search the site
 daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > Continental Forums > OZScrapers > Local Projects & Discussions > KiwiScrapers

KiwiScrapers Kia Kaha » Auckland | Wellington | Christchurch | Hamilton | Regional Cities



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old April 5th, 2017, 08:17 AM   #301
JeffRef
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 346
Likes (Received): 60

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=11832387

Milky Bar Kid rides again?
JeffRef no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old April 5th, 2017, 12:21 PM   #302
birchey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Christchurch
Posts: 172
Likes (Received): 62

Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffRef View Post
Or was it the Crunchie Bar ad?
birchey no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 6th, 2017, 04:39 AM   #303
JeffRef
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 346
Likes (Received): 60

You are correct of course. Must be getting old.
JeffRef no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 18th, 2017, 08:38 AM   #304
JeffRef
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 346
Likes (Received): 60

KiwiRail buys the Kaitaki passenger ferry 'to secure future of Cook Strait link'

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/north-isla...ectid=11857875
JeffRef no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 19th, 2017, 08:44 PM   #305
Rob73
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 437
Likes (Received): 151

I surprised they didn't go for a new build, shipyards around the world are begging for business, prices are low low low right now.
Rob73 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 21st, 2017, 02:44 AM   #306
Alexjc
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 551
Likes (Received): 105

Expecting an announcement in the Budget re: extension of the Auckland electrification to Pukekohe and serious design studies into a massive regional rail upgrade of the Golden Triangle including re-instating the old Rotorua line and extending it to Taupo.
Alexjc no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 21st, 2017, 03:09 AM   #307
nthbeach
Registered User
 
nthbeach's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 593
Likes (Received): 40

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexjc View Post
Expecting an announcement in the Budget re: extension of the Auckland electrification to Pukekohe and serious design studies into a massive regional rail upgrade of the Golden Triangle including re-instating the old Rotorua line and extending it to Taupo.
You know something or is this your wish list?
nthbeach no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 21st, 2017, 08:13 AM   #308
greenwelly
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,045
Likes (Received): 186

Quote:
Originally Posted by nthbeach View Post
You know something or is this your wish list?
I am guessing he is basing it on this

https://thespinoff.co.nz/auckland/15...nd-conference/

Quote:
But then he seemed to reveal a budget item. He said he was more interested in extending the electrification of the rail line into Hunua, by which he meant the National-held Hunua electorate that stretches around the Bombay Hills. In other words, Pukekohe. Joyce doesn’t say things like that randomly. Electrification to Pukekohe is already on the government’s 10-year plan. Hot tip: watch for an early date and financial commitment in the budget on May 25.
greenwelly no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 25th, 2017, 08:27 AM   #309
Kiweh
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Christchurch
Posts: 644
Likes (Received): 152

So if Pukekohe is electrified how long is the remaining length of non-electricfication left to Hamilton?
Kiweh no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 25th, 2017, 12:08 PM   #310
Rob73
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 437
Likes (Received): 151

The current gap is 87km.
Rob73 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 25th, 2017, 04:47 PM   #311
cle
Registered User
 
cle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,016
Likes (Received): 504

How much of the railway between Papakura and Hamilton is double tracked? Is the alignment good for reasonable speeds?

How about from there to Tauranga?
cle no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 26th, 2017, 12:28 AM   #312
nthbeach
Registered User
 
nthbeach's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 593
Likes (Received): 40

I haven't seen. What were the details released in the budget?
nthbeach no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 6th, 2017, 06:17 AM   #313
JeffRef
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 346
Likes (Received): 60

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=11870589
JeffRef no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 8th, 2017, 12:32 AM   #314
jarden
Registered User
 
jarden's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Cairns and Christchurch
Posts: 5,886
Likes (Received): 752

Penny finally dropping about importance of rail

It's not only earthquakes that close rail lines. There is a long history of KiwiRail having to close rail lines because it can't afford to repair them.

With the arrival of British and Irish Lions fans faithfully camp-following their team round the country for five fun-filled weeks of rugby, expect more carnage on our roads.

And that's no insult to UK drivers. Overseas visitors who have hired camper vans will have to fight it out and share our roads overly dominated by large trucks.

Since the Kaikoura earthquake, the Picton to Christchurch road has had to carry the burden of extra traffic and road-eroding heavy vehicles, including logging trucks.

Chris Carr from the freight firm Carr & Haslam recently instigated urgent safety measures for his drivers after one truck side-swiped another in the dead of night just north of Springs Junction. Carr's drivers have been instructed to reduce their top speed to 80kmh, and are banned from driving in the middle of night in the first winter since the November 2016 earthquake closed the coastal route.

The Government will spend $812 million rebuilding State Highway 1 and rail north and south of Kaikoura covered by landslips from the quake. This allows KiwiRail to get its network up and running while it waits for its insurance claim.

It's not only earthquakes that close rail lines. There is a long history of KiwiRail having to close rail lines because they can't afford to repair them. A post-Budget news item last week fulminated over the $450 million Government is to invest in the state-owned rail company over the next two years.

The item alleged that KiwiRail was a bottomless pit, echoing Treasury sentiment, which has long recommended rationalisation of rail services. The Taxpayers' Union, too, has castigated the Government over its 'throw money at it and hope' approach to KiwiRail.

The TV3 item brought up the Gisborne rail washout and KiwiRail's inability to stump up the $5 million required to do the repairs, which forced the line to be closed. However, six months after the closure, the New Zealand Transport Agency had to fund $12 million for three passing lanes to cope with the trucks.

If Government didn't support KiwiRail, imagine how much money would be required to subsidise the extra expenditure for fully engineered roads to carry heavy trucks needed to replace rail.

Treasury wants rail to be self-funding, but roads don't have to be. Roads are paid for by motorists and ratepayers, making it harder for KiwiRail to compete.

more:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/opin...rtance-of-rail
__________________
Jarden
jarden no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 9th, 2017, 01:22 PM   #315
KaneD
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,104
Likes (Received): 272

Quite right Jarden...

The problem is purely political....

Nobody likes driving a long winding road stuck behind a slow truck do they?

If I drive between Napier and Gisborne on an average day, I might find I'm stuck behind a truck for say 10 minutes during the whole journey on average.

If the rail line was open, would I likely have to spend any time stuck behind a truck? Absolutely... It might not be quite as long on average, say 8 minutes instead of 10 minutes, but nonetheless, I'm still spending time stuck behind a truck. This is because irrespective of how good our rail network is, there will still be large numbers of trucks plying our highways.

So... if the government spent $5m on rail, because voters in general don't directly use rail, the ONLY material thing they "see" is nothing because they're not readily likely to notice a slight reduction in time spent stuck behind a truck are they?

But if the government spends $12m on passing lanes... what is the result?

Yes, probably the same 2 minutes difference in time stuck behind a truck... It will go down from 10 minutes, to 8 minutes as a result of the passing lanes.

But guess what, as a member of the public, what do I notice? Yes a few nice brand spanking new passing lanes! And tell me what member of the public doesn't feel relieved the moment they get to a passing lane after following a slow truck for 5 mins?

So there you go... $5m on Rail, and get minimal benefits that nobody notices...

Or $12m on Road and get minimal benefits that we all notice.

And since we all vote... we're more likely to vote for a party that will deliver something we can readily see will benefit us. The sad fact is, that for the majority of us, even if a significant rail investment reduced trucks on a given road by 50%, most wouldn't really notice.... yet if we're driving unimpeded on a new motorway...
__________________

birchey, jarden liked this post
KaneD no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 9th, 2017, 11:54 PM   #316
JeffRef
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 346
Likes (Received): 60

It is actually quite easy to see how many trucks could be removed
Each rail wagon has space for 2 20 foot containers or 2 truck loads
If a train containing 30 wagons passes you that is 60 trucks off the road. If it has 60 that is 120 trucks you will not have to pass.
Not that trains are not frustrating when you are stuck at a level crossing hoping that the train has 30 not 60 wagons
JeffRef no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 10th, 2017, 03:34 AM   #317
KaneD
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,104
Likes (Received): 272

Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffRef View Post
It is actually quite easy to see how many trucks could be removed
Each rail wagon has space for 2 20 foot containers or 2 truck loads
If a train containing 30 wagons passes you that is 60 trucks off the road. If it has 60 that is 120 trucks you will not have to pass.
Not that trains are not frustrating when you are stuck at a level crossing hoping that the train has 30 not 60 wagons
Correct in principle, but not on technical detail. A truck can can carry either a single 40-foot container, OR two 20-foot containers - the same as a rail wagon.

So, a train comprising of 30 wagons will remove 30 trucks off the road, not 60.

The more relevant issue isn't so much about the theory of how many trucks "could" be removed from the roads, but more about how many "would" be removed off the roads.

The problem is that rail is only suited to bulk freight such as dairy factory to export port, or import port to major city inland port (eg: Tauranga to Auckland). Most freight in NZ is moved by road because it's direct point-to-point, which is almost always MUCH quicker, and in many cases, is cheaper and more efficient.

The problem with KiwiRail and the Govt is that they seem to have this ideology that rail must "pay its way" when this is probably the wrong model to use.

They also are very short sighted and will look at short-term cost savings rather than long term benefits. Take the Napier Gisborne Line... They didn't want to spend a measly $5m to fix the line after some storms, and so have left the line in an abandoned state so now, if they do wish to reinstate the line, they'll need to spend probably $30m. Had they spent the $5 million to fix it back then, plus the usual minimal yearly maintenance, it would have been probably cheaper to do that... but instead, short sighted motives to save $5m+ bucks now, rather than save $30m+ later.

Of course, it does assume that the line would get reopened eventually and clearly, KiwiRails plan all along is that they have no intention of ever opening it.
KaneD no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 10th, 2017, 05:57 AM   #318
JeffRef
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 346
Likes (Received): 60

Quote:
Originally Posted by KaneD View Post
Correct in principle, but not on technical detail. A truck can can carry either a single 40-foot container, OR two 20-foot containers - the same as a rail wagon.

So, a train comprising of 30 wagons will remove 30 trucks off the road, not 60.

The more relevant issue isn't so much about the theory of how many trucks "could" be removed from the roads, but more about how many "would" be removed off the roads.

The problem is that rail is only suited to bulk freight such as dairy factory to export port, or import port to major city inland port (eg: Tauranga to Auckland). Most freight in NZ is moved by road because it's direct point-to-point, which is almost always MUCH quicker, and in many cases, is cheaper and more efficient.

The problem with KiwiRail and the Govt is that they seem to have this ideology that rail must "pay its way" when this is probably the wrong model to use.

They also are very short sighted and will look at short-term cost savings rather than long term benefits. Take the Napier Gisborne Line... They didn't want to spend a measly $5m to fix the line after some storms, and so have left the line in an abandoned state so now, if they do wish to reinstate the line, they'll need to spend probably $30m. Had they spent the $5 million to fix it back then, plus the usual minimal yearly maintenance, it would have been probably cheaper to do that... but instead, short sighted motives to save $5m+ bucks now, rather than save $30m+ later.

Of course, it does assume that the line would get reopened eventually and clearly, KiwiRails plan all along is that they have no intention of ever opening it.
Some trucks can carry a forty but not all. Also heavy bulk product cannot be packed in 40's unless you leave them partially empty simply because of axle weights both here but more importantly overseas where 40's are usually moved by rail and devanned for distribution.
Watch the container ships loading and unloading. The proportion of 40's is increasing but you cannot put the same quantity in a 40 as you can with 2 20's.
__________________

KaneD liked this post
JeffRef no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 10th, 2017, 10:29 PM   #319
Rob73
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 437
Likes (Received): 151

Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffRef View Post
Some trucks can carry a forty but not all. Also heavy bulk product cannot be packed in 40's unless you leave them partially empty simply because of axle weights both here but more importantly overseas where 40's are usually moved by rail and devanned for distribution.
Watch the container ships loading and unloading. The proportion of 40's is increasing but you cannot put the same quantity in a 40 as you can with 2 20's.
Rubbish the interior volume of 1 x 40 standard or high cube is greater than 2 x 20ft standard or high cube containers.

If you don't believe me look it up.

But both would be weight constrained by local weight rules.

Last edited by Rob73; June 10th, 2017 at 10:50 PM.
Rob73 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 11th, 2017, 01:10 AM   #320
JeffRef
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 346
Likes (Received): 60

Not sure what you are getting at?
We packed 18 tonne of frozen meat in a 20'
We could pack 25.0 tonne in a 40 leaving it 11.0 tonne short compared with 2x20 with a huge gap left unused. The reason was weight restrictions on NZ and overseas ports and roads.
Most meat containers are 20 ' for this reason. Freight worked out cheaper per tonne with 2 20's than 1 40
The same would apply to dairy or at least did 2 years ago
Remember most exports are reefer and require temperature control equipment that weighs about 3 tonne and this takes up space which needs to be allowed for when calculating internal space. If you were loading logs you could use the full space but I would think that rather unlikely?
On the other hand most imports actually weigh much less so 40's are preferred
I did an exercise more than a few years ago investigating allowable truck weights in Europe and North America. Their restrictions were tougher than ours but may have changed.
JeffRef no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Tags
infrastructure, railways

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 07:12 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

Hosted by Blacksun, dedicated to this site too!
Forum server management by DaiTengu