120+ on platform. I was lucky!
— Rachel Kemp (@RachieMouse) July 29, 2015
There have been many more experiences like these in the last few weeks.
What’s more with the growth in patronage that’s been occurring and with what’s projected – from the fact they are better trains, that within a few years there will be the new bus network that will see a lot more people transferring to trains to complete journeys and with integrated fares – this will only become more and more common. Trains too full will put people off using them and that will affect the entire PT network.
I’m also aware that there are still a few more trains yet to enter the country, I imagine they could help a small amount – although AT are also meant to be increasing frequencies on the Western line to match those on the other main lines, six per hour.
With this in mind I put some questions to AT about capacity. Here’s the response I got
CAF has committed to supplying 46 EMUs for weekday operations. That number is sufficient for 12 of the 34 train sets required to operate the timetable to be doubled as 6-car trains. In determining where the 6-carriage trains would be best utilised, AT reviewed passenger demand profiles which show that in the morning passenger boardings and alightings peak 07:45am to 08:30am. Given this, and demand profiles observed from other sources the allocation to services of these 6-carriage trains was prioritised to those service scheduled to arrive at Britomart within this time band.
A 3-carriage EMU has slightly fewer seats than a 4-carriage SA train (234 seats on an EMU versus 250 seats on a 4-carriage SA), however an EMU is better equipped to cope with standees as passengers can move through the train rather than being “compartmentalised” in a single carriage. On the Western Line the planned capacity supplied during the peak hour under diesel operations (the four trains arriving at Britomart between 07:44am and 08:30am) was a 5-carriage SA train (312 seats) followed by three 6-carriage trains (384 seats each). These four services have been replaced by 6-carriage EMUs with seating capacity of 468 per train. The net result is that on the Western Line during the peak hour (four service arrivals at Britomart 07:44am to 08:30am) the EMU capacity has increased by 408 seats, or 28%, when compared to the planned capacity under diesel operations.
The two services either side of the peak hour were previously programmed with 4-carriage SA trains, which is more of less the equivalent to a single 3-carriage EMU. In periods of service disruption which results in delays or cancellations it is possible that the trains will not be operating in sequence as planned and a single EMU may turn up at about the time that a double EMU would normally operate. That will result in crowded conditions and may mean that some passengers may not be able to board. Over the next few weeks AT will be monitoring demand to determine the services that should be prioritised for 6-carriage trains once all 57 EMUs have been fully commissioned.
Unfortunately they didn’t answer about whether the final three sets due to arrive soon will be on top of the 46 mentioned above. There’s also no answer on where trains to increase frequency on the western line to six per hour – like promised would happen in 2010 – will come from. On that, I expect the answer is they won’t come from anywhere. Instead that AT will keep the western line frequency at the level it is now till after the CRL is built as it’s likely the works around Mt Eden will limit capacity during construction.
Could it be that the biggest risk to meeting the CRL targets is AT not buying enough trains to handle the demand and the disruption the CRL construction itself will cause. What is clear is we’ll need the CRL asap if we don’t want the rail network to cease up in the next few years.
Processing...
But assuming the find the money, surely they COULD buy more?
SHOULD they though?
I support the train network as much as the next person on here, but additional trains means higher running costs (even when those trains aren’t being used), more drivers, etc.
I think conversion to more metro style seating in the trains might be the most sensible option immediately.
Drivers wouldn’t be an extra cost as they would be used to lengthen existing trains from 3 to 6 cars in length rather than to run additional services (which can’t happen till the CRL)
‘I support the train network as much as the next person on here, but additional trains means higher running costs (even when those trains aren’t being used), more drivers, etc.’
The more people using the rail network, especially at the peaks, the higher its value is to everyone, especially those who never use it. And it reduces the cost per user as there are considerable fixed costs that reduce in proportion to every customer the network attracts, and increases in value, especially through decongestion effects. Auckland needs and deserves the highest possible value out of the rail right-of-way. More is very much more. Cost will periodically rise as more pile on [more trains, more services], but value increases and cost recovery through fares also increase. As it is now.
I thought the trains were designed so that you could rearrange the seats to face across the aisle to allow for more standing room and higher capacity?
Yes you’re right. I wrote to the Herald about this and AT replied that the trains can be fitted with lengthwise seating – metro style. This gives much better movement and space for standees.
How hard is it to buy a few more trains?
No.
The answer is no. AT have not bought enough to meet the demand that has already emerged, and certainly not enough to meet future demand.
Now, I don’t blame them for that. However now we have a clear picture of necessary demand it is up to us to rectify the situation. The Board of AT need to meet and consider this at the next meeting. I believe that we have production slots for EMUs available to us at existing prices, and it would be foolish not to exercise them.
If those slots are there, we really should take advantage of that.
Despite looking in lots of places I can’t find anywhere that says that there was an option to buy more.
Yep and Central Government can pay for them as well!
Additional frequency is the other solution to this. If they don’t have enough 6 car sets for peak, can they run more 3 car sets. If Britomart is the bottleneck can they run some trains on a different running pattern? I think the blog has canvassed some of these options previously.
Drivers and Guards potentially becomes an issue with having more trains running.
None of these issues are insurmountable, but they all need to be balanced correctly in order to deliver the right service at the right time.
If they have 3 car sets available then it is better and easier to join it up with another 3 car set to make a 6 car EMU that is after all what a 6 car EMU is (2x 3 car EMUs).
It sounds like they will need to order an additional 12x 3 car EMU’s to double the number of 6 car EMU sets (leaving 10x 3 car EMU sets).
As has been discussed previously as an interim measure they could order 22x centre carriage units to covert all 3 car EMU’s into 4 car EMU’s. This would give a total rail network capacity increase of 12% for relatively low cost (the centre carriages aren’t motorised so are a lot cheaper). Eventually the end carriages could be purchased to complete the set.
Running shorter trains more frequently doesn’t change capacity, still exactly the same number of units in the same amount of time. Actually, if you tried to run some trains on funny operating patterns you’d reduce the effective capacity because you’d be running trains to places where not a lot of people are going, leaving the remaining trains to be even more overcrowded.
I don’t see the point in trying to add a second trailer car to each set. The power cars might not even be able to haul it, the trains would only be 50% powered. Do you really want to take a whole lot of units out of service for who knows how long to modify them, then run them for a bit, then be forced to un-modify them again when you want to make six car consists.
Instead of buying three additional trailer cars and modifying three EMUs, why not just buy one extra EMU. Same capacity, no phaffing about, and far easier to implement.
Our EMUs were specifically built with extra traction and power so that they could one day climb up the CRL. Until that is built there isn’t an issue with adding on an unpowered car. Modifications are minimal. They are designed to be swapped out just like that so no issue there either.
Quite normal for an EMU to have only half the train powered here in the UK, and they run fine for most of the commuter routes here. Normal length is a unit of 4, and usually doubled as 8 (4×2). Some peak trains on the busy routes are already at 12 (3×4), or at 10 (2×5) on the South West Train network, over half of which are unpowered.
It’s taking roughly 1 day to add an extra carriage to the Class 378 (4 carriages to 5) at the depot. These are powered on one bogie per carriage, which is unusual for the UK, as normal practice is to have unpowered trailers. The reasoning behind this is to deal with the weight of pulling and accelerating a packed train (including standing passengers) up the gradients on the East London Line. The North London versions of the 378 were originally 3 carriages, extended to 4 a year or so later, and 5 carriages 5 years on. Unfortunately due to the train software, they don’t think they’ll be able to go to 6 carriages.
Not so much the software as the problem of extending the platforms at some of the stations, particularly Canada Water.
“…if we don’t want the rail network to seize up…”
Of course we didn’t buy enough trains, thats been clear for a long time – and basically its become an issue because CRL is delayed by the Government.
The 20 TPH limit at Britomart will mean a maximum of 20 EMUs (whether 3 or 6 car sets) can arrive or depart in any hour, multiply that by 2 for the AM 2 hour peak and thats 40 EMUs per peak. And that assumes no issues, breakdowns or anything else going wrong.
As a minimum capacity of 375 per EMU – then if all in the 2 hour peak period are 3 car EMUs = a mere 15,000 people able to get in/out of Britomart in that peak.
If those were all 6 car EMUS, the numbers per 2-hour peak doubles to 30,000 people (per 2-hour peak) who are able to get in/out via Britomart.
As not all trains are run as 6 car units, then the actual capacity of Britomart per peak hour is between 15K and 30K per peak, depending on the mix of 3/6 car EMUs that use it.
On the figures above 36 EMUs is the number AT will run in the peak. 12 of those can be 6 car EMUs, (making up that total of 48 (guaranteed by CAF to be “available”) EMUs).
So just 1/3rd of the fleet (12 EMUs) will be a 6 car EMUs and the remaining 2/3rds (24 EMUs) will be 3 car EMUs meaning likely capacity is (375*20+750*20) = 22,500.
Now some like Onehunga have to remain 3 car units. But the rest can and should be 6 car units.
But on pre-CRL Britomart restrictions, we can’t field enough 6 car EMUs.
We really need all Southern, Eastern and Western EMUs to be 6 car units and peak, and probably into the shoulder peak-period as well.
So all that means we are probably 12-20 EMU sets short. Being the number needed to make every peak EMU possible a 6 car unit.
Even that is only fiddling at the margins as we can’t make more trains go into or out of Britomart all we can do is make the ones we can longer.
And once that is done and trains fill up and CRL isn’t open yet then what else can be done?
With the new network coming onstream next year the current capacity problems will only get a lot worse.
Inside britomart tunnel, can we make it safer by adding more lighting and mirrors around the corners.
If the driver has good vision and as we know EMU train can break or accelerate faster, we could increase the speed limit inside the tunnel.
With faster speed inside the tunnel, we can increase the 20 TPH currently capped.
Train drivers rely on signals, not on mirrors and lighting.
The trains could drive themselves through those tunnels. Visibility isn’t the issue there, track space is.
Another solution, and one that is often proposed for roading, might be to manage demand by pricing peak travel at a much higher rate than off-peak travel. Having people stranded on railway platforms just wastes everybody’s time and is under-utilising our investment in stations, tracks, and trains..
Or better yet, price the off peak journey lower (50% less) than peak journeys – meaning those who don’t need to travel at peak are incentivised to avoid doing so.
Of course, all this is crazy – we don’t price cars off the road, we just spend big $ to build more of them.
Yet we’re willing to price commuters off the system for the sake of $100-$200m worth of EMUs. EMUs whose economic lifespan and congestion busting effects will exceed that of any road we could build for the same $.
Agree, and whilst I think discounted off-peak is a good idea, the reality is that only a small minority of people have the choice to start work earlier or later so really implementing such a system is unlikely to have much impact, and would soon be made redundant if the 20+% increases in patronage we are seeing continue, not to mention the increases due to the new bus network. They clearly need more EMUs and should make funding available to do so. It’s pretty ridiculous that if this was a road $100-200 million would be produced tomorrow by NZTA, however, we certainly won’t see that happen with the trains. Any slow down in growth due to overcrowding is actually want the government would prefer.
Discounted off-peak rates won’t make much of a difference to peak travel but it could make a huge difference to off-peak patronage which then has the benefit of reducing subsidies.
Sure, I was more meaning it’s not really useful as a way to deal with peak time overcrowding I’d guess.
Only if current pricing is held at peak and discounted off peak. They can’t increase fares anymore imo
Fares have actually reduced in recent years and that’s before adjusting for inflation
“Managing demand” is often a kinder way of saying “make the service so expensive/undesirable that less people use it”.
It’s not a very good way to manage any kind of system, let alone a public transit system.
Why is changing prices to smooth out peaks not a good way of managing a system?
In Singapore they have made the early morning travel free where those who tag on/off between the first train service and ~6:45 are not charged then ~6:45~7:45 50% off usual fare then at the peak of peak charged full fare
If the train is always full during peak hours, it is better to have ‘express’ train that skips some stations during peak hours.
An example is New Lynn Express, starts from New Lynn and stops only at major station to britomart. It will be win-win as commuter from new New Lynn will get a fast trip and the train can quickly return and serve another trip.
The faster the train from point A to point B, the more round trips it can go, so more throughput.
Also they could consider to speed up the train within safety limit.
Not really as the express train will likely catch up to the non-express very quickly. Esp on western line were dwell times often exceed times between stations.
There’s not a third track to allow overtaking of trains ahead of it, so wouldn’t work.
We don’t need a full third track, we just need a small passing lane.
A train using a “small passing lane” would require three paths (one for the stopped train plus one each in front of and behind it for the express). With two trains occupying three paths, adding such a facility would reduce capacity by a third. Not a good idea!
But all those commuters at the skipped stops don’t get any benefit from that – they can’t get on a full train, or one that doesn’t stop, and those who are on the express who want to alight at intermediate stations (which many on the Western line do) cannot. So really its a lose-lose for a lot of people and only benefits a few.
And right now we have a limit on the number of slots at Britomart so we have to maximise each slot which means express trains are not an option right now.
They could do some passenger behavior analysis first. Only get express train if the at-hop card statistics shows a consistent large number of people traveling between station A and B at a certain hour.
But Western line *never* shows that pattern of usage currently, and your idea is fine but is impractical for the current running/usage patterns.
You can do your own analysis 🙂
See this link (http://schiff.co.nz/interactive/aklrail/) from Aaron Schiff – visualising all the passenger trips on the Rail network for 1 year from 1 July 2013 to 30 June 2014, look at the trips on the western line in particular – click the All trips button. See the usage – thickness of the loops between stations show the passenger volumes boarding at one and then alighting at the other station.
Yes New Lynn has a lot of people who only get off at Britomart, but a lot do not do that.
There are lots of little hops between many stations there showing people are moving up or down the line by a few stops – that pattern precludes running expresses.
Same on the Southern Line too.
…except you need to pull a second train out of the timetable to give space for the first one to run express.
Some of this problem would be solved by people not congregating by the doors.
We’re also about to get another capacity problem when the CRL preliminary works start. We’re going to close almost all of the ground level of Britomart for three years: 15,000 people per hour need to arrive and leave either via Takutai Square, or the narrow bridge in the glasshouse at the back of the CPO. That’s going to be fun.
At least we’re doing it now, and not *after* we’d hit 20 million boardings per year.
Trains seem to take the same amount of time on the journeys, so not much different from the deisels at the moment.
How about variable length trains?
Some empty 3 carriage units sit at New Lynn and Otahuhu/Penrose. Have this join up with any full train that arrives from further out. Then when you get to Britomart only have people board on half of the out going train. Then detach the empty half at Otahuhu/New Lynn to repeat the process.
Every time you attach or detach a train on the running line you take up another path (the attached/detached part has to come from/go to somewhere), so this reduces capacity by 50% at that point. Not a good idea!
huh?
otahuhu or new lynn is where it sits “blocking the path” only of the next train to which it will then be attached, adding 50% to the capacity at that point
Is there any truth to the rumor that the entire ADL fleet will be refurbished now (and therefore, retained)? If so, what’s the plans with them now?
Ooooo. Nasty customer experience there. “We’re all electric! No wait. Is last week long enough to become retro-cool?”
The ADLs are for the Pukekohe shuttle, but 10 sets seems excessive. They would be useful as a surge-capacity (and Waitakere) if the entire fleet is kept.
Does AT own all the DMUs (ADLs and ADKs. Think the DCs and DFs hauling the SAs and SDs were leased from Kiwirail)? Theoretically could these be retained for peak use? Not ideal, as a major benefit to the new fleet is equipment standardisation, but better to bring them back than overcrowding dissuading use (at least until there is sufficient EMU capacity…..)
Part of the increase in capacity with the EMU’s was meant to be their more rapid acceleration would enable them to undertake more services in a given time than the diesels, but these advantages have not yet been achieved. Once the dwell time and speed issues are overcome, these could possibly free up one additional 3-car EMU per line, which could form an additional peak hour 6-car.
Perhaps it’s also a matter of bringing back some diesels for shoulder peak services while discussions take place between AT and the government. If the government won’t agree to funding their contribution to the purchase, the overcrowding would almost guarantee that patronage targets are not met.
Have to say, the Western certainly looked crowded today after 4! Saw three consecutive trains:
First a single EMU heading out West; “Wouldn’t want to be on that thing, that’s absolutely full. Maybe they need to boost that run a bit”
Then a double: “Those on the first train probably would have wanted to be on this one.. Oh no they wouldn’t! That’s even worse!”
And another double, packed in a similar manner.
Increasing the frequency of the services by dropping the dwell will help slightly. But the trains are getting full, and it takes a while to fulfil orders, ordering more now is probably a good move. Even if a few sit empty for parts of the day initially, as patronage (and hopefully, the network) grows, it clears peak loads which reduces the risk of people giving up on it, and capacity is futureproofed to take advantage of the CRL and further usage increases
As crowded as those trains all were, all those who did drive or bussed that day probably had a worse time of it in terms of journey times thanks to motorway and surface congestion.
6 car EMUs need to start running from 3pm for the afternoon peaks, to cater for the schools, then the extended PM peak.3 car EMUs just can’t carry enough people on the western line given its current less than ideal frequency.
In addition to the $500m new EMU fleet, we also invested in a $200m SA car fleet in recent years. I’ve been saying for years, the SA fleet will be needed unless more EMU’s are purchased in the short-to-medium term.
Your comparison between 148 carriages old fleet, and 171 carriages new fleet, ignores the fact that, excluding the older ADK’s and SX’s, AT does in fact have a fleet of 295 carriages.
If a capacity shortage eventuates, it will not be because we don’t have enough EMU’s. It will be because AT significantly slashed its 295 carriage fleet to a mere 171, at a time when it is trying to grow patronage to levels that will in fact ultimately require even more than 295 cars.
If the sale of the SA cars proceeds, AT will have some explaining to do, and judging by the public comments on what is happening now on the network, it will be in the near future.
What would you haul them with? The existing diesel locomotives we just gave back to KiwiRail, or something else?
I think keeping the SAs could be an idea longer term, if AT continue with their current plan to run a west-south service after the CRL opens. The SAs can’t go in the tunnel, but on a west-south run they wouldn’t need to.
Just using the fleet numbers listed above, the max number of diesels sets that could be operational (in reality an impossibility)at any one time would be 43. That’s 43 diesel sets vs 57 electric sets. Obviously an increase, but we’re still seeing the daily crush. Frequency seems to be the issue, rather than capacity.
If we get more carriages I recommend fixing platform heights and increase them to even 900mm so we can get flat carriages. The new trains should also have complete metro style sitting so that more people can fit. As for the freight train problem they should consider investing in better higher ones in the process
Platform heights are already fixed around EMU specifications though. They enable level boarding.
yes surely the se pragmatic approach would be to mothball a few SAs that could be readily brought back rather than sell them to africa for peanuts and then have to hastily make other arrangements.
Turn around Geoff and face the future. Let go of those ghastly old stinkers, we need more trains, yes, but not relics fit for scrap. They’ve done their job well, now it’s time to move on.
Take a deep breath of the fresher air and save your nostalgia for trips to museums or Mainline Steam.
The SA cars are less than a decade old Patrick, not “relics”. We spent $200m buying them, so to get rid of them only to have to hurredly make other arrangements, makes no sense.
It’s a pity you wish to mock criticism of a carriage fleet reduction from 275 to 171 carriages, at a time when its now obvious more than 171 will be needed well before the CRL opens. By all means, get more EMU’s, but until that happens, we need to keep the carriages we already own, to guarantee no capacity issues eventuate. $200m was a significant investment, only paid off as recently as 2013. It shouldn’t be tossed out so hastily.
Quick look on wiki says they’re a bit older than 10 years, some being 70’s build. However, your point does remain of they have a lot of life left in them. Wouldn’t call them ghastly either. The only issue with them would be trying to negotiate some locos back from Kiwirail to haul them (although, wiki also lists a few EF electric locos as stored; they’d do nicely. Keeps the all-electric advertising valid too)
Bringing the DMUs back to the main operating fleet wouldn’t need talking with Kiwirail as they’re Auckland-owned, but I somehow think that may get criticism
It all comes down to when can each option come and how much does it cost. More EMUs right now at low price would be the ideal
They were stripped to the frame, then rebuilt with new components. Essentially new builds, dating from 2004 to 2010.
Can’t run the EF locos in Auckland anyway (at least not without extensive modifications) Basically they don’t have a proper circuit breaker and the Auckland network is a lot more powerful so they would fry themselves. If KR doesn’t stupidly replace them with diesels then the new ones would be fine on the Auckland network.
@ Bruce: “Can’t run the EF locos in Auckland anyway (at least not without extensive modifications) Basically they don’t have a proper circuit breaker and the Auckland network is a lot more powerful so they would fry themselves”
This is an urban myth. There is nothing to stop the EF’s being used in the Auckland Metro area, except the fact that a greater priority is to overhaul them and retain them on the NIMT where they are badly needed. Hopefully the dieselization proposal will be seen off.
We brought the electrics to replace the old trains Geoff, same thing as in Wellington with them getting rid of their old trains once the new ones arrived. Also they may have been rebuilt a decade ago but many felt poor quality to me and we know they were having frequent issues with things like doors. It would also mean either having to run diesels again which is the last thing we want or retrofitting them to remove the generator out of the SD carriage if we could find some suitable electric locos. Also multiple fleets adds to costs and would have different performance profiles which isn’t ideal. Lastly SA sets are much worse for those who aren’t as able bodied as most due to the lack of level boarding.
Better to sell them and use the funds to buy some more EMUs to lengthen existing services.
The efficiencies of an EMU only fleet are worth much more than recycling efforts. Nothing to debate here; it’s just time to order the next batch of sets.
No denying the EMUs would be more efficient overall, the issue is how long would it take for a new order to get through? The issue of overcrowding appears to be here now, and letting that go on too long would harm efforts to get more people to use the rail network. Hence, an interim solution could be worth investigating, especially where equipment is still owned and just doing nothing, in case the situation continues to deteriorate prior to any additional EMUs arriving.
Depending on how much tooling and equipment is AM-specific, with CAF winding down from the initial order, it could take a while to pull through the supply chain, even assuming other orders are not already booked for their production space. Could take quite a while, excluding inevitable delays on this end just getting council and government to agree Auckland needs more.
The best time to order the next batch of sets was 12-18 months ago, the next best time to order them is now, the worst time to order them is when you’ve run out of capacity on the ones you have – like we will have in 6 months from now.
Yes exactly; it rather like the answer to the question about when is the best time to plant a tree, in the absence of time travel the answer is always: Now.
There are still more sets to enter service, but it does look like capacity will soon become a limiting issue. Which is a big shame for the whole city.
One could not deny the fact that the re-introduction of ADKs, or indeed SAs on peak services, along with all their attendant costs and reliability issues, would send a strong message to get on and order more EMUs….
Luckily It hasn’t reached Japan point. However in Japan despite the crowded train people still try to deal with it because apparently the employer allocates funds just so you, the employee will take PT to work. In other words its added on top of your pay.
Britomart and Newmarket cannot cope with the amount of trains now without decent revamps and I think this is why AT have held off more West services. However if they link in platform 4 to the west line which would improve flexibility they could implement half trips from New Lynn to Newmarket to increase passenger capacity from there in and boost room for those from out lying West platforms.
And getting rid of perfectly good servicable SA sets that could have been used to increase capacity during peak was not a good idea. They are there now and paid for and I for one can’t handle anymore rate increases for AT to go paying near 10 million for each additional EMU set. So there’s plenty of rolling stock, now all is required is the will.
The will, plus the locomotives, maintenance contract, drivers, train managers…
The loco’s, maintenance department, train managers and drivers are there already. And even better if KiwiRail get the contract to run the metro services it should be even more seamless.
“The loco’s, maintenance department, train managers and drivers are there already” – not any more: they’re all moving (or have moved) on to different things, eg freight for the locos, the AMs for the crews.
They are there, virtually all SA drivers remain as do the TM’s. And most of the DC locos are supurfluous as the DL class have long since taken over since they were freight loco’s. Indeed many were revived from the Hutts “rotten row” when the ARC needed more trains. So logistically its very easy.
One of the reasons the rail network has had such bad performance recently is due to the multiple fleets and having some trains that can only be driven by a subset of drivers etc. Also the loco’s performance was declining and the last thing we want is more noisy and stinky diesels back on the Auckland network
Personally rebuilding the ADL’s that seem to recirculate exhaust fumes into the passenger compartments and are loud and generally unpleasant inside is a waste of money. But my argument is whilst we have a capacity problem and a council that is clearly short of money that the perfectly good SA sets are a good filler. And I am very aware that actual locomotive failures was not the main issue, they are like grandpa’s axe, it was all sorts of often smaller things owing to the loss of maintenance staff.
If they decided to buy some more carriages, or more trains, then surely the most important thing to be asking is: how long would it take to get the extra carriages/trains here? What is the build time – what is the shipping time – has the train-maker got room in their schedule to make some more? These things aren’t just sitting on shelves at a depot – AT need to plan ahead for the growth that is obviously already happening now… Growth in railway systems is red-hot right now, and most manufacturers are already at capacity, with lengthy waiting lists on their order books. Need to act now!
The CRL was supposed to be accompanied by an additional order of trains, but that was nerfed along with Newton Station. I thought that was a big mistake.
That was for improving Onehunga services to 6 car EMUs, with double tracking of Onehunga to all service improvements.
But we need those extra EMUs more than ever right *now* – precisely because CRL is delayed.
This is a very simple situation. And it is very good news. More people are turning up more often, and more consistently, to use the trains than was predicted by the [out of date] transport models and by most of the experts in our agencies. I recall that in the CCFAS MoT stated that the eastern line will never, yes never, hit capacity. Areas it travels through are too posh to train, and no one will transfer, I believe are the arguments and assumptions buried at the heart of the modelling.
Anyway, it simply means we need more trains. The letter above from AT weakly claiming they’re ‘coping’ fails to say how they will handle further growth. We simply need more trains, and enough to run six car sets on the 3 main lines at 10 min frequencies for two hours at the peaks. The only other alternative to turn people away, essentially capping the the rail right of way at an artificially low level. And remember the peak rail user is the most valuable one from a systems perspective as this is when the roads are stuffed too. This is when we get the most value from the rail ROW for road users; more car users switching to rail at the peaks is a big win for everyone.
There is 100mil in the LTP earmarked for more trains before the end of this decade. This needs to be brought forward and needs to be started now: An additional loan, perhaps. Back of the envelope math suggests that means around 20 more 3-car sets are required [current ones have been 8mil per 3 car set]. Perhaps a standing order for CAF to fill whenever it is efficient for them to do so…? Time to take this ‘good problem’ to government.
Agreed,
We need some thoughts on timing though, given how it took CAF 3 years to deliver 57 EMU sets, I assume it will take 12-18 months to deliver 20 of them. And CAF only delivered as fast as they did because they had a less than full order book so started on our EMUs soon as they could. Now I think the order book is fuller so we’d be at the back of the queue.
So, we need to plan how to maximise what we have now – my idea of ordering the EMU sets and getting the trailer cars made and shipped first would allow 20 3 car EMUs to become 4 car EMUs until the additional powered cars for the front and end of the EMU set arrive, then it can be made up into a 3 car EMU set at that time. But I think CAF could make 20 trailer cars much quicker than they could make 6 EMU sets.
And don’t forget these EMUs arrive as 3 separate carriages anyway that need to be “mated” together at Wiri to become a 3 car EMU so its not like we are wasting too much effort by goign this way.
Yes the very first step should be to make 4 car EMU’s. It would be the fastest and cheapest (both upfront and operationally) method of increasing capacity whilst being future-proofed.
Are the infrastructure (eg signalling, stabling), the trains (eg operating systems, power/weight ratio, ability to add another car), the manufacturer (eg manufacturing slots), the operator (eg mixing 3, 4 and 6 cars sets), the safety regime (a different train) all ready for the changes required for the addition of a variant of the current trains? If not, more of the same would be quicker, and certainly easier.
Shouldn’t be an issue, treat a 4 car EMU as if it were a 6 car EMU and since it is shorter no issue.
As for the manufacturer – that is a question to be posed regarding capacity to build more. For a large company like that churning out non-motorised carriages shouldn’t be an issue and they would probably welcome the extra business.
For the entire fleet to be either 6 car EMU (with the numbers required in the post) with the remainder being upgraded to 4 car EMU would require 33 cars. In reality this could probably be reduced to around 25 (22 required each day plus 3 spares to be swapped with the EMU’s entering/leaving maintenance etc, or even less if you leave some sets running as 3 car EMUs).
Well, it’s good to be an optimist…
But: for “churning out non-motorised carriages” read “re-opening a production line to build a small number of cars to a unique design”; “treat a 4-car EMU as if it were a 6-car EMU”, but it isn’t and you can’t, as the maintainer, operator, access provider and regulator will be well aware.
Particularly in a heavily regulated environment like rail in NZ, doing something different, like creating and operating a new non-standard type of train, is always going to be much harder than doing the same thing again.
EMU trailer cars are not a unique design – we’re talking about ordering the same design of EMUs just delivering them trailer car first – to give AT options for how they use them.
As for “special certification”, sure EMUs with 2 trailer cars would have a different performance profile to those 3 car ones, but these 3 car EMUs are super powerful – designed to haul themselves *and* a fully loaded EMU up the CRL incline to at least the next station, if not all the way out of the CRL tunnels. Thats powerful as the CRL incline is way steeper than any existing parts of the rail network.
Yes a 4 car EMU wouldn’t do be able that but you see the CRL is NOT open yet, so we don’t have to handle that problem for now and once CRL opens the game changes completely – but CRL is not here for 5 years.
The problem we do have right now is not enough *long* trains – and given CAFs lead times to build more 3 car EMU sets AND deliver them to the other side of the world, you’ve got think outside the box for bit as to how to handle the interim period where demand is up and train numbers are not. Like right now and for the next few years.
Did KR have to get lengthy certifications to run SA/SD and/or SX sets? I doubt it, more likely it was adding more and more carriages to a previously certified smaller consist attached to any old diesel loco until it was long enough to fit in the station still, show the doors all work and no one is going get killed – then ask MoT to rubber stamp it as ok for use. Job done. We don’t need lengthy certifications if a 3 car EMU is safe, why is a 4 car EMU not as safe or at least still safe within the existing margins?
*All* the parts of the 4 car EMU are already certified, all thats needed is a variant for the 4 car “stretch” EMU set up as a temporary option pre-CRL until sufficient P and A cars are available from CAF to upgrade the 4 car EMU to a full 6 car unit.
Meantime, it can add another 30% passenger load increase on a bare 3 car EMUs – of which we have a lot more around than 6 car EMUs.
The very first step is to order some more EMUs, without that being done, everything else is pie in the sky.
The only decision then is how many to order, and in what order to deliver the various pieces – trailer cars first or ship EMUs as before in sets of 3.
CAF don’t care, they’ll make whatever they’re asked to make in whatever order.
As for Mike’s objections – they’re status quo arguments but status quo won’t cut the mustard.
NZTA and KR can simply adjust to the times we find ourselves in – Rail going through the roof, KR either has to help AT deliver the passengers it needs to – on the **same number** of trains or their freight business will hit the buffers in Auckland.
NZTA, also has skin in the game – without AT being able to deliver longer trains to minimise the Britomart bottlenecks impact, they will find that their precious motorway system grinds to a complete halt morning and night. And if KR’s business chokes then that freight will be road bound too – making for a bigger and more expensive problem to fix.
And the Government needs to try a different kind of thinking than the one previously which got us into this mess in the first place.
No matter how you slice it, more trains is the answer to the current problem. Post CRL the trains will still be needed. So its not a patch up job. Just being proactive for once.
The most cost effective and probably good solution would be to get the availability up. 48 EMU’s out of 57 is only 84%, while normal industry standard is 93% for EMU’s. Ask CAF what it would cost to get it to morning peak 95% availability and at the same time make a deal for extra carriages. This increase in availability can get you an extra 6 EMU’s during the peak. The big question is off course if CAF could make it very reliable and at what price.
With extra carriages I would look at a fast option to lengthen around 40% of the fleet to four as soon as possible and to five cars in a few years. The first lengthening is relative low cost and easy. Testing can be done during the holidays so as soon as they arrive they could be put into service.
The second would be a powered car and is necessary for CRL. Traction force with 3 powered cars and 2 unpowered will be good enough for CRL and cheaper than 6 cars. It would also give you the option to create 8 cars and at the same time a five car will have around 91% of the capacity of two coupled 3 car EMU’s. Also capital cost will be far lower per passenger because cab cars expensive (& heavy) and extra expensive per m2 that can generate revenue.
There are many, many flaws in this silly 4-car argument, but let’s just look at one. Where are you going to store these 4-car sets? All the depots are designed to corral pairs or trios of 3-car units. One 4-car unit at Wiri takes up the same space as two 3-car units. You just wasted 2 cars’ worth of stabling space. Same at Britomart and nearly every other platform. They won’t be able to go on the Onehunga line. Pairs of them won’t be able to go anywhere. They won’t fit in the service depot spaces. Wiri depot is jammed between two motorway overbridges – there is no more space to expand.
Well Loco tell me where you think AT should intend to store the 12+ extra EMUs that AT will need to order to cater for the growth then?
Gee, let me see, they’d have to go in the same (additional) place where any 6 car EMU sets would go, and instead thats where the 4 car EMUs would stand right?
And oh yeah, once the two ends of the trailer car arrive (the A and P cars) well it would become a 6 car EMU in short order too so that space needs to be reserved.
So forget about 4 car EMUs as bastard 3 car units and look at them and treat them as “runt sized” 6 car EMUs, waiting for their growth spurt (the A and P cars).
Then the problem goes away completely, just as much as it would if you have a whole 20 extra 3 car EMUs arriving needing to be stored.
“….enough to run six car sets on the 3 main lines at 10 min frequencies for two hours at the peaks.”
Precisely. Network and stock purchase decisions should of course be undertaken in the same way that major roads have been delivered for decades – define the future service level to be achieved and invest to deliver it, instead of just allocating an undersized budget and seeing how far it stretches. Roads procured on the basis that the trains were bought would be a farce.
Definitely a “good problem” for government to readily step in an solve.
I find it baffling that the above comments stream, as ever in PT debates, all the creativity goes into trying to work out ways to not spend on capex. Very little effort goes into trying to understand the value of the options.
4-car sets for example; why bother? It would overly complicate stabling and marshalling for minimal extra capacity and certainly poor optimisation of scarce slots at Britomart and Newmarket. We clearly need those peak slots with as much capacity as possible, and we will need those additional trains anyway,; post-CRL, and post Puke electrification. And eventually [after a change in or of government] for the Mangere/Airport line.
Do it properly, order full sets, keep up the training programme, and get to work on optimising the stabling options for the larger fleet. I see this as straightforward and fully non-controversial. This need vindicates the government and the Council’s decisions and investments in double tracking [Project Dart] and electrification, and the planning for further expansion. This is a huge success that can become even more valuable by being able to continue. 100-160mil on building a properly sized fleet is ‘good money after good’, to twist a saying. To limit rail’s potential contribution to AKL’s economic performance simply to save this sum after investing so much in the network would be crazily bad management and governance. Especially given the huge sums justified on traffic projections that turn out to be wildly over-stated. This is a sure thing.
Additionally I also believe that aggressive discounting should be implemented for off peak services as there is plenty of capacity there, but not instead of serving every possible peak time willing rider, as the whole city benefits of these journeys are very high.
You’ve said it yourself many times Patrick, best is the enemy of better. Yes we want the best PT system in the world, but we have real short term challenges, slashing off peak prices won’t do much to alleviate peak usage, but will reduce the overall subsidy.
We all agree that EMUs even off peak should run as 6 car units. Its how we get there, and how soon that we differ on.
It isn’t at all clear that discounting off peak journeys will negatively affect revenue. There is a good chance that it would be responded to with higher uptake, introducing more people to the option, utilising existing zero-cost existing capacity, and either outsetting the revenue loss or possibly growing it. One thing is for sure though, current models have no way of telling us anything real about the likely outcome.
I think you and Greg both just said the same thing in a different way.
“Anyway, it simply means we need more trains”
We already have them. Modern carriages built as recently as 2010. Just need to use them.
Of course it would be nice to be awash with cash so much that you can afford to dispose of modern carriages only to have to buy more modern carriages, but that isn’t the case.
Totally agree Geoff.
Agree. Get those SA’s back into service meantime, even if it means running them into the Strand instead of Britomart if the latter simply has no more available paths. It will be a crime if these sets get sold off for a pittance overseas, or cut up for scrap.
And for goodness sake can’t we get over this sudden aversion to diesels having even a small continuing presence at Britomart. Sure they are not ideal, but neither are they the bogey they are being made out to be.
It’d be nice if AT communicated what the overall options were. They don’t have to commit to completing any particular option, but it would allow all PT users to understand what the possibilities are.
Potentially the information is in the long term plans, but I’d suggest that these are readily digestible and need to be more info graphic like in their presentation.
What is really wrong with the original proposal under Labour of using electric locomotives with the SA sets ? They would only be used in the peak and surely get another decade out of them. Obviously there is a cost of electric locomotives.
If this is right, there are three electric locos already sitting doing nothing. Could allow for a temporary increase in capacity while determining how long it would take for extra EMUs to arrive without pulling the DCs and DFs back
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_EF_class_locomotive
They can’t operate on the Auckland Electric network, not because they aren’t 25kV AC but because the short circuit protection mechanism in them is not compatible.
So that idea is simply not a starter.
That’s a shame. Guess it’s the old “if it looks too good, it probably is”
I know the EF’s are 30 years old but I wonder if it is economicall to upgrade/modernise them?
Even if you did you’d have a 30 year old locomotive.
Why not spend the few extra $ and buy a modern design loco that can be maintained by CAF if thats the path you want to take.
But buying EMUs is the preferred path, and I believe it can be done reasonably cheaply and practically now to help fix the current/immediate short term crowding problems.
Remembering if the CRL was open [or on track to open soon] what we have would now with 57 sets, would probably suffice even with the projected passenger numbers for a few years.
So lets stop blaming AT for this mess and sheet the blame home to where it really belongs – the National Government.
The reason for saying the EFs was just as an idea for a quick-to-implement temporary capacity increase while waiting for more EMUs. If they’re not compatible, no point bothering, however. The ideal is, obviously, a standardised fleet (ie, more EMUs), and they would be available quicker than new electric locos as the design exists. But if the issue grows and more EMUs won’t be available soon, it’s back to the diesels (the old fleet was older than 30) for a boost or hope crowded trains don’t dissuade too many.
Not blaming AT for the mess. The blame lies with this government and numerous previous ones for neglecting Auckland’s transport issues.
There is no need to blame anyone, just a need to fix it. Conservative decisions were made in the knowledge that more could always be ordered. And that’s where we’re at, this is good news for the city; we have the opportunity to increase the workload that the rail corridor is capable of, with a small additional investment. For decades the argument has been that no one wants to use it. That argument is no proven to be the nonsense it always was, simply through the provision of better, more frequent services.
Remember, all the modelling didn’t predict these numbers turning up. Sadly the same models are still being used despite the fact that they are clearly broken.
And of course there are still a great many middle aged men who only ever drive making these decisions so their instincts are also proving to be inaccurate.
An advantage of using the 3 EF’s that are currently excess to KiwiRail requirements is that they are powerful enough to haul of 6-car trains, yet likely to be available at a much lower lease cost than the diesel locomotives capable of hauling 6-car trains (DFT/DFB). These locos appear to be quite valuable for other KiwiRail operations. Upgrading the short circuit protection mechanism of the EF’s should be doable.
With 3 x 6-car trains hauled by EF’s, it would represent a 10% increase in capacity over the 57 x 3-car EMU’s. Using the uncommitted ADL’s would be a further 8% of capacity. Better than nothing while waiting for more EMU’s, but what is that if the 48% patronage increase on the Eastern line is replicated on the Western ? It buys only a few months of growth.
I don’t know where this rumour that the Class 30’s can’t run on the Auckland network originated but it is unfounded. However, whether it is wise to steal these locos from where they are likely to be increasingly needed is another matter. They should be overhauled and retained as the mainstay of the North Island Main Trunk, which of course should have the electrification filled in between Hamilton and Papakura. A government with a sensible transport policy would see this as a no-brainer.
+1 Talk of EF passenger trains in Auckland or any additional vehicles is irrelevant until certain economic arguments are addressed.
As Patrick Reynolds has pointed out elsewhere it is an unfortunate thing that Treasury led economic analysis of rail in New Zealand including Auckland is based on operating costs, and capital costs – the financial cost, not the economic value derived. The $17 per trip economic value to motorists from each rail passenger journey really needs to be publicised by the AT’s board, management and marketing. I have a suspicion, that under “current management thinking”, AT’s train fleet will be locked down to the current EMU fleet size, along with supporting ADL fleet unless: (a) there is a significant improvement in the operating ratio, and (b), there is greater buy-in from the movers and shakers of that $17 per trip economic value.
But there is an rapidly improving farebox recovery at work, the subsidy rate is diving under the twin effects of more riders and lower operating costs of new electric trains. These add two strong reasons to 1. work hard to deliver as much capacity as possible to meet latent demand, and 2. to completely ignore calls from nostalgists and false-economisers to return the inefficient, polluting old dungers to work.
Patrick, I hear you and largely agree. There is no doubt that the old diesel fleet were incurring rapidly increasing maintenance costs as aging diesel locomotives were subjected to the sort of operating patterns that they were never designed for. However, your statement indicates that there is a certain amount of hysteria on both sides of the SA-SD argument – ‘to completely ignore calls from nostalgists and false-economisers to return the inefficient, polluting old dungers to work’.
If patronage is going to continue to grow as fast as it appears, then it would be foolish to give away the SA-SDs to some African nation for a pittance without some careful analysis and review.
If necessary, bring them back (…or the ADKs for that matter) for another couple of years along with the following dialogue – ” yes sir mr gummint, we have achieved your 20 million target, but because you wouldn’t give any more new trains we had to use these old clunkers to do it. Here is the difference in cost compared to what we could have achieved with a few extra EMUs, had you helped us out back in 2015″. This approach completely isolates those extra costs while allowing the patronage growth to continue, if further peak period capacity is indeed seen as the best way to get to that 20 million.
It was just an idea depending on how urgently Auckland needs more capacity. The ideal would be to simply add more EMUs as soon as it is proven more capacity is needed. Unfortunately the world is not ideal; they would take time to get from “required” to “in service”, and how long would be a deciding variable. There is also how long can overcrowded trains be accepted before people return to cars due to not being able to get in the door?
It looked like there were EF locos surplus, and the carriages are surplus and still ok; this could have been an idea for using existing assets which simply are gathering storage costs while waiting for additional EMUs to arrive (NB: not long term, a stop-gap measure), and avoiding passengers at the hop gates being deafened every time a diesel comes in engine-first. As this does not seem the case, it is probably not worth the cost of restoring retired EFs which would be re-retired as soon as additional EMUs arrived.
At the same time, if the push for capacity becomes a shove, then limited diesel operations may be a route for short-term capacity which could be considered. It just depends at what point “worst case” switches from available additional capacity being non-ideal to lack of capacity, until the ideal capacity is ready to re-replace them; leave options on the table until they can be safely eliminated. We still have diesel buses which shoot their exhausts straight out at pedestrians which seem to get less attention.
I wonder if AT were to talk to the Education facilities about hours of lectures they could reduce the peak. I recall reading somewhere about the education facilities in I think it was a Canadian City where the University gained lower fairs for it’s students by moving the daily start time so travel was off peak.
Maybe the Govt who is interested in Education as a business may see some merit in AT being a good way of supporting that industry as well.
Certainly i see the students as a big part of the peak travel problem.
What is the lead time to get extra EMU’s if needed? I can imagine they will find money to get more when it’s way obvious politically they need them and half the PT users go back to cars. Question though…are these sardine squashed trains after there have been missed services for whatever reason earlier in the day? I like the idea of some services running West to South…skipping New Market etc etc that Patrick outlined a year back in the comments after the Newton station was dropped. Is this still possible?
Wellington currently has 73 two-car units (48 Matangi, 25 Ganz-Mavag) giving 146 cars. With the 35 new Matangi II units in service to replace the Ganz, that’s 166 cars, and with the 24 Wairarapa carriages, that’s 190 cars! In other words, Wellington has more trains for fewer passengers!
Wellington also has more lines on which it has to operate trains, so, yes, that’s entirely logical that it needs more trains….
Also I believe the capital conection fleets (8 S cars) is to come back under the metro umbrella as part of the joint councils’ rescue package.
Can we add one extra SA onto an EMU three car set, or maybe two extra SAs onto a six car set? That way increasing the capacity until the next order is fulfilled?
There’s no driving cab on the SA’s, only the SD’s; otherwise you’ll have to run around at the end of the line. Then there are other compatibility issues with couplings and driving systems…
Simple, longitudinal seating it all carriages, and get a further 20-30 sets to run the entire fleet as 6 car as soon as possible. Network is going to go nuts with new bus network and Pakuranga section of SE busway in the next few years, and we need more trains before that happens!
Have they ever seriously considered moving in the future (or past) the New Market station north so the swap driver ends & reversing doesn’t need to be done? If we had that now pre CRL would make a big difference wouldn’t it? Not so ideal for New Market passengers itself but great for the rest of the network?
There should be no reason why Auckland Transport can’t run express/limited stops services from the furthest stations on the network. After all, such services work perfectly well on the Wellington system, particularly with trains from Kapiti which admittedly is much further out (60km.) than Papakura.
Even running limited stops diesel trains all the way from Pukekohe (cf. similar trains from Wairarapa to Wellington) shouldn’t be a problem.
The problem with too many passengers trying to travel just outside the peak times suggests that many of these people are students. Some co-ordination between the transport authority and the universities in order to re-schedule lectures and tutorials, perhaps to the early evenings, would shift the demand for transport to currently less used services, which is always a plus in a business with very high fixed capital costs.
Anthony please have a look at the number of tracks entering Wellington and the Wellington terminus in particular, and the number of freight movements in Welly v AKL, then check the number of current and proposed passenger services, and come back to us with your findings.
Two tracks are not enough to add meaningful express services when even current passenger and freight movements are not even being reliably met, let alone the planned growth.
Four tracking the NIMT [and they are just inching towards a third now] would be a great help but still doesn’t lift capacity at the Newmarket and Britomart bottlenecks, or on the Eastern Line, which is currently shared with all rail traffic to the Port.
Don’t quite understand your point Patrick. The number of tracks entering Wellington Station has nothing to do with the running of express services. Expresses simply run between stoppers and take less time to do the run. No overtaking of trains happens in Wellington.
The difference between Wellington and Auckland is that Wellingon has up to now not mandated a 10-minute stopping service at all stations. This is what precludes express running in Auckland. If some stations were dropped to a 20-min freq, alternate trains could then run non-stop past them. A 20-minute all-stops headway would allow ample time for expresses to fit between. Ideally Western Line expresses would also skip Newmarket and its painful reversal-process. Wellington is also prepared to compromise ‘clock-face perfection’ in order to accommodate freight paths where necessary.
Auckland could do this but it would mean departing from rigid adherence to the 10-min pattern everywhere. Surely there are some lesser-used stations that could be adequately served with a 20-min frequency – which when all is said and done is still pretty good. Or if all stations are sacrosanct regardless of patronage, then why is AT considering closing Westfield and Te Mahia altogether? Which is better? A 20-min service or no service at all?
Well I disagree with you about the value of missing stations. If a station is so poorly patronised [Te Mahia, Westfield] then drop them completely. Otherwise serve the people along the route as richly as possible. Which is better for whom is the real question, no stopping at Westfield and Te Mahia may, on balance be better for more than any kind of frequency at these 2 under used stations. But there’s nowhere else I’d drop.
Expresses are great for those at the end of the line and a nightmare of uncertainty for everyone else. Ridership has boomed as we have moved towards a turn-up and go Metro model over an infrequent know the timetable and never alter your plans commuter one.
Wellington is not the model.
But with four tracks like much Sydney, Brisbane, and Melbourne more freight and expresses and intercities could indeed be added.
Point of view, certainly. And an age-old debate. Balancing the smaller needs of the many with the greater needs of the few.
I wouldn’t mind betting that before too long Western Line expresses will eventuate. Too many passengers too seriously inconvenienced at the moment, and not just at the end of the route. Several major intermmediate stations would benefit here.
Indeed if the paths could be found in/out of Britomart, 10 minute stopping frequencies could actually be interspersed with 10 minute expresses NOW (i.e. 5 min frequencies at major stops!). Expresses would depart Britomart just AFTER the stopper, ‘overtake’ it by skipping Newmarket, skip selected other stations and arrive at Swanson just before catching up the previous stopping service. Journey time 10 min less.
At a pinch, could be done today, using SA sets from the Strand!!
Certainly easy once the CRL is in place, and by then the Newmarket reversal will no longer be an issue.
I’ll take that bet. They can’t even get to 6tph on the western. Anyway we know that the western has the highest number of intra line movements on the network why would you skip customers out?
OK once there’s electrification to Puke and at least the third main on the NIMT, there probably a case for a limited stopper to Puke:
Perhaps the P-Train: Panmure, Papatoetoe, Papakura, Pukekohe.
Till then, expresses are not happening, and nor are the old stinkers.
I think the question comes down to what problem are we trying to solve.
The concept of adding retired SA carriages pulled by anything especially diesel locomotives is unpalatable. The concept of patronage growth being constrained by lack of capacity due to a fail to adequately plan is equally unpalatable.
I think the problem we’re trying to solve is how do we get to 5-10 minute frequency across the network (including the CRL) in the most sustainable way?
Everyone who has commented has the success of AKL rail in mind, whether you personally agree with them or not is all about personal opinion.
At some point reality will intrude and planners at various government levels will have to start taking PT in AKL seriously, rather than the lip service we’re seeing at the moment.
“. . . .and nor are the old stinkers. . . .”
Haha. You may remember that last time we had a surge of demand in Wellington (and consequent embarrassing shortage of rolling stock), such was the level of desperation that we resorted to pulling retired EE units out of Ferrymead museum and re-habilitated the Eo locos ex-mothballs to pull carriages. This was 2009!
There’s life in those still perfectly-serviceable SA’s yet.
Meanwhile they happily continue to work the Puke Shuttle, even as we argue!
Westfield is poorly patronised because trying to find it is almost impossible and it doesn’t serve it biggest potential market.