NZ | Public Transport Projects + Development

[sensible]

for rail to be competitive it needs to be the following

1) cheaper than air travel
2) faster than car/bus

if this is possible, well it remains to be seen. personally i believe so, with few MAJOR alterations to the NIMT. Lets face it, we dont know if it can be cheaper than air travel and that is what id like to see some sort of investigation into rather than simply writing it off on assumptions.

Personally i see improved NIMT rail (passenger and freight) mostly aiming at easing road congestion... cos i find a rail upgrade (by that i mean 'upgrade' not 'total rebuild') far more likely to be carried out in the near future than anything else. Just trying to put it in perspective.

[jarbury]

I don't think the NIMT between Hamilton and Palmy is ever going to be much more than useful for Freight and Tourists. North of Hamilton there's huge scope to improve it to a commuter standard and so that higher-speed trains can run on it.

[KIWIKAAS]

Originally Posted by sensible

for rail to be competitive it needs to be the following

1) cheaper than air travel
2) faster than car/bus

3) frequent

if this is possible, well it remains to be seen. personally i believe so, with few MAJOR alterations to the NIMT.

Double track all the way (see frequent) = lots of new tunnels and viaducts on top of the realignmints etc = $ $ $ $

Lets face it, we dont know if it can be cheaper than air travel and that is what id like to see some sort of investigation into rather than simply writing it off on assumptions.

Air travel has the advantage of an existing infrastructure.
The NIMT line needs to go through a huge investment first which means that without massive subsidies it won't be cheaper than air travel (certainly not for the tax payer)

Personally i see improved NIMT rail (passenger and freight) mostly aiming at easing road congestion... cos i find a rail upgrade (by that i mean 'upgrade' not 'total rebuild') far more likely to be carried out in the near future than anything else. Just trying to put it in perspective.

An upgrade of some sort would seem reasonably likely.
Freight is the big potential money spinner. Passenger rail will most likely remain in it's novelty role as the frequency and speed will not be in the same league as air travel.
Another possibility is a roll on roll off train (ie: you drive your car/ truck on and drive it off at your destination) with sleepers.

[sensible]

i certainly should have added '3' (frequency) in yes, i agree, but TOTAL double tracking and all the associated new tunnels, viaducts etc etc is overkill! more along the lines of increased passing loops etc. i dont know what scale you are thinking KAAS but who says you actually need to add all that infrastructure? you?

the biggest problem with speed on NZ rail is poor rollingstock and track condition. i dont mind you 'writing off' rail but to exagerate the costs and scope of work needed (ridiculously) and use that to claim it wont be competitive is not only untrue but also a tad convienient. Furthermore your argument that the air infrastructure is 'already in place' as opposed to rail is slightly contradicted by your statement that freight will be a moneyspinner from 'some sort of reasonably likely upgrade'. My argument is such an upgrade could (and should) be utilised by passneger rail at the same time.

Interestingly your idea for a roll-on/roll-off car train is half interesting. Not for the car bit (i dont see that working at all, even im not that optimistic) but certainly i would imagine the only way rail in its present run down third world form could compete would be for a night train (maybe ten hours, with dining facilties and at seat entertainment with sleeper options) but i doubt we will see anything like that anytime soon.

[UglyBob]

Train link to Milford proposed
ODT, 28th February 2008

A TRAIN capable of carrying up to 500 people, running through a 13.5km tunnel, is the latest proposal to reduce travel time from Queenstown to Milford Sound.

The Milford Sound Link Rail Ltd proposal would ferry vehicles on a roll-on, roll-off electricpowered train under the Humboldt Mountains from beside the Dart River bridge in Routeburn Rd, to Gunns Camp in the Hollyford Valley Rd. Passengers would remain in their vehicles while the train travelled through the tunnel.

Milford Sound Link Rail Ltd chief executive and director Greg Harris, of Christchurch, said the project had been four years in the planning, and it would be three to five years, provided the company got approval, before the project could start operating.

Mr Harris, an electrical engineer, is the principal electrical designer in the Christchurch Tramway project.

The other director of the company is Colin Jenner, a civil engineer, who works overseas, but has a house in Queenstown.

The departure site, beside the Dart River bridge, was outside a national park, so was not bound by national park laws.

The site at Gunns Camp was in Fiordland National Park, but Mr Harris said it was not insurmountable to get approval for this area.

Facilities would be basic at each departure point, and there would not be a large car park.

There would be one 300m-long train, with locomotives at each end, and the entire trip from Queenstown to Milford Sound would take about two hours, with 12-15 minutes on the 600-tonne train, he said.

The train, which would travel between 50kmh and 60kmh, would be a Swiss-designed electric unit, which was used extensively in Europe. Fare prices had not yet been decided.

‘‘Trains are far safer than cars and buses. People have to stay inside their vehicles and the operators can have more control over them,’’ he said.

The train would work at peak times a maximum of about 12 hours a day and be able to take all Queenstown/Milford tourists.

‘‘Numbers have levelled out in Milford Sound. But instead of people sitting on a bus for 12 to 13 hours, they can do it in half a day and go somewhere else.

‘‘This can give the industry a real boost.’’

[KIWIKAAS]

Originally Posted by sensible

i certainly should have added '3' (frequency) in yes, i agree, but TOTAL double tracking and all the associated new tunnels, viaducts etc etc is overkill! more along the lines of increased passing loops etc. i dont know what scale you are thinking KAAS but who says you actually need to add all that infrastructure? you?

the biggest problem with speed on NZ rail is poor rollingstock and track condition. i dont mind you 'writing off' rail but to exagerate the costs and scope of work needed (ridiculously) and use that to claim it wont be competitive is not only untrue but also a tad convienient. Furthermore your argument that the air infrastructure is 'already in place' as opposed to rail is slightly contradicted by your statement that freight will be a moneyspinner from 'some sort of reasonably likely upgrade'. My argument is such an upgrade could (and should) be utilised by passneger rail at the same time.

Interestingly your idea for a roll-on/roll-off car train is half interesting. Not for the car bit (i dont see that working at all, even im not that optimistic) but certainly i would imagine the only way rail in its present run down third world form could compete would be for a night train (maybe ten hours, with dining facilties and at seat entertainment with sleeper options) but i doubt we will see anything like that anytime soon.

I suppose what it all boils down to is for a competitive niche the average speed needs to come up to around 100kph. That's a 60% increase on the current speed. The scale of the upgrade would be dependent on the desired / practicle frequency that trains would be running.
The roll-on/roll-off car train is a concept which has been used in Europe for quite some years. They typically run at night with sleeper accommodation onboard. But I do agree with you that it would most likely not work on the AKL - WLG route

[KaneD]

Originally Posted by sensible

good points but... why would rail not be cheaper than flying?

Easy... Cost of construction to upgrade the route to be suitable will make it prohibitive.

Please bear with my rather lengthy personal analysis on where I think problems are. I am no expert on such engineering matters but if I am to use a recent headline that it might cost 3 billion bucks to build a harbour tunnel in auckland, then logic suggests that it is going to cost an awful lot of dosh to provide a good AKL-WLG rail service on some kind of resemblance to even a medium speed european service, let alone a high speed one.

So here we go:

The line is 680km in length. The fastest time a passenger service ran the route was in 1969 (before the Mangaweka Deviation opened in 1981) which it took 8:45 mins of actual running time (9:30 in total time). Of the running time, thats an average speed of 80km/hr roughly. Presumedly the other 45 minutes was taken up by stops at stations to pickup and unload, and waits at passing loops.

Whether a current train could do it faster is debatable. The mangaweka deviation improved a small section of line. The record run was done by a single 'railcar' vehicle. Most major rail lines from memory have a line speed of 80km/hr maximum with the canterbury plain section south of Chch having up to 100km/hr. I would guess that this is mostly due to the curve sharpness and the natural inability for a 20 wagon fully laden train to randomly power around corners and gun it on straights like we'd do in a car for example.

So to better this and get the line running at something like 170km/hr which is what a typical medium speed long distance line would be in say the UK, we would need to massively improve the route's dynamics.

Assuming the general route alignment remains and that there will be no large major total deviations, we first have a lot of curve easement works to do. That is a lot of slithers of land from neighbouring properties. This has to be purchased under land acquisition laws and paid market rate for.

In other areas where curve easements aren't practical, say where the line skirts around the side of a hill, then tunnelling and bridging would be needed. This may need additional land on the approaches. Tunnels and bridges come at a rather high price.

To add to that, since our line speeds are currently low, we'd have to upgrade ALL of the existing track to support higher speed trains. Track systems that support higher speed trains are built to a MUCH higher standard, especially if they are also passenger carrying trains. This includes track bedding, sleeper strength and frequency, steel strength, expansion jointing systems, points.... everything.

Most of the NIMT is also Single Tracked. This is a bigger problem than you might think. For a start the passenger services will have to wait at a passing loop occasionally. Sure, this could be minimised by giving passenger trains higher priority and tweaking freight train schedules etc but the fact remains that passing loops don't necessarily exist exactly where one is needed to guarantee that a passenger train won't have to wait a moderate amount of time.

Added to the single track problem is the mixed mode nature of the track. Freight trains don't run as fast as passenger services would, so you would need to add a lot more loops in probably. Typically, high speed trains run on lines used exclusively by high speed trains. The same goes, but to a slightly lesser degree for medium speed trains. It simply isn't efficient to run mixed speeds on the same line - let alone a single tracked one.

Lastly, a single track does nothing to provide redundancy when a minor problem occurs such as a signal failure, breakdown of another train vehicle on the line ahead etc.

So since we cant justify having a whole new route dedicated especially for our passenger services, we'd really need to double track pretty much the whole line, with maybe even triplicate track in some busier section say between Auckland and Frankton Junction in Hamilton.

In addition, we also need to revamp the signalling system. Most NZ lines use TWC (Track Warrant Control) and some busier sections use CTC (Centralised Train Control). For example, the Midland line between Rolleston and Greymouth uses TWC, the Main South Line out of Chch uses CTC, but how far down the line I don't know.

TWC is inefficient and if we are to have higher speed trains then TWC isn't going to cut it. CTC needs to be used, but with all its protective and fail-safe systems, it's not cheap.

Rolling Stock? Well we don't really have anything but they don't come cheap. There isn't much point in getting some second hand old cast off since if we are to sit in a seat for 5 hours, you'd at least want it to be a reasonably enjoyable 5 hours - complete maybe with airline style entertainment systems and the like. People are happy to sit in a cramped seat for an hour by plane, but probably not for 5 hours by train when the 1 hour option is available.

So now you might get some idea of just how expensive it is likely to be to upgrade our NIMT line to realistically support a medium speed passenger service. With all that taken into account, I can't really see it being viable.

If it was to say cost $20 billion, which I think is VERY conservative, then unless there are some very serious cross subsidies from air an levy or fuel tax surcharge on petrol or similar, then I fail to see how the costs stack up in favor of building it.

For $20 billion, I think it would be far more worthwhile building a cook strait tunnel or bridge.

[KIWIKAAS]

Thanks KaneD. That's a pretty good analisis of the situation.

Suppose that SH1 would be upgraded to expressway standards (combination of 4-lane and 2-lane expressway). My rough guess would be about $2 billion from Cambridge to Paraparumu (add $900 million for Transmision Gully and $500 million for the Waikato Expressway = a total of aprox $3½ billion). That's my guess

[KaneD]

Originally Posted by KIWIKAAS

Suppose that SH1 would be upgraded to expressway standards (combination of 4-lane and 2-lane expressway). My rough guess would be about $2 billion from Cambridge to Paraparumu (add $900 million for Transmision Gully and $500 million for the Waikato Expressway = a total of aprox $3½ billion). That's my guess

I think the latest estimate that I heard is that the TGM ut of Wellington might cost as much as $1.3b. The Waikato Expressway was originally thought to have cost $700m when it was first proposed so taking cost increases etc into account, I would say that too will be somewhere around $1b mark.

As for the rest of the route - Hard to say what the cost would be. It would depend on how much of it is four laned and the prevailing terrain etc. I think 2-3 billion might do it as long as much of it was left as 2 lane, but with key intersections upgraded and windy and hilly sections eased. 4 laning the whole thing would be somewhat more.

Back on the train idea - there is an interesting read on this link at the ministry of economic development which is a report on the state of NZ's rail assets which certainly highlights just how bad our rail infrastructure is here. On Track has made progress upgrading some key routes, but my impression from this document is that this is really just the tip of the iceberg:

http://www.med.govt.nz/templates/Mul...e____9035.aspx

Sadly, NZ has, and will continue to pay the high price of failing to invest in our transport infrastructure during 80's and 90's.

If the rail report is as bad as it sounds, then some serious money is going to be needed to bring it back to a first world network. And due to the massive costs, it almost seems hardly worth it for all but the most trafficked lines.

We are currently seeing the effects in Auckland now. While funding for land transport has gone up significantly in the last few years, it still hardly seems like enough? Why? This is because much of the extra funding is being soaked up by massive (and expensive) Auckland projects that probably could have been built for a quarter of the price had they have been built 10 years ago. This applies not only for the motorways, but also for rail too.

The result of that is that many other areas of the country will suffer. Projects all around the country are struggling to compete on the funding assessment schemes being used (Benefit Cost Ratios etc) because the Auckland ones drown them out. The result of this is that once Auckland get more up to speed, we'll have the same problems in Wellington, then Christchurch and elsewhere.

The sad fact is that for years and years... NZ authorities have always tried to either "do it on the cheap" all the time, or, they have progressed with ill conceived options, or, have chosen to only build infrastructure well after the need was there.

See in many countries, say the US and Australia for example, they will proactively build a freeway from an urban area to the fringe rural areas when it isn't necessarily needed now? Why? Because it enhances growth. It opens up more land for development... economic development. Here in NZ, we wait until it's needed, then have a few studies to find the best option, and usually will go for a cheap half assed option, or, in the rare event we go for the proper solution, we won't have reserved land or anything and because the area is already built up and developed, we'll pay high land acquisition costs for it. It is a vicious circle that we won't get out of if we keep thinking like this.

Really, more serious money needs to be spent. OK, where from. This is a hard question to answer. But we do have an imminent minerals boom? Maybe that will help generate the cash needed.?

[KIWIKAAS]

It's amazing how the costs have skyrocketed. Back in 1999 the Transmission Gully project was to cost about $350 million I beleive and the entire Waikato Expressway for about the same price. In 1993 the Waikato Expressway was budgeted at $150 million.
Auckland is indeed a big problem and is indeed slowing development on a national level.
As it is NZ's transport infrastructure is running to stand still. A quater of a century of neglect is really showing.

[sensible]

that is a rather nice thought out analysis kaneD...but like you said you are no expert on such matters... there are a few things i must point out. you have over concentrated on track rebuilding (basing your reasons on god knows what) and certainly on track signalling etc which are largely trivial matters (trivial for online discussion on the merits on inter city nz rail travel anyway). like why yack on about TWC and CTC? its certainly an issue down the line (excuse the pun) but as far as this discussion goes just doesnt really have anything to do with it. CTC is only used to Rolleston i believe and i agree TWC is inefficient but what a silly thing to bring up in an argument against rail. Its so trivial i thought it was a joke.

However the most important point, apart from the fact that none of this can even be construed as accurate (except, perhaps, for the use of an example from a 1969 record run between auck and wlg... which is rather pointless as the railcar in question is 1950's, or earlier, technology) is the failure to indicate or illusatrate anything positive. Its all negative after negative which isnt really a good, or indeed proper, analysis at all. it just makes you look like you are looking for anything at all to blow the idea out of the water.

Im going to just concentrate on cost here... It all depends on who pays for an upgrade, who benefits from it, and who operates any potential faster train service. For example, if a new four lane SH1 were to be built the full length from Auck - Wlg would it become completely uncompetitive because no one would use it because the costs would trickle down to the user? would it? Would people stuff trucks and send by rail and sea and people use alternative roads and abandon cars in favour of air travel for the longer distance traveller? no of course not. Surely, then, rail should be no different? Oh no wait, rail must pay it own way, screw any benefits and lets use that as an argument so as to shoot it down.

[GoluBoy]

Originally Posted by KIWIKAAS

It's amazing how the costs have skyrocketed. Back in 1999 the Transmission Gully project was to cost about $350 million I beleive and the entire Waikato Expressway for about the same price. In 1993 the Waikato Expressway was budgeted at $150 million.
Auckland is indeed a big problem and is indeed slowing development on a national level.
As it is NZ's transport infrastructure is running to stand still. A quater of a century of neglect is really showing.

Commercial Trucks run 24/7 in the fast lane in order to keep up with National/International deadlines.Private commuters have to leave for work at 6.30 a.m and there is now "serious" congestion on SH1 both directions ex Auckland City...... around 2-3 p.m time-frame.

Lack of investment and neglect from the narrow-mindedness of the original 3 lanes either side, is now a very "ugly" process with which to negate on a daily basis.

[KaneD]

I don't think you quite get it sensible.

I wasn't trying to write off any idea of having rail - I actually quite like the idea of being able to get around the country long distance by rail.

If our rail network was generally up to standard, then I might say yeah sure, go for it. But the reality is far from the silver lined tunnels that you seem to think we have. Even the ministry of economic development report says as much about our network.

I get the impression that you think we can run medium speed trains on our current network or can otherwise do it for a rather modest sum of cash.

My costing figures were by no means accurate, but Transits costing of $3b for a new harbour tunnel and associated approach works clearly suggests that upgrading a 600-odd kilometre rail line is clearly going to cost a lot of money. This seems logical by anyones stretch of the imagination.

Upgrading a track system just by throwing a few sleepers and bits of steel on a pile of ballast isn't the way to build a railway either. Issues such as double tracking, curve alignments, bridging and tunnels, signaling are very real issues, and very expensive ones.

I didn't even make any mention about costs associated with Resource Management Act costs, Environment Court costs, Stations and associated facilities, Staffing costs to run, ability to recruit enough staff to perform the massive amount of work, timeframes and effects of inflation and so on.

I also didn't take into account that since we only have a set pool of money for land transport, if the govt did divert massive sums of money from roading, then what would happen to our roading network? As it is, the funds allocated to it are barely able to keep up with the demand to complete major projects, let alone if we divert half of it.

I might not be an engineer, or finance minister etc, but I've read enough reviews, media releases and other general background information regarding rail among other transport issues to be able to make a fair and reasonable 'personal' judgement on the matter. My comments are on the topic of the forum and am happy to share those with other interested parties - hopefully I'll hear some of the other members ideas and thoughts on the issues back.

As for your comments about the four lane road from AKL-WLG. This is pathetic. If the road was tolled (which it would have to be to support your argument of people maybe not using it) and I had a choice of buying a bus ticket to go for 10 hours on an existing road for say $50 or on the 7 hour four lane road for $150, then I'd probably choose the $50 one. So yes, the road would be uneconomic. Maybe this is exactly why we don't have have one.

If you disagree (which you are of course entitled to), then fair enough, but I'd like to hear your constructive thoughts and opinions as to how it might be done rather than just making non-constructive criticism.

[sensible]

okay settle down. i see your points but you dont quite get it either. i dont think we have "silver lined tunnels" etc etc. To suggest so is silly and assuming the worst of me. I only have one real issue, are you saying that the cost to get our railways back up to standard (i.e first world standard, capable of moving passengers and freight) is so costly you dont think it is worth it/possible? or are you merely pointing out costs for the sake of it?

Please dont try make me look stupid either, i certainly dont think we could simply throw " a few sleepers and bits of steel on a pile of ballast" to have an adequate passenger rail system. I certainly dont think so and to assume im that stupid is offensive.

to simplify, my main point of concern is that perhaps you and others are making over exaggerated claims and conclusions because like you said... you dont really know for sure about anything. Claims are fine, its the conclusion part which is my main concern. Im not gonna claim to be an expert either, but like you i know a bit and read up on things but im not going to use evidence from unrelated media releases and forty year old records to back me up.

Also im not gonna suggest how it should be done, im not an expert (just like you, so we have something in common) but i suggest A) it COULD be done B) SOME reasons given for it being impossible are not actually legitimate reasons C) in reference to 'B' this is the attitude of most NZers of late to a number of things and shows we are killjoys and unimaginative and defeatist.

Of course 'C' is largely me just taking the micky to brighten up this post. Seriously, im sorry if you felt i was having a jab at you KaneD, i dont have a lot of time on the net at the mo to post so iv been trying to post quick and hence it comes across as a bit brash. Im not having a go at you, just looking for some balance.

If you are writing rail off (which it seems to me with your "if the govt did divert massive sums of money from roading, then what would happen to our roading network? As it is, the funds allocated to it are barely able to keep up with the demand to complete major projects, let alone if we divert half of it." I could be wrong) i dont think you reading media releases qualifys you to state with conclusion that rail will cost X amount of $$$ and that its unjustifiable. Your reasons are rather 'apocalyptical' and suggest that investment in NZ rail infrastructure will create mass social and economical problems, such as the deterioration of our roading network!!! To suggest that is silly and misleading. Perhaps i should point out that im not anti-roading and for one second do not believe in neglecting the State Highway network!!! Because that seems to be what you think im getting at... which im not. Anyway... wanna go for a beer?

[KaneD]

Good call sensible - The beer that is. Which Pub?

Yes, I do agree with some of your points - We should not write off anything just for the sake of it. And I wouldn't suggest that the government authorities should do such things at all either.

I am just saying that from using some good old common sense and logical analysis based entirely on my own perceptions and interpretations of the information that we're fed (by media, govt, etc), then I don't see how it would be practical given our current economic climate.

Maybe in 5 years time and NZ strikes it big in the Southern Basin and we become a big oil producer, or if fuel prices continue to escalate to say $10 a litre then perhaps the economic landscape will somewhat change and that of course would contribute to making rail a more attractive option.

I would welcome the government to at least upgrade our rail progressively over the next 5 to 10 years to bring it back in line with where it should have been before it was privatised in the 90's - This should be done as a matter of necessity whether we choose to run passenger services or not since freight is still and will always be the major user of rail. This is something I am definitely an advocate for.

Personally I think our government has terribly undervalued the importance of our rail systems and while it might not be immediately obvious today the day will come where we will look back and say "Why did we ever close down that rail line from XXX to YYY?"

To put in a couple of small examples specific to canterbury, everyday dozens of milk tankers do the run to Clandeboye from around the south island. I'd like to see 'inland port' type loading facilities around the south island so that tankers can do short runs to a nearby rail port, where their tank is unbolted and transferred to a rail wagon before being run to Clandeboye or Edendale.

Another one is the trash trucks that do the run from Chch to Kate Valley - I cant see whats wrong with having a short rail spur at kate valley and having wagons load up at a rail siding in Chch - surely it can't be that hard or expensive? Or maybe like most other rail related problems this country has the governemtn and local council just look at it and think... "nah.. too hard"

But those two suggestions are probably outside the scope of this forum...

No hard feelings sensible, nothing beats good banter and debate. :-)

[Brizzy-Mike]

The oil supplies are hanging by a thread, very much based on Saudi's Ghawar oil field and the compliance of the disfunctional over sized Saudi Royal family. Others supplies also reside under the auspices of some very flakey regimes. At the moment they are all pumping pretty much to maximum capacity but even one going out of action can send the oil price sky high. The last big disruption was the Prudhoe Bay pipeline going out of action because 12 barrels of oil leaked from it.
Under such circumstances, we may get a real jolt in the energy supplies, which could shove rail up the priority categories in a lot of governments.

Blah blah blah....

[jarbury]

Oil hits new record due to weak US dollar
New 2:00PM Tuesday March 04, 2008

The price of oil hit a fresh record high today as the dollar continued to fall against other major currencies and on expectations that Opec will remain stubborn on its output policy.

The dollar tumbled to lifetime lows against the euro and a basket of major currencies on Monday before regaining some lost ground after better-than-expected US manufacturing data.

US crude oil for April delivery was up US$1.72 at US$103.56 a barrel at 1838 GMT, after an earlier record high of US$103.95.

London Brent crude was up US$1.62 up at US$101.72 a barrel.

"There is no top in sight yet for crude futures because hedge funds are looking at how far the US dollar will fall," said Phil Flynn of Alaron Trading in Chicago.

"They are buying commodities to hedge against inflation because hanging on to the dollar means they lose value."

Let's get going on that rail upgrade!

[sensible]

certainly nothing wrong with the dux kaneD... your right about the kate valley land fill trucks too... i used to live at Leithfield beach and counted eleven coming back in on one commute, which i thought was ridiculous (about a forty minute period over that one stretch of SH1 heading into chch)... i certainly agree with what you say.

[KaneD]

Originally Posted by sensible

certainly nothing wrong with the dux kaneD... your right about the kate valley land fill trucks too... i used to live at Leithfield beach and counted eleven coming back in on one commute, which i thought was ridiculous (about a forty minute period over that one stretch of SH1 heading into chch)... i certainly agree with what you say.

Yeah - In the old days there were certain rules that if you had goods to ship, and you produced it less than X kilometres from a rail line, then if you were shipping it a greater distance than Y kilometres, then you had to by law, ship it by rail.

Not suggesting that they should do exactly that kind of thing again, since I'm no great fan of increasing tarriffs and imposing seemingly strict regulations like that to support something that can't stand on it's own two feet, but perhaps there should be some scheme in place - Maybe taxation rebates for companies that use rail could be a start.

The Dux is a great pub... maybe we can catch up are you in town late afternoons? Or lunchtimes if it doesn't mess around with work commitments to much?

[jarbury]

If rail lines are electrified and fuel prices keep skyrocketing then it should become cheaper to transport via rail again.